Voting-machine firm good fit, Daniels says

BY MICHAEL R. WICKLINE    Arkansas Democrat-Gazette   November 20, 2005

A committee appointed by Secretary of State Charlie Daniels gave a higher score to a Texas company than to the Nebraska firm to which he awarded a $ 15 million-or-so contract to provide Arkansas counties with new voting machines.

Despite the difference in score, the six-member evaluation committee stopped short of recommending that Daniels award the contract to either Election Systems & Software Inc. of Omaha, Neb., or Diebold Election Systems Inc. of Allen, Texas.

?I think I speak for the entire evaluation team when I say we wish this had been a clear-cut decision one way or the other, but it simply was not,? Janet Miller Harris, deputy secretary of state for elections, wrote in the committee?s 15-page Oct. 26 letter to Daniels.

?Considering all factors, I believe either company could offer a system in the best interests of the state,? she said.

The only committee members who stated opinions in the report were Daniels? chief deputy, Peggy Gram, who preferred ES&S, and Susie Stormes, director of the state Board of Election Commissioners, who preferred Diebold.

When he announced his decision Nov. 1, Daniels said he ed ES&S based on cost, trade-in options for existing equipment and ES&S? experience with many Arkansas counties.

POLITICAL ISSUE The decision is becoming a factor in the 2006 race for secretary of state. Jim Lagrone of Bryant, a Republican candidate, said that he finds it interesting that ES&S hired a friend of Daniels?, lobbyist Andy Crawford of Little Rock, to work on its behalf.

?If this is true, it demonstrates what I have been saying all along as I have been talking to voters across Arkansas,? Lagrone said. ?When it comes to decisions made by the secretary of state and the management of the off ice, there are definite questions of trust and ethics.?

Daniels said every votingmachine vendor seeking to do business in Arkansas hired a local representative.

?With my years of experience in state government, I am acquainted with each and every one of those lobbyists, but not one of them tells me how to make decisions in my capacity as secretary of state,? said Daniels.

?This very important decision is one I take seriously, with due diligence and consideration, and my ion was based on cost, experience of ES&S in Arkansas and the ease of transition from our existing voting systems,? he said.

Daniels has been secretary of state since 2003. He was state land commissioner from 1985-2003. The new voting machines and voter registration system are being f inanced largely with federal funds, plus state matching funds.

CRAWFORD Crawford registered as a lobbyist for ES&S on Oct. 15, 2003, and removed the firm from his list of clients on his lobbyist registration on July 21 of this year, according to the secretary of state?s office. The office issued a request for proposals for new voting machines on July 11 of this year, according to the committee?s report. But Ken Fields, a spokesman for ES&S, said the firm hired Crawford under an agreement that expired in March of this year. Crawford ?has not been subsequently engaged,? he said. Crawford said ES&S hired him to learn who the decisionmakers are in Arkansas and about the process. He introduced the firm?s officials to Daniels and Daniels? aide Harris. ?I worked with them through the voter registration [system contract ],? he said. ?I had nothing to do with voting machines.?

VOTER CONTRACT In January, Daniels decided to award a separate $ 4. 9 million contract for a new statewide voter registration system to ES&S.

He cited ES&S? commitment to customer service in Arkansas, its proven voter registration product and experienced project management team.

A six-member evaluation committee appointed by Daniels recommended awarding that contract to ES&S.

The cost of ES&S? proposal was about $ 1. 4 million more than Saber Consulting?s, but the committee said it felt that the larger investment would secure more people, experience and resources. Crawford made a nonmonetary contribution of $ 712. 50 to Daniels? campaign for secretary of state on March 14, 2002, when he provided food for an event, according to Daniels ? campaign finance report. He also made a nonmonetary contribution of $ 400 to Daniels? unsuccessful Republican foe ? first lady Janet Huckabee ? on June 24, 2002, through fundraising, according to Mrs. Huckabee?s campaign finance report.

OTHER LOBBYISTS Government Solutions is a lobbying firm that includes former state Rep. Courtney Sheppard, D-El Dorado. The firm registered on Sept. 4, 2003, to lobby for Diebold. Government Solutions contributed $ 300 to Daniels? campaign on Aug. 16, 2001, according to Daniels? report. Daniels said he counts both Crawford and Sheppard among his friends.

He added that he considers lobbyists Martha Harriman of Van Buren, who represented Hart Intercivic of Austin, Texas, and former Rep. Ted Mullenix, R-Hot Springs, who represented Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, Calif., to be friends, too. Neither Hart nor Sequoia submitted a proposal for Daniels to consider.

Mullenix and Associates contributed $ 250 to Daniels ? campaign on July 24, 2001.

Daniels said he stayed out of the process of evaluating the Diebold and ES&S proposals to provide voting machines. Then he met with the committee twice in deciding to award the contract to ES&S.

He said he never talked to Crawford about ES&S? proposal for voting machines.

Daniels has estimated the cost of ES&S? voting-machine proposal at $ 15. 2 million based on each county?s preliminary voting equipment ions, though final terms of the contract still are under negotiation. He?s estimated the cost of Diebold?s proposal at $ 17 million.

The committee gave Diebold?s proposal 1, 322 points out of a possible 1, 500 points and gave ES&S? proposal 1, 212 points.

The committee awarded points based on seven factors, including experience and qualifications, financial stability, security management, voting system, experience and cost.

Stormes wrote that she preferred Diebold because she felt comfortable with what it would cost to own Diebold?s voting machines.

?I do not feel that ES&S provided all the information requested,? wrote Stormes. Gram acknowledged that ?we still have some unanswered questions.? But she wrote that ES&S is ?the cheapest short-term solution for Arkansas, and gives us what we need now. ? I would have to cast my vote for ES&S in the belief that during final contract negotiations our outstanding questions and concerns would be negotiated to our satisfaction,? Gram said.

CONSULTANT?S VIEW Glenn Newkirk of Raleigh, N. C., a consultant hired by Daniels, said that it appears that ES&S? proposal offers the best short-term cost to the state if there?s ?a substantial mix of voting technologies in the counties.? If there?s a greater emphasis on the uniform use of touch-screen voting machines in the counties, then Diebold has what appears to be a narrow edge in cost in the short term, he wrote in an Oct. 22 letter to Harris.

Thirty of Arkansas? 75 counties have tentatively decided to have only touch-screen voting machines, according to the secretary of state?s office.

Thirty-four counties have tentatively opted to have one touch-screen machine for the handicapped at each polling place and use some form of optical scan machine for counting paper ballots. Eleven other counties have not decided what voting machines to use.

Gram noted that poll workers and clerks in 51 of Arkansas? 75 counties already are familiar with ES&S equipment, and 50 of the county clerks are satisfied with the relationship.

IMAGE ISSUES Gram said she worried that Diebold had an image problem stemming from possible bias toward the Republican Party and widely publicized security concerns about the f irm?s machines.

?With the high profile newspaper coverage these incidents have had, I believe that it will be difficult to achieve voter confidence in this equipment,? she wrote.

?I fear we will be spending a larger percentage of our time explaining about the company rather training the people,? Gram wrote.

But Harris wrote that the ion of either company will incur criticism from ?some vocal activists who are passionate about voting technology issues [and ] will be critical of both Diebold and ES&S, and who will allege that these companies seek to engage in malicious vote tampering.?

She said there is strong support for a new state law requiring the touch-screen voting machines to produce paper receipts for voters to verify their votes and for election officials to use in recounts.

Some Democratic Party members have said they?re dissatisfied with Diebold because its chief executive officer stated in a 2003 invitation for a fundraiser that he was ?committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes? for President Bush in 2004, Harris said.

?That political misstep has received a lot of press, even at the national level, and it will be sure to receive more should Diebold be ed in Arkansas,? Harris said.

?The bad news of course to a lesser degree ES&S has the same problem,? she said.

DANIELS Daniels said he tried to not let partisanship influence his decision. ?We do business all day long, and we do business with Democrats, and we do business with Republicans,? he said. Some people aren?t going to be happy with electronic voting machines, he said, and he?s going to catch flak for it. But he said he?s confident that he made the right decision. ?If I made the wrong decision, the buck stops here. But I?m going to do everything in my power to make sure this works right,? Daniels said.