MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTIONS WORK GROUP REPORT 2019_05_20.PDF

MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTIONS WORK GROUP REPORT
May 20, 2019
INTRODUCTION
On January 16, 2019, with the support of the County Recorder, the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors unanimously approved directing the County Manager to form a work group to gather
and compile information necessary to prepare a set of recommendations regarding the structure,
staffing and technology resources of the Elections Department. In a press release on the same date,
“Today’s vote comes after many months of discussion about how the Maricopa County Elections
Department can best serve the voters of our community,” said Recorder Adrian Fontes. “In
conjunction with the Board of Supervisors and the leadership of Chairman Gates, I look forward to a
top-to-bottom review of the needs of the department, including a state-of-the-art tabulation system
to better process ballots. Only through a complete assessment of all options for administration of
elections, and well formulated recommendations by the committee, will Maricopa County pave the
way for the future of this vital function of government.”
On January 29, the work group was formed with the following executive level members:
1. Laura Etter, Chief of Staff, District 3, Chairman’s Office
2. Joy Rich, County Manager
3. Mike McGee, Director of Internal Audit
4. Keely Varvel, Chief Deputy Recorder
5. Rey Valenzuela, Director of the Elections Department
6. Ed Winfield, Director of Office of Enterprise Technology
7. Jan Plank, Director of Human Resources
8. Kevin Tyne, Director of the Office of Procurement Services
9. Cindy Goelz, Director of the Budget Office
10. Valerie Beckett, Special Assistant to the County Manager
BACKGROUND
Since 2016, there has been concern over the County’s performance and capacity during large
federal elections. The complaints range from long wait times to questioning the integrity and
security of the process. Since the public views elections as a County responsibility rather than the
responsibility of one specific office or body, voter complaints and inquiries are sent to both the
County Recorder and to the voter’s respective County Supervisor.
In the Primary Election held on August 28, 2018, there were 62 polling places that were not fully
operational when the polls opened. This resulted in some voters being turned away from their
1

assigned polling location. The high voter turnout exacerbated logistical difficulties that resulted in
long voter wait times at some of the locations. To better understand what occurred during the
August 2018 Primary and to develop strategies to mitigate those issues in the November General
Election, the Board of Supervisors requested both internal and external resources to review and
assess the operation.
The Internal Audit Department released an interim report on September 21, 2018.
A consulting firm with elections experience was brought onboard in September. The consultant
released its capstone report on November 2, 2018.
Although there were fewer logisitical issues in the General Election, public concerns were voiced
regarding the length of time to achieve a final ballot count. The tabulation equipment in the
Elections Department was procured in 1998. The technology is outdated and limits processing
capacity. Other concerns were raised about emergency voting policies and practices.
From comments made during meetings held by the Board of Supervisors, County Supervisors
expressed concerns regarding the response or level of progress achieved in addressing those items
identified in the published reports. County Supervisors requested more transparency regarding the
planning and execution of election day activities which fall under their assigned statutory
responsibility.
APPROACH
The work group met weekly and members performed a considerable amount of work outside of the
formal meetings. Members began by gathering and sharing relevant information through published
material, site visits, conferring with experienced elections professionals both locally and in other
jurisdictions and engaging in open communication about this incredibly important project.
The work group:
 Reviewed current organizational structure, charter information, a legal summary of the
division of duties by statute between the Board of Supervisors and the Recorder’s Office,
election reports, current budget, equipment, technology, facilities, etc.
 Evaluated the functional areas that involve “hand-offs” between the Recorder’s Office and
Elections Department in the areas of voter registration, early ballot distribution, early voting,
signature verification, other ballot previewing, tabulation and verification of provisional
ballots.
 Toured and walked-through the current operations in Maricopa County.
 Conducted site visits and conference calls with other jurisdictions to gather information on
“lessons learned” and “best practices”.
2

In order to deliver the requested report in an expeditious manner, members had to prioritize critical
areas as well as the depth of focus for each of those areas. As such, there are areas and layers of
complexities at different phases of the operation which the members did not fully review, i.e.,
department policies and policy issues, sufficiency of training materials and delivery methods, ballot
building process steps, warehouse operations, and the process details handled by the third party
vendor. Members acknolwedge that the elections operations is complex. The complexity may even
increase with possible legislative changes. The elements of this report have been prepared with the
available information during the review period.
Summary of Key Areas of Statutory Responsibilities
Board of County Clerk of the
Supervisors Recorder Board
Voter registration, Nomination and
Uniformed & Overseas Election
Noticing of elections Citizens Absentee Voting certificates to
Act, updating voter rolls, officials
precinct registers
Designating & operating
election day polling Early voting (locations and Publishing
locations, providing operations) & proclamations
equipment, supplies, signature verification related to elections
booths, ballots, signage
Safeguard and ensure Provisional ballots &
accuracy of tabulation voter challenges
equipment
Chain of custody of
Appointing & training of equipment and ballots from
poll workers early voting through
provisional tabulation
Set location of tally &
certify election results
Special Districts
Charter Information
Through a resolution adopted November 23, 1955, the Board of Supervisors established the
Elections Department, appointed the department head and directed the department to dispatch the
legal responsibilities of the Board and the Recorder’s Office in conducting elections.
On October 6, 1975, the Recorder, the Board of Supervisors, and the Clerk of the Board agreed in
concept that all election related activities should be handled by a single department. The adopted
3

Elections Department Charter outlined that the Recorder, the Board, and the Clerk of the Board will
mutually appoint a Director of Elections. This charter established a shared reporting structure for
the Director of Elections. The director serves at the direction of the County Recorder, Clerk of the
Board or Board of Supervisors when performing the statutory responsibilities assigned to each of
those entities. Furthermore, the director will be responsible for all operational and administrative
matters within the Elections Department.
In May 1977, the Board and Clerk of the Board, possessing special trust and confidence in the
abilities of the County Recorder, did verbally appoint the Recorder to act operationally and
administratively on their behalf on all management matters concerning the Department of
Elections.
On August 21, 1978 the charter was amended and clarified that the Director of Elections serves at
the pleasure of the County Recorder.
On March 15, 1982 the charter was amended for the sole purpose of documenting the appointment
of a new Clerk of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Then again on February 19, 1985 the
charter was amended by having those current officers sign the document.
Current Processes and Shared Resources
During the review of departmental information involving processes, organizational structure,
budget, staffing, equipment, facilities and technology, the members noted that the level of shared
resources between the Recorder’s Office and the Elections Department is significant. This is
understandable considering the two offices have been operating as a single department for over 40
years.
The work group members requested to review operations manual(s), project plans, or any other
type of information available in order to learn more about the processes involved in executing
elections. Although an operations manual was not available, a detailed excel spreadsheet report was
shared with members that sets forth a timeline for election activities. A subgroup then depicted the
key elections functions in the chart below to visually display the timeline while also highlighting
which activities are currently managed by the Recorder’s Office, the Elections Department as well as
those that are shared or performed by staff from both offices interchangeably.
4

5

The members participated in an extensive tour and demonstration of the operation. Although
members were introduced to highly knowledgeable staff or subject matter experts (SMEs), those
processes and procedures have not been formally documented that would allow for a high-level
review. As a result, members requested that a process map of the functional areas be developed to
better delineate more specific timelines, statutory authority, hand-offs between the two offices and
the overall operational process at each phase. A consultant was selected and worked with staff from
the Recorder’s Office and the Elections Department the week of February 19-22. A final report was
presented to the work group on March 5.
As the work group members learned more about the operations, they determined it would be
important to highlight the Voter Registration Access System (VRAS). This is the central database that
is utilized by both the Recorder’s Office and the Elections Department throughout each election
cycle. The VRAS is central to several critical functions that involve both offices, i.e., real-time access
to updated voter registration information, the creation of polling maps, candidate filing for quarterly
financial reports, ballot preparation, polling location management with facility agreement forms, as
well as the database needed to generate various reports and lists that include: the bilingual
pollworker report, early voter information, military voter information, and the data needed by the
third-party vendor Runbeck. This vendor performs printing, distribution, packing and tracking of
official election ballots for both the Recorder’s Office and Elections Department.
It should be noted that real-time access to voter registration information in the VRAS database by
the Elections Department is credited with a lower number of provisional ballots being cast. In
counties where the Elections Department is a separate operation without real-time information, the
Recorder’s Office may take up to ten days to provide the voter registration lists. A.R.S. 16-168(A)
reads, “By the tenth day preceding the primary and general elections the county recorder shall
prepare from the original registration forms or from electronic media at least four lists that are
printed or typed on paper, or at least two electronic media poll lists, or any combination of both, of
all qualified electors in each precinct in the county and the lists shall be the official precinct
registers.”
Other shared resources that should be noted are: Geographic Information System (GIS) resources,
SiteBooks, Ballot on Demand printers, voting booths and other supplies, software licenses and
maintenance, information technology infrastructure and network, the recruiting, training and
payroll functions for board workers, pollworkers, individuals to conduct signature verification and
ballot duplication, vehicles, warehouse operations (storage, delivery, equipment maintenance),
office space and work rooms, website and call center.
Other Jurisdictions
6

Of the 15 Arizona counties, six (6) have their respective elections department report to the County
Manager or County Administrator. Five (5) of the county elections departments report directly to
the Board of Supervisors. With Yuma County Elections Services consolidating under the Recorder’s
Office in February 2019, four (4) counties, Maricopa, Coconino, Navajo and Yuma have the elections
department report to the County Recorder.
In order for the work group to gain a broader understanding of how other jurisdictions navigate
hand-offs between those statutory duties of the County Recorder and those of the Elections
Department, a tour with the Pima County Recorder and Elections Director was conducted February
26. On Friday, March 1, a conference call with the Yavapai Recorder and the Elections Department
was conducted with the work group. The information and table below provides a comparison and
some of the key items noted.
Comparison of Maricopa, Pima and Yavapai County Elections Information
Maricopa Pima Yavapai
Structure Elections reports Elections reports Elections reports
to Recorder to County Mgr to the Board*
Early vote centers transition to polling locations YES NO NO
(12 EV centers in 2018)
Elections has full access to voter registration
database** YES NO NO
Recorder & Elections share resources: warehouse,
equip., website, call center, staff, etc. YES NO YES
Separate budgets YES YES YES
Exchange of ballots or equip. between offices via
transmittal docs & verification counts by staff NO YES YES
Paper ballots & printed rosters used as back-up NO YES NO
Use ePollBooks
Existence of MOU*** NO NO NO
* Yavapai changed reporting structure in 2011 and reported that there were initial operational challenges.
** Lack of access to real-time updated voter registration information will likely result in an increase in provisional
ballots. Provisional ballots require more time to process.
*** Pima and Yavapai counties credit their success to daily communication and collaboration.
RECOMMENDATION SECTION
Per state statutes, the Board of Supervisors, the Clerk of the Board, and the County Recorder all
have designated responsibilities with respect to elections. For over four decades, the Board has
7

consolidated the Elections Department with the County Recorder’s Office through an adopted
charter. The reasons provided in the charter(s) were for economy, efficiencies and the public good.
The challenge for the work group is to recommend a structure that will most effectively serve the
needs of the voter. From discussions with other jurisdictions, the critical element is not to whom the
Elections Director reports, but a high-level of collaboration and daily communication. Both Pima and
Yavapai county officials respect that decisions made by one office, will impact the other, so both
must work cooperatively to ensure expectations are met.
The work group has been charged with gathering and reviewing available information to propose
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors in order to make Maricopa County elections “best in
class.” In discussing a recommended structure, all 10 work group members concur that:
1. THE VOTER EXPERIENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE VOTER IS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY.
2. BOTH THE COUNTY RECORDER AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALREADY SHARE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF DELIVERING WELL-EXECUTED ELECTIONS.
3. IN ORDER TO BE “BEST IN CLASS”, EFFICIENCIES MUST BE MAINTAINED, WASTE OR
DUPLICATIVE COSTS MUST BE AVOIDED, AND THERE MUST BE A HIGHLY COLLABORATIVE,
SUPPORTIVE CULTURE BETWEEN THE OFFICES.
STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS:
Since 1978, the Board of Supervisors has fully delegated those statutory responsibilities involving
elections to the County Recorder. The County Recorder selects an Elections Director to manage the
operations of the Elections Department. The Elections Director serves at the pleasure of the County
Recorder.
After reviewing the available information within the given time, the work group recommends:
1. Amend the Charter
a. Without abdicating any statutory responsibility, the Board of Supervisors and the
Clerk of the Board continues to grant administrative authority to the County Recorder
to perform the specific election-related duties of their collective office.
b. The charter should include additional detail outlining the Board’s expectations
regarding the execution of those delegated responsibilities, i.e., timing of
communications, election plans, status and after-action reports, and any
performance critieria for those election activities assigned by statute to the Board.
c. Furthermore, it is recommended the charter identify a shared reporting structure.
i. A shared reporting structure could be accomplished through a variety of ways.
This decision is best developed through negotiation and concurrence between
8

the County Recorder and the Board of Supervisors. The intent is to craft a
structure that will improve communication, transparency, accountability and
service delivery.
ii. The shared reporting structure proposed by the work group is to establish two
director-level positions. The scope of each position would be, to a great
extent, aligned with the assigned statutory responsibilities of each entity.
The members appreciate that operational level staff may not concern
themselves with the division of duties as outlined in statute, but rather have
developed systems and processes that support their efforts. By establishing a
structure with two directors whose areas more closely align with statutory
duties, this should facilitate a review of those systems and processes with a
focus on improving hand-offs and internal controls.
iii. Both positions would be selected through mutual agreement by the Board,
the Recorder and the Clerk of the Board. This mutual selection process is
intended to strengthen alignment between the three entities.
Below is a simple diagram to illustrate the executive level structure. The
director titles listed require further consideration.
iv. The “Director or Officer of Elections Services & Early Voting” would report to
the County Recorder. Those assigned duties would largely fall under those
statutory responsibilities of the County Recorder.
v. With the Board granting authority to the County Recorder to oversee
elections activities under their purview, the “Director or Officer of Election
Day & Emergency Voting” would have a shared or dual reporting structure.
Meaning, the director would receive executive level direction from the County
Recorder while keeping the Board apprised of operational planning and
9

decisions in so far as how those may impact those election activities assigned
in statute to the Board.
The expectation is that the two directors would work in tandem to bridge any
process and communication gaps in order to provide the best level of service
to the voter. Considering both the importance and immense scope of
delivering well-executed elections in the fourth largest county, the work
group believes this proposed structure is appropriate at this time and allows
for the following:
 Sharing of knowledge and responsibility between the entities
 Maintaining efficiencies, e.g., early vote centers transitioning to
polling locations and recruiting and training of 4,000+ temporary
election workers for both early and election day voting activities
 Seamless transfer and deployment of resources, e.g., staff, VRAS
database, GIS, SiteBooks, Ballot on Demand printers, warehouse, etc.
2. Execute a mutually negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
a. Beyond those statutory duties and expectations, the MOU should clarify the
management of shared resources.
Below is a list highlighting a few of the benefits and potential risks identified by members
regarding this recommendation.
Benefits of a Potential Risks of a
Shared Reporting Structure Shared Reporting Structure
 Continue having one central point-of-contact for  Necessitates full support and responsive
the public communication from both the Board and
 Maintain those efficiencies developed County Recorder
 Allows for seamless hand-offs and thus mitigates  Director level staff made by mutual
operational failures selection must have the ability to
 Avoids duplicative costs in splitting resources
effectively partner and embrace their roles
 Enhances communication between the two entities
as one team, otherwise working
 Provides the Board with increased oversight to the
relationships between staff and service
planning and execution of areas that fall under
their statutory responsibility delivery to the voters may be adversely
 Administration of elections would involve impacted
representatives from multiple political parties  Inconsistent messaging with two separate
 Allows for smooth transition after 40+ years public information offices
of operating as a single department  MOU may require significant time to
 Helps ensure resource needs are better identified develop and may not identify all
and met for election activities interdependencies which may delay
10

 The 2020 Elections Calendar not drastically decision making while MOU is being
impacted negotiated
 Turnover of experienced leadership staff
Due to the level of support needed from both the County Recorder and the Board of Supervisors in
order to achieve a successful, highly collaborative shared reporting structure, the work group
believed it is important for the Board to be aware of an alternate recommendation. If there is not
sufficient support for a shared reporting structure, the members concur there must be a higher level
of involvement from the Board. Therefore, the alternative proposal is to retain the current reporting
structure of the Elections Director reporting to the County Recorder with three additional elements:
1. Amend the charter with specific timelines and expectations of the Board related to elections
plans, reports and performance for those statuatory areas of responsibilities.
2. Embed an administrator, who is selected by the Board, to partner with the Elections
Director. The administrator, serving as an independent observer, would report only to the
Board and would keep the County Supervisors apprised of the election efforts that fall under
their areas of statutory responsibility. As needed and with the support of the Recorder, the
administrator may also assist with large scale improvement projects.
3. Execute a mutually negotiated MOU detailing the accounting of shared resources.
STAFFING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Conduct an independent staffing analysis to evaluate the workload and the required skill-set
needed for each position. (In progress)
2. Funding for new staff positions should be held in contingency until the analysis is completed.
Based on past projects, it is believed the analysis could be completed by August 2019.
TECHNOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS:
SiteBooks, Tabulation Equipment, Voter Registration System (VRAS), Software
1. The SiteBooks provide essential functions for the elections process and should continue to
be used as a fundamental component of the overall elections technology platform.
o Given that the SiteBooks are custom-developed, the Elections department
should insure that documentation and systems updates for all software,
hardware, configuration, etc. is current and archived appropriately.
o The software used on the SiteBooks should be secured and controlled with an
appropriate quality control process.
11

o For each election, the final configuration and setup for an intended election
should go through a full security review.
2. The current tabulation system is outdated. Newer technology affords the ability to have a
greater flexibility with ballot styles, streamlines the adjudication process, and performs the
central count activities at a much faster rate. The County should obtain new tabulation
equipment as soon as possible.
o A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been released and a vendor selection is targeted for
June 2019.
3. The VRAS database serves a critical function for both the Recorder and the Elections
department. Regardless of decisions as to the reporting of the Elections department to the
Recorder or the Board of Supervisors, both offices should maintain real-time access to the
VRAS database.
o Given that the VRAS database is custom-developed, the Recorder/Elections IT
department should insure that documentation for all software, configuration,
etc. is up to date and archived appropriately.
o The database software should be secured and controlled with an appropriate
code management process and quality control process. This will be very
important to ensure that any software updates are fully reviewed and can
demonstrate full security on the software in the event of an audit.
4. Several of the key components of the Elections technology platform have been custom
developed by the Recorder/Elections IT department. These tools have been fundamental to
the execution of elections in the County. However, there is inherent risk in custom-
developed software and systems and the Elections department should consider the following
guidelines:
o Ensure that all software, hardware, configurations, etc. are properly documented and
archived.
o Backup resources to the system developers should be identified and trained in the
system structures, coding and platforms.
o Commercial systems should be evaluated as a replacement any time a major upgrade
to the existing customer tools is required. While commercial systems have not proven
successful in the past, technology updates and advances could make them viable in
the future.
12

o Given the retirement or departure of system developers from the County, a suitable
transition period should be outlined and implemented to allow for full knowledge
transfer.
5. Given the critical role that technology plays in every election, the IT department should be
involved in the election planning process from the start.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Distribute the 2018 turnout data with corresponding maps for each polling location for
review. (Completed)
2. Engage a consultant to complete the process map to the task level and develop a “future”
state once the new tabulation equipment is procured. (In progress)
3. Work closely with the Recorder to facilitate a clear Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
or any other action needed to ensure real-time access to voter registration information is
available to the Elections Department.
4. Recruit and hire an experienced logistics, project management professional with
certifications in LEAN or Six Sigma.
5. Benchmark Maricopa County Elections’ operational approach and tools against other large
county jurisdictions to evaluate best practices.
6. Identify a project management tool(s) that will allow for enhanced communication, tracking
of critical path junctures, modeling and reporting.
7. Complete and maintain an online operations manual.
8. Implement prior recommendations prepared by both Internal Audit and the third party
contractor.
9. Establish an “Elections Corps” of County staff who can serve as experienced support during
large-scale, high profile federal elections.
10. Create a well-functioning command center or final elections readiness space – similar to
what is used in Emergency Management.
SUMMARY
Based on the review of the statutory responsibilities assigned to both the Board and the County
Recorder, the number of critical operational interdependencies that exist, efficiencies gained
through shared resources, the current level of tools and documentation of systems, public
feedback and the upcoming 2020 elections for which staff is already preparing, the work group
13

recommends a shared reporting structure. This would involve the Board of Supervisors continuing
to grant the County Recorder the administrative authority to perform the assigned statutory
responsibilities of the Board through an amended charter. The amended charter would outline the
Board’s expectations in performing these responsibilities through the mutual selection of two
directors whose titles and scope of duties would greatly align with the assigned statutory
responsibilities of each entity. The director overseeing those areas of responsibilities assigned to
the Board would report to both the Board of Supervisors and the County Recorder. The director
overseeing the operations of those responsibilities of the County Recorder would have a reporting
relationship directly to the County Recorder. The County Recorder would continue to provide
executive policy direction to the directors charged with working in tandem to bridge any
communication gaps and to best serve the needs of the voter in the most efficient and effective
manner. The intent of this structure is to improve communication, transparency, accountability and
overall service delivery.
In conjunction with the structure recommendation, the work group believes a staffing analysis
should be conducted to ensure the Elections Department has the appropriate number of staff with
the needed skill-sets to effectively and efficiently operate as an independent department. In terms
of technology, the work group is supportive of upgrading the current 20+ year-old tabulation
equipment. Upgrading this equipment will allow greater flexibility with ballot styles and faster
ballot tabulation speed.
FUTURE STEPS
Elections is a complex, cyclical operation, which has unique needs. As previously stated, there are
areas which the members did not evaluate in depth. Additionally, with pending legislation, other
changes may need to be incorporated. As a result, the following is offered for future consideration:
1. Reassess after the 2020 election calendar.
2. Track the status and evaluate the results of the implemented recormmendations.
3. Conduct a logistics review of the warehouse, equipment preparation, delivery, parts,
etc.
4. Review and understand the role of the third party vendor (Runbeck).
5. Analyze impact of upgraded tabulation equipment.
14