Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />TECHNICAL COMMENTS ON: <br /> <br />1. Election equipment <br />Mu~icipalities optical scan system bid proposals <br /> 3. Technical cogcerns <br /> <br /> Reviewed and accepted by <br />Anoka County Commissioner Paul McCarron <br /> <br />Written by Paula Yankee ~ <br /> 2/21/90 <br /> <br />The following comments are offered to assist Anoka County and <br />Municipalities in reviewing election technical issues. I have <br />conferred with Maureen Gaalaas on the election equipment bid <br />proposals and general Anoka County Auditor election functions and <br />overall concerns. I have reviewed the bid proposals and investigated <br />technical aspects of Unisys and Business Records Corporation (BRC) <br />systems. Legal concerns are not addressed in this document. <br /> <br />In 1987, a technical overview of election equipment was provided to <br />the Auditors Task Force on Election Equipment. Optical scan ballot <br />counting was reviewed as a possible long term solution and <br />investment. The County looked forward to more vendors entering the <br />optical scan system market to make costs more competitive. <br /> <br />In 1990, there is one vendor currently certified in the Minnesota <br />that can accommodate the volume of voting in Anoka County and there <br />is one vendor seeking certification in the Minnesota that can <br />likewise accommodate Anoka County. <br /> <br />ELECTION EQUIPMENT <br /> <br />1. Technically, the 1990 offered optical scan systems are comparable <br /> to the 1987 offered hardware and software with minor technical <br /> and service improvements. With t~9 major vendor players, both the <br /> County and Municipalities can now compare systems. <br /> <br />MUNICIPALITIES BID PROPOSALS <br /> <br />2. The following are concerns regarding the existing and any future <br /> RFP for optical scan systems: <br /> <br />A. Whichever vendor is awarded a bid, the Municipalities and the <br /> County must "hold the vendors feet to the ground" in <br /> performance of all programming services. This programming is <br /> not standard business programming nor is it quickly picked up <br /> and learned or applied by existing personnel. This programming <br /> is specific to these particular election voting systems. <br /> also essential to realize that there will be o~-gg~D~ <br /> programming costs. <br /> <br />I of 4 <br /> <br />It is <br /> <br /> <br />