Mr. Bennett, CCC, Diebold and Poll Worker Training

At the marathon CCBOE meeting on August 29, 2006 and the two that immediately followed in September, a few contracts were let for the outsourcing of Training following the debacle May election, for those to be working the polls in November. The contract with which most are aware is the one that appeared to have garnered the bid after an evaluation committee, containing Mr. Bennett's man, Vu, made their recommendation to the board to give the contract to Cuyahoga Community College for $736,390. ( See text version of the 8/30/06 Plain Dealer article.)

An additional 2 contracts, seeming greatly redundant to CCC's, and totaling around another 1/2 a million dollars, however, went to Diebold in the next two CCBOE meetings by September 15, an amount that was again raised an additional $410,000, as it was board-approved one day before the November election under the discussion of (publicly unseen, unless one knows to request and wait for a list of)"vouchers" in the 11/6 meeting - bringing the total to almost $1 million, not counting the over additional $1/2 million in ($180/hour, though proving worth of less than the board's usual $10 for worker temps) "project management" and some worthwhile "technical assistance" in helping to actually work with the Diebold junk.

Diebold's later training contracts, in some parts for having one person in each of CCC's and their own added-to number of 4-6 hour classes, at $600 per, were passed by the board with hardly a question, despite the fact that the 3-person Cuyahoga Election Review Panel whom the had board singularly selected after May, reported in their CERP Report, that Diebold's May failures and/or misrepresentations regarding such things as providing knowledgeable help at the polls, training CCBOE staff for their registration system, and especially failures in poll worker training might constitute the level of contractual breach to be sent for investigation to the county prosecutor. (See for instance the Final CERP Report, (available for download, along with the ESI Report, at the bottom of the page of the above link,) sections beginning on page 21, page 54, and pages 104 and 106.)

There were, however, additional strange things about these training contracts that may bear further study:

1. CCBOE bids for the official training contract garnered by CCC were requested on August 2, 2006 and closed at 11 am August 15, 2006. Though I still need to get the actual agenda used at the August 29 meeting, which shows the various amounts bid, (not shown on the agenda posted before the meeting which I had downloaded,) there was a large discrepancy in costs among the approximate 5 bidders, as I remember.
One of the highest bids, again from memory, came from Diebold for over $1 million, and one of the lowest, from the Ford Group, a group led in the main by the few people who had actually successfully performed CCBOE training, according to poll worker feedback, in the previous May election.
At the 8/29 meeting, the principal of the Ford Group spoke passionately and with examples, about the need for trainers who had working knowledge of and successful experience with delivering this detailed, complicated information, to best assure future pollworker knowledge, confidence, and election success. Cuyahoga Community College did not have that knowledge, but were cited to be "best" mostly as I remember, because they were an institution of higher learning in the area, and because they had facilities (for which a later "voucher" list of items over $10,000. showed they were paid $160 for each use, for a total of approximately $14,000 - an amount other groups could have also easily worked with to rent facilities.)

2. On August 3, the day after requests for bids first began, the Plain Dealer reported among other things that:
"To give the workers needed skills, Bennett said, he has contacted the head of Cuyahoga Community College to standardize the training."
Before even the bids actually had time to go out, and before the"evaluation committee" met during the week prior to August 29 board approval, a group which included Bennett's man Vu, to consider bids and make training contract recommendations, it seemed that in the ways of the CCBOE under Bennett, even CCC's contract was another foregone conclusion!
Was this another Hopcraft moment?

3. Though Diebold did not get their over 1 million dollar training bid on 8/29, on 9/5 and 9/15, they still gleaned almost $600,000 for Election Day Technician Training and "Poll Worker Technical Training."
There was a Bennett signed contract dated 9/15/06 for EDT training for $360,000, (which had a 7/31 Diebold quote attached that stated $297,750.) (Previous error: I have found amidst the "group" of docs provided by the CCBOE in response to record requests, another Diebold Training contract signed on 9/15, that DOES match the EDT training quote. It appears that the $360,000 contract signed by Bennett was for Diebold "Pollworker Technical Training" and was to replace (?) and suddenly vastly increase the price of the one signed two weeks before, as shown below. To date, it is unclear if it were treated as an addition, since the latter was also provided in answer to my record request.)

There was also the Bennett signed contract dated 9/5 for $210,000 for Poll Worker "Technical Training" which matched the 7/31 quote. (The pdf contract links are as received from CCBOE, except with my own document name changes)
And then there was 11/6's "extra" $410,000" as part of "MORE (publicly unseen & un-needed) $$$Millions to Diebold, and the CCBOE "Election Officials" Who (gladly) Pour The $$$Millions Into Diebold's Pockets".

4. But was CCC able to live up to their promise?
You can judge a bit for yourself from:

a. Mr.Bennett's election night speech, admitting some "glitches" in this $2 million training. A Long Look at the Dysfunction of Cuyahoga's 11/7/06 Election Day Meeting - Under Bob Bennett video clip #1
b. The WEWS "whistleblower" segment last week with a trainer and poll worker talking about how poll workers had not been provided the basics of what they needed to learn, and even how the "test" that all poll workers were to pass was an open book one, and that questions needed to be amended so more would "pass", and the CCBOE would have enough workers. (No video available here)
c. The last draft of CCC's 9/21 Draft Poll Worker Manual, (about which activists were asked for their at-home overnight, volunteered input) - confusing, even with incorrect grammar, and missing some of the very basics. (Though still very rough, I add my very hurriedly made notes, again volunteered quickly after my own completely different, paid work, the night of 9/22, before the manual needed to go to print. Others also volunteered input. I added on 9/22 such things as, given the massive Diebold "crashes" in May, and the obstructions and security risks those bring to voting, the absolute necessity for poll workers or EDT's to keep detailed Diebold "failure rate" logs. That did not happen. I do not know how many of our 9/22 volunteered suggestions were included.)
I also understand that some CCBOE staff were also recruited, and additionally taxpayer-paid "extra" - $18/hr. vs. their normal approximate $10 - during the weeks prior to printing to provide much of the content knowledge which CCC did NOT have, at their $175/each/hour. Not only did that demonstrate that taxpayers were paying far too much to CCC for things they also could not deliver, but it underscores the often-seen perspective of the board's taking advantage of and devaluing many of its own employees who through many similar convolutions, have been held responsible for figuring out how to get work of elections done.
One can imagine the effects of such inequities on morale and final product. The "CCC manual", very similar in layout and appearance to the previous one already used in May, even then, was at a sorry, completely unsound and insufficient point.
d. Also you might note on the CCC training cost list, not only the $100-150 cost per trainer for each class, but also the $50,000 amount let for two months of work for just the training project manager. To date I don't know who picked up THAT tax-paid "bonus."

This is one small example of CCBOE "fiscal and election responsibility" under Bob Bennett.

Diebold Repairs? Another "Overlooked" Financial Hole.

At the August 23, 2006 CCBOE meeting, under Bob Bennett's "fiscal leadership," and Blackwell contract that also demanded no requirements for Diebold liability or responsibility for their failures, the Cuyahoga Board handed over complete control for Diebold alone to decide:

• which of our 5,000+ $27,000 each, machines had been broken during their one time use in the May election,
• which repairs were under "warranty" and which we had to pay to fix,
• how much each repair would cost,
• and via such "repairs", our $180/hour Diebold "Project Manager, Hiner, orally promised to make them all "fit for use" in November's election.

A really good arrangement for Diebold, and a pretty bad one for us, under Bennett's "management", I think most would say.

(This is also the meeting - though not on the agenda, as usual, when Bennett wanted to proffer a "surprise public attack" on anyone he saw to possibly negatively impact his power - at which Bennett attempted to discredit the Election Science Institute's then-recently completed audit, which has been since nationally used and referred to in attempts of other experts to set new and better voting standards. See Video: Board Attacks Election Science Institute)

While I disagree that these Diebold machines that "count" our votes with secret software, inside "black box" machines can, even when working correctly, ever be made "fit for use" in a citizens' election, the board , even after I asked about their demanding some Diebold warranty of Hiner's promise, neglected to do even that.

When looking at some of the documents involved in what appears to be a cozy little arrangement that Diebold and others have going for themselves, the facts of financial responsibility to us, the taxpayers, become even more astounding.

• The "Diebold Tech Associate Attachment" that shows:

• "the analyzers" of unknown capability making $75/hour to determine "our costs"for fixing their failures
  
• "the fixers"- also unknown and unpromised at $135/hour
• and even our paying their travel costs, for shipping for stuff they didn't bring, or their need to send machines out because they couldn't fix them.
• And shows the "sole source" letter saying no one else but Diebold could possibly do such an assessment and repairs.

• The $268, 650 contract, that even says N/A, on the line that could have made Diebold financially liable for not finishing the "work" on time.

• One of the Diebold repair logs from September about what the above folks "found."

• Hiner's as usual, droll memo, dated 9/14/06, stating that yep, "Phase One", Diebold-talk for their "analyzing time" was on course with their estimated charges; and reminding that there still were many other unknown expenses involved that Cuyahoga would be paying.

Then unlike the behavior of most normal consumers under such circumstances, even during the November 7 election the CCBOE did NOT keep logs of Diebold failure rates!

To give some window of just how "fit for use" those hundreds of thousands of "analysis and repair" dollars gave to voters (and poll workers) of this county, however, I offer here a rather unintelligible report (as it came, as usual from the CCBOE,) which reflects some of the calls that came into the board for help at the polls.

Though the report is titled "all calls" it is apparent from reports made during the election day meeting that there were many other calls of varying kinds; and there may be various other types of reports at the board, "pink sheets" and "security log" reports from the polls, hundreds of sheets and not easy to post.

One does not need to be able to actually read, nor even to take this report as totality, to be able to immediately notice numerous reports of again broken printers (AVPM or other such permutations,) bent signature plates, broken legs and more.

Since November 7, nary has the board, including Bennett, said one word to Diebold about all the very potentially wasted money involved in purchase and "repairs." The only Diebold conversation that has been undertaken has been about their absolutely failing, $7,000 each EMP's. (See The Diebold EMP Folly)

Bennett said when this Diebold junk breakage issue started before November, that the fault lay, NOT with Diebold junk - but with his previously not being appropriated MORE $1/2 millions from Diebold, for their also junky roll carts.
He eventually got those, though Diebold was very late in their delivery of them (I guess their tin tube maker of legs, or rubber wagon wheel supplier was on vacation) - again to no financial loss to Diebold.

In early August, '06 Bennett also got more of what he wanted, ANOTHER $4-5 million from the County Commissioners, to buy 900 MORE of the junky, riggable Diebold machines, plus many of the supplies that Diebold also sells, and are needed to actually make the machines work.

The Commissioners did not voice much agreement with Bennett's stated need for the new machines, in fact they showed that he was using invalid voter numbers to show the need for the more millions. But they went along with the new appropriation that went from county taxpayer coffers almost all directly into Diebold's pockets, seemingly to just try to finally settle all the difficulties with the Board and with the already huge investment in May's election.
(After the July release of the CERP Report, about May's election, containing often scathing reports about top management behavior, (see Section 7) among other things, there had already been two 2-2 splits among the board, with the Dems trying to oust of Vu and Dillingham then, and the Republican members wanting them to stay. Eventually with Blackwell supposed to break the tie, and the influx of new money, and the appointment of former BOE director, Tom Hayes, at $4,000/week, to babysit Vu to get the county through an election and allow Vu and Dillingham to save face and some money, the Director and Deputy stayed for another few months until their March, '07 ouster )

At that Commissioners' 8/9 meeting, Florkiewicz's appeal for the additional county millions was different than Bennett's inflated numbers. She repeated more than once, that we needed MORE of Diebold machines, to act as back up to the 5,000+, used-one-time, and "repaired" junk, when they would break down AGAIN!

Especially when you add OTHER items just on the same 8/23/06 CCBOE meeting agenda mentioned above regarding repairs, the pattern becomes unmistakable. It contained a:

• Sole Source Agreement with Diebold for Level 2/3 Support Specialists to provide part time support to the County for GEMS related questions or issues. ($47,250.00)
• Sole Source Agreement for Diebold for Director and Product/Implementation Subject Matter Expert (Jessica Hiner.) ($61,200.00)
• Sole Source Agreement for Diebold for Co-Project Manager (Peggy Patton) $91,800.00)

All three were part time for a few months. Though reports about the tech made it consistently appear that he actually helped a great deal, the latter two women making $180/hr. were rarely seen at the CCBOE, were unable to offer many substantive answers if any, and were, however, great at finding new ways to get more Cuyahoga money.
Hiner who, it appears from other agreements may have double dipped on her time also as a "trainer", appeared at most CCBOE meetings. She mostly carried back and forth "answers" she herself didn't know - until November 7, when her contract was over. That's how much our "product specialist" cared about what she left in her wake at the CCBOE.

Given all of the above, do YOU consider the board's action under Bennett fiscally responsible, with YOUR taxpayer money?
Even the first approximate 5,000 "free" machines, as they are termed, were paid with federal taxpayer funds, as horribly routed often by friends of riggable voting machine makers, with HAVA, the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
Or does the Cuyahoga board's behavior under Bennett, their non-accountable, continued piling on millions to Diebold, while demanding NO responsibility from the vendor - almost as if they were trying to keep up with some quota - bring other phrases to mind?