for voting systems is by state, so if you are able to do that within, say, in collaboration, and simplify the bodied a not working across more than one body. and to look to what has been established with other open source voting groups, there are a few that exist. reaching out to them and improve the design system in terms of the time and potentially reduce the cost as well. approaching the project in an agile manner and develop and deploy elements of the solution as incrementally as you can to improve the functionally and until this is complete. and evaluating the license types and throughout the assessment we

discovered the range of constrai constraints. and developing the project and all these points brought us to upper air disturbance the scope and the -- to understand the scope and approach and the logical step. >> i have two questions and this particular side. >> and this page you walked us through highlights different components from each of the six options that you believe to be the highest likelihood of success, correct? >> that is correct. >> maybe you can elaborate why the department of technology is the best department to house open source voting rather than

the department. >> and we looked the complex development and open source, and accessibility and the business process of elections. so this is an approach we take with other projects and require better capability. >> in other projects that you are evaluating, you are making a recommendation to accommodate a recommendation that the department of technology house -- >> i'm sorry. i meant more that other types of work that we do for the businesses and client such as yourself. so we would take the capability model and understand what is required to deliver the solution and look at what are the groups and the skillsets in each of the departments that could scale the

capabilities. if you want to have, for example, the ability to run complex software development, and that was one of about 20 capabilities that we wanted to -- >> well, i think where i am -- where you are losing me is complex software abilities. and the department of election is running software. and i don't know, dr. ernst, would you call it complex? i don't really know the answer. but we should just move on in the interest of time. we can move on to the next slide. >> and i can go into the elements of that capability model. it wasn't expecting the scope to dive into that today, but i can and explain more with the report. and kind of all the elements and the method of scoring that we went through for each of those. >> let's keep it high level and go down to the score sheets per se, but let's go to the next slide and hear about the elements of the system. >> thank you.

so what we have presented here is -- maybe i want to use the worse case. to be as prudent as possible around the maximizing the livelihood of the solution being created, and in the reliable man arenaed not coming back for more money. and what that meant was re-evaluated the option whereby the city does this by hems. within the options we assessed, ways that could reduce the costs and partnering and share the costs, but we don't know that you can do that yet. so this is the buffer end of the budget estimates. points to note, the fers stages

is more discouvery and the overall discovery has quite a range. we don't want details for what makes up that range with the voter system and again, this comes back to the discovery stage and what you are running and how to build it and the technology to build it and that would reduce the range of cost estimate as we understand scope better. >> so what i am taking out here is to evaluate from a software design, skill, test, certify as well as what it takes to create the hardware in the voting centers to be used that is a cost that you have to incur. and i also wanted to not just

avoid the ongoing annual and pro ration costs that we would happen. so this is in isolation and not the cost comparison with the existing contract and that is in place already and the scope of the assessment to look at what it would take to do this in the open source manner. >> the first thing that comes to mind is how much are we spending already with the current contractor. do you know how much we spend with dominion to run the annual elections? >> two-year extension and no contract and $2.2 million and this to the election calendar year. >> and the cross building and open source system respect to one time cost associated with discovery and system and

development and certification deposit, the horardware is rougy $42 million? >> and the 100% contingency and the estimates came through at half the number and from based on where you are in the project. >> in any kind of estimation of a project, as you get more understanding of the scope and the life cycle of the project, the uncertainty that what you have and how ruhr building is reduce and you don't have to allow for so much contingency. >> after that the annual range of 3.3 to 6.5 million and per election, is that right? >> that is correct. and some of the costs in the

election are the same as you are currently spending. the reason it was included is to say that some of the costs won't go away. you still have to pay poll worker rs and train them and existing facility. so almost a fixed cost. >> all right. the next slide. discovery and system developments. >> we tried to show -- if i can get this to go down more of a breakdown and the item breakdown with a key point here is this is a worst case and this is showing you that by component, here is what are the resources based on the amount of scope and the dollar per hour is in the report to bubble up how it breaks down. the key point is the bottom line is build total for option four within the report is saying partner with l.a., partner with multiple vendors and use a be n

beginning group that already has part of it built out. in other words, how can you do everything as efficient as possible? we see the costs going down from 6.88 to 15.7. the high level number and the 11-26 is the worst case scenario and that is if san francisco did it 100% by themselves and start from scratch. we believe there are ways to cut the costs, but all the decisions need to be made in a discovery phase when we lock down what the scope is. that is what we wanted to highlight here. >> okay. is option four a higher risk than the baseline option? >> that is correct. >> why is that? >> because the uncertainty and another part is partnering with the jurisdiction. and there are timelines when they want to commit to and when and schedules may differ. they may not, but it is a risk. that is one example of how it

could be a little more risky. the more people you bring in, the less control you might have over precise scope and precise timeline. >> the assumptions, is it considered on costs associated with -- are there other costs to be considered? >> in the discovery and development phase, so this is all primarily labor costs to do the software build, design build, test, and certify. it is pretty significant certification effort with the secretary of sta secretary of state. and we spent time with the deputy secretary of state to understand that process and how we might fit into that, but it is not -- this is going to be different for them. that is one of the risks we explained and come to you later. and there is the need to support this certification process after everything has been built.

for each of the elements of a voting system that were described in the prior slide and also this slide, there would be a time to make sure that you can adjust and to the next lied. and certify and run. >> right. so i was asked to kind of share more about the types of skillsets that this requires, and get a sense of timing and scale. so the diagramming you can see on top of the page there is straight from the report. that is an estimated timeline based on assessment. and the city doing this themselves. and of how long each of these component cans take. and all the subparts of the voting system and what the discovery phase would take and what subsequent park would take

from procurements and generally the build phase and certify phase. and this may look being passionate about the development and the waterfall and this may look like a waterfall, but that is how it's been represented graphically. this would be an agile manner and meaning that you can control and focus the scope more accurately as you are executing this project. so that is what the top of the chart shows is the overall timeline. and the bar chart will show the expected and the assumptions we made around the total f.t.e.s to support each stage. so you can see start off from managing through the procurement and committing to a discovery phase and getting into the build, test, certify cycles and the team that continue to supporting after those last certification phase and the ongoing costs.

>> and you can get a sense of the types of skills that would be required in all these subboxes there. >> do these skill sets, can one person satisfy and be the beta engineer and a furniture designer oer a mobile software engineer? is it just one individual for these -- >> so i think that -- >> for the descriptions? >> the assumption is it is individual f.t.e.s and could be the case with someone with multiple skills but is the workload, could that be done by one person? the assumption is there is a workload amount that is two f.t.e.s worth of work and two distinct set of skill sets for that and this could be how we apply this, and you need these types of skills throughout the project.

>> should we anticipate that completion will most likely take longer tharn three years? >> we have it as approximately three years, yes. the rest of it shows more of the run and support going forward. >> your question was? pessimistic, thinking that it would take longer. there are a lot of factors, right? >> such as what? >> the ability to procure. from a timing risk point of view, the procurement phases could take a long time, right? >> the procurement phases within our own process? >> that is correct. that can add significant amount of time to be able to execute on any of the modules. the specification process is presently untested. we got some guidance from the how long that will take and one of the mitigating actions as part of discovery is a

memorandum of understanding and getting something on paper about what they can commit to. and cutting into the risk significance and that is one way of l kroing some of the timeline -- controlling some of the timeline stuff. >> and one thing that is concerning to me is the amount of f.t.e.s and you got the average of 20 full-time employees. and that is heavy. very top heavy. and so is that throughout the life of the project from phase one to phase three? you see what i sneen at some point it will ebb and flow and and in the maintenance of the software. >> that is right. as i was trying to explain the fee, the stacked charted in middle of the page on the right. at the beginning each one of the lines is month of the plan that is on the top of the page. again, trying to put a lot of

information on one page. so that is the same timeline. >> ongoing would be something like five, am i reading this correctly? >> right. >> is there anything else on this slide? >> just looking through my notes. those are all the talking points. thank you. >> and we also came up with the top 12 risks that regardless of which option you do and to start the project and the standard system to build and support. number rjts and we have to get that defined up front. number three, the ability of attract and engage multiple vendors. you mentioned travis county and one thing that happen there had the it was all or nothing. the vendor had to be able to handle thar. we need to break this up and that multiple vendors with bring

this in to work together. and there is a lot of passion here and i know that it can be done, but this is new to the city. certification system, as james said, the state has to adjust to and we need to tart working with the fate right away in order for that to happen. we have talked about the choice of the open source license type. and go down to partnerships and the effect of the delivery timeline and we need to make sure that we are partnering well with l.a. county and how to establish that and set that up right away. >> has l. a. county expressed an interest? >> and i did ask that question, and probably off the record, but i asked in the meeting and definitely open to a discussion. because the obvious thing was you spend all this money on tree yating the hardware and should we go through the same design

and could be an opportunity. and we definitely want to talk about that and reduce their corses, dao. >> i i have to check my motes but i with g you a name. >> an i asked a couple of questions. are we done? how did you identify the key risks for open source voting? n san francisco? you have a list of 11. how did you narrow? >> these were the key 11 that came from the interviews and bubble into six options. these were the six risks that regardless of which option we said you had to be able to solve these before you even started a project. and if you did not, at least address them up front, what you would be doing is starting something with a scope that is not signed correctly.

these are the ones from just the three and a half month and the risk of the project moving along, money spent and happening. if you haven't addressed the risks and solved them, you could basically be bit later down the road. this is the result of the study. >> would the risks be addressed in the discovery phase? >> we believe every single one of these have to be addressed. does it have to be solved? maybe not, but at least brought up and say what the game plan for getting this thing solved. >> which one of the risks? and a list of 11, and which one is the greatest barrier for this project that would project and which would prevent the project from moving forward? >> and with any and that is

always one of the specific requirements and what that looks like for the stlugs and to to the project. >> all right. next slide. >> a you think that was it. this is the appendix. i have the name of the folks in l.a. and aaron that var navarez and the project team tim mcnamarn and kenneth bennett. >> thank you. do you have any questions? not at this time. thank you, gentlemen. we appreciate your press conferences and the information. thank you very much. the next speaker is going to be

linda from the department of technology. >> thank you very much for having me here. and i am linda gerrell and serve the city and s.i.o. and director of department of technology. i just would like to chat about some of the technical considerations around an open source voting system and answer any of your questions. >> thank you. one of the first questions i

have been asked over time is what are the city's project roles. i think it's important to understand how the city would be supporting this project move forward and so coit has funded the project and from 2017-2019. and we would definitely be using elections subject matter experts from the department of elections. they are the ones that understand the rouls, procedures -- the rules, procedures, and process around elections. from the technology and project management point of view, this is something the department of technology can add to the project. project strategy, work plan development and budget management would be a partnership between the department of elections and the department of technology. we would be moving forward together to make sure that we are addressing any risks, scope, and schedule.

so as we move forward talking about this, and easy to get into the weeds, but we have to back up and say what are the goals for the project? of course, it is the accuracy of the participation and the accuracy of the vote. and next it's privacy. it's also transparency of the process. i have heard that loud and clear from the commission as well as from the elections department. i am very passionate about the security of the process. we have also heard from our community about accessibility and how important equity is going to be in the process. it does add complexity on any kind of system build. and also i am passionate about tax dollars spent effectively. from the open questions that

they have brought up is the state certifications cost and the possibility of matching funds from the state, schedule t status of other election open source projects in the country. and of course, open and the technology that would be used and the innovation that we would bring. as we move forward and start to look at those open questions, of course the discovery phase is really about answering these questions. and we first real hi need to look at -- really need to look at our peers. i believe there are lessons to be learned an there are stories to be told and the results to be understood. and there are partners to be found. and this is just a quick list of all the different open source projects that are already in process around the country. and these are every one of these people we need to talk to. and as we move forward, you have

some questions about what are the technology considerations and why it's complex. this is just a build where the elections department has been talking about leasing system and we bring in a system from a commercial provider and they help set it up and support it and maintain it. as we move toward and talk about building this in san francisco, there are many technology considerations. entering every one of these topics adds to how we define the scope, adds to how we defoin the project. adds to or reduces costs and complexity. but things like security. how we're going to audit. how we other going to be compliant. how we'll optimize the database and the processing. how we'll process recovery and maintenance and how easy it will be to deploy this to all the precincts.

not just enough to say i am going to build this widget. we have lots of smart people that can build widgets, but what it really is about the whole life cycle and total cost of ownership of the project and i am interested in the reliability of the system and we don't want horror stories about how on election night there is a problem with the system. so you have to go through a lot of testing and slalom aif the number of poem that are dekt de tick ticket monitoring compliance and looking at the architecture of the system and how the pieces fit together, and someone doing nothing but watching this security because it's not just the software, but the horde wed hardware after and the interplay

and the integration between those tools and anything else. remember, the results have to go to the state and integrate with state processes. this is just adds to the complexity and the scope of the project. we also want to make sure as we move forward that we are going to be scaleable. and that our architecture and the test is amid the architecture that will support a flexible design forward and compliant with standards and we'll talk and show you a little bit why standards are so important. being compliant with standard wills mean that we have a lower cost solution to move forward. that will help us as we move into the maintenance phases. this is just the slide of technology platforms and the open source world. this is some of what we will have to choose from. and these are widgets that would help us build the system. so you have to pick some of

those. and as you are picking these, go back to the previous slide where we're looking at reliability performance and how this tool set works with other tool sets and how mature it is, etc. and then we have application tools in the open source world to pick from. and so this is another suite of components that would be one or more part of the solution. and we have a whole set of construction admin tools to choose from to help in the build, in the test, in the deploy, and how we'll manage the system moving forward. all the things have to be determined and modelled and have to be piloted and to sew h see how we other going to make the system reliable an secure. having said that, in terms of partner and if we move forward

with partner, they may have had some of the choices. do we agrow with them? do we like it? have they run into problems? going back to all the peers in the industry to see what the experience is with the different tools will help us make a more informed and less risky decision. and sloan has talked about what it's going to take to plan, design, engineer, build, test, and operate the software. and the same is true for the hardware, and i would like to add to that. and we have to have resilient and redundant hardware from that disaster recovery point of view. we have to make sure that we have a system, a totally separate system for certification with the state. we also want to make sure that we have factored in the training for the staff and the volunteers as part of this project. how they will start to interact

with the time frame and the ongoing costs around patches, upgrades, refresh, all those components that i shared with you, and each one of those will have a different update schedule and refresh rate. and as much as we can, of course, we try to align those to that we are not always in an an update mode, but then you rush against security. if you are not upgrading and updating in a timely manner, that is when you run into security issues. it is a balance between the two and that is something that has to be engineered. so the next step that from the department of technology and we're seeing move forward is developing the work plan from the sloan report. addressing the findings. and in 1819-budget year. and adding a subject matter expert from an elections point of view that can be that voice

of business and adding the technology project imaginer for the project that will help address and start framing the technology discussion and we definitely need to contact all of our peers and investigate the active open source voting projects. address funding opportunities whether that's with the state or with partners. and if there are grants available, anything to help with the funding. of course, consulting with the state on certification is number one on the list. and developing and starting development of technical design standard and the architecture for the system as well as getting ready for the construction program. and i think most importantly as we move forward and with everyone that is here today to advocate for the project is really having a strong communications plan for all the stakeholders here. whether that be from the mayor's office through the board of supervisors through the

community and we want to be very transparent and open as we work through the project. >> all right. thank you very much, linda. quick question, have you contacted or communicated with anyone from the l.a. county which has developed a human centered accessibility design furniture and electronic voting? >> i have not personally, but slalom included them in the analysis and report. the next questions we would be asking them are much more technical, much more around how they have, constructed, build, supported and maintained the environment. what it would take to utilize it is they approach is a dit from a process point of view where what he project projections and the vote center ed change how they n

election. >> how many people are in your department? >> mine? >> now f.t.e.s do you have? >> 250. >> all right. so would your department will able to handle such a build out? >> not from a raw construction point of view, no. so we would be contracting this work. we would need to write an r.f.p. for the design and architecture that would be proposed for components and how the market would address that. we have very good recent experience around other city projects and very, very strong proposals and open source development. >> and your thoughts around the risks that were mentioned by the

previous speaker. from your perspective, what do you think is the biggest technical concern? and of course, how to reducing that risk of course. so you reduce the risk by really top storying your discovery and really doing your homework. so as with any of the projects in the city, and in my experience over 30 years, you really need to understand what is the business problem you are trying to solve. what components do you need? what is the business case for that? what are the requirements? and the technologists can work backwards from that, but we have to be very clear about what the strategy is. and are we going to have other partners? that really will dictate how this project gets forms and what strategy will be in place. and i am also very proponent about cost benefit and that total cost of ownership. as we move forward, we will find

there are different alternatives and we are going to need to quantify the cost from a construction as well as a maintenance perspective to move forward and what those risks are and the timelines are. and as slalom mentioned, you might find something you absolutely love and that they are on a different timeline than we are. what does that mean? are you willing to wait? you may find somebody has something right now but not exactly what you want. are you willing to comprise your strategy or your vision for the project? so these are things that will happen this year. and i think what with need to do is plan, again, on a good communications plan, reporting back, and making the choices and alternatives very transparent and so that as we move forward, there is a common understanding and strategy. >> and chief technologist for the city and county of san francisco, do you believe that we are moving in the right direction? >> yes, if we do a discovery

phase. starting the code now is not the way to do this. there are lots of people that can write open source code. every one of the projects that i shared with you on the list, as a public account and repositories and has contributors. but even the largest project that has 15 contributors on it, that is not enough to do this job. and so we have to bring the right skillset to bear, and we need to make sure that we're doing this in a proven way to make this successful. because we want to make good use of taxpayer fund. >> absolutely. thank you very much. i appreciate your presentation and thoughtfulness and look forward to more conversation around this particular topic. the next presenter will be chris from the elections commission. and chris, can you pronounce your last name? >> trudonik. you got it mostly right. >> thank you. welcome. >> good afternoon, committee members and chair. thank you for the hearing. i have been on the elections

commission for over four years. i am the board's appointee and i was also president two of the years. i authored the commission's resolution on open source voting in 2015. and i also chair the commission's open source voting technical advisory committee. it is made up of experts from the public and provides technical guidance on the project. by day i am a software engineer and open source software contributor. i will start by summarizing the benefits of open source voting. and many appear in the boards of supervisors resolution and the commission's resolution that passed unanimously. so first, transparency. open source lets the public see the software that is being used in elections, which increases the public's trust. second, security. open source lets the security of the system instead of buy a

blind faith. >> voting systems are expensive and are from a few options. >> open source eliminating annual licensing fees and service contracts will be open to anyone instead of limited to the only one vendor. open source voting system needs to be developed only one. after that you just have to pay for the improvements instead of the proprietary system where you have to start over from scratch each time. and fourth, flexibility. open source would let us add accessible and security features ourselves instead of being limited to what is being sold. and fifth, national leadership nfr. and the election security and in turn, we benefit because the how the leaders are affected in the united states affects us as a whole including the presidency.

so in march the elections commission unanimously voted to support three different things. first, to request at least $4 million for the 2018-19 fiscal year. second, to ask the mayor and budget chair to support assembly member chiu and senator weaner's budget request of $8 million from state matching funds. third, to support is technical advisory committee's recommendations of next steps and what should be allocate d first and this recommendation said two things. number one t city should hire full-time staff project and report to the director of elections. second, the vote should be started first and these parts are simpler, fewer, cheaper, and would cover more than 60% of the voters. this is an example of what is known as an agile approach. it is better to view the project not just as one big mojt.

and they can be started one at a time. and and there is the accessible device for people with disabilities, and so on. each part can be developed and used even if the rest isn't yet open source. start i starting smaller, we benefit sooner and with less money and we learn the remaining costs from real experiences and should san francisco fund this project? some people say the federal government or the stay should fund it, but that is not what leadership is and a couple of months ago he said it is to the bring the system and even said they should hurry up and if we

want others to pitch in, we need to start the project so others have something to join on to, rally around, and be inspired by and that is what leadership is about. that is what san francisco is about. thank you. >> thank you very much for your leadership, commissioner. i have a couple of questions. maybe recreate a new about si or the counties work directly with us. and once we start, we'll be the ones that get to decide the structure with other

jurisdictions to work with us. >> how do you suggest we move forward with this project given that it's not clear how the certification process will work. and since there hasn't been any clarify given from the secretary of state's office? >> well, the certification process is the public process and there are processes around it. and the secretary of state of has said he will work with us to get our system certifyed. so i don't think it's as big of an uncertainty as people think. really it needs to saelt t satisfy the requirements of state laws, but beyond that, you just submit it to them. >> how can the open source voting technical advisory committee support the department of technology as well as department of elections in implementing the open source voting? >> we meet month to month and can review things, can answer

questions. we can and right now no one is coming to us with questions. we are proactive in doing things on our own. and we are starting to develop the component itself to show how cheaply it can be done and the component that slalom said would cost between $1 and $2 million and we think we could come close to getting most of that done. >> all right. thank you very much. i appreciate your press conferences presentation. >> so i have a list of comment card. we're going to go into public comment at this time. the first one to call up -- [calling of speakers]

i want to welcome to advocates with us here today. welcome. >> thank you, madam chair. and to the staff and i chair the california democratic party women's caucus on behalf of the members as well as the african-american caucus and the chicano-latino and whose chairs are in different jurisdictions, all of us are here today to comment on behalf of this motion because we believe that we have a duty to protect and defend our democracy. we remember the chads in florida in 2000. and the help america vote act that we thought was going to fix that. we remember voting for public power and we lost by 533 votes and then they found almost 300

votes floating in the bay. and retrieved off the pier. remember that? and so when people tell pollsters, why bother voting? if the fix is already in. and if my vote doesn't count, where it won't be counted as cast, they can say it's not about the money. but it's about the money. what we can do rather than continuing to spend hundreds of billions o f dollar on machines that people don't trust and corporations are making a profit off of the elections, we can instead move to open source and as the commissioner indicated, do so in a way that is agile. this is an issue and more women of color and disabilities and grass root candidates will be elected if we have clean money campaigns and open source voting. thank you. >> thank you for your thoughtful comments. appreciate it. >> trent from the california clean money campaign.

and recovering ph.d. in computer science. and i can speak to some of the technical things. but i will not particularly. and the campaign focuses on the issues of campaign finance reform and people need to be able to trust and when we polled the 50 house and they said the integrity and security and transparency of the elections with open source voting was absolutely one of the top concerns. for all those reasons that christine pointed out. and we have been working with assembly member chiu and senator weaner on a state budget proposal. we absolutely congratulate the incredible work being done in san francisco by the elections commission and moving this forward to put fran in a place to move forward. we understand that $12 million

is a lot for one jurisdiction and the proposal moving forward with the state budget process and provide up to $8 million in matching fund to the county to develop an open source project such as been proposed here. if it is done, any parts done by the 2020 election and stesed and certified afterwards would get a 2:1 match and 1:1 and the state wants to encourage as quick as possible. and let you move it right forward. >> thank you for that reminder. >> and thank you, supervisors. my name is david carey. i have more than two decades of doing and matching software projects and more than 22 years of focused interest on the damages and opportunities to conduct trustworthy elections. and that includes federal working groups that are shaping the next generation of federal standards for certifying voting systems. the key point i want to make is

that san francisco can develop very usable and yet economic open source and need not bear all the costs itself. and if they want to spend more, it can develop a super deluxe voting system and spend another $20 or $30 million. but you don't have to. and start with a more economical and value driven approach. this is the approach proposed in 2015 and the being elaborate bid the highly regarded technical advisory committee. there is good faith estimates and general background for people who are relatively new to the issues. however, slalom estimates are comprised by their lack of prior experience with voting systems and with open source projects.

and by perspective as limited by the company's own business and inefficient old school development paradigms you should not be limited by viewing this project and evaluating this project through the lens of the slalom report itself. thank you. >> i assure you we're not. we're not limiting ourselves. mr. brent turner. like the godfather of open source voting. been talking about it at least to me -- >> hello, supervisors. i have a written statement for you, but i am going to just hand that in and sort of riff off the notes that i have made here sitting here listening to the previous testimony. and as you know, i am with the california association of voting officials and previously open voting consortium and pioneered this work in the united states and we're proud that san francisco, my home county s

carrying forth the duty here. and the only barrier to funding the the funding. the vendors don't like this idea. and new hampshire has already implemented an open source voting system and that is 75% system we call it. it has the disability component and the voter interface already running on open source. this is not novel, not complicated. this is not rocket science. this is fighting for our democracy tooth and i have and we will currently see playing out hoer. we met with slalom and introduced them to the two folks that have created successfully the open source system in the united states, and we had conference but then there was no more communication by slalom with the two foremost experts in the united states. and instead referred to oset and

kept referring to oset. one last piece, the travis county project and it is not an open source project. it is up to san francisco to lead in this matter. thanks for your medication to democracy. >> few we will hear next from susan and -- [calling of speakers] >> i am co-chair of the task force and author of a senior software consultant. i have been working on open source systems promoting them

since 2005. when i learned that the people system was programmed by somebody with 23 convictions for embezzlement, let that sink in. programming the elections system an embezzler. and open source is best way to deal with this by allowing us to look at his keyed. and that's when i got into it and r when i realize we need to get open source. this is not about san francisco getting a better election system or cheaper election system, which it will. this is not just about california safing hundreds of millions of dollars on elections system, which it will. this is about the country. this is object our democracy. we need to know that elections in virginia and michigan and pennsylvania and alabama all over the country are fair and

accurate. and the only way that we're going to do that is to get rid of the open source and then have to start here. san francisco's it. los angeles is not open source. travis county didn't work out so far. san francisco is the only hope. this has to go through. we have to make it happen. i encourage the city to take up the leadership and make this democracy happen for the country. thank you. >> all right. thank you. [calling of speakers] >> i am with the california

democrats and with the disability community. i am a strong proponent of open source voting. and with the system to one of the great times and securing that money for the new voting system.

this is a fair democracy. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> greg pennington, a resident and member of the indivisible sf and the california clean money campaign. one of the things i have done for california clean money is at grass roots and activist events talking to san franciscans and collecting petition signatures. it is clear among san franciscans there is real concern about the integrity of the voting systems. and people are really concerned that we're going to lose our democracy if we don't get this problem fixed. there is an awful lot of support out there for open source.

there are very few people who say know to signing the petition when i am doing that. we had thement ka pain kickoff event last sunday attended by over 125 people. it was a great success. and i just want to read in a partial list of the 29 organizations that supported us that they were co-sponsors of the event and they are advocating for open source voting. californians for disability rights, california association of voting officials, california common cause, the dean democratic club of silicon valley, endangered habitat league, fair vote california, the harvey mill lgbt individual club, individual sf, older women's league t san francisco green party t open source election technology foundation, and the open source initiative, and democratic club, richmond democratic club, san francisco, bernie for democracy, and the latino democratic club, san francisco tech, and united

america, united democratic club, voting rights task force and wellstone democratic renewal club. please appropriate this $4 million and put san francisco in the lead. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i worked for the city 30 years so i understand the need to be cost effective in everything that we do. since i retired, i've worked in the last four presidential campaigns here in san francisco and on many other campaigns as well. many other current groups that are involved in national politics here in san francisco, i believe this is a very cost effective way for san francisco to proceed insentivizing the state to allocate money. this is a way to get more bang for the buck to go forward in

full other funding the system. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i've been to sacramento to talk to the state. it's complex. it will take some time. it's time to start now. thank you for your support. >> thank you. i want to read the final cards that i have in hand and encourage anyone that hasn't spoken to come on -- get in line and we'll bring you up. james, mary ryan, donna, emily levy, pamela smith. jennifer haggy, don curry, david schmidt, ronen k. i can't pronounce the last name.

>> good afternoon. my name is catherine baits. i'm a former project manager at a tech company and a resident of the cast co. ten years ago as an intern, i was tasked with researching improvements we could make to the election system, and in the last ten years, not a lot has changed. this is an incredible opportunity. i really urge you to support fully funding the 40s million to -- $4 million to get this going. >> thank you. come on up. >> thank you. i'm sure you're getting hungry and tired. my name is carly. i'm from the central sunset district, and i'm a volunteer with the california clean money campaign. i think it's a profound and fundamental responsibility of every city, county, state, and our national governmental bodies to make sure that every vote cast is accurately counted. that's at risk because of new technologies, and the response