Score: 0 (0/1/0)
Orange County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

Review of the November 2, 2010 General Election Process

Published: November 02, 2010 11 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 7 findings

F1
The enhanced online training for poll workers is effective and complete.
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.
F2
The ROV was well prepared for the voter turnout at the 1,210 precincts and the VBM volume.
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.
F3
The support staff - Coordinators and RDT - were well trained and handled problem areas in a timely manner.
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.
F4
Security at both the collection centers and at the ROV was effective and no significant incidents occurred.
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.
F5
The VBM process was secure and no incidents or allegations of impropriety occurred to the Grand Jury’s knowledge.
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.
F6
Increased automation and storage requirements have created a need for additional floor space at the Registrar of Voters headquarters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Study consolidation of more operations at ROV headquarters and possibilities of increasing available space.
F7
The Electronic Voter Rosters being tested appear to offer increased efficiency and reduction in errors. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests responses from the agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its review of the election process in Orange County, the 2010- 2011 Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
As budget constraints allow, explore implementation of Electronic Voter Rosters for all polling sites. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Registrar of Voters F.1, F.2, F.3, R.1, R.2, R.3

Commendations 1

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.