Responses Received To Recommendations Of Ir1

Comments 24

• CO1 Page 178
  The method for distributing LCFF funds statewide based on the “unduplicated count” of LCFF students underrepresents the needs of students that meet two or all three of the qualifying criteria for LCFF funding, and underfunds the programs and services required to meet the needs of these students. Exhibit 3 shows the certified pupil counts for LAUSD for the three fiscal years. Exhibit 3 LAUSD Certified Pupil Counts LAUSD Under LCFF Certified Certified Total Low- English Foster / Duplicated Un- Un- Year Migrant Enrollment income Learner Homeless Total Duplicated Duplicated Total Percentage FY 2013-14 558,468 428,162 154,110 21,735 1,188 605,195 454,448 84.61% FY 2014-15 545,838 408,898 141,490 6,367 654 557,409 431,236 83.49% FY 2015-16 529,791 415,701 141,243 13,005 681 570,630 429,646 83.49% Source: California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Unduplicated Pupil Count Source File, California Department of Education Note: Low Income students include those eligible for the Free or Reduced Price Meal Program (FRPM) as well as directly certified. As this exhibit shows, there are a significant number of LAUSD students that are Low- income, and either English Learner, Foster Youth, or both. The unduplicated count does not take this overlap in needs, and qualifications, into account. For example, a student may be a Low-income Foster Youth who also needs to learn English. This student would only be counted once when LCFF supplemental and concentration funds are being calculated. However, this student’s needs are much more substantial that a student who is Low-income only. The cost for LAUSD to meet the additional needs of the student with multiple qualifications is also substantially higher. C. Programs And Services Funded With LCFF Supplemental And Concentration Funds
• CO2 Page 190
  LAUSD has put substantial effort into public input, transparency and accountability as part of the LCAP and budgeting process as required by the LCFF legislation. Exhibit 8 provides an overview of LAUSD’s public input, transparency and accountability efforts conducted as part of developing the two required LCAPs under LCFF. Exhibit 8 Overview of LAUSD LCAP Public Input, Transparency and Accountability Efforts Input / Feedback Method FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Community Input Meetings About 100 32 Community Members Participating Not Available 1,783 Partner Organization Meetings 12 29 Community Survey Responses 10,483 16,673 As this exhibit shows, for the current LCAP, 32 meetings were held by LAUSD to engage community stakeholders and obtain preliminary input for the development of the current LCAP, with 1,783 community members attending. Twenty-nine additional input sessions were held with partner organizations and offices to gather feedback from stakeholders on the goals, targets, and investments of the LCAP and to identify desired revisions to the LCAP. A survey was also developed to solicit additional feedback from the community on the priorities of the LCAP and the District’s goals. The survey was administered both in- person and online. A total of 16,673 individual responses were received. LAUSD published a Community Feedback Report, which summarized the responses, including a ranking of LCAP goals, obstacles to achieving the goals, and suggested strategies. The Cal and CLASS Findings of LAUSD’s implementation of LCFF concluded, despite LAUSD’s efforts, many school personnel, parents and students felt uninformed about LCFF goals and strategies. The review further found that “teachers would appreciate more transparency around how budgets are made at both the District and school level. 178 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Teachers and students believe that they could contribute insight regarding how to best support learning and well-being in their school communities.” 6 V.
• CO3
  The new machine The new voting experience being designed by the RR/CC will make many changes to the current voting process. This new voting experience includes an interactive sample ballot, VBM, early voting, weekend voting, vote centers to replace precinct polling places, and Election Day registration. Key to this experience is a completely re-conceived ballot marking device which will replace the InkaVote system currently used by RR/CC.
• CO4
  A new voting experience In this new voting experience, it is conceived that a voter will be able to visit any vote center. Early voting will take place at centers throughout the county. The number of centers would increase on Election Day. It is estimated that there will be more than 240 voting centers during the early voting phase of a primary or general election, and about 645 centers on Election Day throughout the county. These centers could be located at post offices, libraries, universities and any governmental building of the city or county, among other public sites. Additionally, there are opportunities for public/private partnerships by utilizing commercial venues to broaden outreach capabilities. There will no longer be assigned polling places which an individual must use to cast his or her vote. Vote Center check-in will include use of real-time electronic voter rolls (e-pollbooks) to verify voter eligibility. While providing maximum convenience for the voter, this also assures that the voter has not already voted at another center or through the mail. Voters provide signatures, as they currently do, during this check-in process. Same day registration (on Election Day) will be available using the voter registration system at a certain number of locations. This process will immediately add the new voter to the electronic voter rolls. After check-in is complete, voters will be directed to a machine, called a Ballot Marking Device (BMD), to mark their ballots. Once a voter inserts the paper ballot which he or she received at check-in, the BMD will display that voter’s appropriate ballot style. There can be approximately 500 different ballot styles for any given election. A voter will be able to pre-mark his or her selections on an Interactive Sample Ballot (ISB), made available to voters prior to the voting period, and then may simply scan the QR code24 generated by the ISB to load his or her selections on the BMD. The ISB is being developed to allow voters to make ballot selections and generate a QR code with their selections embedded. If the voter does not pre-mark selections on the ISB, he or she will mark the ballot using the touch screen surface on the BMD. 24 A “quick-response” code (QR) is a two-dimensional barcode which is widely used in industry and consumer advertising. Characteristics include fast readability, high data storage capacity, and reliability even when partially damaged. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 139 When the voter has completed marking his or her ballot, the machine will show the voter exactly what choices he or she has selected, and the voter will then be prompted to verify those selections. The voter has the option to make changes if necessary. When satisfied, the voter designates completion and the BMD produces a paper ballot. The paper ballot has both the QR code and human readable text on it. The voter may then verify the selections printed on the paper ballot. Once verified, the ballot is deposited into the BMD’s integrated ballot box. The paper ballot is the official ballot of record and, consistent with the current process, serves as an audit trail for any recount or other purpose. The BMD is designed to be completely accessible to voters with a varying range of requirements and preferences, and to provide a private voting experience to each voter. It allows for configuration of the touchscreen interface, including language selection. It also provides an audio ballot option, with headphones and a tactile keypad. Finally, it provides ports for voters who wish to connect assistive technology devices. Images of the newly designed BMD, provided to CGJ by RR/CC and reprinted with permission from the RR/CC, are on the opposite page. If a voter arrives at a vote center with a completed vote by mail (VBM) ballot, he or she can simply drop off the voted ballot at the vote center. If the voter prefers, the ballot can be surrendered and he or she can vote in person using a Ballot Marking Device (BMD) through the vote center process. VBM ballots will continue to be mailed back to RR/CC up to and including Election Day. Neither the cost per machine nor the number of total machines needed at each vote center has yet been determined. To date, the county has invested approximately $11.2 million in the research, design and development of new voting system technologies.25 These expenses include costs associated with the development of design and engineering specifications for the new BMD, as well as the development of the tally system framework.26 The county has committed an additional $4.6 million for the completion of the project’s current design and engineering phase. Initial funding was provided through a Productivity Investment Fund grant from the Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission. The bulk of the investment made to date by Los Angeles County as well as a considerable portion of the cost to manufacture and deploy the new system will be reimbursed to the county through dedicated funds established for such purposes under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA)27 and California Proposition 41(Voting Modernization Bond).28 25 The County of Los Angeles hired IDEO to build the new, modular system intended to adapt over time. It is designed, developed and owned by the county. https://www.ideo.com/work/one-device-for-all 26 This is the system that actually counts the paper ballots. It consists of high-speed document scanners which convert the paper ballots to images, and the software that processes the images in order to read the QR codes and tallies the votes they contain. 27 http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/help_america_vote_act.aspx 28 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/laws-and-standards/voting-modernization/ 140 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 141 E. Voting in the Future: On-line Voting or Random Electors Early Voting will be a certainty with the same time allotted for all methods. Physical voting at a predetermined location will always be available, although the number of physical locations will decrease, and VBM will always be an option. Dismal voter turnout will continue to be a problem in off-year and minor local elections. The act of voting should be made easier so that the habit of voter participation will be established. When Los Angeles County’s new voting system is implemented over the next few years, beginning in 2018, voting at a physical location will have reached its potential. Any further improvements will be minor tweaks. VBM is in the same situation. Only on-line voting has major developmental potential. When voting evolves, however, to the point where on-line and VBM predominate, it makes sense for voters to be restricted to choosing to either cast their ballots on-line or by permanent VBM, with voting at a physical location perhaps only available for major elections. Such a change would accomplish the goals of lowering the cost of conducting minor local elections (and allow them to be held at any time) and also greatly relieving voter fatigue.
• CO5
  Beyond “one man, one vote”: random electors Another model imagines that a pre-determined number of voting citizens, selected at random, would become electors with the power to vote in a given election. The government would pay each elector a substantial sum to ensure their voting.29 The exact details are not important here. The important idea is that a small number, but not too small, of registered voters be selected and given the right to vote. They will then be paid to vote. Using voter registration rolls for selecting “electors” could additionally and dramatically increase the number of citizens who register to vote. Many changes to voting laws at all government levels would, of course, be necessary to implement this idea, but if voter turn-out 29 Jason Brennan, Lisa Hill, Compulsory Voting: For and Against, Cambridge University Press (2014), Chapter 2. (“In a voting lottery, all citizens have the same equal fundamental political status. While in universal suffrage, every citizen has one equal vote, in a voting lottery, every citizen has equal eligibility to vote. Elections proceed normally, with candidates working to gain support from voting-lottery eligible citizens. Shortly before the election, the system selects a pre-determined number of citizens at random. These citizens—and these citizens only—become “electors”, imbued with the power to vote. To ensure turnout, the government pays each elector a substantial sum to vote. [footnote omitted] They are not forced to vote. We might perhaps ask them to sign a contract committing them to voting (in exchange for the payment), and then allow them to be punished for breach of contract if they renege. This involves compulsion, but only compulsion to which citizens genuinely consent.”) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 143 languishes we may as a society need to completely reform how decision making takes place. III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ conferenced on several occasions with the RR/CC and visited that department’s headquarters in Norwalk. Presentations, reports, exemplars, and other documents provided by the department were reviewed. Members read academic research and reviewed studies pertaining to the voting experience in California and other states. Members contacted media companies and inquired about their policies and procedures with regard to public service announcements. IV. FINDINGS
• CO6
  The RR/CC has formed a working group to study expanding Early Voting in Los Angeles County before Election Day.
• CO7
  A pilot project may be put in place to open one or two “will call” ballot pick up centers in each of the supervisorial districts for the June 2016 primary.
• CO8
  Additional Early Voting sites may be added for the Presidential General election in November 2016.
• CO9
  Radio and television stations charge for advertisements depending on the popularity of the show during which the advertisement is to run. Public service announcements are also run, but only when other advertisers have not purchased time slots. 144 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• CO10
  The RR/CC’s budget for voter outreach is $500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. The RR/CC is requesting $750,000 for fiscal year 2016-2017. This amount is still not enough to promote the turn-out to vote campaign on television, radio, and other forms of communication mediums.
• CO11
  The RR/CC has negotiated package deals with media companies that include placement of turn-out-related “branded” announcements on a range of locations: billboards, kiosks, etc., across a range of businesses in the county.
• CO12
  The California Secretary of State has negotiated a deal with Metro to provide coordinated “branded” voter outreach messaging on bus shelters and buses.
• CO13
  Vote By Mail (VBM) ballots are most commonly challenged for lack of a voter signature on the return envelope.
• CO14
  If a voter’s signature does not compare with the signature affidavit on file (according to the automated signature verification software), the envelope is reviewed manually. Voters in this situation are contacted and provided the opportunity to sign a new affidavit. A new state law, codified in California Elections Code section 3019 (f)(1) (A), permits the RR/CC to request such a new affidavit up to seven (7) days following Election Day.
• CO15
  A recent change in California law, codified in California Elections Code section 4103, permits VBM ballots postmarked on Election Day to be counted if they are received no later than three days after Election Day.
• CO16
  New VBM ballots are being designed and may be used in the 2018 election cycle.
• CO17
  When implemented, the new interactive sample ballot (ISB) is planned to be able to automatically populate a voter’s ballot with his or her choices before the voter enters the vote center. Changes to those choices can be later made by the voter when he or she is using the completely redeveloped ballot marking device (BMD), before the official paper ballot is generated.
• CO18
  When implemented, the new voting experience is planned to include the ISB, expanded Early Voting (including weekend voting), Election Day registration, vote centers to replace precinct polling places, and new BMDs.
• CO19
  After implementation of the new BMD, Early Voting is planned at numerous locations around the county. For about 10 days before Election Day, there will be many early/weekend vote centers available, the quantity of which will more than double on Election Day.
• CO20
  Voting roll books are planned to be replaced by real-time electronic voter rolls to verify voter eligibility. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 145
• CO21
  Many special requirements are planned to be accommodated on the new BMD such as a touchscreen interface, language selection, audio input, headphones, a tactile keypad and ports for voters to connect assistive technology devices. The new BMD is planned to be completely accessible and provide a private voting experience for each voter
• CO22
  The new BMD is planned to replace the currently-used InkaVote machines. The new machines are being developed using federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds and will employ computer technology that will create a paper ballot that will be the official ballot of record.
• CO23
  The $55 million still available is adequate to complete development and testing of the new BMD.
• CO24
  The purchase of new BMD will require additional funding. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Los Angeles County should give full financial support to the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk’s efforts to bring the new voting system to fruition. 7.2 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should make all reasonable efforts to develop and test the new BMD so that the new machines are able to be used county wide no later than the 2020 election. 7.3 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should offer the new voting system, which is the most up-to-date technological method for secure voting, to other counties throughout the nation for a reasonable fee. 7.4 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should provide a minimum of five additional, secure Early Voting sites in the county for the 2016 Presidential General Election and also allow VBM ballot drop off at each site. 7.5 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should allocate funding to provide additional personnel to staff any additional, secure Early Voting or “will call” sites established for the 2016 Primary and Presidential General Elections. 7.6 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should institute a “will call” system of Early Voting for the next election after 2016, and determine optimal procedures and voter use. 7.7 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should take advantage of free publicity on individual city websites and city cable channels to 146 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT promote the upcoming changes in the voting system as each one is implemented. 7.8 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should address the public meetings of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and all of the cities in Los Angeles County to discuss opportunities for citizen involvement in voter outreach. 7.9 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should expand its use of social media for voter outreach in future elections, and should consider enlisting the public to help create and disseminate voter outreach messages. 7.10 A Registrar Recorder/County Clerk spokesperson should make appearances on morning and evening televised newscasts to discuss and promote the turn-out to vote campaign. 7.11 A Registrar Recorder/County Clerk spokesperson should schedule interviews on radio to promote the turn-out to vote campaign. 7.12 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should publicize the fact that VBM ballots can be postmarked on Election Day and still be counted. 7.13 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should initiate a study and complete it by January 1, 2017, to determine methods to increase the use of VBM ballots, including government payment of return postage and voter outreach regarding VBM procedures. 7.14 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should reconsider sending a ballot, using business reply envelopes, to each registered voter. 7.15 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should organize a committee, to meet at least once per year, to re-examine the implementation of on-line voting. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933 (c) and 933.05 require a written response to all

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.