Napa County Grand Jury
• 2012-2013
2012-2013 Grand Jury Final Report: Napa County Sheriff/Coroner
⚠️ 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 15 findings
F1
The ex-officio Napa County ROV also serves as the elected Assessor/Recorder/Clerk. This places unique demands upon an official managing several consolidated divisions.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Grand Jury finds it concerning that the elected ROV is directly involved in supervising elections and validating ballots for which he is a candidate on the ballot.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Napa County Board of Supervisors change the elected status of ex-officio Registrar of Voters to an appointed office.
F3
The ROV could be an appointed stand-alone manager separated from the elected Assessor/Recorder/Clerk position and could be appointed by the BOS, as is the case in several other California counties.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Currently there can be no significant oversight by an independently appointed Napa County Board of Elections because the ROV is an elected county official. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Napa County Board of Supervisors change the elected status of ex-officio Registrar of Voters to an appointed office.
F5
If the ROV were appointed rather than elected, there could be an independent County Board of Elections appointed to oversee that proper procedures are being followed for every election and that voters in Napa County are receiving timely and accurate election results.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Upon the establishment of an appointed Registrar of Voters, the Napa County Board of Supervisors should establish an oversight committee of Napa County voters that would be charged with monitoring the performance and procedures of the Registrar of Voters.
F6
There is public interest in reporting interim election results. The ROV can release interim elections results, as is done in other counties, providing for a more transparent election process.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The Napa County Election Division publishes periodic interim election results in addition to the initial voting results on Election Day.
R7
The Registrar of Voters publish the voter information pamphlet on the Election Division website.
F7
In the last several years, Napa County has experienced closure of the vast majority of polling places and a switch to VBM for 85 percent of county registered voters.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Some voters and some elected officials in Napa County expressed dissatisfaction with the closure of a majority of local precincts and miss the participatory civic experience offered by local polling places.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
A number of voters in Napa County are disgruntled at the lack of opportunity to provide input or feedback in regard to closing the majority of polling places.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
The Registrar of Voters solicits voter input regarding the reduction of polling precincts in favor of vote by mail.
R5
The Registrar of Voters solicit input from voters through a vigorous media campaign, flyers to registered voters, as well as an online survey to determine how and where Napa citizens choose to vote.
F10
There was a delay in receiving the ballot information pamphlets which may have led to some voters to mail in their ballots without sufficient information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The Registrar of Voters ensure that voter pamphlets and ballots are received at the same time.
F11
Logic and Accuracy testing of polling machines was carried out by Election Staff and election partners prior to the 2012 General Election. It was observed by the Grand Jury that proper procedures were followed.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The Grand Jury found that the transfer of ballots from county polling places to the Election Office and the handling and counting of polling place ballots on Election Day followed proper procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Security measures for handling, maintaining chain of custody, storing and counting ballots appear to be adequate.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The Grand Jury observed inconvenient access for the public to the election office facilities during the hectic general election periods. There is a need for more office storage space during the busy general election periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Napa County Board of Supervisors establishes an election office facility with more space for storing and processing ballots and easier access for the public.
F15
The Grand Jury found that the Election Division has no formal archive of complaints from the public. 17
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The Election Division create an archive of public concerns and/or complaints and its responses thereto.
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R18Request for Responses 18 2 NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 5397 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94581 June 24, 2013 The Honorable Mark S. Boessenecker Supervising Judge Superior Court of the State of California County of Napa 825 Brown Street Napa, California 94559 Re: 2012-2013 Grand Jury Final Report: Napa County Sheriff/Coroner Dear Judge Boessenecker, Pursuant of Section 933 (a) of the California Penal Code, the 2012-2013 Napa County Grand Jury submits its report on the Napa County Election Division. Our investigation of this subject was conducted in a manner consistent with the California Penal Code, this Court's Charge, and the historic role of the Grand Jury, to pursue the interests of the residents of Napa County. This is a sixth in a series of final reports we will be issuing during our term. I would like to acknowledge the good work and dedication of the Napa County Grand Jurors as demonstrated in this report. Respectfully submitted, Victor J. Connell Foreperson NAPA COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 5397 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94581 June 24, 2013 To the Residents of Napa County: Our sixth 2012-2013 Grand Jury Final Report is on the Napa County Election Division. The Napa County Office of County Counsel has reviewed this final report. The Napa County Superior Court Presiding Judge, pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933(a), has found that this report complies with California Penal code Part 2 Title 4. Copies of this report are available for review in the Napa City-County Library and online at www.napa.courts.ca.gov (follow the link to the Grand Jury). We hope you find this report informative. It is an honor and privilege to serve you during our 2012-2013 Grand Jury term. Respectfully submitted, The NAPA COUNTY ELECTION DIVISION
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 16The Napa County Grand Jury considers voting germane to the concept of American citizenship, and sees an opportunity to improve the voting experience of its fellow citizens in Napa County. The issue of having an appointed ROV rather than an elected ROV is too important to ignore. Moreover, this change needs to be considered in conjunction with its crucial corollary, namely the establishment of a County Election Board charged with the responsibility of overseeing County elections. If the Grand Jury were merely concerned whether the ROV followed the official legal requirements of the office, perhaps an elected ROV would suffice. However, there have been issues regarding County voters’ particular preferences and needs, which have been treated as inconsequential by the ROV. This failure to respond to citizens’ voting concerns could be prevented by having a ROV who (1) is not responsible for managing other County Divisions, (2) is appointed, (3) is informed by an independent Elections Board and, (4) maintains an accountable complaint system. The Grand Jury acknowledges the County staff report that stated the proposed change of an appointed ROV versus an elected position might contribute to additional Election Division costs. However, those costs are offset by greater transparency and accountability in the election process.
Observations 5
-
OB1 Page 11Logic & Accuracy testing procedures for November 2012 Election, including a demonstration of the accuracy of Napa County's touch-screen voting machines and the Election Division ballot counting machine
-
OB2 Page 11Precinct worker training tools and orientation materials
-
OB3 Page 11Procedures at select precinct polling places
-
OB4 Page 11Tour of Election Division Office space, with attention to security measures and voting equipment
-
OB5 Page 11Procedures at Election Division Office on Election Day
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Napa
Agency
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office