Legacy that needs to be forgotten

With his Army of Special Assistants and black front contractors that he used to suppress his own people, look at Bayview, Hunters Point after eight years of Da Mayor. The Community looks like it was robbed, and left in less than Third World conditions. In the mean time, those special assistants were living high and caring out the underhanded mandates of his royal highness. Most of these special operatives are still around as experienced by the community when they were expecting Newsome to attend a community meeting, Newsome did not attend but all those special operatives were like ladies in waiting, ready to represent the community. It didn’t matter many of them lived out of the Bayview Hunters Point Area, such as the Western Addition , East Bay etc Just be my humble corrupt slave and you will be rewarded, I will also give you a controlling position above my people.

willie brown/ lennar corporation/sf redvelopment corruption-
by david Wednesday December 03, 2003 at 11:23 PM


check it out- hear the community protest, hear willie brown bullshitt, hear barbara george hauled away by the sheriffs department, hear willie brown's desperate attempts to generate more profit before his mayoral death...hear that the community could not sit in the main meeting room, hear willie talk as a ghost ("magnificent structures rising out of the ground" like New Orleans vodoo grave yards that >are above ground)... david
audio: MP3 at 690.7 kibibytes

check it out-
This is what he was really about don't beleive otherwise.
Take from the poor and give to the rich.

Hunters Point Development

FBI probe focuses on bayfront property proposals
2 projects involved mayor's pal Charlie Walker
By Chuck Finnie and Lance Williams
OF THE EXAMINER STAFF, Aug 11, 1999

More recently, according to authoritative information obtained by The Examiner, the FBI demanded that a city agency turn over records related to Lennar Homes, a subsidiary of Lennar Corp. of Florida, which won Redevelopment Commission approval in March to build housing on the 500-acre Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

The Port industrial park proposal and the shipyard redevelopment project both involved controversial city trucker Charlie Walker, a friend, political supporter and former law client of Mayor Brown. Walker is a focus of the FBI city contracting probe.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/990811/0811probe.html

When a Florida development firm, Lennar Corp., began assembling a team last year for a bid on the rights to another piece of the southeast Bayfront, the 500-acre Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, it also turned to Walker. As its local jobs broker ? a firm that would be charged with ensuring people from the Bayview were hired to work on the project ? Lennar retained the Bayview Hunters Point Builders Exchange, another of Walker's companies.

Joe Petrillo, a lawyer for Lennar, said the developer wanted to get better connected to the people in the neighborhood.

Walker also brought connections ? not only to Brown, but also to the then-Redevelopment Commission President Lynette Sweet, treasurer of Walker's nonprofit.

On March 30, when the commission selected a developer for the shipyard, Sweet voted to give the contract to Lennar, joining three other commissioners on a 4-3 vote to reject a consultant's recommendation that the project go to another firm.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/990627/0627walker.html

Lennar steals Hunters Point deal

San Francisco's redevelopment agency gave development rights for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to a team led by Lennar Corp. -- abandoning the recommendation of an outside consultant. The Lennar team, which is also redeveloping Mare Island in Vallejo, won a 7-0 vote and beat out Catellus Corp. and the consultant's pick, Forest City Enterprises. The agency said Lennar had done a better job mustering community support and was the best off financially

Source: http://www.amcity.com/sanfrancisco/stories/1999/03/29/daily15.html

--

Current Status of CA Base Reuse: Hunters Point Naval Annex http://www.cedar.ca.gov/military/current_reuse/hunterpt.htm

A report is prepared by: California Trade and Commerce Agency Office of Business Development - February 1999

The City of San Francisco has retained Peat Marwick to analyze three development proposals for the 500-acre former Hunter's Point Naval Annex (BRAC 1991). Three development groups were chosen to implement the City's reuse plan from among those that responded to an RFQ in 1998. The Plan includes a master-planned, waterfront community of residential, commercial mixed-use and light industrial uses. The three successful respondents include Forest City Development, Lennar/BVHP Partners/ Mariposa Management/Luster Group and the Catellus Development Corporation/WDG Ventures, Inc.

Upon receipt of Peat Marwick's recommendations and following a public hearing, the Redevelopment Agency Commission is expected to make a final decision on March 23, 1999.

Source: http://www.cedar.ca.gov/military/bc_news/99mar/story8.htm

Related Links:

Lennar Corp. -
#5 at Builder 100
Profile - Lennar Corporation (NYSE:LEN)

ArtSpan produces San Francisco Open Studios
http://www.artspan.org/

The Artists Community at Hunters Point
http://www.zpub.com/sf/thepoint/

Hunters Point Shipyard at SF Redevelopment Agency
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/sfra/hps.htm

Discuss

It is time for the constituents of San Francisco and those of Bayview Hunters Point, Visitation Valley and the Portola District to kick out San Francisco Redevelopment Agency - the sooner the better. The head of this very corrupt agency is Marcia Rosen the devil who carried out the scheme that Willie L. Brown instructed her to pay heed to.
It is a shame when officials and a black Mayor like Willie L. Brown leach on the black community and other minorities to rob them on their homes and decency.

Willie thinks he is slick but not slick enough to fool all the people all the time.

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has a plan to tear down homes some come under Public Housing and others on private land to build market value homes and drive the poor out of Bayview Hunters Point. Willie L. Brown is behind this devious scheme and his followers are his thug cronies who will have to face the wrath of the people very soon.

If Matt Gonzalez were elected these thugs would have fled San Francisco. So would the many special interests that Willie L. Brown imported from Sacramento and Oakland. We can name the names but that would do no good. Some of them thugs live in the neighborhood and have stabbed their sisters and brothers in the back.

The $600 million dollar MUNI Lightrail project should have helped the community but vipers like Sophie Maxwell and her follow thugs connived to deceive the people and pocket the money. The Allen Group has made money and so have the former Director of Young Community Developers.

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has fired Willie Kennedy the $150,000 paid so-called Out Reach Mama. This is very good news she harbored the House Negroes thinking she could divide and rule the community that has been good to her. Now she has to watch her fat ass. The consultants such as one named Goggin are out on a limb. Others will follow soon because SF Redevelopment Agency will not get the funding they enjoyed when Willie L. Brown used it to help Mission Bay and Catellus Corporation and other crooked ventures at the San Francisco Airport and even the founder of Gap, Donald Fisher. Time to call in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Lennar BVHP LLC should have worked with the community and much good would have come out of it. Roy Willis knew better but he thought the slick Willie L. Brown Jr. would deliver. He did not and will not. Today the people are pissed off and Lennar will face the wrath of the people.

Lennar has given money to a Community Based Organization that does not help the community. The Window Project is a farce and in all the time it has been there not one single community person has visited it. They never visited it when it was located between Quesada and Revere and they will not visit it now - where drugs addicts and prostitutes ply their trade. No decent person will visit that block much more our youth.

SF Redevelopment Agency better stop their expansion on the Project Area they have in mind. They have not done justice to the first Project Area that has been in the making. We have yet to see a full report on the Blighted Areas and we have yet to see an Environmental Impact Report.

Willie L. Brown used Proposition B funds gathered from the Sales Tax and fronted the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to be the lead agency to fund MUNI Lightrail. Once the rail is in place the property values around 3rd Street will double. The poor will have to move. They will not have anywhere to go - most of them are black and most of them will die.

Right now there is a glaring statistic that the world does not know. Even though black women make up only 6 percent of the population over 45 percent of them have AIDS. Think about that. Most of them live in San Francisco. Now, pause for a moment and think how many black men have AIDS? Now pause for a moment and ask yourselves how many women and men do you know who have AIDS? How many of them have died. I will tell you frankly that I know many. Imagine all these people and more living on the streets of San Francisco. Others like alcoholics.

Willie L. Brown and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency could have helped the community. They chose to run down the community and Public Housing. Go count all the board up homes up on Hunters Point. These crook have a nasty plan they want to drive the people away and bulldoze the buildings that are now standing where Public Housing housed the innocent and the poor.

When crooks are determined to drive and kill innocent people we have to do something. Most of us talk the talk but we do not walk the walk. Hunters Point is suffering because we do not have tenant organizations which work and which are united. Again and again in fighting encouraged by the crooks help SF Redevelopment, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the SF Housing Authority (SFHA) adversely impact the poor and the innocent who live in Public Housing.

Guys you remember the days when some of Public Housing did not have to pay for Electricity? Hetch Hetchy gave this power to the poor people according to some formula that was set aside a long time ago. Then came Willie L. Brown and in 1996 he had Pacific Gas and Electric provide the power and charge. Over the year PG&E has made millions. Now is the time to ask for that money back with interest. Check out the facts and if it true you can all sue PG&E and Willie L. Brown who fleeced the innocent and the poor.

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is out to kill the poor and the innocent by kicking them out of Public Housing. Of course this time a few of us like Lynne Brown, Maurice Campbell, Andrew Bozeman, John Nauer, Sam Ripley, Rodney Hampton, Claude Carpenter and others have taken on the crooks. We need your support to kick SFRA out of San Francisco once and for all. The sooner we do this the better.

I know for sure if Matt Gonzalez was elected it would be very easy for all of us to have done what I have stated above. We have the facts and we have the law on our side. What we did not have was the political backing. With Gavin Newsom the White Boy with a silver spoon in his mouth who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk - we will have to see how best this Rich White Boy with his well kept hairdo will do us in or what?

Let us be vigilant but let us do all in our power to kick out the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Peace.

District elections notebook
Alicia Becerril's mysterious contributors
MAYOR WILLIE BROWN -backed District Three incumbent Alicia Becerril has a lot of mysterious campaign contributors. According to the Ethics Commission's online files, 43 of the 54 individuals who contributed to Alicia Becerril's campaign for supervisor have "unknown" occupations and are "self-employed."

"That's the information [the contributors] reported to us. In general, we take the information off of the [donation] envelope," said Cory Black, Becerril's campaign manager.

Becerril's contribution filings do not technically violate the law. The Ethics Commission would only investigate such a case if a member of the public objected or if fields were left blank on the campaign files. Under investigation, campaign employees have to prove that they made an effort to obtain contributors' employment information.

Aaron Peskin, one of Becerril's opponents for supervisor in District Three, is fully aware of the missing information in Becerril's contribution files. "The campaign finance laws require disclosure to allow voters and the media to know whether or not a lot of money is coming from one source," Peskin said.

Peskin told us that he does not intend to file a complaint with the Ethics Commission.

Susan Horsfall is one of the 43 contributors whose employment information is left out of Becerril's files. Horsfall – a lawyer at Goggin & Goggin, which represents Lennar, the prime developer at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard – told us she does not remember whether she provided that information when she made her donation.

Black would not discuss Horsfall's donation, because he was away from his desk and did not want to talk about specific contributions.

"We do need to do a better job on getting that information," Black admitted.

Genevieve Kramer

We celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King’s 75th birthday this week without the guest of honor. Assassination stole him from us 36 years ago when he was only 39.

Murder and threats of murder have always shackled Black people in America, consigning us to slavery, to prison cells and chain gangs, and to redlined ghettos where we’re locked out of jobs and denied the opportunity to own a business that creates jobs.

Lynchings were still common in East Texas when I was a child, a particularly notorious one having occurred in the county seat a few miles from my home just 11 years before I was born. Most lynching victims were owners of businesses or property, and by murdering them, white supremacists meant to terrorize the community and stifle hopes of economic empowerment.

Today in San Francisco, the lynching noose conveys the same message – even to city workers. Friday, a rally on the steps of City Hall called attention to three Black career city management employees whose jobs are lost or put in jeopardy since they were threatened with nooses at their workplaces.

Dr. Martin Luther King told the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 13, 1962: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”

Nooses signify lynching, so isn’t their use as death threats against the law? Kevin Williams, a long time senior contract compliance officer with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission – an officer charged with enforcing the laws against human rights abuses, in other words – became the latest victim of a noose when he was fired on Jan. 8, the day Willie Brown relinquished his crown as mayor of San Francisco.

“It’s a message from Willie Brown – I go out, you go out,” Williams told the Chronicle. “It was important to Willie Brown, because he must feel that he always vanquishes an enemy.”

What made law enforcement officer Kevin Williams an enemy of the mayor were his efforts to enforce the law and punish the perpetrator after a noose was hung at the San Francisco International Airport in 1998 as a signal that Blacks were henceforth locked out of the construction industry. The noose was hung on the worksite of Liberty Builders, owned by Bay View Publisher Willie Ratcliff, the only Black construction company that defied policies of racial exclusion locking Blacks out of the recent multi-billion dollar expansion at the airport.

In the same Jan. 14 issue of the Chronicle as the story reporting Kevin Williams’ firing is a story headlined “Newsom zeroes in on S.F. Contracts.” “Total annual spending on all city contracts is about $1.5 billion,” the Chronicle reported.

In the five and a half years since the 1998 lockout, then, the city has spent roughly $8.25 billion on contracts. Even with the steep decline in San Francisco’s Black population and Black businesses able to contract with the city, an equitable share for our community should be about 7 percent, I’d say.

That’s $577.5 million we were denied our right to earn. If you’re thinking reparations, that’s one figure you’ll want to put in the equation.

This is a new year and the dawn of a new city administration. Along with my community of Bay View Hunters Point, San Francisco’s Black heartland, I’m calling on Mayor Newsom to enforce the laws against racist death threats like nooses in the workplace and against the exclusion of Blacks from construction.

Mayor Newsom can tell Muni today to sit down with the African American Contractors of San Francisco and work out an on-the-job training program to employ Black youth through Black contractors to build the $125 million maintenance facility for the Third Street Light Rail project. Only then will the power of the noose to terrorize and lock out our community be vanquished.

The organizers of Friday’s rally are sponsoring a Labor-Community Town Hall Speak-Out on Saturday, Feb. 7, at the Green House, 4919 Third St. in Hunters Point. I urge you to spread the word and come with your family and friends and your stories of nooses and other forms of workplace racism.

The speak-out will begin at 10 a.m. with the screening of the film “Strange Fruit” about the anti-lynching movement. Testimonies begin at 11 a.m. Speak out! You will be heard. The speak-out is expected to be broadcast throughout Northern California by Free Speech Radio, KPFA 94.1 FM. Now is the time to end the rule of the noose.

Dr. King will stand with you as you testify and as you remember these words from his Nobel Prize acceptance speech on Dec. 10, 1964: “I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality .… I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.”

San Francisco -- The trio whose habit of voting together on controversial items has tagged them the "Pep Boys" of the San Francisco Redevelopment Commission -- Benny Yee, Leroy King and Darshan Singh -- were all hit with subpoenas from the city's ethics watchdog agency this past week.

Soon to join the list: City Hall insider Susan Horsfall, who works for the law firm that represents Lennar Corp. -- the developer that won the right to take over the old Hunters Point shipyard.

No one at the Ethics Commission is talking, but word among Redevelopment insiders is that a complaint came in more than a year ago alleging that Horsfall and the Pep Boys appeared to be a little too close for comfort -- often dining out together after meetings.

Right around the time, it seems, that the commission -- including the Pep Boys -- voted to disregard its consultant's findings and award the rights to develop the shipyard to Lennar.

"This is all about those same old stories about us getting gifts and dinners," King said. "It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now."

An Ethics Commission investigation isn't criminal -- but it can refer its findings to the district attorney.

For her part, Horsfall told us she has "no idea what any of this is about. We haven't had dinner together in over a year, so any reference to that is old news."

Maybe -- but from the looks of things, it's about to become news again.

SOS HOM: Real estate broker, political fund-raiser and Chinatown bigwig Ben Hom's appointment to the San Francisco Port Commission appears to be sinking as fast as the Titanic.

"I only count four votes -- he needs six," said one member of the Board of Supervisors.

That's a far cry from the seven supervisors who gave Hom the initial nod of approval a couple of months back.

But then, that was before the press had a field day revealing Hom's conflict-of-interest problems when he was on the Redevelopment and Public Utilities commissions.

"As it stands, he's got four choices," the supervisor said.

"Withdraw. Lose the vote Tuesday. Have it sent back to committee to die slowly. Or put it off until next week when (Supervisor Chris Daly) returns."

Although waiting for Daly would just be delaying the inevitable, since Hom would still come up one vote short.

MUNI MELTING: With all the attention focused on San Francisco's police crisis, it's largely escaped public notice that the Municipal Railway is having its own minor meltdown as well.

Just about the time the police indictments were being handed up, the Muni was hit with a three-day worker sickout -- one that resulted in dozens of runs being canceled.

According to an internal memo by Muni General Manager Michael Burns, "in a sudden and unexpected move, large numbers of operators failed to report to work or called in sick" during the first three days of March.

So instead of the typical seven missed runs on Saturday, the first day of the reported sickout, there were 80.

The next day there were 57 missed runs, compared with the usual 10 for a Sunday. Among other things, only half of the city's 18 cable cars made it out of the barn.

And on Monday -- when traffic is heaviest -- the Muni missed 50 runs, compared with the usual 18.

The motivation behind the sickouts appears to be the cash-strapped Muni's attempt to cut millions of dollars in worker overtime, job perks and other sacred labor practices.

Union representatives didn't want to be quoted, but privately they accused Burns of wielding the ax without consulting them.

They also emphatically denied there had been any work stoppage or sickout whatsoever.

Muni is grappling with a $16 million budget hole this year, which is projected to deepen to $52 million next year.

In response, the officials have proposed fare hikes, increased parking fines and higher city parking garage rates to raise the money.

But boss Burns also ordered an across-the-board elimination of overtime -- a serious blow to drivers who have grown accustomed to making the extra money.

And then there's his behind-the-scenes push to require all drivers to actually get out and drive.

Now that may sound strange, but as a result of a practice dating back some 30 years, the Muni has seven drivers on the payroll who conduct union business full time.

And not only do the seven union reps not drive -- they are guaranteed one hour of overtime a day.

The city's cost for this unusual little benefit: about $65,000 a year per worker, or nearly a half-million dollars overall.

School daze: It's been brought to our attention that while more than 1,100 possible layoff notices were going to teachers and staff in Oakland over the weekend, schools Superintendent Dennis Chaconas was hosting a fair Saturday aimed at -- yes, producing more teachers.

Of course, school officials emphasized that the four-hour "Teacher Reception and Credential Fair" at Jack London's Waterfront Hotel wasn't about hiring, since there are "no open positions."

No -- just lots of friendly college reps promising a rewarding career in education.

And finally: An update on the San Francisco Police Department from the home answering machine of Supervisor and mayoral hopeful Tom Ammiano: "Greetings. You've reached the acting, temporary, assistant, transitional, virtual shadow, unindictable but suspicious protege of the chief of police.

"May we help you?"
Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. They can also be heard on KGO Radio on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Phil Matier can be seen regularly on KRON-TV. Got a tip? Call them at (415) 777-8815 or drop them an e-mail at matierandross [at] sfchronicle.com.

SPECIAL REPORT
OF THE
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS (CACE)

Adopted by vote of the Committee on May 24, 2000

MEMBERS: Kathy Grogan, Chair of Committee; Christopher Bowman; Ed Canapary; Susan Horsfall; Marcel Kapulica; Joan Lewis; Anne Politeo; Laura Brainin-Rodriguez; Samson Wong, and Albert Reen (in memoriam). Jill Lerner of the City Administrator's Office served as an ex-officio member and Secretary of the CACE's ad hoc committee. Tom Owen of the City Attorney's Office provided the committee with legal advice. Former Acting Director Naomi Nishioka attended a few of the early hearings and newly appointed Director Patricia Fado and her assistants Jennifer Novak and Chris Hayashi attended its last meeting preceding this Report.

I. Introduction

On December 14, 1999, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 1083-99 urging the Registrar of Voters and the Department of Elections to use every effort to protect the voting rights of all San Francisco voters and the CACE to review the accessibility and customer service for all San Francisco voters. The Board requested that the CACE provide a report on increasing the efficiency of the Department of Elections to the Board of Supervisors. (See Appendix)

Pursuant to that resolution, the CACE formed an ad hoc committee of its members to hold public hearings, both at City Hall and in the neighborhoods, to deliberate, and to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

Hearings were held on January 19, January 26, February 16, February 27, March 9 and April 26, 2000. The February 27 meeting was held at the West Bay Community Center in the Western Addition at the invitation of the San Francisco NAACP, and was attended by nearly 50 members of the public. The March 9 meeting was held at the Moscone Recreation Center on Chestnut Street, and no members of the public attended.

Members of the public who testified before and/or provided written comments to the Ad Hoc Committee included: James Bryant, President and members of the A. Phillip Randolph Institute (APRI); Ed Canapary, pollster; Doug Comstock, Fair and Independent Reform of Elections; Eddy Dobbins, LGADDA; Otto Duffy, Poll Worker; Henry Evers, Common Cause; Tom Hsieh, Jr., political consultant; Ken Kong, API Vote 2000; David Lee, Chinese American Voter Education Committee; Norberto Martinez, CARECEN; Nathaniel Mason, President, SF NAACP and members; Richard Ow, candidate for Democratic County Central Committee; David Pilpel, political consultant; Bob Planthold, advocate for the Disabled Community; Alonzo Reese, President, LGADDA; Patricia Rodriguez, Mission Neighborhood Center; Verna Tam, Former Poll Worker; Holli Thier, Co-President, San Francisco Chapter, League of Women Voters; Frank Tsei, Asian Law Caucus, Chinese for Affirmative Action; Ron Vincent, APRI; John Paul Zenger, Poll Worker.

This report represents the findings and recommendations of the CACE.

II. Issues and Recommendations

A. Staffing/Funding.

Underlying many of the recommendations to follow in this Report is the need for adequate staffing and funding of the Department of Elections (Department). In the past year, the Department has experienced the greatest amount of turnover of managers and staff members that it has experienced in any 12 month period in the past decade. The Committee received testimony by David Pilpel that some of the people who staff the office on a day-to-day basis are filling temporary positions, and are not getting wages/benefits comparable to the expertise that they have developed in the Department or commensurate with wages/benefits received by their counterparts in the eight other Bay Area Counties. Overall staffing conditions have resulted in a lower degree of expertise, efficiency, morale, and accurate and timely services provided to the public.

Recommendations:

To assist in the recruitment and retention of Departmental personnel and provide for greater expertise, efficiency, morale, and accurate and timely services provided to the public, the CACE recommends:

1. Salaries/benefits for Department staff to be upgraded to be competitive with salaries for comparable positions in the Registrar's Offices of the eight other Bay Area Counties.

2. Staffing needs that have been filled on an ongoing basis through the use of temporary positions be converted to permanent positions, to increase morale and productivity of staff.

3. Staffing and funding be increased as noted elsewhere in this report with respect to specific identified needs.

B. Dedicated Full Time Technical Expertise.

The Department currently receives technical support from a part-time MIS person on loan from the Department of Telecommunications & Information Services. The MIS person has the dual responsibility of providing services to the Department and the public. The workload at this position is sufficient to require a full-time staffperson.

The primary MIS services provided to the Department are the maintenance of appropriate security and accessibility of the voter files kept by the Department. This function is the pre-eminent task of this staff position. This person would also handle the production of precinct lists and voter rosters for use on election day by poll workers, and ensuring that the processing of votes be accurate and efficient. In addition, the MIS services include the ongoing responsibility of maintaining the Department staff's hardware, software and internal network.

Beyond providing services to the Department, this MIS person has the responsibility of providing responsive and timely services to the voting public and campaign professionals. Such services include files of voters who have voted in previous elections master voter file, voters who have applied for an absentee ballot or have voted by absentee ballot, newly registered voters, and other specialized reports in a format that is user-friendly.

In 1999, sometimes these services to the public were neither responsive nor timely. Testimony received from David Pilpel and Committee member Ed Canapary (who is also a professional pollster) indicated that certain voter files sometimes were not provided by the Department in less than sixty days following a request, and that time-sensitive files on absentee voters took several days to produce. Furthermore, because the format used by the Department in providing the data that had been changed without notice, campaigns had to spend additional needless hours reformatting the information into a usable format.

In the past, under the old Sunshine Ordinance, the Department had provided such specialized services to the public and campaign professionals in return for a fee commensurate with the fair market value for such reports. It is unclear that the Department is authorized to provide such services under the provisions of the new Sunshine Ordinance, which provide only for retrieval of duplication, not labor costs.

In the future, as the Department enters the new technological age, there will be a need for the MIS person to monitor the progress of internet voting in other jurisdictions and electoral technical innovations and developments. This person would report regularly to the Director of Elections (Director) and the CACE on technology options.

Recommendations:

To ensure on-going technical support to the Department and timely services to the public, the CACE recommends:

1. A full-time position of MIS staff person be adequately funded, and filled.

2. The Department work with campaign professionals on providing data compatible with industry needs on a timely basis.

3. Legislation be passed to amend the new Sunshine Ordinance to allow the Department to provide specialized services to the public and campaigns at fair market value.

C. Adequate Outreach Staff.

San Francisco's voters are diverse linguistically and socio-economically. Voters vary between the most sophisticated internet users to those who don't know how to read. Although most voters are fluent in English, many are fluent primarily in a language other than English and some are functionally illiterate in any language, particularly seniors and newly naturalized citizens.

Currently, the Federal Voting Rights Act requires that San Francisco translate its election materials into Chinese, and the Department has elected to provide similar translations in Spanish. Following the 2000 Census, the need for translation into additional languages (possibly Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Russian) may be identified.

For the last year, the Department has had one outreach person fluent in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin who works with new Chinese American and English-as-a-Second-Language voters.

The Committee received testimony from members of the A. Phillip Randolph Institute (APRI) which works to register and increase voter participation in the African American community and among the homeless. The organization leader, discussing a 1999 voter registration drive, alleged that the Department did not provide procedural materials for obtaining voter registrations when requested. APRI asserted that they had asked the Department to inform them of any problems with their registrations. No notification was forthcoming. The Department instead referred problem registrations from APRI directly to the District Attorney for investigation. The D.A.'s Office later found some voter registration forms to be invalid.

Additionally, David Lee and Holli Thier testified that the Department's outreach educational programs should be extended to other groups, beyond Chinese Americans for whom English is second language. Patricia Rodriguez and Norberto Martinez suggested that the Department provide educational programs for Spanish-speaking seniors in the Mission District and for Spanish-speaking immigrants going through the naturalization process on how to register to vote and to re-register to vote (which is critical for keeping the voter rolls clean and reducing the possibility of voter fraud), how to apply for absentee ballots, and the mechanics of voting.

It is our belief that the quality and extent of the Department's outreach policy will determine not only how well election information gets to the voting public, but also how well the Department is able to monitor and respond to the public experience in the electoral process. Special attention must be paid to voter registration of citizens who speak English as a second language. Some minority citizens groups may be able to assist the Department in its education efforts.

Committee member Susan Horsfall noted that beyond the Department's ongoing outreach requirements, there are two additional challenges for the November 2000 election - namely the Department's adoption of new optical scanning equipment for voting, and the institution of the new district elections system. The new optical scanning system needs to be explained not only to poll workers and the general public, but particularly to voters not fluent in English, the disabled community, seniors, and new voters. Additionally, according to an exit poll of the Chinese American Voters Education Committee (CAVEC) the vast majority of voters are currently unaware of the change to district elections. Over 90% of voters don't know which district they live. The Department currently has inadequate staff to meet these two critical needs.

Recommendations:

To expand and coordinate outreach services to voters for which English is not their primary language and to citizens who do not fully participate in the electoral system, the CACE recommends the following:

1. Two new full-time positions for community outreach staff persons be created, adequately

funded, and filled. One position should be fluent in English and Spanish. The second position should be fluent in English and either Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Russian. Additional staff should be hired as needed where the Federal Voting Rights Act requires coverage of new languages based on the 2000 Census. All outreach personnel, including the current position, would focus on segments of the electorate less likely to participate in the electoral process (by not registering to vote or exercising their right to vote), such as students and young adults, new citizens, seniors, residents of public housing, the homeless, and other special populations.

2. The Department contract with a public relations/media specialist for a full-time

person to educate voters about the new optical scan voting system. The position is needed from July, 2000 until the end of the year. Hands-on demonstrations of the new voting system should be conducted in each Supervisorial district of the City. Additionally, any group requesting that the Department provide a demonstration of the new system should receive a presentation.

3. The Department contract with a public/relations/media specialist to educate eligible voters on district elections of Supervisors. Presentations should be made in all eleven supervisoral districts of the City. The position is needed from July, 2000 until the end of the year. The position should be filled by an individual with specific familiarity with San Francisco's neighborhoods and past experience with district elections.

4. The Department develop a coordinated outreach strategy, incorporating all the current voter registration information and election material appropriate to disseminate among eligible voters of San Francisco. Included will be complete documentation for each of the eleven supervisoral districts regarding district election procedures as well as the new optical scan voting technology. Absentee ballot procedures and a voter motivational message may be combined with this document. The outreach effort may employ public service announcements in local media outlets and civic organizations to disseminate information from the Department.

D. Staff Training.

The regulations and procedures governing the conduct of an election are complex and change from year to year. There are federal, state, and local laws governing every stage of the process.

The Department has made prior requests for customer service training for staff that were not funded. There is a need for educational outreach on election procedures to campaign, petition drive, and voter registration organizations. David Pilpel testified about the need for the Department to develop comprehensive written procedure manuals for institutional memory and employee reference and training. The Elections Task Force, headed by the City Administrator of San Francisco, recommended in 1996 that the Department hire a training officer for Department staff. However, because of subsequent priorities of the Department and subsequent budgetary constraints, this position was never created or filled.

Recommendations:

To preserve the Department's institutional memory and to ensure full training of staff and educational outreach to campaign, petition drive, and voter registration organizations, the CACE recommends the following:

1. The Department create and maintain manuals setting out standard operating procedures and customer service procedures, with guidance from the City Attorney and the Ethics Commission staff (relative to local campaign finance disclosure).

2. A new full-time position of training officer be created, adequately funded, and filled to be responsible for:

a. Developing and maintaining reference material for use by staff and the public;

b. Providing workshops for staff as needed;

c. Training temporary help and poll workers; and

d. Conducting workshops for campaign, petition drive, and voter registration organizations.

E. Customer Service and Adequate Clerical Staff.

Due to understaffing, the Department currently engages in crisis management for processes such as inputting and purging voters from the rolls, checking signatures on initiatives, in-lieu petitions, nomination papers, absentee ballot applications and absentee and provisional ballots, and updating the voter/voted file with the most recent election information. In cases where the electoral cycle has overlapped, such as the November/December Mayoral elections of 1999 and the March primary of 2000, the staff gets diverted from year-round duties to fill the immediate needs of processing elections. When staff gets diverted from routine clerical duties, huge backlogs of clerical work develop, such that affidavits, applications, databases and files are not updated or available to the public on a timely basis.

Specific concerns have also been raised before the Committee about the process of requesting and returning absentee ballots. Voters who cannot remember if they requested the application have called the Department and were not able to get an update on the status of their request.

Additionally, David Lee expressed concern that the Department did not have an adequate tracking system to determine whether absentee ballot requests came through the initiative of the voters, campaigns, or independent expenditure committees. As a result, the Department is inundated by duplicate applications. NOTE: The Department periodically provides reports on the number of applications coming from specific sources, but these are not prepared daily, since applications received are not always processed within 24 hours of receipt.

Representatives of the APRI testified that the Department's hours of operation for Early Voting are not well known, and that the Department has at times closed before the posted hours, especially during the early voting period. This has complicated APRI's operations as they went through the effort of transporting voters to City Hall only to find the polls closed.

It is particularly important that the front desk staff, which disseminates information to and has contact with the public on a day-to-day basis, be adequately trained. The expectation should be for the Department to reasonably provide correct information the public can rely on.

Recommendations:

I. To improve customer service the Committee recommends the following:

1. Create manuals of synopsis of Department procedures and publications.

2. Update all publicly accessible mediums such as websites and voicemail with current information.

3. Phone

II. To ensure continuous clerical operations in the Department so that backlogs don't develop and to address other customer service concerns, the CACE recommends the following:

1. Full-time permanent and temporary positions be created, adequately funded, and filled for clerical staff with appropriate skills (such as signature checking experience) to perform the on-going and seasonal work required of the Department in a timely and efficient manner.

2. The Department allow is clerical personnel to perform their normal duties to the greatest extent possible.

3. The Department set service standards to provide for the timely processing of absentee ballot applications and perform tracking to ensure that the processing is timely.

4. The Department educate the public about its hours of operations and adhere to those posted hours, especially during early voting.

F. Purge of Voter Rolls.

San Francisco's voter registration rolls have not been reviewed and purged on a regular basis over the past twenty-five years. As a result, there is a lot of deadwood on the voter rolls, understating voter turnout, contributing to the large number of provisional ballots cast in San Francisco elections, increasing printing and mailing costs for the Department for each election, which slows down the voter count, and increasing printing and mailing costs for campaigns. The maintenance of the voter rolls is one of the foundations of the efficient operation of the Department. Holli Thier expressed to the Committee the concerns of the League of Women Voters that the rolls be purged.

Recommendation:

The Department develop an on-going procedure for regularly maintaining the integrity of the voter registration lists. The success of the plan will depend on annual allocations of funding the resources necessary to address this program.

G. Multilingual and Multimedia Services.

Currently, the Department provides voting materials (ballots and voter information pamphlets) in Chinese and Spanish on request. It was pointed out to the Committee by Holly Thier, David Lee, Tom Hsieh, Jr., and others that other materials provided by the Department, such as instructions to candidates and campaign forms, are only in English. Tom Hsieh, Jr., Frank Tsei, and Richard Ow also testified that in previous elections, the absentee ballot envelope's instructions were not translated into Chinese. This resulted in some absentee ballots being mailed by voters without the required signature, thereby negating their votes.

In the March, 2000 election, 16,709 Chinese-American and 3,376 Hispanic-American voters requested bilingual materials. According to the Chinese American Voters Education Committee and other groups providing services to new citizens and voters for whom English-is-a-second-language, these numbers represent less than half of the actual populations of voters in San Francisco for whom Chinese or Spanish is their primary language. There are approximately 54,000 Chinese American and 33,000 Hispanic American registered voters in the City. Additionally, there are other substantial populations of native speakers of languages other than English, such as Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Russian for whom election materials of any kind are not available in their native languages.

Additionally there is a significant population of voters among all language groups who are functionally illiterate, for whom printed materials in any language are of limited or no use. Patricia Rodriguez expressed her concern about the seniors at the Mission Neighborhood Center who had difficulty reading complex voting materials - the forms are too long and seniors cannot understand everything. Norberto Martinez suggested that the Department produce audio-visual educational materials for people going through the naturalization process.

With respect to language issues that appear on the ballot, the trilingual optical scan ballots that were used in the pilot project for the new voting system had the Chinese language characters printed in a smaller font that was difficult to read.

Finally, in some past races, Richard Ow and others testified that candidates' names were not transliterated according to the candidates' preference.

Recommendations:

To improve multilingual and multimedia services, the CACE recommends the following:

1. The Department increase the catalog of materials that are being translated into Chinese and Spanish to include every document routinely provided the public produced in English.

2. The Department take active measures to ensure that all Chinese American and Hispanic American voters for whom English is not their primary language apply for and receive voter materials in their native languages.

3. The Department provide audio-visual educational materials in English, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Spanish for functionally illiterate voters.

4. The Department conduct an evaluation of whether there is an under-served need for bilingual or audio-visual materials and, to the extent a need is identified, develop a plan and funding to provide those materials to under-served voters. Such a plan should take into account the 2000 Census results.

5. The Department develop mono-lingual ballots in English, Chinese, and Spanish under the new optical scan system for the November 2000 election. Should additional languages be required under the Federal Voting Rights Act by the 2000 Census, such mono-lingual ballots in addition to English, Chinese, and Spanish be prepared for subsequent elections.

6. The Department develop forms and procedures to solicit and ensure candidates' preference of transliteration or translation of their name into other languages are printed on the ballot.

H. Polling Places/Poll Worker Recruitment.

The Department has the task of identifying and maintaining a list of nearly 650 polling places throughout the City for every election, and staffing each site with at least 3 people who are willing to work a 16 hour day for nominal pay in sometimes spartan conditions.

Committee member Ed Canapary, clerk and Inspector, Elizabeth Canapary, , who have staffed polling places for years, testified that the pay for poll workers is barely minimum wage and that to recruit and retain trained poll workers, the pay would have to be significantly increased.

The need for reliable poll workers has been evidenced in the past when there were complaints about polling places not opening on time or not opening at all. Several residents from Bayview/Hunters Point testified that this was a chronic problem in their neighborhood.

Additionally, some poll workers lack knowledge about the voting processes, such as when to use provisional ballots and proper ballot security procedures. Doug Comstock testified that many ballot boxes were not properly sealed in recent elections. NOTE: Naomi Nishioka replied that the problem was that some of the seals were too small and that larger seals had been ordered for the March, 2000 primary. The Committee also takes notice of the fact that the new optical scan voting equipment will no longer require the use of the old ballot boxes with required seals

In the upcoming election, poll workers will also require training on the new optical scan voting system.

David Lee and Frank Tsei testified there are not always sufficient bilingual poll workers available to staff every polling place requiring their services.

Bob Planthold testified that some polling places lack adequate light, heat, or handicap accessibility. In some cases, polling places were difficult to reach for some voters, such as when they were located on a hill or required stairs to gain access.

Recommendations:

To ensure that election-day activities of the Department occur efficiently and do not inconvenience voters, the CACE recommends the following:

1. The Department's budget incorporate pay increases for poll workers with experience or who are bilingual in English/Mandarin, English/Cantonese, and English/Spanish (as a minimum).Compensation for experienced poll workers might be tied to a future living wage.

2. The Department improve its poll worker training. As the Department will be instituting its new optical scan voting system, every poll worker (inspector and clerks) should be required to attend poll worker training for the November, 2000 election, including hands-on training on the new optical scan voting system. Additionally, information about the voting process should be made available at all polling places to which poll workers may refer.

3. The Department conduct a comprehensive, walk-through inventory of polling places prior to the November election to include surveys for accessibility and maintain a photographic record of polling locations.

4. The Department make vigorous affirmative hiring efforts, including increased compensation, to increase bilingual poll worker recruitment and retention.

I. Transparency of Canvassing.

It is fundamental to the mission of the Department that the public, media and campaigns have confidence in the integrity of the vote counting process. The Committee received testimony from Doug Comstock and from APRI that the Department changed its policies with respect to election day observers and that these changes impeded their efforts to monitor the vote count after the polls closed. In the past, the Department allowed observers, escorted by Department staff, to see all stages of the canvassing in progress. In recent elections, since the return of the Department to City Hall, observers' movements have been restricted (due, in part, to the layout of the basement of City Hall).

The Department has not developed written standard operating procedures (in consultation with the media and campaigns) to provide adequate monitoring of the vote counting process while preserving the integrity of the process and minimizing interference with the canvassing duties of the Department.

Committee member Susan Horsfall testified that the presence of a media person with the Department helped to ameliorate concerns of media and the campaigns about the vote counting process, for the November, 1999 election. The use of video monitor screens todisplay citywide and precinct results on specific races also helped educate the public. The Department did not have a media spokesperson for the December, 1999 and March, 2000 elections, nor did it display results in the March, 2000 election. Horsfall added that the use of the portal next to the computers (which count the vote) was inadequate to provide the public, media and campaigns with access to observe the process.

Recommendations:

To improve confidence in the integrity of the vote counting process by the public, media and campaigns, the CACE recommends the following:

The Department develop election day policies and procedures (in consultation with the media and campaigns) and review them with stakeholder community groups prior to the election. The plan should include consideration of:

a. The use of video camera monitors within the Department so that the need for in-person visual observation of vote counting is minimized;

b. Posting video monitoring screens in large central areas accessible to the media, Campaigns, and public where live video, of the vote counting process and updated election results are visible;

c. Upon request, conducting pre-arranged tours for a predetermined number ofstaff from each interested campaign, members of the media, and the public (as possible) for regular and orderly tours of Department facilities on election night; and

d. Regular media and campaign briefings during the course of election night, with appropriate levels of staffing to avoid frustration and confusion.

J. Voter Turnout Evaluation and Enhancement Plan.

Committee member Christopher Bowman testified that voter turnout is substantially below the City-wide average among tens of thousands of San Francisco voters including students and younger voters, the poor (renters, those living in public housing and Single Room Occupancy hotel rooms, and the homeless), and new citizens and voters with limited English skills. The Committee received inconclusive testimony on the causes of lower voter turnout. The disparity may be caused by a need to clean outdated voter files from the voter rolls, or a preoccupation by some potential voters to meet the basic necessities of life or with one's career. Additionally, there may be problems with the current (as well as future) voting systems among voters less technologically inclined or functionally illiterate.

Until more studies have been conducted, targeted efforts to increase voter turnout among some voter constituencies will not be fully effective.

Recommendations:

To increase voter turnout, the CACE recommends the following:

1. The Department take all possible and legal measures to clean up the voter rolls, and develop comprehensive, ongoing procedures to maintain and update the voter rolls.

2. The Department contract with a research firm to survey registered San Francisco voters who have participated in less than half of the elections in the past years, as well as students and younger voters, the poor, and new citizens and voters with limited English skills to determine the causes for low voter turnout and make recommendations to the Department, Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor on how to increase voter turnout.

3. Identify those communities and precincts that have low registration and turnout rates and target resources to increase registration and turnout rates in such communities.

4. Provide information about these below rates registration and turnout rate communities and precincts to organizations that can work with the Department of Elections to increase their rates of registration and turnout.

5. The Department's budget include funds to purchase promotional items, such as "I voted today" buttons/stickers, and other motivational tools to inform voters of upcoming elections and increase voter participation.

6. The broadcast of a public service announcement on local radio and television stations prior to the twenty-nine day close and election day reminding the public to register to vote, and to vote respectably, may be a valuable tool in stimulating greater turn out.

For the City and County of San Francisco OVERVIEW BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIVE SCOPE AND PROCESS FACTS, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.CENTRALIZE DOE OPERATIONS FACTS For the City and County of San Francisco A Report of the 2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury For the City and County of San Francisco IMPROVING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF DEMOCRACY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS AND THE CONDUCT OF THE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2002 ELECTIONS Released May 28, 2003 Reports of the Civil Grand Jury do not identify the individuals interviewed, pursuant to California Penal Code sec. 929. The California Legislature intended this provision to encourage full candor and cooperation by City and County personnel. Parties identified in this report must respond to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within the number of days specified, with a copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. As to each finding of the Grand Jury, the response must either (1) agree with the finding, or (2) disagree with it, wholly or partially, and explain why. Further, as to each recommendation made by the Grand Jury, the responding party must report either (1) that the recommendation has been implemented, with a summary explanation of how it was implemented; (2) the recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation; (3) the recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of that analysis and a timeframe for the officer or agency head to be prepared to discuss it (not exceeding six months from the release of this Report); or (4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation of why that is. (Cal. Penal Code, secs. 933, 933.05.) IMPROVING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF DEMOCRACY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS AND THE CONDUCT OF THE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2002 ELECTIONS OVERVIEW The San Francisco Department of Elections must: “. . . conduct all public federal, state, district and municipal elections in the City and County . . . . [This includes] voter registration; the nomination and filing process for candidates to City and County offices; the preparation and distribution of voter information materials; ballots, precinct operations and vote count; the prevention of fraud in such elections; and the recount of ballots in cases of challenge or fraud.” (San Francisco Charter, sec. 13.104.) After the most comprehensive Civil Grand Jury observation of a San Francisco election known, in terms of precincts visited and functions observed, the Grand Jury found that, overall, the Department of Elections (DOE) did a competent and effective job in the November and December 2002 elections. The widely noted previous difficulties with security and ordering far too many ballots had been addressed and the post-election processing of ballots and canvassing of votes was efficient and professionally handled. The Grand Jury concluded, nonetheless, that DOE operations should be modified in several respects in order to improve efficiency, enhance the transparency or visibility of the election process for observers, and ensure the guarantee of a secret ballot for every voter.1 Summary of Recommendations 1. Centralize the operations of the Department of Elections into one facility. 2. Improve poll worker training. 3. Ensure prompt delivery of generic ballots to precincts that are running out. 4. Correct the imbalance between staffing usage and budget. 5. Ensure the secrecy of votes on absentee ballots. 1 Several additional aspects of DOE’s conduct of the November and December 2002 elections were of concern to the Grand Jury. Although no specific recommendations are made with respect to the following, the Grand Jury calls them to the attention of DOE. • In the November 2002 election, the Eagle optical scanner frequently rejected the third of the four ballot cards when inserted face up, top first. Until alerted to reinsert the card in a different orientation, precinct workers spoiled the ballots and gave the voter a new set of ballot cards, a proper response, but unnecessary and time-consuming. As of December 2002, ES&S, the company that supplies the Eagle scanner, had no explanation for the problem. • The ballot cards required by the Eagles scanner are large and cumbersome. One box of 200 ballot cards weighs 22 pounds. In November 2002, when the ballot consisted of four cards, one initial set of ballots for a precinct weighed 88 pounds. The weight was a problem for some poll workers and even for the deputy sheriffs who sometimes had to use hand trucks to carry all of the voted ballots from the precincts after the polls closed. For this and other reasons, the CGJ suggests that DOE reconsider its use of the Eagle scanning equipment. • Signage was inadequate at locations in which two precincts voted. Many voters stood in long lines at one poll workers’ table waiting to receive a ballot, only to find that his or her precinct was served by a different table in the same room. To achieve these goals, the Grand Jury recommends that DOE: 1. Centralize election processing at a single location. 2. Improve the training of poll workers. 3. Provide for prompt delivery of generic ballots to polling places for use when needed until precinct specific ballots can be delivered. 4. Create an organizational structure that will permit DOE to operate within budget from year to year and still meet the fluctuations in staff needs that increase significantly during election times and decrease between elections. 5. Ensure the secrecy of absentee ballots by use of blank inner envelopes. BACKGROUND Running an election in the City and County of San Francisco requires staffing of more than 600 voting places (611 in the November 5, 2002, election). Sites must be located, precinct workers recruited and trained for each precinct. Voter information pamphlets and sample ballots must be prepared and distributed. In advance of the election, voting machines must be tested, and deputy sheriffs must be assigned and coordinated to pick up voted ballots for transport to the holding facility after the polls close. Ballots and equipment must be transported to each site. Poll workers must arrive before 8:00 am. to set up the polling place, register voters as they arrive, supply voters with ballots, and assist as necessary. They must post and update hourly a list of voters registered in the precinct who have voted. Once the polls close at 8:00 p.m., poll workers must remove the memory pack from the Eagle scanner for pick up and transport to an up-link facility by a Parking and Traffic officer. Voted ballots must be removed from the Eagle scanners and readied for transport to a holding facility. Poll workers must also reconcile the number of unused ballots remaining with the number delivered to the precinct and the number used, after which they must take down the voting booths and ready the equipment for later pick up. Provisional ballots2 and those absentee ballots that have been dropped off at a polling place must be delivered to the DOE offices in City Hall. Workers at the DOE officers must tabulate ballots, adjudicate provisional and challenged ballots, validate, open and record votes in absentee ballots, and finally canvass and certify the election. Between elections DOE must maintain voter rolls that are as current as possible. 2 As discussed in greater detail below, provisional ballots are used when a voter claims to be properly registered, but his or her “qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be immediately established upon examination of the index of registration for the precinct[.]” (Cal. Elections Code, sec. 14310(a).) INVESTIGATIVE SCOPE AND PROCESS Members of the 2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury began their observation of the November 2002 election well before Election Day. They attended poll worker training sessions and familiarized themselves with operations in the City Hall offices of DOE and at Pier 29 to which voted ballots were taken for temporary storage after the close of polls. On Election Day, November 5, 2002, members of the Grand Jury observed 100 precincts out of 611 (16.37%) in San Francisco, in 108 separate visits. On the night of November 5, 2002, members of the Grand Jury accompanied deputy sheriffs, observing procedures during voting and after the polls closed. They observed the closing of polling places, verification of the vote count, and the collection of ballots. They also observed the collection and handling of ballots all night at Pier 29. Members of the Grand Jury also observed operations in 26 of 128 (20.3%) of the precincts in which run off elections were conducted on December 10, 2002. Following Election Day, members of the Grand Jury observed the transfer of voted ballots from Pier 29 to Brooks Hall and City Hall. For eleven consecutive days afterward, members of the Grand Jury observed ballot processing at City Hall, including adjudication of several thousand provisional votes, the remaking of damaged ballot cards, and the adjudication of attempted absentee ballots. Concurrently, members of the Grand Jury observed the canvassing operations at Brooks Hall. Seven employees (officials and staff) of DOE were interviewed over the December 2002-January 2003 period. In addition, the Grand Jury reviewed the relevant sections of the California Elections Code and relevant portions of governing City laws, DOE’s training materials, and a September 2002 report by Strategica, which had undertaken a comprehensive study of DOE for the Elections Commission. FACTS, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CENTRALIZE DOE OPERATIONS FACTS • Currently, DOE operates in and from six different facilities during an election period: a. City Hall • Administration • Voter services, including maintenance of voter files • Campaign services • Phone bank • Recruiting of temporary employee poll workers • Procurement of polling places • Staging and handling of absentee ballots b. Brooks Hall • Absentee voter packet assembly • Ballot canvassing • Temporary storage of voted ballots c. Pier 29 • Receipt of voted ballots, signed rosters, and all other materials after polls close • Storage of some supplies • Note: DOE must vacate Pier 29 by Spring 2004 d. Cor-o-Van Storage (a private storage facility in San Francisco) • Storage of Eagle voting machines, booths, tables, etc. • Logic and accuracy testing of Eagle machines3 e. 240 Van Ness Avenue • Pick up of ballots before Election Day by Inspectors • Assembly of rosters, ballots, and supplies to be picked up by inspectors • Storage of extra ballots4 • Note: This facility has been condemned by the City for unsafe wiring f. Simba (a private storage company in Alameda County) • Storage of voted, canceled, or spoiled ballots and certain other matters (22 months post election for any election that includes federal offices; six months for all others. California Election Code, secs. 17301-17302.) • City law mandates that a deputy sheriff be present every time voted ballots are moved or handled until an election is certified. (San Francisco Charter, sec. 13.104.5.) Therefore, when ballots are moved from Pier 29 to Brooks Hall and City Hall, as necessarily happens the morning after Election Day, a deputy sheriff convoy must transfer them. This law was not complied with on all occasions on which ballots were moved during the November 2002 election process.5 • When a worker in one location is needed at another, the worker is out of service while traveling, thus delaying the election process while the worker is in transit. • Observers, some representing campaigns, others simply interested citizens, watch the election processes in San Francisco. They are unable to observe the entire election process because DOE operations are scattered throughout the City. Even within City Hall, DOE operations are scattered among several rooms and cannot be efficiently observed. • Strategica, an outside consultant, conducted an audit of the operations and structure of DOE and made the following recommendations: o Close and/or vacate 240 Van Ness Avenue, Pier 29, Cor-o-Van Storage, and Brooks Hall. o Retain, but modify, DOE usage of City Hall (to limit the use to campaign and candidate service and early voting), and Simba Storage (until comparable space can be located in the City or on the Peninsula). o Open an Elections Operations Center, possibly at 945 Bryant Street, identified in the report as the most promising site located so far by the City’s Real Estate Management office. This location would accommodate election administration, including voter services, recruiting and outreach, warehousing supplies and voting machines, processing and provide staging areas to handle ballots, supplies, and voting equipment. 3 This testing occurs in aisles of the non-secured storage facility. 4 The cost of bringing it up to code has been estimated in excess of $130,000. 5 A typical journey of an absentee ballot arriving at City Hall might be as follows: (1) it arrives with hundreds of other ballots from the U.S. Postal Service; (2) it is taken into one room in the basement and sorted by precinct, counted, the envelope examined for compliance with the election law, the envelope opened, and the ballot extracted from the envelope; (3) it is taken into another room in the DOE offices for automated counting by employees of ES&S, the company that makes the Eagle optical scanners; (4) if rejected by the Eagle scanner due to improper or unreadable marks, the ballot is taken to Room 081 where it is remade, that is, a duplicate ballot is made by DOE employees so as to reflect the voter’s original intent if that is discernible; (5) if remade, the new ballot is taken back to the automated counting room and scanned by the machine. Provisional ballots could make the same number of journeys within the basement of City Hall, each requiring a Sheriff escort and creating a period in which the process may not be visible to observers. (Strategica, “Organizational and Facilities Review, City and County of San Francisco Department of Elections,” September 30, 2002.) FINDINGS 1. Spreading election operations over six main facilities is both undesirable and inefficient. Ballots are handled and moved more often than necessary. 2. Failure to centralize DOE election processing reduces the transparency of the processing by making it difficult or impossible for citizens to observe all aspects of the post-balloting procedure, which they have the right to do. 3. Consolidation of DOE operations into a single facility would reduce the costs of Sheriff-provided security, ballot transportation, facilities management, and the expense of temporary employees, would eliminate the need to renovate 240 Van Ness Avenue, and would largely satisfy the need created by the ejection from Pier 29. 4. The findings in the September 30, 2002 Strategica report are well founded. RECOMMENDATION 1. The City should identify and secure a single site for consolidation of DOE operations. REQUIRED RESPONSES Department of Elections – 60 days Board of Supervisors – 90 days Elections Commission – 60 days Office of Real Estate Division – 60 days Office of the Mayor – 60 days City Administrator – 60 days 2. IMPROVE TRAINING OF POLL WORKERS FACTS • Members of the Grand Jury observed a wide variance among procedures followed at the polling places visited on November 5, 2002. Three such procedures were the handling of provisional voters, the use of secrecy sleeves, and the handling of voted ballot cards. • Many precincts were well run by efficient, knowledgeable, and courteous officials. In others, however, officials were unaware of basic procedures, among them: o Knowing when, and when not, to use a provisional ballot. o Obtaining the voter’s identification for use of a provisional ballot. o Updating the voter index hourly o Closing procedures, including running tallies of the contest with the Eagle onboard computers, posting the tape at the polling place, proper use of seals and bags for return of supplies and ballots, and filling out the final tally form (Ballot Card Statement) supplied by DOE. • In some precincts, officials – including some inspectors – were absent for as long as two hours. • California Elections Code specifies that the voter is to hand his or her voted ballot to a poll worker who must then remove the numbered stubs from the cards and return the stubs to the voter, after which the worker is to deposit the ballot into the ballot box (or, presumably, the Eagle optical scanner) in the presence of the voter. (Cal. Elections Code, sec. 14293.) In a majority of precincts observed, the voter inserted the ballot cards into the Eagle scanner. In some a poll worker did so. In others, both procedures were observed. • For the November 5, 2002, election, DOE offered 121 classes for five different categories of Election Day workers: new clerks, experienced clerks, new inspectors, experienced inspectors, and high school students. These classes were offered from October 3 through November 3, 2002, and were taught by 15 different trainers. Twelve classes were held on November 2, 2002, for both experienced and new field election deputies (FEDs).6 • Members of the Grand Jury attended two training sessions for functions to be performed on Election Day by workers with different levels of experience. The quality of training differed markedly. One trainer simply invited questions of the participants. The other appeared to follow a specific lesson plan. • In the training sessions observed by members of the Grand Jury, poll workers were encouraged to “think pink” when in doubt as to how to handle a voter whose name did not appear on the precinct roster— that is, to permit the voter to cast a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are placed in a pink envelope and require special handling by DOE after Election Day. The only clear message to the poll workers in one session was that it is better to permit a person to vote provisionally than to make the voter uncomfortable by advising him or her to try to get to the voter’s proper polling place.7 • In the November 2002 election, 10,324 provisional ballots (4.6% of all 225,102 ballots) were cast. Provisional ballots are placed in a pink envelope that must be signed by the voter. In addition to use by voters who claim to be properly registered in the precinct but whose names do not appear on the index of voters for the precinct, provisional ballots may be used by “fail safe” voters, those who have moved within the same county, but who have not yet registered to vote at their new address. (Cal. Elections Code, sec. 14311(a).) In the latter circumstance, the voter may vote at the voter’s new precinct upon showing proper current proof of address. • Provisional ballots require individual adjudication in which a DOE employee compares the signature on the pink envelope to the voter’s signature on file, uses a computer to attempt to identify the voter, determines whether and where the voter is registered, and determines which ballot type the voter should have used according to the voter’s current residential address. The computer system then decides whether the ballot type used and that which the voter should have used are sufficiently similar to permit the ballot to be counted. If the ballot type is not sufficiently similar or included more contests than the voter’s correct ballot type would have offered, the ballot is not counted. Provisional ballots also are not counted if the identity of the voter cannot be determined, if the pink envelope is not signed, if the envelope is not sealed, if no residential address is provided, or if correct identification was not offered when required. • Of 10,324 provisional ballots cast in November 2002, 6,136 were eventually accepted, while 4,188 were challenged and were not counted. Of the rejected provisional ballots, the single largest cause for rejection was that the voter used the wrong ballot type (1,247 or 29.53%), with improper use of the “fail-sale” provision as the next largest cause of rejection (1,056 or 25.3%). • DOE personnel recognize that improved training of poll workers is needed to speed the post-election processing of the canvass and certification process, minimize the use of improper provisional ballots, and reduce voter disenfranchisement. • The need for improved training has been noted in Civil Grand Jury reports issued in 1998, 2001, and 2002. • In developing the training to be offered to poll workers, DOE has not consulted all DOE divisions that are affected by poll worker mistakes. In particular, the divisions that do the most work in the days after an election have not been invited to contribute content that might streamline the post-election process. • Voters may not show a marked ballot to anyone in such a way as to reveal its content, and election workers must take care not to disclose the content. (Cal. Elections Code, secs. 14277, 14291.)8 To that end, blue “secrecy sleeves” were provided to each polling place to help voters maintain the secrecy of their voted ballots. In the majority of the precincts observed by members of the Grand Jury, secrecy sleeves were not being used and many voted ballot cards were reasonably visible to observers (owing in large measure to the size of the ballots and the heavy marks required). In some precincts, the secrecy sleeves had not been unpacked from the bag of supplies furnished for the precinct; in some the sleeves were unpacked, but were not given to voters unless requested; in some the sleeves were automatically given with the set of ballot cards. • Poll workers were paid $87 for working on election days in 2002.9 They were given an additional $25 to attend a two-hour training session. Only inspectors and new clerks may be required to attend training. 6 FEDs supervise polling places during Election Day until 5:00 p.m. They visit the polling places in their assigned areas to inspect them, resolve problems, and deliver additional supplies or ballots when needed. 7 Forty-one different ballot types were used in San Francisco for the November 2002 election, owing to the various boundaries and intersections of Congressional district, county supervisorial districts, state assembly districts, and state senate districts. As explained elsewhere in this section, a vote cast provisionally using the wrong ballot type might not be counted. FINDINGS 1. The training given poll workers has a direct impact, positive or negative, on the processing, canvassing, and certification of an election during the several days after an election prior to certification. 2. One negative impact of inadequate training is in the default to use of provisional ballots rather than assisting voters in identifying their correct precinct and its location. The number of provisional ballots cast creates a logjam of thousands of unnecessary provisional ballots that must be individually adjudicated and heightens the possibility of accidental voter disenfranchisement. 3. The wide variety of poll worker conduct observed by members of the Grand Jury, as in the disparate treatment of secrecy sleeves and voted ballots prior to insertion into the Eagle scanner, and the use of provisional ballots, reflects inadequate training and a lack of understanding on the part of poll workers as to what the proper procedures are. 4. This lack of understanding leads to otherwise avoidable delay in certifying an election and causes extra work for DOE personnel in the days following the election. 5. Poll workers lack adequate incentive to attend training sessions. Workers who already have a promise of $87 may value the prospect of an additional $25 as less valuable and thus less enticing than a promise of $112 for the entire election. 8 Cal. Elections Code, section 14291: “After the ballot is marked, a voter shall not show it to any person in such a way as to reveal its contents.” (Italics added.) Section 14277 provides that “the voter shall hand the . . . envelope containing that ballot to a precinct board members, who shall remove the ballot stub, hand it to the voter, and deposit the ballot in the ballot container [now presumably the Eagle optical scanner].” If the ballot is to be transferred from the envelope to the ballot container, care shall be taken not to disclose the markings of the voter on the ballot.” (Italics added.) 9 The $87 payment is compensation for a work day that, in many cases, exceeds 14 hours. Based only on 14 hours, this amounts to payment of roughly $6.21 per hour. The California minimum wage currently is $6.75 per hour. Inadequate compensation may be one reason DOE finds it difficult to recruit and retain competent poll workers. RECOMMENDATIONS 2a. Training should be improved with the goal of minimizing the load on DOE personnel in processing provisional ballots and eliminating accidental disenfranchisement of voters. 2b. DOE should invite all divisions to participate in the design of training programs to ensure that training of poll workers will be adequate to minimize post-election inefficiencies and problems resulting from poll worker error. 2c. Prospective poll workers should be informed that their compensation, including training, will be $112, from which $25 will be deducted for missing the training session. REQUIRED RESPONSES Department of Elections – 60 days Elections Commission – 60 days 3. ENSURE PROMPT DELIVERY OF GENERIC BALLOTS TO ANY PRECINCT AWATING ADDITIONAL BALLOTS FACTS • In the November 2002 election, some precincts ran out of ballots before closing time, and of those, one was not be resupplied before the polls closed. (That precinct reported being “low” on ballots, but never out of them.) • In November 2002, 41 different ballot types were used in San Francisco. • In addition to the ballots prepared for use in precinct polling places, generic ballots are ordered for use at City Hall and for emergency purposes. Generic ballots do not include the pre-printed precinct numbers, and are thus usable for any precinct using that same ballot type. • Precinct workers are instructed to call into DOE on Election Day to report problems such as an imminent shortage of ballots. • In November elections, after 5:00 p.m., FEDs are no longer available to resupply precincts with ballots. • The greatest need for additional ballots arises in the final hours of an election, when the deputy sheriff responsible for picking up voted ballots from the precinct at the close of voting is available.10 FINDINGS 1. The possibility that a precinct might run out of ballots after 5:00 p.m. could be avoided if the responsible deputy sheriff carried a supply of extra ballots for prompt delivery to the precinct. 2. It would be impractical and expensive to provide each deputy with a supply of precinct-specific ballots for each precinct in his or her assigned area, therefore, each deputy could carry a supply of generic ballots for possible use at any precinct using that ballot type. RECOMMENDATION 3. DOE should provide each deputy sheriff assigned to Election Day precinct closing duties with a supply of generic ballots for delivery to precincts in his or her assigned area after 5:00 p.m. pending receipt of precinct-specific ballots from DOE. REQUIRED RESPONSES Department of Elections – 60 days Elections Commission – 60 days Sheriff – 60 days 4. CORRECT IMBALANCE BETWEEN STAFFING USAGE AND BUDGET FACTS • As of early December 2002, DOE had only 11 full-time employee positions filled out of 24.75 budgeted (44%). • In a March 2002 report, the Budget Analyst of the Board of Supervisors stated that DOE had spent 38 percent ($534,144) less on permanent positions than had been budgeted ($1,404,144), but had overspent on temporary salaries by 239 percent (estimated expenditure of $3,050, 278 in fiscal year 2001-2002, compared to the $900,000 originally budgeted). • DOE staffing has been largely seasonal because elections are held in March, November, and, if necessary, in December. DOE hires approximately 125 temporary employees for several weeks prior to an election and for two to three weeks thereafter. • Necessary work of DOE continues throughout the year. This work includes maintenance of voter rolls (identified as a problem in Civil Grand Jury Reports for 1997-1998, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002), preparation of Voter Information Pamphlets, campaign services, approval of voter registration drives, processing of petitions, voter outreach, and other duties. 10 The Grand Jury notes the high level of knowledge, professionalism, and efficiency of San Francisco deputy sheriffs and of the officers of the Department of Parking and Traffic in executing their duties at and after the closing of the polls. Deputy sheriffs, in particular were very helpful in some precincts at which the inspector did not know the procedure for counting and reconciling ballot totals. The deputies (who oversee the sealing of the ballots and collect the supplies) and the Parking and Traffic officers (who collect the Eagle computer memory packs and deliver them to uplink centers around the City) did an outstanding job in both the November 2002 general election and the December 2002 run-off election. FINDINGS 1. An efficient and cost-effective organization structure for DOE does not currently exist. Temporary staff is overused and performs duties that would be performed more efficiently by permanent employees. 2 DOE is understaffed in permanent positions for which there is an existing budget, which in turn causes over-expenditure for overtime and temporary positions. 3. Creating an optimal organizational structure and hiring to fill positions within it would increase efficiency in between-election work that DOE is mandated by law to perform. RECOMMENDATION 4. DOE should identify the amount and types of work that should be performed by permanent employees, hire additional permanent employees to fill those positions, and eliminate the imbalance between understaffing for budgeted permanent positions and overspending for temporary employees. REQUIRED RESPONSES Department of Elections – 60 days Elections Commission – 60 days Department of Human Resources – 60 days Controller – 60 days City Administrator – 60 days Mayor of San Francisco – 60 days Board of Supervisors – 90 days 5. ENSURE SECRECY OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS FACTS • In the November 2002 election, 65,457 absentee ballots (29% of all ballots) were cast. • The percentage of absentee ballots increases in each election. • In San Francisco, an absentee ballot is placed directly into the return envelope, which the absentee voter must sign. The envelope also has a label with the voter’s name and address printed on it. • Upon receipt at DOE, the signature on the absentee ballot envelope is compared to the voter’s signature on file (Cal. Elections Code, sec. 3019), and the voter is noted on the computerized database as having voted. Properly submitted ballots are then sorted by precinct.11 • Bins of sorted absentee ballots are then opened by a worker who slides the top of the envelope through a slicing machine and then extracts the ballot from the envelope and stacks them. The envelopes are retained and later counted as a double-check on the number received and counted. Ballots are eventually delivered to automated scanning machines in the DOE offices. FINDINGS 1. The secrecy of an absentee vote is compromised when a DOE worker simultaneously handles both the envelope on which the voter’s identity is revealed and the voter’s plainly marked ballot. 2. This potential for violation of a voter’s expectation of secrecy is heightened in San Francisco, where the size of the ballot cards makes the clear marking of the vote easily readable.12 3. The current San Francisco procedure for submission of absentee ballots does not ensure secrecy as mandated by the Elections Code. 4. Secrecy can be maintained by the use of a blank envelope within which a completed ballot can be placed before insertion into the signed, labeled mailing envelope. After inspection and approval of the signature on the mailing envelope, the inner envelope containing the ballot can be separated from the mailing envelope for further processing. 11 If a voter’s absentee ballot is received more than approximately ten days prior to the election, the fact that the voter has already voted will be noted in the voter roster at the precinct polling place. If the voter has requested an absentee ballot, that fact also will be noted in the roster and the voter will have to surrender the absentee ballot before being allowed to vote, or will have to cast a provisional ballot. 12 The Grand Jury has no reason to believe, and does not suggest, that any DOE worker has improperly attempted to discern a particular person’s vote. RECOMMENDATION 5. DOE should provide a blank inner envelope in the materials supplied to voters with an absentee ballot, with instructions to place the completed ballot in the blank envelope, which should then be inserted in the outer, signed envelope. REQUIRED RESPONSES Department of Elections – 60 days Elections Commission – 60 days The Members of the 2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury For the City and County of San Francisco Jane R. Brady William J. Bush Jess Centeno Henry Cohen Clement D. DeAmicis Rosemary DeGregorio Patricia Glynn Susan Hirsch Ross W. Hoffman Stephen T. Jacobs George E. Kloves Richard P. Matthews Jack L. McNulty Susan M. O’Connor Mary A. Powell, Foreperson Inez K. Scourkes Arlene K. Singer Joanna B. Warrens Pauline Walker

By whose Authority?
Housing agency's pre-election activities raise eyebrows
By Lucia Hwang and Summi Kaipa
GWENN CRAIG COULD hardly believe her eyes, or ears, when she arrived at around 6:50 p.m. election night at the polling place inside the Potrero Terrace public housing development's offices. Craig, a volunteer poll watcher with the Ammiano campaign, said that not only did the office right across the street have a big Willie Brown sign up in front – in violation of election laws – but Brown slogans were blasting from loudspeakers outside.

"It was deafening," Craig said. "I could hear it from inside the polling place. 'Come vote for Willie Brown,' they said. 'Willie Brown cares about you. We need Willie Brown.' "

After the polls closed at 8 p.m., Craig said, she saw the sound equipment being moved into the Housing Authority's offices.

Craig's experience is just one story among many that suggest that the San Francisco Housing Authority was participating in Brown's reelection efforts. State election laws bar public agencies from using resources for political campaigning.

Agency staffers enthusiastically organized get-out-the-vote activities: they shuttled public housing residents to City Hall to vote early, offered them free lunches, and held raffles for participants. One flyer advertising those services bore the phone number of the Housing Authority's North Beach office.

There's nothing illegal about offering people incentives to vote. But residents and other observers say the Housing Authority did not stay neutral, but made it clear it expected those who participated to vote for Brown.

Carl Williams, general counsel for the Housing Authority, said the agency did encourage residents to register and vote, but he denies the agency went any further. "The Housing Authority did not as an organization, as far as I know, organize get-out-the-vote activities," Williams said. "Now, many housing authority employees and residents may have, on their own time, organized these activities."

When asked about the flyer listing the agency's office number, Williams replied, "That should not have been, and may have been inappropriate. Somebody may have put that number on there. We could not, should not, have been involved in that level of activity. We have no idea where that [flyer] came from."

At the public housing development on Hunters Point Hill, poll workers told voters that those who voted for Brown should take their stubs to the agency's offices to collect free fried chicken and movie passes, according to Marie Harrison, an Ammiano campaign organizer who was poll watching in that precinct.

"They weren't exactly telling people how to vote, but they were saying, 'If you voted for Willie, go around the corner,' " Harrison told us.

Harrison said she also witnessed drivers of the shuttles asking passengers how they voted. When one elderly resident refused to answer, Harrison said, the driver implied she wouldn't be receiving a ride home unless she complied.

"I got so pissed I got out of my car and said, 'I know you just didn't ask her who she voted for. This woman is old enough to be your mama,' " she said.

At the Sunnydale development, a resident who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting in trouble with the authority told us Brown campaigners harassed residents to vote. She said that campaigners visited one of her neighbors eight times and that they threatened to cause problems for some residents with unpaid back rent if they didn't vote.

"How would they know that kind of information [about back rent]?" she asked.

At the Westbrook housing project, according to reports, get-out-the-vote campaigners for Brown were even bolder. Theresa Coleman, a Westbrook resident and tenant activist, said security staff and laborers – who work for the Housing Authority – roamed the complex, berating residents who hadn't voted.

"They were yelling, 'Only thirty-eight motherfucking people voted. What's wrong with you black people?' " Coleman said. "It's intimidation."

Coleman said she was angered and saddened by the treatment public housing residents received: they were ignored throughout the campaign, then intimidated on Election Day.

"The whole thing was so messed up," Harrison said. "I was like, come on you guys, don't be so blatant, OK?"

Open and shut case?
In a further election impropriety, 12 percent of the boxes filled with ballots delivered to the Department of Elections were improperly sealed.

Bay Guardian reporters and Ammiano campaign volunteers noted numerous unlocked boxes at various points throughout the night. Volunteer and longtime election watcher Doug Comstock was perhaps the most successful at spotting the open boxes; he reported seeing 78.

But even Comstock didn't catch all of them. Naomi Nishioka, director of the Department of Elections, told us 83 boxes (of a total of 645) returned to city officials improperly secured. That's worse than November's general election, when Nishioka reported 65 boxes mishandled or unlocked.

"Anything that came back not sealed properly was set aside, the precinct numbers were written down, the box was thoroughly inspected, the ballots were counted and checked to make sure they matched up with the ballot statements," Nishioka told us. She said all the boxes checked out fine, and she blamed newly hired poll workers for the improprieties.

By way of comparison, ballots in Alameda County elections go through almost identical processes as those cast in San Francisco – but the county doesn't seem to have any problems. Jemma Arbas, who recruits poll workers for the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, told us, "We haven't had any boxes returned to us at the end of an Election Day that haven't been sealed during the ten years that I've worked here."

Institutional memory loss
If there was ever any doubt that the A. Philip Randolph Institute – which got in trouble during the election campaign by registering nonexistent people, deceased people, and noncitizens – was a wing of the Brown campaign, the last crumbs were dispelled for Pi Ra the Sunday before Election Day.

Ra, a Panhandle resident, said that as he rode his bike down McAllister past the Third Baptist Church just as services were letting out, he saw three Randolph Institute vans trying to park out front. A compact car directly across the street with a P.A. system installed on top advertised "free rides to City Hall for you to go vote for Willie."

"They didn't just say, 'Go out and vote,' " Ra said. "They said, 'Go out and vote for Willie. We have three vehicles for you. Vote for Mayor Brown.' "

Institute officials could not be reached for comment at press time.