ca sos hearing presentation

Slide1: 

Presentation of ES&S John Groh, Senior Vice President of Government Relations October 15, 2007

Topics: 

Topics Overview of important facts Our Company AutoMARK Federal qualification/state certification processes Timelines ATS and SysTest remarks Summary Conclusion

ES&S Position: 

ES&S Position AutoMARK -- federally qualified and California certified Non-functional, de minimis hardware modifications were approved through federal process NASED considered hardware modifications part of existing qualified and certified system State was aware of modified hardware State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system

Our Company : 

Our Company Mission Maintaining voter confidence and enhancing voting experience Providing secure, accurate and reliable voting solutions History Over three decades, ES&S has had successful track record of producing quality results Compliance with federal and state certification processes First company ever to receive certification of voting equipment under 1990 VVSS and end to end voting system under 2002 VVSS

The AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal: 

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Ballot-marking device used by voters with disabilities and other special needs Well-received by voters and election officials Certified and installed in 29 states The AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal

Federal Qualification Process: 

Federal Qualification Process Overseen by NASED (National Association of State Election Directors) States accept and rely on NASED qualification Evaluation Testing Review Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs)

Independent Testing Authorities: 

Independent Testing Authorities Function of the Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs) Approved and accredited by NASED Conduct extensive qualification testing Provide detailed reports to NASED Technical Committee as part of qualification process Consider and review hardware changes to already approved voting systems Review submission of engineering change requests (ECRs) Determine action required (if any)

Engineering Change Requests: 

Modifications to hardware (on previously qualified systems) Do not involve modifications to software or firmware Reasons for ECRs Service and manufacturability COTS, end of life, equivalent hardware parts Engineering Change Requests

Engineering Change Requests: 

Engineering Change Requests If review finds changes are de minimis (not involving form, fit, or function) No new voting system is created No new NASED qualification number is assigned Previously qualified voting system viewed as unchanged and unaffected Historical practice of states, including CA, did not require notice of de minimis hardware changes

AutoMARK Phase 2 (A200): 

AutoMARK Phase 2 (A200) Reasons for non-functional modifications to previously CA certified AutoMARK hardware: Ease of preventative maintenance Manufacturability NASED/ITA approved de minimis hardware changes No new NASED qualification number was assigned Existing voting system was viewed as unaffected and unchanged for voters, poll workers and election officials

Federal Certification Timeline: 

Federal Certification Timeline

Federal Certification Timeline: 

Federal Certification Timeline

California Certification Timeline: 

California Certification Timeline

California Certification Timeline: 

California Certification Timeline

AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline: 

AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline

AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline: 

AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline

SysTest Labs and ATS: 

SysTest Labs and ATS Brian Phillips, President SysTest Labs Incorporated Gary Olivi, VP Technical Operations and COO, AutoMARK Technical Systems, LLC

Summary: 

Summary AutoMARK -- federally qualified and California certified Non-functional, de minimis hardware modifications were approved through federal process NASED considered hardware modifications part of existing qualified and certified system Historical practice was that states, including CA, did not require notice of same as they were not considered a “change” to a voting system

Summary: 

State was aware of modified hardware State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system Summary

Conclusion: 

Conclusion ES&S acted in good faith and has always complied with what we understood to be the practices and procedures relating to the certification process ES&S respectfully requests that the Secretary of State make a no cause determination