| Author |
Message |
    
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 188
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 8:51 pm: | 
|
If you would like to see what a state contract looks like with a vendor, here is a link to CT's contract:
http://www.das.state.ct.us/Contracts/006_0057.pdf |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 180
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 10:31 pm: |
|
The price list on page 23 raises some questions. One of them is how a company with 10 to 24 employees is supplying 169 technicians.
The equipment cost comes to $18,889 per polling location. Support works out to $600 per election per location, with one-time charges excluded. Amortizing the equipment over 30 elections the cost per polling place comes to about $629 + $600 = $1229 per election. With an average of 1100 voters per precinct in CT that is $1.17 per ballot, lower than Nancy Tobi's estimate of $1.39 per ballot for hand count cost. With the machines you still have some hand counting to do, though. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4628
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 6:10 am: |
|
Re: "how a company with 10 to 24 employees is supplying 169 technicians", mightn't they be subcontractors? Is there anything in the contract with CT that prohibits subcontracting? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 192
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 15 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 8:36 am: |
|
The answer on the technicians is that the state of CT has deployed their former lever machine techs to be trained in this role, as I understand it. I think there's some deal where they are employed by LHS or revert back to CT or something - I am unclear on the details, but I think that's the beginning to the answer to your question, Mike. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 216
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Actually, I'm still stuck on what happened in Stratham, NH with the 550 ballots that were unreadable.
RE: swapping out machines, this seems like all that the contract mentions:
3.1.3 The SOTS, or Municipalities may request to borrow Equipment that can serve as a temporary replacement for the malfunctioning item of Warranted Equipment (“Loaner”). Contractor may, at its discretion, provide a Loaner for the SOTS, or Municipalities to use for election activity until the Warranted Equipment is repaired or replaced at no charge during Exhibit C Term...
So, sounds like they give themselves wiggle room to use an acceptable substitute, not necessarily the same type of light reader, e.g.?? And therefore possibly a different performance vis a vis ink color? Or would they have to use the same machine since e.g. election programming not work with different firmware or light reader?
And finally, if a machine is swapped out during an election (illegal in CT but nevertheless occurred in the 2/08 primary election in a number of towns), is a test deck run on the swapout that is same as previous machine's test deck? Are test decks designed to identify and pinpoint the possibility of swapouts having unannounced (perhaps unrealized) variations in voting machine specs? |
Theresa Powers
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Englasse
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 8:17 pm: |
|
This resembles more an hostage-taking agreement. The gratuities clause is loose as are contract renewals . |
