This is an arrogant display of insensitivity to the public and an arrogant presumption of technical infallibility.
This RFP will influence/control the purchase of all voting equipment in the State of Colorado. The stated goals of this RFP are:
- To select a Preferred Vendor for which the CDOS Elections Division will provide election setup and tabulation software support to counties that choose to purchase the Preferred Vendor’s system;
- To purchase and maintain training, support, upgrades, hardware and software from the Preferred Vendor for use by he CDOS Elections Division to achieve goal 1.
- To establish documented pricing for voting system vendor products and services that may be utilized by Colorado election officials during their voting system procurement efforts from the Preferred Vendor; and
- To allow for existing methods of procuring voting systems by County election officials to exist independent of the Preferred Vendor models.
For many months, CAMBER has asked to work with the Secretary of State to ensure that the RFP would represent the needs of the public. State has stalled and stalled. Just today, the Election Division’s website shows that the RFP has been completed and released. Obviously State was stalling us while secretly developing the RFP. See the correspondence below for the background.
A quick reading of the RFP is enough to discover that all we feared has now happened. While voluminous, the work is pitifully incomplete and does not establish a basis for the evolution of a secure, accurate, verifiable and transparent election system in Colorado.
The people in the Secretary of States’ office have, through their actions, announced their total disregard for the public. They have also made the arrogant statement that they are infallible and the only ones who matter.
If I could, I would make the Secretary of State withdraw this RFP and establish the public process that we have requested.
If you can, please do something to make the Secretary of State withdraw this RFP and establish the public process that we have requested.
-------------------
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:33 AM
To: Dana Williams (Dana.Williams@SOS.STATE.CO.US)
Subject: FW: Request for Information
Ms. Williams,
It was my understanding that I was to submit SOS correspondence to you. Is this correct?
----------------------
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:43 PM
To: Dana Williams (Dana.Williams@SOS.STATE.CO.US)
Subject: FW: Request for Information
Ms. Williams:
Did you receive the following request?
-----------------------
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:16 PM
To: 'Dana Williams'
Cc: 'Bill Hobbs'; 'Bill Compton'; 'Patti Fredrick'; 'Len Vest'; 'Wayne Munster'; Dr. Charles Corry; Joe Pezzillo; Pete Klammer; Ralph Shnelvar
Subject: RE: Request for Information
Ms. Williams:
Thank you for the partial response to our queries.
Later today we will be sending you an appeal of the Secretary of State’s decision to authorize Boulder County’s use of illegal non-anonymous ballots. What is the independent forum for public debate and resolution of this appeal?
It appears, from your partial response, that the comments and recommendations raised in the September 21st CAMBER to Liss Analysis and Recommendations of the Boulder County Mail Ballot Election Plan were not considered by the Secretary of State. We have received no response from Boulder County. If it is true that the Secretary of State did not consider our comments and recommendations, we will make an appeal. What is the independent forum for public debate and resolution of this appeal?
We have not received a response to our comments and recommendations regarding the Boulder County Security Plan. We have received no response from Boulder County. Has the Secretary of State approved it? If so, we will make an appeal. What is the independent forum for public debate and resolution of this appeal?
We have not received a response to our request for an extensive public presentation of the SCORE system before it is deployed. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to grant our request?
Please consider this e-mail a formal request for a comprehensive, and public, regulatory analysis of the October 31st Rules draft. Also, we have not received a response to our request for an independent and competent technical review of the proposed rules – before the draft is circulated. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to grant our request?
We have not received a response to our request for publicly developed requirements for the voting system. We have not received a response to our request for public participation in the development of the RFP.
We have not received a response to our request to review the State’s plan for the development of a comprehensive election systems, to include functional and performance specifications. What is the plan to develop this?
Please confirm that you have received this e-mail and our request for a regulatory analysis.
-------------------
From: Dana Williams [mailto:Dana.Williams@SOS.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:54 AM
To: AlKolwicz
Cc: Bill Hobbs; Bill Compton; Patti Fredrick; Len Vest; Wayne Munster
Subject: RE: Request for Information
Mr. Kolwicz:
The Secretary of State's office did receive your fax dated September 21, 2005 concerning Boulder County's mail ballot plan and we responded to you in writing. As you know, we approved Boulder County's mail ballot plan on September 21. As always, we appreciate the issues raised in your letter, but we saw no legal basis for disapproving the plan submitted to this office. We looked carefully at the issues raised in your letter, however, the plan and timetable are in compliance with Title 1, Article 7.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and the Colorado Secretary of State Election Rules.
The Secretary of State has announced a rulemaking hearing schedule for October 31, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. to take public testimony for our rules concerning certification of voting equipment. The hearing is located in the Blue Spruce Room at 1700 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80290. Written and oral data, comments and arguments, will be received form all interested parties. Written submissions must be filed at or before the commencement of the hearing on October 31, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in order to be considered. The Secretary of State staff is in the process of completing draft rules and will post them on our website shortly. We hope you can submit your comments or attend the hearing to give us your feedback concerning the rules.
I hope this information is helpful.
Thank you,
Dana Jaclyn Williams
Public Information Officer
Secretary of State's Office
1700 Broadway, Suite 250
Denver, CO 80290
(303) 894-2200 ext. 6108
(303) 869-4860 Fax
dana.williams@sos.state.co.us
www.sos.state.co.us
-----Original Message-----
From: AlKolwicz
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 11:26 AM
To: Dana Williams
Cc: Bill Hobbs; Bill Compton; Patti Fredrick; Wayne Munster; Dr. Charles Corry; Joe Pezzillo; Sheila Horton; Pete Klammer
Subject: Request for Information
Ms. Williams,
We have been attempting, since July 25th, to gain access to certain information regarding Colorado Elections projects.
Today we learned that we are to direct our queries to you.
Has the Secretary of State responded to our FAX sent September 21?
Has the Secretary of State considered our analysis and recommendations of the Boulder County Mail Ballot Election Plan?
Has the Secretary of State considered our criticism of Boulder County’s Security Plan?
We have requested an extensive public presentation of the SCORE system before it is deployed. A simple demonstration will not suffice. There are several technologists who are concerned that the system will not be secure, accurate, verifiable and transparent. The non-transparent methods used to develop the system have left a lot of bad feelings. It is the last chance to engage the public. After all, the recent failing of the benefits system should alert you to the risks of pushing something out before it has public support.
We have requested procedures for requesting a regulatory analysis. The response was a “catch-22” whereby we would be required to make a request before we can possibly know that a proposed rules change is to be heard. The procedure used for the August 2nd rules hearing was totally unsatisfactory. It is not enough for SOS to “allow” the public to write comments. Written, “I feel your pain”, acknowledgements would not be an adequate response to the public input. The public is the CUSTOMER. Will you commit to an open and timely regulatory analysis including an independent and competent technical review of all future proposed standards and rules? See C.R.S. 24-4-103(4.5).
Regarding the RFP – we are concerned about the lack of agreed to ELECTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. We want the public to have a chance to participate in the development of the draft requirements. Currently the SOS plans to perform this work in secret. It is our experience that requirements, once documented, tend to be defended by the staff that develops them, and the public needs are essentially excluded. Will you commit to an open process before it is too late?
Regarding the voting system architecture, performance and functional specifications, etc. – there are a number of books that describe the path to excellence here. Also, we have written some illustrative lists, not intended to be comprehensive, of functions to be included and performance factors to be achieved. We’re happy to discuss them with you. Colorado needs a comprehensive systems plan. What is the plan to develop this?
Election officials and the public appear to be approaching the election system from incompatible directions. We believe that the customer of the election system is the public – which includes the voters, political parties, contestants, etc. Responsiveness to public suggestions and queries suggests that SOS believes that the customer is the election official. It is our experience that the customer decides the requirements, accepts (or rejects) the finished system, evaluates its performance and pays the bills. If we do in fact differ in our understanding of who is the customer, we should resolve this issue first.
Time is a-ticking. I hope that you will use your good office to respond to our requests, and bring the public into the process before battle lines are inadvertently drawn.
-----------------
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 4:38 PM
To: Len Vest (len.vest@sos.state.co.us)
Subject: Follow up and some new data
Hi Len,
We are still waiting for responses to our five requests. Don’t you agree that it has been an excessive wait?
As you consider the RFP, I’ve attached a “testimonial” for AutoMark.
----------------------------------------
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:51 AM
To: 'Len Vest'
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Hello Len,
Just in case our outstanding requests have been misplaced, please accept this as a reminder message.
“As you know, our requests include (1) SCORE, (2) voting system standards, rules and regulatory analysis, (3) RFP requirements, (4) voting system architecture, performance and functional specification, and (5) transparency.”
Thanks
---------------------
From: Len Vest [mailto:Len.Vest@SOS.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 3:49 PM
To: AlKolwicz
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Will do. By the way, most of the items in your list don’t impact this November’s election. They will all impact 2006 elections.
Len Vest
Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
Colorado Department of State
-----Original Message-----
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:12 AM
To: Len Vest
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Thanks Len,
Please let me know how we can help expedite action.
As you know, our requests include (1) SCORE, (2) voting system standards, rules and regulatory analysis, (3) RFP requirements, (4) voting system architecture, performance and functional specification, and (5) transparency.
We are concerned that time to protect the November election is running out.
--------------------------
From: Len Vest [mailto:Len.Vest@SOS.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:01 AM
To: AlKolwicz
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Good Morning Al,
I was out of town last week for clerk training. I did take your request with me in hopes of talking to Bill Compton (Elections Director) and Patti Fredrick (HAVA Director) about it. They are much more familiar with the procedures related to such a request, so I wanted them to give me direction. I will try to speak with them today, so I can give you feedback. I apologize for the delay. We are still working on the drafting of the RFP, so lots of work remaining to get it ready for release.
I’ll get back to you. Thanks, Len
Len Vest
Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
Colorado Department of State
-----Original Message-----
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:01 AM
To: Len Vest
Cc: John Gardner; Dr. Charles Corry; Joe Pezzillo; Ralph Shnelvar; Pete Klammer; Ivan C. Meek; Sheila Horton
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Hi Len,
I am sure that you are very busy, but we are very concerned that our requests (below) are not being satisfied in a timely manner.
Are you the correct person to whom these communications should be addressed?
-----------------------------------
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:39 AM
To: 'Len Vest'
Cc: 'John Gardner'; Dr. Charles Corry; Joe Pezzillo; Ralph Shnelvar; Pete Klammer; Ivan C. Meek; Sheila Horton
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Hi Len,
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss Colorado’s planned election system. Assuming that you will not object, I am adding some people to this conversation. These are people who are interested in, and could contribute to the success of Colorado’s election system.
1. Regarding SCORE – we hope that you are planning an extensive public presentation of the system before you deploy it. A simple demonstration will not suffice. There are several technologists who are concerned that the system will not be secure, accurate, verifiable and transparent. The non-transparent methods used to develop the system have left a lot of bad feelings. It is the last chance to engage the public. After all, the recent failing of the benefits system should alert you to the risks of pushing something out before it has public support.
2. Regarding new voting system standards and rules change – we have requested procedures for requesting a regulatory analysis. We want to use this mechanism to get answers to our questions. The procedure used for the August 2nd rules hearing was totally unsatisfactory. It is not enough for SOS to “allow” the public to write comments. Written, “I feel your pain”, acknowledgements would not be an adequate response to the public input. The public is the CUSTOMER. We need our concerns addressed, so we hope that the regulatory analysis will initiate an independent and competent technical review of the proposed standards and rules. We are referring to the analysis defined in C.R.S. 24-4-103(4.5);
(4.5) (a) Upon request of any person, at least fifteen days prior to the hearing, the agency shall issue a regulatory analysis of a proposed rule. The regulatory analysis shall contain:
(I) A description of the classes of persons who will be affected by the proposed rule, including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will benefit from the proposed rule;
(II) To the extent practicable, a description of the probable quantitative and qualitative impact of the proposed rule, economic or otherwise, upon affected classes of persons;
(III) The probable costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues;
(IV) A comparison of the probable costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the probable costs and benefits of inaction;
(V) A determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule; and
(VI) A description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were rejected in favor of the proposed rule.
(b) Each regulatory analysis shall include quantification of the data to the extent practicable and shall take account of both short-term and long-term consequences.
(c) The regulatory analysis shall be available to the public at least five days prior to the rule-making hearing.
(d) If the agency has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection (4.5), the rule shall not be invalidated on the ground that the contents of the regulatory analysis are insufficient or inaccurate.
(e) Nothing in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection (4.5) shall limit an agency's discretionary authority to adopt or amend rules.
(f) The provisions of this subsection (4.5) shall not apply to rules and regulations promulgated by the department of revenue regarding the administration of any tax which is within the authority of said department.
3. Regarding the RFP – it is the “requirements” that you refer to that have us most concerned. It would be an opportunity missed if you were to complete a requirements statement in secret. Once requirements have been documented, staff will have much sweat invested in the document and will naturally tend to defend their own work rather than openly interacting the public. We encourage yo to open the process before it is too late.
4. Regarding the voting system architecture, performance and functional specifications, etc. – there are a number of books that describe the path to excellence here. Also, we have written some illustrative lists, not intended to be comprehensive, of functions to be included and performance factors to be achieved. We’re happy to discuss them with you.
We appear to be approaching the election system from incompatible directions. We believe that the customer of the election system is the public – which includes the voters, political parties, contestants, etc. It appears that SOS believes that the customer is the election official. The customer decides the requirements, accepts (or rejects) the finished system, evaluates its performance and pays the bills. If we do in fact differ in our understanding of who is the customer, we should resolve this issue first.
Time is a-ticking. I hope that you will use this opportunity to reconsider the direction you have chosen and bring the public into the process before you inadvertently draw battle lines.
----------------------------------
From: Len Vest [mailto:Len.Vest@SOS.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 4:43 PM
To: AlKolwicz
Cc: John Gardner
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Al,
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. We have been busy with SCORE system testing over the past month. I’ll try to catch you up on where we are.
John has been working diligently on constructing new voting system certification standards for Colorado. During the process, it was recently determined that these standards need to be incorporated into the Election Rules. Therefore, within the next few days (I’ll alert you to when) we will be posting the new certification standards on our website for public review and feedback. They will be posted for comments for at least two weeks. These standards will be a key component of the forthcoming Voting System RFP.
You stated in your memo that Section 2 of our RFI indicated a very different set of requirements than what you understood from our last meeting. The purpose of the RFP is to establish pricing and contract terms with vendors who meet the requirements specified in the RFP and to select one vendor to be considered a “Colorado Preferred Vendor”. The SOS will support counties that select the preferred vendor by assisting with election software setup. This allows an option to the small counties that don’t have the expertise or staff to perform the software functions in-house. Counties that do not want or need to use the preferred vendors will have other vendors to work with as a result of the RFP and the Colorado certification process. They will also have agreed upon pricing and contract terms to utilize if they don’t want to negotiate on their own.
Vendors will be required to operate (once SCORE is operational) with a standard election setup import and election tabulation export with SCORE. You mentioned canvass board support and we see that, as it relates to the RFP, as voting system report features that facilitates the canvass board activities.
Our RFP will have diagrams of more than one scenario of how voting systems might function in Colorado counties. Of course, every polling place will need an accessible voting machine (DRE or electronic ballot marker). Some polling places may have precinct scanners and others may not. All counties will need a central scanner for absentee and mail ballot processing.
Regarding performance specifications and functionality specifications, does CAMBER have what they consider best practice examples from other jurisdictions or internally generated by CAMBER? If so, I would be glad to review and consider such input. We do want to serve the best interest of the voter through all phases of the voting process, including backend office transaction processing.
Thanks for your concern.
Len Vest
Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
Colorado Department of State
-----Original Message-----
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:46 PM
To: Len Vest
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Len,
It is coming up on a month since we met. Have you had a chance to review our July 25th letter? (attached)
-------------------------------
From: Len Vest [mailto:Len.Vest@SOS.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:06 PM
To: AlKolwicz
Subject: RE: Reaction to potential RFP
Yes, I was able to open the attachment. Will read tonight. We have been working on rules all day to get posted tonight. Tx, Len
Len Vest
Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
Colorado Department of State
-----Original Message-----
From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:08 AM
To: Len Vest
Subject: Reaction to potential RFP
Len
Attached is a word document. Please let me know that you can open and read it.
Thanks
ATTACHMENT:
CAMBER
Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
2867 Tincup Circle
Boulder, CO 80305
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@qwest.net
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com/
July 25, 2005
Len Vest
HAVA Deputy Director
Department of State
1700 Broadway, Suite 270
Denver, CO 80290
Dear Len:
Following our meeting Friday, I read the RFI. Section 2.0 describes a very different set of requirements than what I understood from our Friday meeting. Consequently, my initial reaction to your RFP is revised.
I see now that the project is not limited to (1) election definition, (2) Internet publication of interim vote totals, and (3) canvass board support. In fact, the RFP envisions a wide set of requirements.
Because of the apparent scope of the project, we are very interested in this RFP. Contrary to my Friday conclusion, my remarks Friday do in fact apply to this RFP.
Based on what we can extrapolate from the attached General and Specific Requirements, we strongly encourage you to suspend issuance of this RFP until you have:
Voting system diagram that includes the entire set of voting functions and how they interact.
Systems functional specifications that specify the required security, accuracy, verifiability and transparency requirements, the method for measuring each, and the acceptable range of performance values for each.
Explicit public endorsement of the systems diagram and functional specifications.
Without this documentation and public support, I believe that the public will fight the RFP. Such a fight is not necessary. I have the impression that you and your team want to serve the best interests of the public. A prolonged fight will subvert voter confidence and extend the distrust of the administration and the election system.
I strongly recommend that you suspend issuance of this RFP until you have proper documentation and public support.
Al Kolwicz
Al Kolwicz
Executive Director
2.0 Project Scope
2.1 General Requirements
The principal scope of the Colorado voting system acquisition project is to deliver, within the optimal project budget and time constraints, a modernized voting system, which equals or exceeds the functionality, reliability, and overall requirements of HAVA and the criteria of the CDOS. For the purpose of this RFI, a voting system will consist of accessible voting units for disabled voters, direct recording electronic (DRE) units, voter-verifiable paper audit trail (V-VPAT), optical scan ballot counters, a software package (including election definition, ballot preparation and tabulation), supplies, system documentation, training, equipment maintenance and support services. Voting systems used in Colorado must be capable of providing accurate and timely election results.
2.2 Specific Requirements
Basic requirements for voting system hardware and software to be acceptable for use in Colorado elections include:
• System Certification under 2002 Federal Voting System standards.
• Colorado Secretary of State Certification.
• Agreement by vendor to abide by Federal statutes, rules and regulations.
• Agreement by vendor to abide by Colorado statutes and Election rules.
