Orange County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
• Agency Response
Review of the November 2,2010 General Election*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
Agrees with finding. Response: The ROV was well prepared for the voter turnout at the 1,210 precincts and the
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Registrar and his office are urged to maintain the excellent work acknowledged in this report and to continue delivering outstanding service to the public. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. This recommendation has been implemented with the full understanding that this is an ongoing process. The leadership of the Registrar of Voters will continue to push forward and be a standard bearer for election departments across the country. They acknowledge they can only do that by challenging themselves to constantly improve and create innovative approaches to bring their services to the public. They will continue to elicit feedback from stakeholders to advance the electoral process for the taxpayers of Orange County.
F2
VBM volume. Agrees with finding. Response: The support staff - Coordinators and RDT - were well trained and handled
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Study consolidation of more operations at ROV headquarters and possibilities of increasing available space. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. This recommendation has been implemented with the full understanding that this is an ongoing process. The Registrar of Voters has leased additional short-term space located near their office. The utilization of the extra space worked well by providing space to prepare and proof supplies as well as being a perfect location for distributing election supplies to poll workers by appointment. The Registrar of Voters will continue to use this model and study all options until (and if) a permanent solution can be found.
F3
problem areas in a timely manner. Agrees with finding. Response: Security at both the collection centers and at the ROV was effective and no
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
As budget constraints allow, explore implementation of Electronic Voter Rosters for all polling sites. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. This recommendation has been implemented with the full understanding that this is an ongoing process due, in part, to budget constraints. The Registrar of Voters is currently exploring the possibility of developing an in-house solution while weighing third party options as well. By creating and maintaining innovation, such as possibly developing electronic voter rosters in-house, the Registrar of Voters will continue to be at the forefront of election management in California and the United States.
F4
significant incidents occurred. Agrees with finding. Response: The VBM process was secure and no incidents or allegations of impropriety
No recommendations for this finding
F5
occurred to the Grand Jury's knowledge. Agrees with finding. Response: Increased automation and storage requirements have created a need for additional
No recommendations for this finding
F6
floor space at the Registrar of Voters headquarters. Response: Agrees with finding. The Electronic Voter Rosters being tested appear to offer increased efficiency and
No recommendations for this finding
F7
reduction in errors. Response: Agrees with finding. ŧ 1, . - . Responses to Recommendation R.1 through R.3
No recommendations for this finding
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.