Basically, yes. It is an identified project. I mean, no one --
Not you as City Council, not the Mayor, not me as the Director of PICA, not the PICA Board, can say, "I now want to spend that money for voting machines." There has to be a process that it has to go through, that a cumulative political decision has to be made. And what I am suggesting to you my staff has said to you during discussion about this matter, in preparation for my coming here, that staff said that if the elected officials of this city agree that this wanted to be an expenditure on behalf of the city, that we believe at PICA it fits one of our criterias, i.e., an emergency criteria, and that monies can be made available.
But it has to be a political decision made by the elected officials of 156 RESOLUTION 960894 this city.
I understand. Mr. Estey, let me go back to the first page of your testimony. Down at the bottom of it reads, "However, there is currently not a line item in the city's Capital Budget for the purchase of new voting machines," and then it goes on, "And we have not yet performed an analysis of those existing Capital Budget items that might be impacted by a decision to proceed with the purchase of new DRE machines." That is somewhat confusing to me, given the statement that was made, apparently, two years ago by the former chief of staff, that $15 million had been allocated for voting machine purposes. Can you clarify or explain the discrepancy?
I'm sorry. In the Fiscal Year '96 through 2001 Capital Budget, there was a line item included, a $15 million line item, for the purchase of new voting machines that is not carried forward into the Fiscal Year 1998 budget. 157 RESOLUTION 960894
What happened to it, and where was it? And where did it go?
The $15 million line item, as Mr. Estey said, it was in the '96 to '01 Capital Budget. I am not aware of why it was not included in '97 to '02 budget. But it was in the Finance Department line. It was spread over a period from, I believe, '97 through '01, and it was not included in the '97 and forward plan.
Well, wait a minute. You put the budget together; right?
The '97 to '01 Capital Budgets was largely -- was actually enacted before I was the Budget Director. I can look into it, but I am not aware of why it was done.
Mr. Estey provided an answer to the question. I assume he got his answer from somewhere. Someone must know what happened to $15 million. I know in a $2.3 billion operation, if might not seem like a lot of money to you. But, 158 RESOLUTION 960894 I don't know, from where I grew up in West Philadelphia, $15 million is a lot of money. What happened to the money?
We are certainly going to look into the particulars of what happened to that $15 million line item allocation. The information that I had was based upon my review of that particular document, the '96 to 2001 document, and my review of the current budget.
So you are telling me, if I read the news account correctly, that on September 20, 1995, the former Chief of Staff, David L. Cohen, says that $15 million is available. You are now saying that it was available then, but it is not available now. And that between the two of you, you don't know what happened to $15 million?
The $15 million was not in the Capital Budget for the budget year. As you know, the Capital Budget for a specific year is adopted and passed by Council, along with a six-year capital program. 159 RESOLUTION 960894 The budget for -- the funding for the voting machines was included in the last five years of the plan. And my experience has been that between discussions between the Administration and Council and the public, that the out years of the plan are frequently used to indicate a variety of priorities, and those numbers frequently change. I believe that, my suspicion would be, that at the time the '97 plan was put together, the election -- whenever the '96 plan, when this was included, was passed by the Election Task Force, it issued its report, that, because the budget recommendation had been to wait the five years until the machines were purchased, that it was decided to remove them from those interim years. I don't know why they were not kept in the final several years of the plan.
I would really like to know who made the decision to take it out. And even with the task force recommendation, it seems to me that there would have been no harm to leave it in. You guys left the proposed revenues 160 RESOLUTION 960894 for riverboat gambling in the plan for the first five years, and had not one ounce of a notion that it was ever going to come through. And it has only been in the last couple of years that you got smart and decided to take it out, since everybody, apparently, except the Mayor, knew that the money was not going to be forthcoming. So I really would like to know what happened to it. Mr. Vignola.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, just by way of clarification, taking a little bit of interest because I was a member of this Council. Council votes on that. And that was part of the ordinance. So that whatever the Administration did, Council, by whatever vote it took when it adopted the Capital Budget in that fiscal year, concurred. So, you know, no one at Council objected to say, "Hey, this was in last year, it is out this year," then it has gone on from that. I am just saying, it is spilled milk at this time. And let's not worry about what 161 RESOLUTION 960894 happened in the past. Let's just go on.
Well, I can appreciate the perspective. Although, for such an important issue, and for some of the information that is here on much less important issues, it seems to me that someone would have thought it slightly important to mention, in a six-year capital program, that has hundreds, if not thousands, of items in it, that they might have nodded or whispered or given a special handshake to say, "Oh, by the way, we happen to be taking the million out for the voting 14 machines." But, that was their decision. 15 Let me ask this question about the Administration's view on this: The Mayor established the Election Reform Task Force. You asked, apparently, about people of a bipartisan 19 nature to serve. 20 I think one, or possibly both, of you 21 were here when I read a portion of the Mayor's 22 letter asking the co-chairs to serve. 23 What is your interpretation of what 24 the Mayor's intention was at the time of 25 establishing the task force? 162 RESOLUTION 960894 Was it for the purpose of answering the three issues that were raised in this letter, or was it merely an exercise to keep the public at bay that was upset as a result of a particular election?
Councilman, it certainly was not an exercise. I think the Mayor's intention -- I was not here at the time, but I think it was fairly clear from the letter, that he was asking for a fair and frank assessment of the current state of the voting machines and the technology that was available, with costs, to replace those voting machines.
Do you think he received that by way of the task force report?
I think he received a set of recommendations from the task force, which were intended to foster exactly this type of process that we are engaging in today. And that we are more than willing to work cooperatively with the people that have gone before us, and with this body, to try to turn those recommendations into some concrete action items.
What is the 163 RESOLUTION 960894 concrete action that the Administration is prepared to put on the table at this moment?
I think, as is reflected in my written testimony -- and let me back up for a moment. Because I am not sure that that question can be answered, given what I heard earlier this morning. I don't think that there is a consensus among the Commissioners, the task force members, and some of the other people who testified -- and I wouldn't presume to speak for the members of this Committee -- as to what precisely it is we are looking to put in place as a replacement for the existing machines. I heard at least a couple of people who testified talk about their wanting to be involved in the process in determining what types of machines should be purchased. But assuming that a machine --
I think that all gets resolved. I think that is the least of our problems. The issue today is, is the Mayor of this city and the city Administration prepared to 164 RESOLUTION 960894 put the dollars on the table to make it happen and commit to a reasonable time table? Not one that has us waiting until they all fall apart, and then we try to figure out how to open 1600 polling places on Election Day. But one that, with the same sense of commitment and integrity and smarts that the Administration has demonstrated on projects that it was interested in, that we take a longer-term view and a smart view that says, we know we need at least three years to do it. Why not start now. And as we drag some of us kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, that some voters might have an opportunity in the year 2000 to vote on new machines; that's the issue. Not what are we going to do, not what is Procurement going to do, not what the City Commissioners are going to do. It is the money. And it is the providing of the money, and it is when. That is the issue today. That is the only issue, as far as I am concerned.
I understand your question completely. And I don't intend to be in any way argumentative. 165 RESOLUTION 960894 But I think when you say, "it is the money," we need to know from the budget perspective and from the administrative perspective what that means. And if you are talking about DRE, you are talking $20 million. If you are talking about some other system --
I think we are talking DRE. I don't think that is a question.
Well, that's not what I heard from some of the Commissioners who were up here earlier. I didn't think that I heard sign-off from them. But if we are talking about DRE --
The only dispute amongst the Commissioners was an exchange between Chairwoman Tartaglione and Mr. Voight about who was going to participate in the process, and did you need a full examination of what was out there, or, I think, the Chairwoman was almost saying that, you know, we can rent some space and have a voting machine fare, and let them all come in, and we will look at what they have, and we will go from there. But I think that those two, given 166 RESOLUTION 960894 their 20-plus-year history, will figure out what they want to do in about or minutes. 4 I think it really does, again, 5 revolve around if the commitment and the will is 6 there. 7 Tell me what election there is going 8 to be a referendum for the voters to vote on. And I 9 don't understand today why it takes Procurement a 10 year to go through this process. But, you know, I 11 am willing for the moment to even brush that aside. 12 Tell me what election we are going to 13 have a referendum in, tell me when the money is 14 going to be put forward, over what period of time. 15 Tell me when the machines are going to be put in place, what election. That's a schedule. That shows a commitment. Everything else is just discussion. That's the issue.
On the assumption that we are going to do DRE, that it is a 20-plus million dollar hit. I think that the position that is put forth in my written remarks is that, given the budget analysis that was done in 1995, the most 167 RESOLUTION 960894 appropriate time to have an election would be, on the ballot question, would be November 2000. And the machines would then be in place over the period from November 2000 through November 2002.
Because I think that's the place where you have maximized the life span of the existing machines, and you can, therefore, result in the lowest decrease in operating cost to the City of Philadelphia General Fund from the switch-over to new machines.
Why do we need to maximize the life of these particular machines? Do we maximize the life of everything that we buy around here? Or do we buy stuff when we need it, or think it is best to replace it?
Based on that theory, we would keep our cars virtually forever. I mean, they keep making parts for them. But that's not the case. Right? We keep a lot of stuff around here 168 RESOLUTION 960894 virtually forever, but that doesn't mean that it isn't time for it to go.
What does it mean? You think we haven't gotten enough out of a 1948 or 1950 or a 1957 voting machine?
I think, in light of where we are in terms of the procurement process and the time it will take to do an RFP and get a vendor in a position to move forward, and in that we are continuing in the Administration -- and I know Council continues -- to be committed to maximizing savings and reducing costs, I mean, it is clear that for ten years this is going to increase our operating costs. For ten years from the time we put these machines in place until the end, this will increase operating costs. So what we would like to do is, take that time to put the RFP together, take advantage of whatever innovations have occurred in the last two years and whatever innovations may occur in technology over the next year to 18 months, use that 169 RESOLUTION 960894 time. And then, when appropriate, when the two lines meet, and we have managed to get into a position where we can reduce the cost, the incremental increase in cost, that the movement to new machines will require, then we go ahead, have the ballot question, hopefully it passes, and you put the machines in place over the next 103 weeks. CHAIRMAN COHEN: I am going to recess the Committee for about 30 seconds for an informal conference. The Chair is going to recess the Public Hearing very briefly for the purpose of having a Public Meeting for this Committee. (Public Hearing temporarily adjourned.) - - - 170 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON LAW & GOVERNMENT - - - Wednesday, November 1997 8 - - - 9 Public Meeting conducted by the Committee 10 on Law & Government, held in Room 400, City Hall, 11 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to 12 consider action on the following: RESOLUTION 960894 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ, Vice-Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL T. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN ANNA CIBOTTI VERNA COUNCILMAN W. THATCHER LONGSTRETH - - - 171 PUBLIC MEETING CHAIRMAN COHEN: A quorum is currently present, and I am going to ask Councilman Ortiz to present a motion.
Mr. Chairman, are we in the Public Meeting? CHAIRMAN COHEN: We are in the Public Meeting.
And we have a quorum. CHAIRMAN COHEN: A quorum is present.
I suggest we hold a Public Meeting. I move that we move favorably on the issue of voting machines and request that Councilman Nutter prepare a report to be signed by members of this Committee as submitted to the whole Council for approval. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN COHEN: Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? 172 PUBLIC MEETING The ayes have it, and the motion is adopted. There being no further business to come before the Public Meeting, we will adjourn the Public Meeting and resume the Public Hearing. (Public Meeting adjourned.) - - - 173 RESOLUTION 960894
And certainly you have sat through this hearing and heard from the various political parties and people who have to deal with these matters on a regular basis, not only myself and Councilman Cohen, but also Councilwoman Verna as a ward leader here in the city. Does that timetable take into consideration the concerns of the voting public, or is it primarily a use of machine and fiscal analysis of this problem?
Councilman Nutter, the answer to that question is yes, the timetable does attempt to take into account the concerns that were articulated this morning. And let me make a couple of points on that. First of all, I want to reiterate what I heard several times this morning. This is, obviously, a critical issue for the Administration. I know it is a critical issue for Council. It is very important that we do this. But, at the same time, I think it is very important that we do this correctly. And I know -- in a former life I had some dealings in 174 RESOLUTION 960894 Montgomery County in 1995. I know what happened in 1995, when they brought in their machines and had a fiasco. So we want to be sure that we move as expeditiously as possible, but, at the same time, that we do this correctly, and we get the correct vendor, so that you don't have more people possibly disenfranchised because the machines don't work or they are confused about how they work. And I was particularly interested in Councilman Rizzo's remarks this morning about making sure that there was education and training put in place so that people who have been voting on the same, admittedly, old and sometimes antiquated machines for several years know how to do this.
Well, I would agree with you. The report was issued in the fall of 1995. We are now in the fall of 1997. Tell me what the Administration has done to push forward the recommendations from the task force in the intervening two years.
What we have done internally is, we have reviewed the report and we 175 RESOLUTION 960894 have continued to look at emerging technologies in the voting machine area. We have also reviewed the financial information in light of intervening budget years, to determine the appropriate budgetary points at which we might want to make decisions. And we have, quite frankly, considered it in the context of existing capital requirements.
Well, when you finish all of the reviewing and all of the analysis and the thinking about it and looking at how the technology continues to move, at what point do you make a decision and decide to do something? I mean, based on that kind of analysis, in a technology that hopefully continues to refine itself and improve -- I mean, if we did that, for instance, over at MOIS, we would never buy a computer. The computer you buy today is obsolete in a year. The programs that you buy, I mean, before you have loaded it up, the new point something is out. So you would never buy anything because you are constantly evaluating what's going 176 RESOLUTION 960894 on. I have to believe that whether it is in FY '98 or '99 or 2000, that whatever we get, hopefully, is the best thing that's available at the time. It has got to be better than what we have now. So when do we ever make a decision?
Well, I want to concur with your remark about obsolescence of computers, having bought one less than eight months ago, and now I need new software for it. I think that the appropriate time to make a decision is -- first of all, the decision needs to be a collaborative decision. Obviously the Administration can't make a unilateral decision with respect to city capital dollars. We need to do that in a collaborative effort. And I think this is the --
You could have made that statement in the beginning of the hearing. You lose the opportunity to say that the Administration can't act in a unilateral fashion. Because the Administration unilaterally 177 RESOLUTION 960894 decided on its own to remove $15 million from the capital program for this purpose. So you lose that one. Second --
Councilman, I have to disagree with that. I'm sorry. You heard Mr. Vignola, when he was here -- and I don't mean to be argumentative. But when the Capital Budget is presented, it is voted on by this Council.
And what I'm saying to you is, there are a lot of items in there. Someone on the Administration side decided to take it out, and they didn't tell anybody. Or they certainly did not tell me. Now, if you want to get into a poll-by-poll analysis by Council members and find out who knew or who didn't know, I think you are going to lose there, as well. So you might want to leave the issue of who unilaterally decides whether something is in a capital program or not in a capital program.
I certainly have no 25 intention of suggesting that we ought to do that. I 178 RESOLUTION 960894 merely reiterate that point. The point I did make at the beginning of the hearing is that --
Yes. What does 10 the Finance Department have to do with this? Or was 11 it just parked there for certain purposes? 12 I mean, if I was looking for it, I 13 wouldn't look in Finance. Anyone with any sense 14 would look in the City Commissioner's budget or 15 maybe in Procurement, or maybe in Public Property. But you don't go looking for money for voting machines in the Finance Department budget. I believe that the reason that it is in Finance is because at that time, under the way we handled capital administrative costs at that time, a variety of miscellaneous capital administrative costs were put in Finance and, because there was no 24 City Commissioner, Capital Budget line. I believe that merely has to do with 179 RESOLUTION 960894 how City Planning structures the budget.
I would make the request, and provide it to the Chair. I would like to see where that item was. If you are telling me that it was in the '96 to '01 capital program, I would like to see the book, I would like to see the item.
Although I got in trouble a moment ago, I also want to reiterate the second part of what Councilman Vignola said before he left, which was that this needs to be a collaborative process. And we are here today. We can certainly look into what happened to that $15 million line item, we can report to you. We are happy to do that. What I think a more productive use of the rest of the few minutes we have here would be to talk about the steps going forward, and how we can work with Council in terms of resolving some of the operational questions, what type of machine, those types of things.
So now you are saying that you are ready to collaborate? 180 RESOLUTION 960894
And would like to begin working on a schedule going forward.
There is a tentative schedule that we have outlined that we think makes sense in the written remarks. And I think that's the appropriate --
I am going to read from of the written remarks that I submitted at the beginning of my testimony, and I will paraphrase some of these. But essentially what this says is, based upon the financial analyses just discussed, it appears that the existing city voting machines will end their useful life span between Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2005. It should be emphasized that the 181 RESOLUTION 960894 existing machines could provide effective service beyond that date. Development of a Request For Proposal that would allow the voting machine question to be placed on the ballot in the general election in November 2000 would provide sufficient time to allow the installation of the new machines during the Fiscal Year 2000 through Fiscal Year 2002 time frame. The period between today and November 2000 can be employed to develop and issue a comprehensive Request For Proposal that will solicit vendor proposals on the latest voting machine technologies. With a vendor selected through the RFP process by the summer of 1999, the city will be in a position to move forward expeditiously with the purchase and installation of new electronic voting machines by November 2002, in compliance with the applicable Pennsylvania statutes.
Just a couple, few, final questions. It sounds like we would almost be starting from ground zero with the RFP process based on the schedule that you laid out. 182 RESOLUTION 960894 Is there no benefit to us at this point in time from all of the work that the task force did, in terms of looking at technologies and vendors and the like? Do we really have to start at ground zero? We can't benefit from any of that work?
That is a very good question, Councilman. I think there are a couple of answers to that. The first is, in the context of the task force report, the Procurement Department was asked to estimate how long it would take them to do an RFP. And from my reading of the report -- and I wasn't on the task force, but it was my interpretation of the report -- that they had concluded that if we took the task force recommendations as what we're going to do, in other words, purchase the DRE, then it would then take a year.
I am afraid I can't answer that, because I was not involved. I can check with the Procurement people who put that 183 RESOLUTION 960894 together and give you a report on that, as well. It seems to me that we should endeavor to preserve and use, to whatever extent is possible, all of the excellent work that the task force did, which is why I was a little nervous this morning when I thought I heard -- and perhaps I was wrong -- but I thought I heard some discussion about going back to ground zero and starting again with, what is an electronic voting machine. I don't think we ought to do that. And I think we ought to mine all the gold out of that that we possibly can.
What I want you to figure out, even with the timetable -- and I do appreciate that -- I would like an answer to the question. Because in all the materials, it does not seem to be available. Why, given the level of information we have -- and I don't know whether there are more vendors in this business or less vendors in this business today -- even if there are more, I can't imagine there are that many more. There can only be so many ways to do this. Why it takes a year to put together 184 RESOLUTION 960894 an RFP about something that someone already spent close to a year taking a look at. I do not understand why it would take so long.
I will look into that with the Procurement Department and get back to you quickly.
You have put out a timetable on the table. And I think as both you and Mr. Kaplan have laid out, there needs to be some discussion and collaboration between the Administration and City Council. What are your suggestions, or what are you prepared to do, or what are you recommending at this point, given, I am sure you picked up there is, at least for the Committee, a little bit of sentiment that people want to do this, and they want to do it soon, when are we going to start the process between the city Administration and the City Council on some preliminary funding for this? I think you should understand that I don't think anyone at this table, let alone, possibly, in the body, believes that we should try to fund this all at one time. If we know that we have, by statute 185 RESOLUTION 960894 and by vendor process, that it is going to take us a few years to do it anyway, similar to what we have done with the 800 megahertz system and a couple other things, it seems to me that it makes more sense to put aside 6 million here, million there, 7 million in the other. And by the time you need 8 the money, it is available. I don't want to be in a situation where, even if we all agree, then we have to sit around and scratch our heads to try to figure out where we get $20 million from. Because $20 million is a lot of money. But if you start putting some away now, you also send a signal to people that you are serious and that it is legitimate. And it should also not just be in the capital program budget, but it should be in the Capital Budget for these upcoming two to three years. And then you won't have people all over you at these hearings, because you will have done something that demonstrates a certain level of commitment, beyond a large conversation. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Can you yield a 186 RESOLUTION 960894 moment, Councilman Nutter. In Philadelphia now we have three different voting machines, maybe four. I don't know how widespread the old Jamestown is. But you have the old Chute and the new Chute, and the Jamestown. Following Councilman Nutter's suggestion, one simple approach would be to go ahead partially and replace, say, the Jamestown machines, the old Jamestown machines, with these new machines. We therefore do it, we break up the process into parts, get some actual experience, and have time to accumulate the money to cover the whole city. Now, why should we wait until 1999, with a new Mayor coming in saying, "But I never appointed that task force. " I don't see, it doesn't make any sense to me, to do that, to throw away the work. I gave the Chair of that Committee a pretty good grilling, it seemed to me. And at the 187 RESOLUTION 960894 end I was convinced that they had done a fine job, and that we're just wasting that. Secondly, why should we start all over with the new Mayor, whoever that Mayor may be? " Therefore, it would make much more practical political sense to begin doing it as quickly as we could, and for a good purpose. We'll take the Mayor with us on Election Day in May and have him see what happens out there, and see the trepidation that so many people have when they approach these machines. These machines are so big and cumbersome. Some people get claustrophobia being inside the machine. And they get in, and they want to get out as quickly as possible. And sometimes they don't go over, in the Chute, all the way over to the right to vote on the questions or the retention of judges, because they are so anxious to get out of the machine. It seems to me it is in everybody's 188 RESOLUTION 960894 interest to pursue the plan that Councilman Nutter has been presenting. Let's be up to date and begin dealing with today's problems. Sorry. I intended for that to be very brief.
Sometimes when you get into it. I understand. I mean, the Mayor has been around for some time, not just as Mayor. And I don't think he has ever been a committeeperson, and he has certainly not been a ward leader. Mr. Estey, you mentioned that you had some experience with the DRE machines out in Montgomery County. I don't know whether because you were living out there or you were involved in --
Do either of you have any practical hands-on experience with these machines?
With the current 189 RESOLUTION 960894 voting machines. Have you ever been a committeeperson?
Have you ever had to sit and wait for a machine to come until 2 o'clock in the morning? CHAIRMAN COHEN: Did you ever have the experience at 11 o'clock at night waiting for trucking company to deliver machines, to move machines where they delivered them in the wrong place, 11 o'clock the night before the election, working through to 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning to get the machines in the right place? And we are dealing with people we want to keep involved in the electorial process. We don't want the older folks to get discouraged that there are just too many problems.
Councilman. I am sorry, Mr. Chairperson. Can I pick off a couple of points briefly? 190 RESOLUTION 960894 CHAIRMAN COHEN: Yes.
First of all, no, I have never had that experience. And it is an experience that I don't think anyone agrees should happen. And we should do whatever is necessary to try to avoid those situations.
So your primary experiences -- I assume both of you are registered to vote?
Coming to the polling place on Election Day, pull a couple of levers, or a big lever, and that's it; right? CHAIRMAN COHEN: You are under no 16 obligation to answer anything that will reveal how you voted.
As a city official, obviously, I am not allowed to be involved in most of those activities. However, as you know, in my prior life I was involved in the campaign 1986, Senate campaign, in great detail. I was Legislative 191 RESOLUTION 960894 Director for a member of Congress, who you are familiar with, who won his 1984 congressional launch by 500 votes out of 250,000. Those voting machines were impounded for about six weeks. We put many of the people who were familiar to you in election along the city, and spent a lot of time being intimate with the election machines for quite some time. So, I mean, obviously I think many people in the Administration who were involved in this issue are quite well aware of it. Although, again, most of us are not allowed at this point to be as involved as you are, as sensitive to the specific condition of the specific machines right now.
Could I make one point on an operational issue? And I have heard several times this morning the issue of size raised and weight. And I think it is something that's one, maybe, small issue that needs to be looked at again. Because I know what the machines are like in Montgomery County. They weight less, they don't weigh 940 pounds, but they are the same size, 192 RESOLUTION 960894 the ones they have there, full-size voting machines. And the thinking is that you want someone to be familiar with, at least, walking in, with the curtain behind you. So, I mean, I raise that as a sidelight, but it is something that needs to be taken into consideration when whatever decision is ultimately made on these is made. I know that in the report they talked about a laptop situation. And nobody wanted to do laptop because of concerns that it might not be there the next morning. But I heard that theme echo throughout this morning's comments, about the fiscal size and the truckers and moving things. I think everyone should be aware of those issues.
And I think that's along the lines of some of the questions that the Administration wants to understand there is consensus on. The Chair of the Democratic party said he wanted to have smaller machines that would fit into some of the polling places where he just 193 RESOLUTION 960894 can't fit them now, so he would have a chance to get more places. The machines that the election task force recommended would not meet that criteria. And I think that that's not an insurmountable obstacle, but, obviously, the kind of thing we're talking about.
But I would also share with you that it is not only the size. But weight is an issue and does factor into the decision of some people as to whether to even have them in their place. I mean, some people don't want a thousand-pound thing rolling across their floor. It damages their property. And so you are often left to limited choices as to where you can even have a polling place because some people don't want to deal with it at all. If they physically don't fit, that's a different story. But, I mean, I have moved those machines. They are very difficult to move around. And as I think Fred Voight indicated, with an older Election Board and committee people, you put a burden on the people who really have to deal with 194 RESOLUTION 960894 these machines, not some others of us who can kind of have the luxury of a dispassionate fiscal and budgetary analysis. We are talking about, one, a very serious opportunity for people to participate in their government. But, secondly, you have got 1681, I think, polling places out there, 3200, or if you include both parties 6400-some-odd people who have to deal with this twice a year. It is a problem. CHAIRMAN COHEN: And we may not be able to solve every problem that exists today, but I think we can solve them, most of them, and enough of them, to increase the interests of the voting public in voting. And that's what we want to do. As well as get a quick response to the election, curtail these election contests, which have a very divisive effect on the city. If you are going to lose, you might as well have the misery of it, as a candidate, immediately, instead of suffering through a long night. But to have something continue on for weeks and weeks is just a very unhealthy thing. 195 RESOLUTION 960894
I would tell you that another experience I had in Montgomery County had to do with a very close congressional race about a year and a half ago, two years ago. And when we were involved in the recount, nobody touched the machines. I mean, everybody took the tickertape vote count off the machines, and there was no dispute about it. The only dispute was over the absentees; that was the only issue.
I think all we are saying is that, as we try to build consensus around this, the number of people that came in today and expressed concerns about being able to see the top right corner where the ballot questions are, that will not be addressed by this machine. Some of the access questions will be, because I think the weight change will allow us to get some additional polling places. But there are still some accessibility issues. I think our only concern is that we want to make sure that people's expectations are the same as everyone's.
All I would ask 196 RESOLUTION 960894 you to do is, through the Chair of the Committee and through the Council President, is to start a process that allows for a Council/Administration discussion on this issue. And if we are able to shave a year or two off of the timetable that you have laid out, if we can have a sense of agreement by this Administration that this project is something they want to do, that it doesn't get pushed off, or doesn't end up on someone else's addenda or off the radar screen completely, that goes a long way to making sure this actually happens. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Being old enough to have a historic perspective, wouldn't it be good for this Administration to leave a legacy that twice a year, for how many years ahead, they can point to this was what the Rendell Administration presented. They made life livable for us, made it easier for us to vote. So we'd like you to become advocates for this. The Mayor doesn't like yes people, so become advocates for this and convince him that if he has hesitations, he ought to overcome them.
We will certainly take 197 RESOLUTION 960894 Councilman Nutter's suggestion to heart, and we will try to move the process. And we will get back to you on the issues that we have talked about. CHAIRMAN COHEN: We thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Is Mr. Williams here?
I believe he has left. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Is there anybody else who wishes to be heard?
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put into the record we received testimony from Marlene Perkins, Associate Advocacy Director of the Eastern Paralyzed Veteran's Association. And I would ask that their testimony be incorporated into this record. CHAIRMAN COHEN: It will be done.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Thank you. There being no further business to 198 RESOLUTION 960894 come before the Committee, the Committee stands in recess. (Public Hearing adjourned at 1:35 p.m.) - - - 199 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, November 12, 1997, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LAW & GOVERNMENT _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR