From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: NYC Electronic Voting Machines: Public Hearings
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:43:59 GMT
Distribution: panix, ny, nj
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 11:59:49 EDT
From: cmcl2!grad1.cis.upenn.edu!mercuri (Rebecca Mercuri)
Posted-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 11:59:49 EDT
Message-Id: <9208121559.AA04109@gradient.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Electronic Voting Machine Alert
Status: RO

On July 23, 1992, New York City Mayor Dinkins announced in a press conference
that the $60,000,000 contract to replace the city's mechanical voting machines
with electronic voting systems (EVM) would be awarded to Sequoia Pacific, 
pending the outcome of public hearings.

The city's press release included the following statement:
	"In January 1989, SRI determined that Sequoia Pacific was best
	 positioned and most willing to modify its system to meet the
	 needs of New York City and New York State standards."

In actuality, SRI's Final Report (Evaluation of Offerors for the Procurement 
of an Electronic Voting System, December 23, 1988) contained the following 
first sentences under FINDINGS:
	"No offeror's system completely meets the RFP specifications.
	 On the basis of our analysis and the testing of the EVMs,
	 SRI concludes that no offeror currently has either an EVM
	 or central system acceptable for the city."
They went on to say:
	"No offeror scored higher than 63% of the total possible RFP
	 and evaluation criteria points."
And:
	"SRI does not believe any of the four offerors has fully met
	 the requirements of the RFP, based on their proposed EVMs,
	 their central systems, and/or management and financial
	 considerations. Each offeror would have to make substantial,
	 significant modifications and additions -- in both technical
	 and management areas -- for its approach to be considered
	 acceptable for the City."

SRI went on to recommend Sequoia on the basis that of the four offerors,
they had the greatest "probability of ... successfully implementing an
electronic voting system for New York City."

Does the record indicate that Sequoia has or can successfully implement
a system for New York City? You decide. Here is some information from 
public documents:

Monroe County, Indiana vs. Sequoia Pacific:
	"In December, 1988, Monroe County, Indiana, filed a lawsuit 
	 against A. E. Boyce and SP, alleging that the defendants
	 breached a contract between the County and Boyce whereby
	 Sequoia was to have manufactured and Boyce was to have
	 delivered to the County 120 automatic voting machines.
	 Only 40 of the machines were delivered and Sequoia
	 subsequently ceased production of the model which was
	 the subject of the contract." "In December, 1990, the
	 case was settled by the parties. The contract in question
	 was terminated..."

On July 11, 1990 the Sequoia Pacific Electronic Voting System was denied
certification in the state of Pennsylvania on the following grounds:
	"(1) The system does not conform to Pennsylvania statutory 
	 requirements for overriding straight-party votes in individual
	 offices; (2) the system can be placed inadvertently in a mode
	 in which the voter is unable to vote for certain candidates,
	 which is volative of statute; and (3) the system reports straight-
	 party votes in a bizarre and inconsistent manner."
The NY City Board of Elections stated in a letter on January 3, 1991 that:
	"The vendor has admitted to us that release 2.04 of their software
	 used in the Pennsylvania certification process had just been
	 modified and that it was a mistake to have used it even in a
	 certification demonstration."

In what appears to be the final updated evaluation by SRI (June 19, 1991)
of the Sequoia Pacific EVM and its Programmable Memory Device (PMD) which 
contains the vote tally, under the heading of Reliability, the testing
status report from Sequoia Pacific stated:
	"SP doesn't know how to show that EVM/PMD meets requirement --
	 this depends on poll workers' competence."

If the above concerns you, here's what you can do:

1. Attend and comment at the public hearings in New York City. It is 
   critical that individuals have their opinions on this matter stated
   for the record, BEFORE the contracts are presented for signing.
   New York City residents as well as ALL other interested parties
   are permitted to attend.
   The meetings are:
	August 20, 42nd & Broadway, 6th Floor, 6PM
	September 10, City Hall, 10AM (tentative)

2. Request documents from the city under the Freedom of Information Act.
   Contact Lorraine Jones at 212/566-3307 in the Department of General
   Services. You may wish to request all or some of the following:
   [Note: I spoke with Ms. Jones on Friday, August 14.  She said that to
    pick up the documents yourself, just go to 2 Lafayette Street, 6th
    floor (south), Manhattan, take what you want, and sign for it.  No FOIL
    request necessary. No charge for any of these documents until after the
    hearings.  - S. Barber]

	A. SRI Final Report, Volume I, December 23, 1988,
	   Evaluation of Offerors for the Procurement of an
	   Electronic Voting System.
	B. SRI Updated Evaluation of the Sequoia Pacific EVM,
	   June 19, 1991.
	C. Technical Specifications including -
		System Requirements Documents
		System Design Documents
		System Quality Documents
		System Verification Plan
		System Test Plan
		Results of Entire System Test
	D. A list of other publications relevant to this matter.

3. Write letters of concern and comment to:

	Daniel DeFrancesco
	Executive Director
	Board of Elections
	City of New York
	General Office, 32 Broadway
	New York, NY 10004

	cc separate copy to 
	Stephanie Dawson
	Director, NYC Elections Project
	at the address above

	Kenneth Knuckles
	Commissioner
	Department of General Services
	Municipal Building, 17th Floor
	New York, NY 10007

	cc all correspondence to 
	Election Watch
	P.O. Box 1166
	Philadelphia, PA 19105	

4. If you are a member of ACM, IEEE or other professional, computing or
   engineering organizations, encourage your officers and club members
   to become involved and informed on this issue.

5. Forward this posting to everyone you believe would be interested in
   commenting on this matter.

See you in New York,
Rebecca Mercuri
mercuri@gradient.cis.upenn.edu

-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.