HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
February 10, 2005 Hearing Room 357
1:00 P.M. Tapes 15 - 16
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. John Dallum, Chair
Rep. Jerry Krummel, Vice-Chair
Rep. Chuck Burley
Rep. Brad Witt
MEMBER EXCUSED: Rep. Kelley Wirth, Vice-Chair
STAFF PRESENT: Dallas Weyand, Committee Administrator
Louann Rahmig, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:
Oregon Centralized Voter Registration System - Informational Meeting
These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
TAPE 15, A |
||
004 |
Chair Dallum |
Calls the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and opens the informational meeting on the Oregon centralized voter registration system. |
OREGON CENTRALIZED VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM - INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
009 |
Dallas Weyand |
Committee Administrator. Advises the requested Computing and Networking Infrastructure Consolidation (CNIC) Governing Board’s Findings and Recommendations (EXHIBIT A) and Computing and Network Consolidation Alternatives (CNCA) Implementation Strategy and Business Case (EXHIBIT B) were distributed to the members. |
016 |
Jean Straight |
Chief Information Officer, Secretary of State. Refers to the Oregon Central Voter Registration Project (EXHIBIT C). Provides a copy of the Secretary of State federal compliance audit for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)(EXHIBIT D). Gives background of federal and state legislation authorizing implementation of HAVA. |
040 |
Straight |
Advises that the counties have been involved from the beginning. Explains that a standards committee comprised of county clerks developed requirements and testing. Identifies other partners in the project. |
061 |
Straight |
States that Salem, Eugene and Burns have been selected as the remote sites for the infrastructure, and all data will be on all three sites. Explains that the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) and Homeland Security have provided assistance on security issues. |
075 |
Straight |
Discusses federal standards for security. |
084 |
Straight |
Indicates that the deadline for implementation is January 2006. Explains implementation of a pilot project of six counties in March, and the goal is to have all 36 counties on the new system by fall 2005. |
102 |
Straight |
Invites committee members to a demonstration of the system planned for legislators in March. |
111 |
Nitin Khanna |
Saber Consulting Inc. Explains that this project has benefited the local economy with additional employment. |
126 |
Rep. Burley |
Asks if the March demonstration is in Salem. |
127 |
Straight |
Answers, yes. |
130 |
Chair Dallum |
Inquires if there is another state agency that is responsible for oversight. |
135 |
Straight |
Reiterates that they have been working with DAS, Homeland Security and the state police. |
140 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks who would conduct an audit to assure the system performs properly. |
143 |
Straight |
Replies that an outside auditing firm would be needed. |
147 |
Chair Dallum |
Inquires about status of an audit. |
150 |
Straight |
Replies that an audit will be performed after all 36 counties are on board. |
159 |
Chair Dallum |
Inquires if Oregon will be a demonstration site for others. |
162 |
Khanna |
Responds that Missouri will begin a pilot program February 28. |
163 |
Chair Dallum |
Requests clarification on the number of states that have a computerized system. |
170 |
Straight |
Advises that out of 50, 16 will be compliant with federal law. |
175 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks about recount provisions. |
179 |
Straight |
Responds that this system does not do the counting. Explains that the election management piece is a separate data base for voter registration and for running an election. |
203 |
Rep. Krummel |
Inquires if the voter registration system will only show that someone has voted but not how they voted. |
215 |
Straight |
Answers, yes. |
218 |
Rep. Krummel |
Asks if the vote tally system will show how someone voted. |
221 |
Straight |
Replies, she doesn’t know. Explains that vote tally systems are housed within the counties. Offers to obtain more information. |
226 |
Rep. Krummel |
Inquires if vote tallies will be sent electronically to the Secretary of State. |
238 |
Straight |
Answers that it has been discussed, and it is a goal. |
243 |
Rep. Burley |
Asks if all 36 counties have optical scanning for vote tallying. |
250 |
Straight |
Replies, yes. |
251 |
Rep. Burley |
Inquires how the cost of the voter registration development system is being divided between general fund and HAVA matching funds. |
255 |
Straight |
Explains that the HAVA matching piece is five percent, which has been handled through the Secretary of State. |
275 |
Khanna |
Advises that the contract is $4.2 million for development and implementation. |
280 |
Rep. Burley |
Seeks clarification that development is being financed by HAVA. |
282 |
Straight |
Answers, that is correct. |
287 |
Rep. Burley |
Asks about maintenance costs. |
290 |
Khanna |
Responds that it will be $750,000 per year, rising by five percent a year for comprehensive support to the Secretary of State and the counties. Details the services to be provided. |
324 |
Rep. Burley |
Asks if Saber Consulting has a contract with the state for a long period of time. |
325 |
Khanna |
Replies that support was in the original request for proposal, and the intent is a five-year contract. |
333 |
Rep. Burley |
Inquires if Saber will have people at the three remote sites. |
341 |
Khanna |
Responds that staff is available within one hour of every county seat. Describes the consortium to provide support. |
356 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks if counties will do their own maintenance. |
368 |
Khanna |
Answers that the counties will receive two-thirds to three-quarters of the contract. |
379 |
Chair Dallum |
Requests the amount of savings to the counties with implementation of the centralized system. |
389 |
Straight |
Replies that some will realize a saving, some will not. Explains that counties with old systems have no maintenance contracts; therefore, maintenance will be shared between the county and the state. |
TAPE 16, A |
||
012 |
Chair Dallum |
Inquires if there is an estimate of which counties will be “strapped.” |
0`6 |
Straight |
Explains they are trying to make things affordable. Advises they are working on intergovernmental agreements with counties. |
026 |
Chair Dallum |
Indicates interest in seeing the financial impact county by county. Asks if the state will save or spend money. |
034 |
Straight |
Advises that the state will spend, as it has not had a voter system. |
040 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks for the cost of continuing expense. |
043 |
Straight |
Replies that a cost analysis was done on how long the federal money will last. Believes seven to eight years but can provide more accurate information. |
048 |
Rep. Witt |
Inquires if the maintenance component will include purging voter information that is obsolete. |
052 |
Khanna |
Answers that the system will comply with all regulations for purging. |
060 |
Rep. Witt |
Asks how often that will occur. |
062 |
Khanna |
Responds, on a real time basis, so purging will occur as frequently as interface with another agency occurs. |
066 |
Rep. Burley |
Inquires how to determine an inactive voter is alive or deceased. |
068 |
Khanna |
Replies that frequent checks are made against vital statistic records. |
070 |
Rep. Burley |
Requests clarification of maintenance costs. |
073 |
Khanna |
Explains that $750,000 will be distributed across counties. |
078 |
Straight |
Clarifies that one-half is HAVA money and one-half is state money. |
086 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks when information on who voted will be posted to the system. |
101 |
Khanna |
Details the reporting process. |
122 |
Chair Dallum |
Comments that problems with provisional ballots should be minimized. |
125 |
Khanna |
Indicates that the vote by mail system already minimizes problems. |
131 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks if the state’s part in vote tallying is minimal. |
133 |
Straight |
Replies, that is correct. |
140 |
Chair Dallum |
Inquires if the registration and tallying processes will be integrated. |
140 |
Straight |
Responds that they will remain separate processes. |
142 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks if it will remain the county’s responsibility to resolve a tally challenge. |
143 |
Straight |
Replies, that is correct. |
144 |
Rep. Krummel |
Asks how long it takes for notification of death to reach the elections office and if that will be an automated process. |
160 |
Straight |
Replies, no, it will not be automated. Advises that the county clerks decided not to have that as an electronic interface. |
167 |
Rep. Krummel |
Inquires if information on a move is updated only when a voter self-reports. |
190 |
Straight |
Replies, she does not know. |
193 |
Khanna |
Advises that the information is updated when a new voter registration card is submitted. |
209 |
Rep. Krummel |
Asks if the goal is to have one voter record in the state. |
226 |
Khanna |
Responds, that is correct. |
231 |
Straight |
Explains the delay caused by the current system. |
243 |
Rep. Witt |
Asks if the original signature card will reside in the current county of residence. |
248 |
Khanna |
Explains that the card is scanned centrally so everyone can access. |
250 |
Rep. Witt |
Seeks clarification that the original card is in the county of residence as well. |
252 |
Straight |
Responds, that is right. |
257 |
Rep. Burley |
Comments that the key to the system working is that one record is in the data base. Expresses concern about security. Asks if all counties will have access and, if so, how. |
267 |
Khanna |
Explains that every section between the county and the server is twice encrypted, so it would be difficult to hack into the system. |
281 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks if there was any contact with DAS to see if the voter registration system could be “married” with the present system for savings. |
298 |
Straight |
Asks for clarification on system to which referred. |
300 |
Chair Dallum |
Comments that it appears this is another information technology system. Asks if there was a reason it was not made a part of Computing and Networking Infrastructure Consolidation (CNIC). |
313 |
Straight |
Responds that they did work with DAS to find a Salem site, and CNIC was considered, but it is not ready. |
333 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks if the move will be made to CNIC when that site is ready. |
336 |
Straight |
Replies that there are no immediate plans, but it has not been ruled out. |
339 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks if there would be any savings by moving to the CNIC site. |
349 |
Straight |
Replies, she does not know. |
350 |
Chair Dallum |
States that he wants to know if a conversation took place. Asks for a reason for moving or not moving to the CNIC site. |
355 |
Straight |
Indicates that there is no decision on whether or not to move to that site. |
357 |
Chair Dallum |
Requests that a review be made and a decision reached and advise the committee. |
362 |
Mike Freese |
Deputy Chief Information Officer, DAS. Comments that the Secretary of State undertaking was very difficult, having to deal with multiple stakeholders. Advises that DAS has been working with them since the beginning of the project. Explains that there has been contact with the Secretary of State’s office regarding CNIC. States that DAS will continue to work with them to arrive at the best solution. |
416 |
Chair Dallum |
Closes the informational meeting on the Oregon centralized voter registration system and adjourns at 1:57 p.m. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY