Montgomery Response Letter

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/7/2019 Montgomery Response Letter

    1/4

    ELECTORAL BOARDMONTGOMERY COUNTY

    755 ROANOKE STREET, SUITE iF , CHRISTIANSBURG, VIRGINIA 24073-3175

    January 19, 2011Commonwealth of VirginiaState Board of ElectionsWashington Building, First Floor1100 Bank StreetRichmond, VA 23219Attention: Ms. Nancy RodriguesSecretary, State Board of ElectionsDear Ms. Rod rigues:Enclosed is the requested reply to the complaint of Ms. Terry Ellen Carter that was e-maied to theMontgomery County Electoral Board and its Registrar on January 3, 2011.Aso enclosed is your request for the voter rosters that were used on Election Day, November 2, 2010.

    Sincerely,

    (ythia S. ChappelkaSecretary, Electoral BoardMontgomery County

    WWW.MONTVA.COM 540-382-5741 FAx 540-381-6811

  • 8/7/2019 Montgomery Response Letter

    2/4

    4 virginia%ases5/

    Response to the State Board of ElectionsConcerning an Undated Complaint from Ms. Terry Ellen CarterRegarding the November 2, 2010 General and Special Election

    Conducted in Montgomery County

  • 8/7/2019 Montgomery Response Letter

    3/4

    Training of Officers of Election:Training in the first use of electronic polibooks was conducted during thirteen sessions. TheRegistrar, E. Randall Wertz, offered eight sessions during July and August 2010. Four sessionswere conducted between October 12 and October 21, 2010. The Officers of Election selected thesession to attend during the July-August period. The precinct teams were assigned dates for theOctober training sessions. An additional training period was conducted on October 26, 2010 forChiefOfficers and Assistant Chiefs.Training was detailed and consistent in logging-on and operating the electronic poilbooks(EPBs). The Registrar used the same lecture notes and visual aids during each training session.Members of the Electoral Board observed each training session.The training consisted of a briefing and hands-on practice by teams of two or three people fromeach precinct. Some chiefs and officers attended summer, precinct, and chiefs training sessions.Emphasis was placed on a team effort by the officers who work a t the check-in point in theprecinct on Election Day. During training, all precinct teams were able to log-on to the EPBssuccessfully.What varied in the training were the extent of experience with electronic equipment and theextent of note taking by the individual officers. The team approach was intended to providesupport for the officers who were less familiar with electronic equipment.Contingencies:The precinct teams varied in their expressed and observed confidence levels. As a result, thedecision was made to provide paper poilbooks to eight precincts for back-up. Four of theseprecincts used the paper polibooks for the full day. One precinct used the paper polibook until9:00 AM, then the EPB. Three of these precincts used the EPBs all day.Election Day Board Routine:The Registrars Office opened at 4:30 AM with a staff of three people. Precinct teams arrived attheir respective precincts at 5 :00 AM.The Electoral Board agreed on Election Day assignments. The Secretary was stationed at theRegistrars Office. The Vice-Chairman would visit, and assist if necessary, the Christiansburgarea precincts. The Chairman would visit, and assist if necessary, the precincts in the Blacksburgarea.The Use of Voter Lists:The Registrars Office received calls from some precincts regarding their difficulty in logging-onto their electronic pollbooks (EPBs) starting about 5:00 AM. The Secretary assisted inanswering the phone calls. The Vice-Chairman went to the precinct D-5 (ChristiansburgLibrary) to assist with their EPB log-on.

  • 8/7/2019 Montgomery Response Letter

    4/4

    The Vice-Chairman called the Registrars Office and was connected to the Secretary. The Vice-Chairman stated that she could not get the precincts EPB logged on. The Officers of Electionwere concerned. The precinct was to open in five minutes and voters were in line. Using theknowledge and information that the Vice-Chairman and the Secretary had at the timeitappeared that very few and perhaps no precinct had operating EPBsthey agreed that names andaddresses would be taken. After presenting proper identification, the voters would be allowed tovote on the voting machines.Five precincts had not logged-on to their EPBs at 6:00 AM and used voter rosters until theirEPBs were activated. Activation of EPBs was accomplished by phone conversations with theRegistrar and through visits to precincts by the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, and an Officer ofElection assisting the Registrars office at that time.The Secretary called the Chairman in Blacksburg at 7:15 AM, advised him of the morningsevents and asked him to pick up a paper polibook at the Registrars Office and deliver it toprecinct B-3 (Belmont Christian Church). While at precinct B-3, the Chairman assisted ingetting th e EPBs logged-on. The Vice-Chairman assisted precinct D-5 (Christiansburg Library)and precinct E-1 (St. Michaels Lutheran Church) in getting the EPBs logged-on. The Officer ofElection assisted precinct C-4 (Falling Branch Elementary School) and precinct F-2 (BlacksburgHigh School) in getting their EPBs logged on.By 9:00 AM eighteen precincts had functioning EPBs. Four precincts used the paper polibooksall day. The five precincts that used voter rosters were instructed to enter the names of thesevoters into the EPBs.Some of the voter rosters were faxed to the Registrars Office while others were brought to theo ffice . A ll names on the voter rosters were checked in the Virginia Election and RegistrationInformation System (VERIS). All who voted in Montgomery County on November 2, 2010were registered and eligible to vote.The preparation and training for future elections will ensure these events will not be repeated. Infuture elections, paper poilbooks will be included with each precincts election supplies.While the events were out of the prescribed domain, the decisions were made with theinformation that was available at the time. The outcome of the election was not affected. Theactions in this case would be described in legal parlance as harmless errors.