The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBoard Meeting Agenda Packet 02-15-2022MEETING AGENDA Date: February 15, 2022 Time: 5:15 PM Location: Bd of Elections Office, Long Leaf Room Type: Regular Scheduled Attendees: Oliver Carter III, Chair Rae Hunter-Havens, Elections Director Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Caroline Dawkins, Elections Deputy Director Lyana G. Hunter, Member Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Bruce Kemp, Member Technician Russ C. Bryan, Member Chris Tisbert, Elections Database & Systems Specialist Visitor(s): Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager AGENDA ITEMS 1.Meeting Opening a.Call to Order b.Preliminary Announcement i.Silence Phones ii.Recording & Streaming iii.Other c.Pledge of Allegiance d.Approval of Agenda e.Approval of Minutes (9/1/2021, 11/2/2021, and 1/11/2022) 2.Public Comment and Question Period •2-minute limit •20-minute limit total 3.Director’s Report a.Financial Update b.List Maintenance c.Redistricting Update 4.Statutorily-Required Business a.Polling Place Change for Precinct W18 b.Proposed FY22-23 Budget Enhancement Requests c.2021-2023 Appointment of Chief Judges and Judges Update 5.Old Business •Approval of Minutes (9/14/2021) 6. New Business • Observers 7. General Discussion • Other Elections-Related Matters 8. Adjournment *Agenda packets are sent via email in advance of meetings. Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: Approval of Agenda Summary: N/A Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 1d Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: Approval of Minutes Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-31(e) and 143-318.10(e) Summary: This includes minutes from the 9/1/2021, 11/2/2021, and 1/11/2022 meetings. Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 1d Item # 1e Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections September 1, 2021 5:15 PM ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Russ C. Bryan, Member Lyana G. Hunter, Member Bruce Kemp, Member Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters of the Lower Cape Fear; Bob Gatewood; Julius Rothlein, Will Knecht, NHC GOP; Ellen Jo Kraemer, Sarah Giachino, Tom Kreamer, Susan Kreamer, NHC GOP. Virtual attendees: 1 OPENING Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:17 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present. AGENDA Member Hunter moved adoption of the agenda as submitted, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. Susan Kreamer asked how many One Stop sites will be open and where are they located? Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 Chair Carter noted that there will be one or more sites but not necessarily in precinct polling places. He called on Director Hunter-Havens to respond. There are two plans now pending before the State Board of Elections (SBE), a majority plan and a minority plan, on which action is expected at their September 10 meeting. Both plans include the Board of Elections Paynter Room as one site, the majority plan recommending a second site at CFCC Health Sciences Building and the minority plan recommending a second site at the Senior Resource Center. Will Knecht, Chair of the New Hanover County Republican Party, thanked the Board for appointing his 7 resident nominees to serve as precinct Chief Judges and Judges at their last meeting. He asked for further Board consideration of the remaining 8 non-resident nominees for appointment in the recommended precinct. He understands the requirement that two of the three officials must reside in the precinct. His goal is integrity of elections by assuring bipartisan representation in each polling place. Chair Carter thanked him for providing his nominees for consideration. Seeing and hearing no additional public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter called on the Board Members for their discussion. Member Kemp asked whether SBE had acted on the One Stop plans submitted, noting this is not on their agenda. Chair Carter noted that SBE requires a member to present the plans to their meeting. After discussion, Member Bryan agreed to present the minority plan and Member Hunter agreed to present the majority plan. SBE will consider the plans when they next meet remotely on September 10 at 1:00 p.m. There being no further discussion, Chair Carter closed the General Discussion period. NEW BUSINESS 2021-23 Precinct Official Appointments Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to clarify what decisions are before the Board. The Director noted that, in their last meeting, the Board appointed two of the five resident names timely received from the chair of the New Hanover County Democratic Party (NHCDP) and seven of the fifteen resident names timely received from the chair of the New Hanover County Republican Party (NHC GOP), as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-41(c), because these nominees reside in the precinct of appointment. The State Board guidance is clear that the next steps are to appoint in the following order by unanimous vote: Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 1. Those who were not recommended by either party but who are residents of the precinct, after diligently seeking to fill the positions with registered voters of the precinct; and 2. Those who were recommended by the party but are not residents of the precinct (including names the party did not submit by the statutory deadline but may have recommended after that time) and, where possible, the county board must seek and adopt the recommendations of the county chair of the party affected. Chair Carter took exception as to the clarity of the State Board guidance. Member Miller asked whether he received all the emails being referenced going around among the Board members. Chair Carter acknowledged that Member Miller may not have been blind copied on all the emails due to the open meetings requirements. He stated his understanding of §163-41 is that it sets out procedures which are part mandatory and part discretionary. The State Board sees less discretion than what he sees in the statute. He understands the Board made the resident appointments from the party lists and one additional appointment of a non-resident Republican official in place of a non-resident Unaffiliated official in Precinct W08. Director Hunter-Havens stated §163-41 further requires: • In making its appointments, the county board shall assure, wherever possible, that no precinct has a chief judge and judges, all of whom are registered with the same party. • In no instance shall the county board appoint nonresidents of the precinct to a majority of the three positions of chief judge and judge in a precinct. Chair Carter stated he will consider State Board guidance, but will rely on his own interpretation of the applicable statutes. Director Hunter-Havens distributed the County Board of Elections Member Application, at the direction of the State Board, to remind the Board Members of the last bullet point under Section 7, County Board Member Responsibilities, which reads “Complying with all applicable statutes, rules, court orders, and State-Board-issued guidance/memos.” Member Bryan stated in his view that is something added by the SBE and conflicts with the Board Oath of Office. He felt SBE attempted to direct County Boards in 2020 to violate the law in the absentee by mail cure process, to which he objected. Chair Carter concurred and noted what he sees as the internal inconsistency within the statute. He wants to see a higher degree of bipartisanship. He realizes not all agree with Member Kemp’s concerns with considering the voting history to identify party leanings of Unaffiliated nominees for appointment as precinct officials. Without this information, it may leave the results of an election vulnerable to challenge as to the integrity of the election, but he is not 100 percent sold that this is a proper approach. Member Hunter stated people register as Unaffiliated for a reason. This proposal makes them affiliated against their will. It is abhorrent to go down that rabbit-hole and insert Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 partisanship where it does not belong and is not what the law says. This partisan division is not valuable nor an efficient use of Board time. Member Bryan stated, while he has questioned SBE guidance in the past, he agrees this is a rabbit-hole, and he does not favor exploring the voting history of Unaffiliated voters in this process. How far back to you go? What is the next litmus test? Getting balance in polling places is desirable but leave that to the party chairs to address. Secretary Miller stated his agreement with Members Hunter and Bryan not to explore voter history. It leads to mere speculation on a voter’s intent and active second-guessing about an Unaffiliated voter’s party affiliation preference. Member Kemp described the scenario where a Republican observer sees a problem, asks to speak with a Republican Judge to report it, and is told there is no Republican Judge assigned to the polling place. Chair Carter stated that is a worst-case scenario to be avoided, noting that the proposed names on the Chief Judge and Judge list are committed to working 100 percent to carry out proper elections, and are vetted and trained to that end. Director Hunter-Havens responded and concurred. Precinct officials take an oath to serve voters in a non-partisan manner. Chief Judges are charged with receiving reports of any concerns observed in a polling place. All precinct officials receive extensive training to perform their assigned roles, and Chief Judges receive additional specific training on polling place management. Member Kemp stated if it were not a concern, the statute would not give this emphasis to the appointment process. Chair Carter said the law requires having both parties represented. Member Hunter stated there is a difference between disliking the law as written and following what the law says. If it is a matter of disliking the law as written, then contact your legislators to address that. We need to staff these precincts for the upcoming election. It is unproductive to argue with the law as written. Member Bryan asked whether any new party chair nominations have been received? Member Hunter noted that the current list of recommended nominations meets all the criteria as listed in the statute. Director Hunter-Havens noted the only deviation is the non-resident nominees. Deputy Director Dawkins worked for months to compile this list of people willing to serve as Chief Judges and Judges. The challenge is that, in the current environment around elections, fewer precinct officials are willing to serve in polling place leadership. Deputy Director Dawkins added that the increased use of technology in elections requires technical skill sets in the polling places. Director Hunter-Havens further noted that Deputy Director Dawkins knows all these officials well and gives thoughtful consideration to all recommendations in assembling the precinct leadership teams. Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 Chair Carter recognized the challenges and expressed his appreciation for the staff efforts. Member Miller stated we need to trust the staff’s expertise. The range of this debate is from the most skeptical view that the list presented is adequate, while my view is it is excellent. Chair Carter asked again whether the presented list includes any new names submitted by the party chairs? Deputy Director Dawkins noted that the names highlighted in yellow indicate the party chair nominees that were previously approved. She reviewed precinct official survey responses received after the deadline, resulting in one change in Precinct W30 where a resident Republican judge replaces a resident Unaffiliated judge who appeared on the previous list. Chair Carter noted that a question has been raised about the voter registration in this county of the non-resident Unaffiliated Chief Judge nominee for Precinct H10, Karl Ricanek. Deputy Director Dawkins replied that there appears to be a question based on whether the nominee is a Junior or the III which may not have been clearly identified from his voter registration. Each of the nominees is fully checked, including to verify voter registration, in the on-boarding process. She will recheck the voter registration and review with the nominee if any questions remain. Chair Carter questioned the report that this nominee served in one previous election, yet his voter registration is dated 02/07/2020. Director Hunter-Havens replied that he was registered before the 2020 primary, making him eligible to work in the 2020 elections. Member Kemp raised a question because he was unable to find about the voter registration of Elaine Syres, the Democratic Chief Judge in Precinct W27. Deputy Director Dawkins explained that Ms. Syres goes by Elaine but her first name is Marie. The precinct officials database uses the official’s preferred name. Chair Carter noted the meeting was approaching the one-hour mark which was the commitment made for the duration of this meeting. The Members agreed to continue. Member Bryan proposed to isolate the appointments where a board member has questions and proceed to approve the rest. Member Kemp moved to approve the appointments for all precincts except FP06, H10, W13, W24, W 26, and W27, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter called on Will Knecht to address the Board. Mr. Knecht stated he is a big fan of the staff of the New Hanover County Board of Elections. He stated that the guidance sent to the county party chairs for their nominees only stated that residence in the county is required. He, and he assumes his counterpart, spent countless hours vetting their nominees, saying both party chairs were under the same misapprehension as to the requirements. He was not aware that Deputy Director Dawkins was also vetting the individuals. He noted he submitted non-resident names as transfers for three vacant positions – Tom Morris for W13; Thomas Newton for W24; and Samantha Nguyen for W26. Director Hunter-Havens said, as she noted in the last meeting, her email stated the preliminary requirements which include that the nominees must be registered to vote in this county, and cited §163-41 for the additional requirement that the party chairs’ nominees must also live in the precinct where serving. Chair Carter said that the requirements are technical and not well-drafted. Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 Member Kemp stated he will vote no on the remaining precinct positions, so that the Board can appoint Republican nominees to replace Unaffiliated nominees, which will require a unanimous vote. Director Hunter-Havens pointed out that the staff recommended nominees who reside in the precinct, while the party nominees are nonresidents. Chair Carter stated he was not clear why that makes a difference. Chair Carter asked Mr. Knecht whether he has submitted any additional nominees supplementing his original list. Mr. Knecht said he has not. Chair Carter asked him to do so by email to him. Secretary Miller asked whether that was appropriate and should instead go to the Director. Member Kemp stated that he wants to reach the next step after the Director requests nominees from the party chairs. He will be happy to reject Unaffiliated transfers to get Republican transfers appointed. Chair Carter responded that is his prerogative, and suggested the Board go through the remaining six precincts one by one for vote. Secretary Miller stated, regarding the three names noted by Mr. Knecht, he is concerned about patch-work communication because not all Board members were copied on all the email correspondence. He stated consideration is out of order and asked whether these names had been vetted. Chair Carter said there is no motion to consider those names at this time. Member Hunter asked whether part of the list can be approved. Director Hunter-Havens said yes, but has concerns about continued delays in filling the remaining assignments to have adequate time for on-boarding and training. There are over 300 officials to prepare to assure high levels of service to the voters. Member Hunter asked what happens if the vote is not unanimous? Director Hunter-Havens stated that the current appointees continue to serve until their successors are appointed. Member Kemp stated he understands the Board is in step two of the §163-41 (c) process. Chair Carter read the second paragraph of §163-41(c): If the recommendations of the party chairs for chief judge or judge in a precinct are insufficient, the county board of elections by unanimous vote of all its members may name to serve as chief judge or judge in that precinct registered voters in that precinct who were not recommended by the party chairs. If, after diligently seeking to fill the positions with registered voters of the precinct, the county board still has an insufficient number of officials for the precinct, the county board by unanimous vote of all of its members may appoint to the positions registered voters in other precincts in the same county who meet the qualifications other than residence to be precinct officials in the precinct, provided that where possible the county board shall seek and adopt the recommendation of the county chairman of the political party affected. In making its appointments, the county board shall assure, wherever possible, that no precinct has a chief judge and judges all of whom are registered with the same party. In no instance Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 shall the county board appoint nonresidents of the precinct to a majority of the three positions of chief judge and judge in a precinct. Chair Carter moved approval of the appointment of Barbara Aaron as Chief Judge and Robert LaGoe as Judge in Precinct FP06, second by Mr. Kemp. Motion passed unanimously. Member Hunter moved to appoint Lynda Fahrman as Judge in Precinct FP06, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay. Motion failed due to lack of unanimous vote of all the members. Secretary Miller asked Member Kemp to give his reason(s) for his vote. Member Kemp declined to give his reason(s). Member Kemp moved to approve appointment of Rina Messler to Precinct H10; Donna Bender and Dawn Midkiff to Precinct W26; and Elaine Syres and Christine Hennessey in Precinct W27, second by Secretary Miller. Motion passed unanimously. Member Kemp moved to appoint the transfers nominated by the chair of the Republican party, subject to the staff identifying any qualification issues in which case it would be left to the Board chair to appoint after consultation with the party chair. Member Hunter stated she is not prepared to vote on these other names tonight since their qualifications have not been checked. Chair Carter asked whether the Board wanted to stop here? Member Hunter asked if there are any other matters to vote on in this meeting? Member Kemp said he does not understand when the provisions of the first paragraph of NCGS §163-41 (c) end and the second paragraph takes over. Director Hunter-Havens explained that when there are vacancies in Chief Judge and Judge appointments and there are no further party nominations, the staff will recommend a transfer from another precinct, as the Board did in Precinct W08 in the previous meeting. The concern is the ability to provide the proper level of service to the voters. Chair Carter reminded the Board these are the positions remaining to be considered: FP06 – 1 Judge (resident Unaffiliated nominee) H10 – Chief Judge (transfer Unaffiliated nominee) and 1 Judge (resident Unaffiliated nominee) W13 – Chief Judge (transfer Democratic nominee) W24 – Chief Judge (transfer Democratic nominee) W26 – 1 Judge vacant (Republican position) W27 – 1 Judge (resident Unaffiliated nominee) Secretary Miller said he does not understand the issue with these positions. Member Kemp declined to elaborate on his position, then stated he wanted these votes to fail to allow the party chairs to make nominations. Member Miller said this feels like an Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 ambush, perhaps he was not included in all the emails among the Board members. Chair Carter noted that the open meetings law, which is all important, restricts the ability of the Board members to communicate outside of Board meetings, which may have resulted in all members not being included in all emails. He proposed that the Board proceed to vote on the remaining positions and adjourn. Member Bryan agreed that is the right thing to do to get the right people in place. He noted there have been no complaints to the Board during his tenure about precinct officials. Director Hunter-Havens said there were complaints to the office about observers but not about precinct officials. Member Bryan said we all are learning a lot that will serve us well the next time. He wants to be sure we are not creating a bigger problem over five positions and there are other back stops. Chair Carter said the statutes and guidance received are not clear. Member Hunter said she has no questions. Chair Carter asked if the members want to defer these five slots to the next meeting. Member Bryan said it sounds like there will be member(s) voting against in either case. Chair Carter reminded the members that a unanimous vote is required to make these appointments, allowing one member to veto the nomination. Director Hunter-Havens cautioned the Board to keep in mind that transfer decisions cause ripple effects across other precincts. Chair Carter moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:49 p.m., second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter and Member Hunter voted aye, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Secretary Miller preferred to vote on the record, then adjourn, noting that any transfer officials approved can be replaced later with resident appointments. Secretary Miller moved to appoint unaffiliated transfer Karl Ricanek III as Chief Judge in Precinct H10, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter, Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed due to lack of unanimous vote of all the members. Secretary Miller moved to appoint unaffiliated resident Darla Jane Green Hughes as Judge in Precinct H10, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed due to lack of unanimous vote of all the members. Secretary Miller moved to appoint Democratic transfer Margaret Davit as Chief Judge in Precinct W13, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed due to lack of unanimous vote of all the members. Secretary Miller moved to appoint Democratic transfer John David Purnell as Chief Judge in Precinct W24, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed due to lack of unanimous vote of all the members. Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 Member Bryan said the Board runs the risk of not getting precinct officials in place in time to train and prepare them. Member Kemp noted there are other vacant positions. Deputy Director Dawkins said that having an experienced Chief Judge is critical in a precinct like W24 which generates a lot of voter registration challenges and provisional voting. Mr. Purnell has a lot of prior experience and excellent skills in multiple precincts to bring to a precinct with a small pool of resident candidates who are willing to serve this precinct, where a lot of UNCW students are registered and deserve the same level of service as other voters. She has more success recruiting resident voters to serve as Judges, hence a transfer in the Chief Judge position is not an obstacle. Member Kemp replied that after the party chairs are consulted, the appointment can be reconsidered. Secretary Miller moved to appoint unaffiliated resident Kathryn Lawson as Judge in Precinct W27, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed due to lack of unanimous vote of all the members. Member Kemp said now the Board can seek and adopt recommendations from the county party chairs. Director Hunter-Havens asked for clarification, the Board is rejecting unaffiliated precinct residents because they wish to appoint party-affiliated nonresidents? Chair Carter objected to the “because”, stating that is not the Board’s motivation, although it may be attributed to an individual member. Member Kemp declined to give his reasons for the way he voted. Director Hunter-Havens expressed her concern that she is being directed to violate state law which she must report to the SBE. Chair Carter said the Board is trying to understand and follow the guidance that has been given. Secretary Miller moved to appoint unaffiliated resident Lynda A. Fahrman as Judge in Precinct FP06, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed due to lack of unanimous vote of all the members. Secretary Miller discussed the criteria for rejecting nominees who are transfers and unaffiliated voters. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to summarize as best she can. Member Bryan took exception to the statement that the Director must report Board actions to the SBE. Director Hunter-Havens responded that the County Board of Elections is required to comply with SBE guidance when sought and she in turn must report back to the SBE legal team. Member Bryan disagreed, saying the CBE has autonomy to make decisions. He felt the Board needed legal advice from the County Attorney. Director Hunter-Havens disagreed, stating CBEs must follow SBE policies and guidance. Chair Carter suggested referring the question to the County Attorney in the same way the County Commissioners may. He stated that the numbered memos are clear but the email advice he received is open to question or clearly wrong, undermining their credibility with him. SBE can vacate or reverse CBE actions. Member Bryan agreed that is how the process works. Chair Carter thanked the Board for their service and the attendees for their presence. He apologized to Director Hunter-Havens for all the extra work. Board Minutes – 09/01/2021 Member Kemp asked if the MAT team appointments were approved? He said he voted twice as not prepared to vote in the previous meeting on August 18, disputing the draft minutes he has seen. Chair Carter moved to adjourn the meeting and asked Member Kemp to consult with Director Hunter-Havens about the draft minutes. Director Hunter-Havens said that, with unaffiliated MAT appointments, appointment required unanimous approval. Secretary Miller said he was fuzzy on the MAT appointments. Member Hunter recalled that the MAT appointments were approved. Member Kemp said he is prepared to vote again. Member Bryan suggested he may object to approving the minutes. ADJOURNMENT Chair Carter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:19 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on September 14, 2021, at 5:15 p.m. APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Board Minutes – 11/02/2021 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections November 2, 2021 2:00 PM ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Russ C. Bryan, Member Lyana G. Hunter, Member Bruce Kemp, Member Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director Chris Tisbert, Elections Systems Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Jennifer Sparks, PrintElect Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Jill Hopman, NHCDP; Preston Lennon, Portcitydaily.com; John Jaskey; Becky Jaskey. Virtual attendees: Sharon Smith; Loraine; telephone attendee. OPENING Secretary Miller called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. A quorum was present. Secretary Miller said Chair Carter and Member Hunter are expected shortly. Secretary Miller reminded the audience to silence their cell phones; that the County remains under a mask mandate; and the meeting is being broadcast live and recorded. AGENDA Member Kemp moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Board Minutes – 11/02/2021 Secretary Miller called on the public in-person and virtual attendees for their comments or questions, reminding speakers to first give their name, keep comments limited to two minutes each, and germane to the Board of Elections. Becky Jaskey thanked the Board and staff for their good work. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Secretary Miller closed the public comment and question period. NEW BUSINESS a. Counting of Absentee Ballots Secretary Miller said this is a special meeting set previously by Board resolution for the purpose of tabulating the absentee by mail and One Stop early voting ballots. He called on Director Hunter-Havens to detail the process for counting absentee ballots. She said county boards must begin counting absentee ballots by 5:00 p.m. on Election Day by statute, but the statute allows county boards to begin the process earlier by adopting a resolution stating the time and place at least two weeks before, as this Board did. The Board has approved absentee-by-mail ballots received through the special absentee meetings through the November 1 meeting and optically scanned those ballots. The results of the scanning will be tabulated and counted today. In addition, the votes cast during One Stop early voting and stored on the DS-200s will be counted. At the end of One Stop early voting at 3:00 p.m. on October 30, the DS-200s were turned off and secured. The Board will now tabulate those results and print the results tapes which the Board will review and sign. The media will be removed and uploaded to the State Board website, going through various checks to assure data accuracy. These results are confidential and will not be shared or posted until polls close at 7:30 p.m. today when the results go live on the SBE website. [Chair Carter arrived at 2:07 p.m. and assumed the chair.] Member Kemp said that, according to the statute, the One Stop ballots are supposed to be counted when the polls close. Director Hunter-Havens said that the statute prohibits closing the DS-200s at the close of early voting and prohibits tabulating those results until the time set on Election Day. Member Kemp asked whether this means the Board must wait until polls close at 7:30 p.m. Director Hunter-Havens said the previous section of the statute requires all county boards to begin counting all absentee ballots at 5:00 p.m. or may begin at a time designated by Board resolution between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. [Member Hunter arrived at 2:10 p.m.] Secretary Miller moved to proceed with counting the absentee ballots, second by Member Bryan. Calling for discussion, Chair Carter asked Member Kemp where he finds a distinction between One Stop absentee ballots and mail-in absentee ballots. Member Kemp cited the paragraph of §163-234 that distinguishes between one-stop ballots counted electronically and those counted manually. Director Hunter-Havens pointed to §163-234(2) which Board Minutes – 11/02/2021 address counting of all absentee ballots. The procedures followed by all county boards state-wide are well-established in SBE guidance. Director Hunter-Havens said that NCGS §163-234 defines absentee ballots as those received by mail and One Stop early voting ballots. Member Kemp said he is making an observation, not objecting to Board action. The State Board of Elections (SBE) gives guidance to the county boards of election which we don’t see. Member Hunter asked what the question is. Chair Carter said the question concerns the process of counting the absentee ballots, noting an internal inconsistency in the statute. Seeing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on the motion on the floor. Motion carried unanimously. Tabulation of the absentee ballots began. Director Hunter-Havens explained that staff will close one DS-200 at a time and print three results tapes, following the same procedures used by the Chief Judges and Judges at the close of the polls. Secretary Miller asked how the public may access the results. Director Hunter-Havens said the results will be posted on the door of the Board of Elections office and posted on the State Board website, accessible directly or by link on the New Hanover County Board of Elections website. Director Hunter-Havens said the DS-200s have a security seal in place when delivered to the polling place. These are removed by the site lead or Chief Judge during opening. The machines are locked down at closing on October 30. The machines are then returned to the office where they are secured until this meeting, maintaining proper chain of custody. Member Kemp said the clamshell itself is not sealed. The Director said the machine is locked. Member Kemp asked how many keys there are. The Director said there is a single key for each machine checked out each day to the site lead with chain of custody documented. Member Kemp asked if all keys are the same. The Director said this is standard for voting equipment. The public count is recorded at the time of closing and is part of the reconciliation process, ensuring that paper ballots cast in the election verifies with voter history and tracks throughout the voting process. Member Kemp asked if all DS-200s have the same password. Jennifer Sparks of PrintElect said the same election-specific password is used. The Director announced the Northeast Library site public count is 4,042; Cape Fear Community College site public count is 1,446; and Senior Resource Center site public count is 4,161. DS-200 closing of polls was completed at 2:30 p.m. The printed tapes were passed to the Board to review and sign. Director Hunter-Havens said each tape is broken out by ballot style, representing each municipality, with three results tapes for each machine. Staff completed removal of the media from the DS-200s for uploading to the SBE, closed and secured the machines. Members Hunter and Kemp left the meeting to observe the uploading of the tabulated votes. Board Minutes – 11/02/2021 Director Hunter-Havens reported Election Day turnout, based on the 2:00 p.m. unofficial numbers, is 6,982 voters. Approximately 19,000 votes were cast in 2019, compared to about 16,000 so far in 2021. Director Hunter-Havens said Jennifer Sparks will now print a cumulative report for the Board’s signatures. Director Hunter-Havens presented the zero-tape printed before running the tabulation software, verifying no votes were recorded, and the tabulation report including One Stop ballots approved today and absentee-by-mail ballots approved through the meeting the previous day, for Board review and signatures. She then presented the absentee abstract for Board signatures. Chair Carter asked if any additional absentee-by-mail ballots have come in since Monday’s Board meeting. Director Hunter-Havens said the administrative cutoff was 3:00 p.m. on Monday to allow time to audit the applications before the meeting. Any absentee ballots received after that cutoff will be presented to the Board at the November 8 pre-canvass meeting. Absentee ballots may be returned in person until 5:00 p.m. today and by mail, postmarked on or before Election Day and received by Friday, November 5. These will be presented as the supplemental absentee report on November 8. Member Kemp asked what the percentage of absentee ballot requests are still outstanding. Director Hunter-Havens does not know a specific number, but it appears that a significant percentage are military and overseas voters who opt in to receive the next absentee ballot automatically but tend not to vote in municipal elections. Civilian requests have a higher return rate in municipal elections. Director Hunter-Havens reviewed the procedures that will be followed when the polls close at 7:30 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter called on the Board members for any general discussion. Hearing none, he closed the General Discussion period and called for a motion to adjourn. ADJOURNMENT Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 3:14 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next scheduled Board meeting will be held on Monday, November 8, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., at the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: __________________________ _________________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 REGULAR MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 5:15 P.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Russ C. Bryan, Member Lyana G. Hunter, Member Bruce Kemp, Member Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director Chris Tisbert, Elections Systems Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Bob Gatewood. Virtual Attendees: Mike Pascarell 1. MEETING OPENING a.Call to Order Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:16 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present. b.Preliminary Announcements Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the meeting is being recorded and livestreamed. c.Pledge of Allegiance d.Approval of Agenda Member Kemp asked that item 5a, 2022 Primary Election One-Stop Voting Plan, be taken up at the beginning of the meeting as he may not be able to stay for the full meeting. Member Bryan concurred with that request. Member Kemp moved the amendment to the order of business, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Secretary Miller moved that the agenda be approved as amended, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 e.Approval of Minutes Consideration of the Minutes of 10/26/2021, 11/1/2021, and 12/14/2021 was tabled to later in the meeting, on motion of Chair Carter, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. 5. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS a.2022 Primary Election One-Stop Voting Plan Chair Carter gave a summary overview of the proposed locations and hours in the One-Stop Voting plan for the May primary and called on Director Hunter-Havens for a more detailed review. The proposed plan calls for five sites – Northeast Library which serves as the Board of Elections office site; Senior Resource Center; Cape Fear Community College Health Sciences Building (Downtown campus); Cape Fear Community College North Campus – McKeithan Center; and Carolina Beach Town Hall. Each site is ADA-accessible and has served as a One Stop site in previous elections. These sites provide good coverage and ease of access across the county. The base plan calls for each site to be open from 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. beginning April 28; closed the first weekend, April 30 - May 1; both Saturday and Sunday of the second weekend, May 7-8 from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m.; and the final Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Member Hunter moved approval of the One Stop plan as presented, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called for any discussion. Member Kemp questioned opening five sites, given low voter turnout at Cape Fear Community College Health Sciences Building and Carolina Beach sites in the 2018 Primary versus the cost of training and staffing those sites. Director Hunter- Havens said voter turnout during One Stop voting has increased election to election. In a typical non-presidential primary year, candidate filing would be complete before the Board would be required to act on the One Stop plan. With filing delayed by court order this year, awareness of the field of candidates is an unknown factor, but the early filing suggests that there may be high interest in several local contests which can drive higher voter turnout. In 2018, the primary ballot was a short one, a driver of lower voter turnout. Member Kemp asked if it is practical to adjust staffing in response to actual voter turnout. Director Hunter-Havens said she plans to make responsive staffing adjustments as needed. Staffing for One Stop sites involves three shifts to provide more staffing during peak hours. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Board signed the One Stop Implementation Plan Signature Sheet. Member Kemp asked Director Hunter-Havens if she has received an update on rescheduling the candidate filing period. She said nothing definite yet, but is anticipating filing will reopen sometime toward mid-February. 2. PROCEDURAL MATTER – PARAMETERS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Chair Carter reviewed the efforts over the past few months to strike a balance among several objectives important to the Board collectively. One is to provide opportunities for the public to offer their comments and ask questions, both orally and in writing. Another is to provide public notice of the draft agenda ahead of time so that the public can prepare their comments and questions. Finally, to improve efficiency, keeping the meetings to a reasonable length while addressing the statutory matters and not get bogged down in public comment and crosstalk between the Board and the audience. The proposed Resolution was discussed during the December 14, 2021 meeting. He presented a revised Resolution incorporating many of the comments from the previous discussion. He reviewed the proposed parameters set forth in the Resolution. Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 Chair Carter moved adoption of the Resolution, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter said that the key to adopting procedural rules is to retain flexibility to make exceptions when necessary. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the votes. Motion carried unanimously. 3.PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Carter called upon the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. Julius Rothlein, representing NHC Republican Party, said his first comment is to ensure that the Board received the information he provided on December 16 advising that Susan Walker is still willing to serve as Judge in Precinct W27, and confirmed that she resides in the precinct. His second comment regards the 16 points of the Resolution just adopted. We talk about having a conversation, in which he is willing to engage, but no one is satisfied with a two-minute limit and a maximum of twenty minutes. Chair Carter assured him that the Board is interested in the conversation. The law limits the kind of email conversation that working as a team requires. Deliberation as a Board in public must be their priority. He is always willing to meet and talk outside of the meetings. Member Kemp said the Resolution encourages email comments, where greater detail is possible. Chair Carter said he appreciated receiving Mr. Rothlein’s report in writing, giving him the opportunity to study it in greater detail. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. 4.DIRECTOR’S REPORT a.Financial Update Director Hunter-Havens presented the monthly budget report through the sixth reporting period. All municipal election expenses have been processed. Expenditures stand at 26 percent of salaries and 71 percent of Operating Expenses, which is higher than expected because some contracted Services expenses, such as renting laptops, are encumbered for both scheduled elections. Salaries are lower than expected at this point in the fiscal year because the bulk of the election official temporary salaries will be incurred during the primary with five One Stop sites and all 43 polling places in operation. She has requested additional information about the Insurance & Bonds line but has not received an update yet. She will follow up to get clarification of what factors caused the increase and why, and report back to the Board. b.List Maintenance Director Hunter-Havens gave the monthly list maintenance report. Per data provided by the Statewide Elections Information Management System (SEIMS), the New Hanover County Board of Elections: •Removed 697 voters from the voter registration rolls in December 2021, consistent with NC Gen. Stat. §163-82.14. •Processed 1,006 new voter registration forms, 228 duplicate registration forms, and 557 registration update forms in December 2021. Monthly list maintenance activities include review of felony convictions from the State Board of Elections, death certificate6s from the State Department of Health and Human Services, and duplicate registration reports from other county and state boards of elections. Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 The State Board of Elections has recently released the National Change of Address (NCOA) data. Twice each year county boards receive a list of US Postal Service reports of address changes. Using an outside vendor, the county board sends postcards to registered voters to the new reported address, giving the voter the opportunity to update their voter registration record. Cards that are undeliverable are returned, processed, and a second card is mailed to the registration address of record, providing another opportunity to report an address change or confirm the current address. Undeliverable cards from the second mailing are processed and the voter is placed in Inactive status, pending confirmation or update of the voter’s current address. Contact with voters in Inactive status will be attempted and monitored, but if there is no contact with the Inactive voter after two subsequent General election cycles, the voter will be removed. NCOA mailings typically include around 2,500 voters. Secretary Miller asked about the sources of duplicate registrations. The Director said these typically come through voter registration drives and drivers license renewals, where the voter completes the voter registration form even when the voter has not changed their address. Member Kemp asked if a new registration form counts as a contact with an Inactive voter. The Director said that a new registration form, whether it makes a change of address or other information, serves as a voter contact and may return the voter to Active status once the information is verified. c.Proposed FY2022-23 Budget Enhancements Director Hunter-Havens has submitted the continuation budget for FY2022-23 county budget process. She has prepared the request for budget enhancements, making known the department’s desired budget enhancements. Her proposal focuses on increasing election officials’ compensation, for whom the rate of pay has not changed in ten years. Even where the pay has changed, it is not currently reflective of the increased skills and abilities that are required or the increased duties and responsibilities. In some cases, there is need for additional incentive to work the positions where we struggle to find election officials. She noted that the recent mailing of about 12,000 cards to solicit more election official applications has gotten some response but unfortunately not from the precincts where there is the greater need. She will be developing the enhancement requests into formal requests with financial impact for future discussion and action by the Board. Discussion followed regarding the specific requests outlined: •Increase Election Official Compensation for One Stop Officials from $10 per hour to $15 per hour for Assistants and $17 per hour for Site Leads. •Increase Election Official Compensation for Election Day for Chief Judges, Judges, and Assistants as follows: o Increase Chief Judge pay from $225 to $300 per day (from $15 per hour to $20 per hour for a 15-hour day). o Increase Judge pay from $180 to $255 per day (from $12 per hour to $17 per hour for a 15-hour day). o Increase Assistant pay from $120 to $225 per day (from $8 per hour to $15 per hour for a 15-hour day). •Increase Election Official Compensation for Multipartisan Assistance Team members from $25 to $40 per visit averaging two to three hours. If a scheduled visit looks like it may exceed three hours, sending a third MAT official is a better alternative to increasing pay. •Increase in Rate of Compensation for the Administrative Technician part-time year- round position from $16.1875 per hour to $18 per hour averaging 15 hours per week. Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 Director Hunter-Havens said her request for similar increased for Election Day Assistants compensation in 2018 was not approved. It is becoming more and more difficult to find people willing to accept the Site Leader, Chief Judge and Judge responsibilities and is hopeful that an increase in compensation may help. Member Hunter asked if there is a state-wide effort to increase Election Official pay. Director Hunter-Havens said she is aware that a number of counties across North Carolina are considering pay increases and are having difficulty finding officials, but this initiative applies only in New Hanover County. She is surveying New Hanover’s peer counties for information on Election Official pay and will share the results with the Board when compiled. Member Hunter said that hearing what the Director is saying, she wondered if increasing the hourly pay for the Site Lead and Chief Judge positions would better compensate for the additional duties involved, not that these officials are motivated solely by the pay. Member Bryan asked what the current pay is for One Stop Site Leads. The Director said it is $10 per hour, same as all One Stop officials. She is aware that some officials are reconsidering whether to continue as Election Officials based on challenges and experiences that arose during the 2021 municipal election. Better preparation and better compensation may encourage continued participation. Chair Carter asked about the budget process for these proposals, presented here for Board input and come back for a vote at the next meeting. Director Hunter-Havens said the proposed numbers must be entered into the Enhancements request by January 18. Assistant County Manager Sheryl Kelly said the Enhancement requests go to the budget staff to compile and present to the County Manager for further review. The Continuation Budget, the expenditures and resources needed to continue current operations, is reviewed first, then the Enhancement requests. There is the deadline that Director Hunter-Havens indicated, but the Board of Elections has oversight of the Elections budget. If the Board supported an amended proposal, the Director could bring it forward in February. Saying the Board would like to work within the County’s schedule, Chair Carter asked about the steps the budget goes through before it is presented to the County Commissioners. Assistant County Manager Kelly said the proposed budget would go to the County Commissioners around mid-May for adoption in June for implementation July 1. Chair Carter asked what is the most constructive way for the Board of Elections members to convey to the decision-makers their support for the requested budget. Assistant County Manager Kelly asked Director Hunter-Havens to review how the Board demonstrated their support last year which was very effective. Director Hunter-Havens said she asked for two new positions for in 2021-22 budget, emphasizing the necessity of additional staff to address the increased demands on the office in the elections process. The Board unanimously supported those enhancements and wrote and signed a letter to the County Commissioners and County Manager to convey that support. That should be done by March to be timely for the budget calendar. Director Hunter- Havens said that letter was sent in February 2021, after the enhancements were submitted but before the final work began on the budget. The Board discussed various options for the level of increase while also considering the sticker shock of the percentage of increases being considered. It is not clear that increased pay will alone address the supply and demand for election workers, who put themselves in harm’s way with COVID and with the meanness and anger they encounter. Director Hunter-Havens offered the perspective from the 2018 proposal in increase election official pay to the current levels: from $8 to $10 an hour for assistants. The peer survey indicated that level of pay was in line with what other counties were paying. Her sense is that other counties are encountering the same difficulties in attracting and keeping election officials and have or will be making similar requests for increased pay. Member Miller said that the bare percentage increase sounds like a lot, but the proposal is for a single day’s pay or two weeks’ pay, Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 not an annualized raise for full time employees. Member Bryan said it is too easy to spend other people’s money. Chair Carter noted that, when passing the Public Comment guidelines, the Board agreed to take additional comment in the Board’s discretion later in the meeting from representatives of the county political parties on questions in which they have an interest. Chair Carter called on Mr. Rothlein for his comment. Mr. Rothlein said in getting people to volunteer, it is not about the money in elections work. People do this as a public calling, that is what drives them. The number of days and the number of sites to staff puts more pressure on the Board to find more people but the people being recruited view the burden of the work is something they are not willing to do, no matter the pay being offered. Some of the requirements are set by statute, such as the number of days of One Stop voting. He urged the Board to consider size of the commitment being asked of people. Adding more sites spreads people too thin. He is running into the same obstacles in recruiting election observers. Chair Carter agreed with the observation that election officials, maybe with a few exceptions, do the work out of patriotism and civic duty, not for the money. Member Bryan said we are aware that election workers tend to be retired people in their 60s and 70s, and while the extra money is welcome, their motivation is more from civic duty. If the Director thinks the additional pay would help in recruiting, we should try it. He wonders if the issues are more the current tight labor market. Member Kemp asked the Director to clarify the difference in the duties of the One Stop leads and Chief Judges. Director Hunter-Havens said that, while their duties are similar in some respects, the role of One Stop lead requires a commitment of longer duration, where the Chief Judge works one long day. One Stop leads are scheduled for a half day shift and one day on the weekend. Their duties have added complexity: same day registration, laptops connected to the server, and ballot on demand require more technology expertise. Member Kemp said that the extra pay for Chief Judges recognizes the pressures of the very long day, from early morning into the night. The Director agreed that many election officials do the work because they want to and will return election after election. The challenge arises in filling Chief Judge vacancies when it is difficult to persuade an experienced Judge to step into the Chief Judge position. Director Hunter-Havens said the proposal may have started out a little higher but after thinking strategically about the compensation increases, she is presenting the best thinking of the staff to balance the staffing needs with what may be favorably received by decision-makers. Member Hunter said that 2020 made clear the need for committed election officials and we need to show them that their service is valued. While election officials may not be motivated primarily by the money, it remains important to let them know their work is valued. While she would like to see a little more of an increase for the One Stop leads and Chief Judges in recognition of the added responsibilities, she will support the Director’s recommendations. Director Hunter-Havens noted that she is also recommending an increase in pay for the administrative technician position which is a parttime permanent position on the year-round staff, in recognition of the added responsibilities of the position. Chair Carter proposed increasing the hourly rate to $20, over the $18 per hour proposed, which the Board members endorsed. The Director agreed to make that change. Member Bryan said he would encourage asking election officials what else can we do to recognize their contributions, such as appreciation events. Director Hunter-Havens said that post- Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 election surveys ask for such suggestions, but holding such events has been very limited during the COVID pandemic. d.Relocation of Storage Facilities Director Hunter-Havens reported that the County is leasing a new storage facility to relocate election supplies and equipment storage from the Government Center. The new lease begins February 1, 2022 and the move is scheduled for February 15. There is sufficient space under lease to store and prepare all voting equipment and supplies that are currently housed at 230 Government Center Drive. This will be a secured facility with an area where interested people may observe required pre-election voting equipment testing. Supplies and equipment stored currently in the Board of Elections office will move to new office space in the new Government Center complex, projected for Spring 2023 e.2022 NC State Board of Elections Conferences Director Hunter-Havens has sent Board members the available information on the scheduled State Conference which will be livestreamed online March 14-15 with the recordings available afterward for viewing. Board members are required to attend a training in their first year and a second within their first two years. She will register all Board members for the March meeting. The August conference is scheduled as an in-person meeting July 31, August 1-2, 2022. 5.STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS b.Approval of Out-of-Precinct Voting Place for Precinct W18 for 2022 Elections Director Hunter-Havens presented her report. The Board approved the polling place change for precinct W18, from First Assembly of God church which was for sale to Sea Gate Baptist Church, an out-of-precinct polling place, at the June 15, 2021 meeting. Karen Brinson Bell, Executive Director of the State Board of Elections, approved the out-of-precinct polling place change for the 2021 Municipal Elections. By statute, an out-of-precinct polling place usage agreement must be re-evaluated before the next election to determine whether it remains the only available option. After reviewing possible public facilities and contacting private facilities, no other suitable locations are available. Sea Gate Baptist Church remains the only available option for precinct W18. NC Gen. Stat. §163-130.1 allows county boards of election, by unanimous vote of all its members, to establish a polling place for a precinct that is located outside the precinct boundaries. If approved by the county board of elections, the Executive Director of the State Board of Elections must agree, and the polling place usage agreement must be re-evaluated after the next general election to determine whether it continues to be the only available option. Member Bryan had noted concerns from his visit to the site and asked what the experience was with the site. Director Hunter-Havens said there were more complaints about the W28 polling place regarding access to the space. W18 had better than average turnout in the municipal election. We must provide an ADA-accessible ramp which is an added expense of $600, but worked well. Overall, the space worked well. She continues to look for another location, but for now this location works well. Chair Carter moved approval of the Resolution to adopt Sea Gate Baptist Church as an out-of- precinct polling place for Precinct W18, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 c.Adjustment of Precinct Boundaries of H03 and W18 for New Apartment Complex Director Hunter-Havens presented her report. A new apartment complex under construction at 3528 Adirondack Way lies across the precinct boundary between W18 and H03. The county planning department cannot assign two address points to the same building, and cannot differentiate the geocode segment used to assign ballot styles by unit numbers. The proposed solution is to adjust the precinct line to go around this building instead of through it, without crossing the census blocks for the precinct. Both precincts share the same jurisdictions for voting for US Congress, NC Senate, NC House, and NC Superior Court, and lie within the same municipality. The result is the apartment complex will lie entirely in H03 instead of being split between two precincts. Member Kemp moved adoption of the Resolution to Adjust Precinct Boundaries of H03 and W18, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. d. 2021-2023 Appointment of Judge Director Hunter-Havens reported that Susan Walker has agreed to serve as a Judge for Precinct W27 for the 2021-2023 term. She previously served as a Judge for the 2019-2021 term and is recommended by the Republican Party for re-appointment. She resides in Precinct W27. Member Hunter moved approval of the appointment as recommended, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. e.Adoption of FY 2022-23 Recommended Continuation Budget Chair Carter called for a motion. Secretary Miller moved adoption of the FY 2022-23 Continuation Budget as presented, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. 6.OLD BUSINESS •Approval of Minutes (9/14/2021, 10/05/2021, 10/12/2021, 10/19/2021, 10/26/2021, 11/01/2021, and 12/14/2021) Chair Carter moved to take off the table the minutes of 10/26/2021, 11/01/2021 and 12/14/2021 and consider them along with the minutes of 10/05/2021, 10/12/2021, and 10/19/2021, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion of the procedural motion, Chair Carter called for the votes. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter asked to defer action on the minutes of 9/14/2021 for further review before acting on them. It was a long meeting with a lot of discussion. Chair Carter moved approval of the minutes of 10/05/2021, 10/12/2021, 10/19/2021, 10/26/2021, 11/01/2021, and 12/14/2021, with the addition of two statutory references he has requested, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter noted that minutes of the 9/1/2021, 11/2/2021, 11/8/2021, and 11/9/2021 are pending. Board Minutes – 01/11/2022 7. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter called for any general discussion among the Board members. [Member Kemp left the meeting at 6:56 p.m.] Member Bryan offered his apology to Secretary Miller for the tone of his comment regarding the pay discussion. Secretary Miller accepted the apology. 8.ADJOURNMENT Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:58 p.m., second by Chair Carter. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 5:15 p.m., at the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _______________________________ _____________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: Public Comment Summary: This is an opportunity for members of the public to provide comment on elections-related matters. Each commenter will be limited to two minutes with a twenty-minute limit total for all public comments. Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Item # 2 Item # 2 Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: Director’s Report Summary: a.Financial Update The attached reports provide the Board with a budget update, including the following: •Salaries and Benefits expended through FY21-22 7th Period (January) •Operating Expenses expended through FY21-22 7th Period (January) •Grand Total expended through FY20-21 7th Period (January) b.List Maintenance Update Per data provided from the Statewide Elections Information Management System (SEIMS), the New Hanover County Board of Elections completed the following: •Removed 409 voters from the voter registration rolls in January of 2022 consistent with NC Gen. Stat. §163-82.14. •Processed 961 new registration forms, 258 duplicate registration forms, and 680 registration update forms in January of 2022. c.Redistricting Update On Friday, February 4, 2022, the NC Supreme Court ruled that the current congressional and NC House and Senate district maps are unconstitutional under the free elections, equal protection, free speech, and freedom of assembly clauses of the NC Constitution. In their order, the Court provided the NC General Assembly, political parties, and other intervenors may submit new maps by February 18, 2022. The trial court will determine which maps to used by noon on February 23rd. Any emergency appeal of the NC Supreme Court decision must be filed with the court by February 23 at 5:00 pm. Document/s Included: Financial Year-To-Date Budget Report 7th Period (January); NVRA Report January 2022; NVRA Visualizations Report; NVRA Report Definitions Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Item # 2 Item # 3 February 10, 2022 BOARD OF ELECTIONS BUDGET REPORT SALARIES & BENEFITS FY20-21 ACTUALS FY20-21 7TH PERIOD ACTUALS FY21-22 7TH PERIOD ACTUALS FY21-22 TRANSFERS /ADJUSTMENTS FY21-22 ENC/REQ FY21-22 REVISED BUDGET FY21-22 PERCENT USED SALARIES 302,294.78 179,804.59 178,499.55 0.00 0.00 438,217.00 40.7% CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES 423,477.82 411,020.37 105,122.18 0.00 3,750.00 558,889.00 19.5% OVERTIME PAY (OTP)13,505.10 13,489.56 2,701.11 0.00 0.00 7,974.00 33.9% SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES (FICA)29,917.00 20,012.61 14,167.54 0.00 0.00 76,890.00 18.4% RETIREMENT-LOCAL GOVT EMPL 32,346.56 19,712.56 20,656.93 0.00 0.00 49,218.00 42.0% GENERAL 401-K 0.00 0.00 4,313.94 0.00 0.00 25,123.00 17.2% MEDICAL INSURANCE EXPENSE 44,352.48 23,958.86 31,028.74 0.00 0.00 80,648.00 38.5% LONG TERM DISABILITY INSUR 595.89 351.21 284.13 0.00 0.00 754.00 37.7% SALARIES & BENEFITS TOTAL 846,489.63 668,349.76 356,774.12 0.00 3,750.00 1,237,713.00 29.1% OPERATING EXPENSES FY20-21 ACTUALS FY20-21 7TH PERIOD ACTUALS FY21-22 7TH PERIOD ACTUALS FY21-22 TRANSFERS /ADJUSTMENTS FY21-22 ENC/REQ FY21-22 REVISED BUDGET FY21-22 PERCENT USED CONTR SERVS 440,126.65 356,141.31 113,663.73 14,128.00 179,633.49 283,237.00 103.6% RENT 4,125.00 4,125.00 625.00 0.00 0.00 2,375.00 26.3% ADVERTISING COST 3,038.78 0.00 2,511.30 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 62.8% CELLULAR EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 456.00 0.0% POSTAGE EXPENSE 92,317.90 77,928.90 22,226.56 -1,814.00 0.00 56,936.00 39.0% M&R-EQUIPMENT 35,405.77 0.00 50,855.00 0.00 0.00 50,855.00 100.0% PRINTING 95,308.17 87,458.02 25,537.62 -5,000.00 2,160.51 121,300.00 22.8% PRINTER-COPIER COSTS &SUPP 10,164.75 9,639.39 2,326.76 -2,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 31.0% SUPPLIES 291,535.75 104,748.13 11,523.99 -1,814.00 13,665.50 57,740.00 43.6% SUPPLIES-COMPUTER&OTHER 1,721.16 1,721.16 1,979.50 0.00 0.00 5,928.00 33.4% DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 470.00 0.0% EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENTS 152.2 152.20 280.55 0.00 0.00 500.00 56.1% TRAINING & TRAVEL 201.98 201.98 500.99 -3,000.00 0.00 5,500.00 9.1% INSURANCE&BONDS 4,214.62 4,214.62 43,030.58 16,179.00 0.00 43,031.00 100.0% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 978,312.73 646,330.71 275,061.58 16,179.00 195,459.50 639,828.00 73.5% GRAND TOTAL 1,824,802.36 1,314,680.47 631,835.70 16,179.00 199,209.50 1,877,541.00 44.3% NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS NVRA REPORT Reporting Period:-1/1/2022 1/31/2022 Totals Active 149,397 Inactive 25,627 Total Registration 175,024 REPORTING PERIOD Registrations Approved 1,552 Total Registrations Removed 409 Inactive Registrations Removed 69 New Registrations 00 - No Application Source 1 01 - Public Assistance 4 02 - Disability 1 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 907 06 - Mail-in 6 07 - In-person 1 08 - Library & High School 1 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 20 17 - Registration Drives 19 21 - Medicaid Renewal 1 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 961 Duplicates 00 - No Application Source 0 01 - Public Assistance 1 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 152 06 - Mail-in 3 07 - In-person 2 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 13 17 - Registration Drives 2 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 60 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 2 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 1 of 5Feb 11, 2022 11:18 am NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 99 - Voter Change On Verification 23 258 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 2 of 5Feb 11, 2022 11:18 am NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Changes of Information 00 - No Application Source 6 01 - Public Assistance 2 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 496 06 - Mail-in 22 07 - In-person 12 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 37 17 - Registration Drives 1 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 64 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 5 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 18 99 - Voter Change On Verification 17 680 Verifications # of 1st & 2nd verification mailings sent 1,373 # of 1st NCOA mailings sent 3,693 # of 1st verification returned undeliverable 91 # of verification returned by voter 38 Confirmations # of confirmations returned by voter 20 # of confirmations sent 53 # of confirmations returned undeliverable 30 # of confirmations not returned at all 107 COUNTY STATISTICAL Constitution 0 Democratic 51,260 Green 0 Libertarian 1,486 Republican 53,594 Unaffiliated 68,684 American Indian 380 Asian 1,327 Black 19,544 Multi-Racial 963 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 11 White 134,947 Other 3,391 Undesignated 14,461 Hispanic 3,492 Not Hispanic 118,540 Undesignated 52,992 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 3 of 5Feb 11, 2022 11:18 am NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Female 85,953 Male 73,271 Undesignated 15,800 Unprocessed Registrations - Incomplete Queue 00 - No Application Source 1 01 - Public Assistance 2 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 167 06 - Mail-in 13 07 - In-person 0 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 0 17 - Registration Drives 0 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 49 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 3 99 - Voter Change On Verification 6 Unprocessed Registrations - Archive Queue 00 - No Application Source 0 01 - Public Assistance 0 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 0 06 - Mail-in 0 07 - In-person 0 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 0 17 - Registration Drives 0 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 0 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 1 99 - Voter Change On Verification 0 Unprocessed Registrations - Review Queue 00 - No Application Source 0 01 - Public Assistance 0 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 0 06 - Mail-in 5 07 - In-person 0 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 4 of 5Feb 11, 2022 11:18 am NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 0 17 - Registration Drives 0 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 5 of 5Feb 11, 2022 11:18 am 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 APPROVED REG REMOVED REG NVRA Monthly Statistics: Total Removed and Approved Registrations Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 NEW DMV REG NEW REG ALL OTHERS DMV DUPLICATES ALL OTHER DUPLICATES DMV INFO CHANGE ALL OTHER INFO CHANGE NVRA Monthly Statistics: Voter Registrations Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 1ST & 2ND VERIFICATIONS MAILED 1ST NCOA MAILED UNDELIVERABLE 1ST VERFICIATION RETURNED VERIFICATIONS MAILED CONFIRMATIONS RETURNED CONFIRMATIONS UNDELIVERABLE CONFIRMATIONS NVRA Monthly Statistics: Voter Card Mailings Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: Polling Place Change for Precinct W18 Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N.C. Gen. Stat § 163-128(a) Summary: The New Hanover County Board of Elections approved an out-of-precinct voting place for W18, Sea Gate Baptist Church, at their January 11, 2022 meeting. After this meeting, we became aware of a church within the precinct boundaries of W18, Multiply Church, that was interested in hosting elections. They recently bought a building that was previously used by a church and hosted elections for several years. The building had been vacant for over a year. I have not submitted the out-of-precinct voting place approved by the county board in January to the Executive Director of the State Board yet since we have identified an in-precinct voting place for this precinct. The out-of-precinct voting place is no longer the only available alternative. The church has selected the electioneering restrictions “Campaign signage and electioneering allowed on premises on Election Day only”. As a result, this polling place change would have to be submitted to the Executive Director at the NC State Board of Election for approval if approved by the county board. Document/s Included: Images of the previous and proposed polling place for precinct W18; Resolution to Adopt Polling Place Change (W18) (Provided at Board Meeting) Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 2 Item # 4a Precinct W18 Multiply Church 4927 Wrightsville Ave. Wilmington 28403 Sea Gate Baptist Church 6115 Oleander Dr. Wilmington 28403 Aerial Images Multiply Church Sea Gate Baptist Church Multiply Church has recently purchased the property at 4927 Wrightsville Ave. This property was the W18 polling place for years when it was occupied by Wilmington First Assembly Church. It would be considered “in-precinct” because it is within or adjacent (emphasis added) to the W18 boundary. It is currently being renovated but the voting enclosure is in usable condi- tion, with working HVAC and ADA accessibility. Sea Gate Baptist is 2.7 miles from Multiply Church, 1.3 miles from the W18 boundary, and needs ADA accommodations, specifically the rental and temporary installation of a ramp. Multiply Church Sea Gate Baptist Church Voter Parking Lots Exterior View Voter Entrance Voting Enclosure Multiply Church Sea Gate Baptist Church Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: Proposed FY22/23 Budget Enhancements Applicable Statutes and/or Rules: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-33 and 163-35 Summary: There are three Budget Enhancement Request Forms that have been submitted for FY22-23. I have included a general overview of these enhancement requests below, which was shared with the board at the January meeting. In addition, I have included the specific requests forms for each proposed enhancement in the agenda packet for your review. All enhancement requests were developed in response to the increased challenges we are experiencing recruiting and assigning election officials to serve at the county’s in-person voting sites and on the Multipartisan Teams to provide assistance with absentee-by-mail voting to voters living at assisted-living facilities. •Increase in Election Official Compensation (One-Stop Officials) from $10.00 per hour to $15.00 per hour for One-Stop Assistants and $17.00 per hour for One- Stop Site Leads •Increase in Election Official Compensation (Election Day Officials) for Chief Judges, Judges and Assistants. o Increase rate of pay for Chief Judges from $225 to $300 per day ($15 per hour to $20 per hour for a 15-hour day). o Increase rate of pay for Judges from $180 to $255 per day ($12 per hour to $17 per hour for 15-hour day). o Increase rate of pay for Assistants from $120 to $225 per day ($8 per hour to $15 per hour for 15-hour day). •Increase in Election Official Compensation (Multipartisan Assistance Team Members) from $25 to $40 per visit for average of two-to-three-hour visit. The county board may submit a letter of support for any or all the proposed budgetary enhancement requests to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners and County Manager Chris Coudriet if deemed appropriate by the board. Document/s Included: Budget Enhancement Request Forms Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 4b Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: 2021-2023 Appointment of Chief Judge and Judge Update Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N.C. Gen. Stat §§ 163-31 and 163-41 Summary: County boards of elections are required to appoint one chief judge and two judges to each precinct in the county wherever possible. We are providing an update on these appointments for your review to determine the next steps in this process. Included in your packet is a summary of the three precincts where we have vacancies as a result of a Chief Judge or Judge resignation. This document also includes information about the precincts where we have identified multiple transfers among those appointed. There are a total of four precincts where this has occurred either due to a hold-over appointee, an appointee moving their residential address, or an administrative error. Per statute, the most important qualification of a chief judge or judge is that they are residents of the precinct in which they are appointed to serve. Wherever possible, all judges should not be members of the same political party. There is not a statutory requirement that a certain number of judges must be Democrats or Republicans. Unaffiliated voters can be appointed as a chief judge or judge. The appointment of Unaffiliated and Democratic judge or Unaffiliated and Republican judges meets the bipartisan criteria since Unaffiliated judges are not of the same political party as either Democrat or Republican judges. Per the NC State Board of Elections, examining the voting history of prospective judges is not required, nor is it appropriate. From an administrative perspective, it is imperative that the county board appoint as many qualified resident chief judges and judges as statutorily permitted to ensure that our office has sufficient time to 1) onboard, assign, and train election officials to perform all required administrative and technical tasks on Election Day and 2) to fill any last-minute vacancies of appointed chief judges or judges with transfer chief judges or judges to ensure effective management of the election-related processes. It is critical that, whenever possible, the use of transfer judges be limited to ensure that we have sufficient capacity to fill last minute vacancies in those appointed to serve in each precinct. Through the timely establishment of these appointments, teams can be built in a timely manner using other election officials to ensure that all skillsets and knowledge-bases are present at each polling place. Per the NC State Board of Elections, because the current board did not unanimously appoint as required by N.C. Gen. Stat § 163-41(c) in all precincts, the precinct chief judges and judges appointed in 2019 hold over until a new judge is properly appointed by the board for that position. This is because G.S. 163- 41(a) states, “Their terms of office shall continue for two years from the specified date of appointment and until their successors are appointed and qualified, except that if a nonresident of the precinct is appointed as chief judge or judge for a precinct, that person's term of office shall end if the board of elections appoints a qualified resident of the precinct of the same party to replace the nonresident chief Item # 4c judge or judge.” The chair has this authority to approve the appointment of judges or chief judges without needing unanimous approval of the board when there is a vacancy in an appointed position, which does not occur unless the current chief judge or judge is removed from office, dies, or resigns – those are the circumstances under which a vacancy would be created under G.S. 163-41(d). Document/s Included: Summary Worksheet on 2021-2023 Appointment of Chief Judge & Judges Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Precinct Position Home Precinct Name Elections Served Since 2014 Notes CF02 CJ CF02 Garrick Purdie 7 2021-2023 Appointee Resigned J-R CF02 Patricia Humbles 9 J-D *VACANT * H04 CJ *VACANT *2021-2023 Appointee Resigned J-R H04 Steven Hinderliter 4 J-D H04 Patricia McMahon 5 H10 CJ *VACANT *2019-2021 Appointee Resigned J-U H10 Darla Jane Green Hughes 6 J-D H10 Rina Messler 12 Precinct Position Home Precinct Name Elections Served Since 2014 Notes W03 CJ W29 Lori Hull 10 TRANSFER J-R W03 Elizabeth Ball Wright 2 J-U M03 Lothar Wedekind 2 TRANSFER W08 CJ W29 Diane Brown 10 TRANSFER- Appointment held over 2019-2021 J-R FP04 Richard D. Wills 1 TRANSFER Republican Party Appointee J-D W25 Amy Gilman 4 TRANSFER W13 CJ H04 Mimi Marquis 4 TRANSFER- Appointment held over 2019-2021 J-R *VACANT * J-D W27 Anne Randall 1 TRANSFER- Democratic Party Appointee W24 CJ W29 John David Purnell 10 TRANSFER J-R H05 Jeanene Matthews 1 TRANSFER- Appointment held over 2019-2021 J-U W24 Carol Barclay 4 Appointment held over 2019-2021 2021- 2023 Chief Judges & Judges Vacancies as Result of Resignations 2021- 2023 Chief Judges & Judges Precincts with Multiple Transfers Appointed UNCW Warwick Center, 629 Hamilton Drive, Wilmington Board of Education- Spencer Building, 1802 5th St S, Wilmington UNCW- Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, 620 College Rd S, Wilmington Riverside Park, 6910 Old Bridge Site Rd, Castle Hayne College Park Elementary School, 5001 Oriole Drive, Wilmington Eaton Elementary School, 6701 Gordon Rd, Wilmington MLK Center, 401 8th St S, Wilmington Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 Subject: Approval of Minutes Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-31(e) and 143-318.10(e) Summary: This includes minutes from the 9/14/2021 meeting. Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 5 Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 REGULAR MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections September 14, 2021 5:15 P.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Russ C. Bryan, Member Lyana G. Hunter, Member Bruce Kemp, Member Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director Chris Tisbert, Elections Database and Systems Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees – In Person: Steph Fetzer; Richard Poole; Susanne Werner, NHC Democratic Party; Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear; Bob Gatewood; Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Thom Miller; Will Knecht, NHC GOP; Dottie Playforth, NHC GOP; Susan Kreamer; Tom Kreamer; Peggy Vineyard; Andre Brown. Public Attendees - Virtual: Leslie Cohen; J. T.; two unidentified telephone numbers. OPENING Chair Carter reminded everyone that New Hanover County is under an indoor mask mandate. All attendees must wear masks while attending the Board of Elections meetings. He requested all attendees to silence their cell phones. He announced that this meeting is being recorded, both audio and video. Finally, he asked attendees not to interrupt another speaker and reminded that in the Public Comment period, speakers are limited to two minutes each. Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:17 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 AGENDA Chair Carter asked for the following changes in the order of the agenda: after the Public Comment period, move to item 5.b., Temporary Transfer of Voters for Precinct H08, and 5.c., 2021-2023 Appointment of Chief Judges and Judges as Old Business, then the Director’s Report and the remaining items. Chair Carter moved adoption of the agenda as amended, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter announced he will no longer call for abstentions when calling for the vote. MINUTES Chair Carter moved that the minutes of the 08/17/2021 Special Board meeting be approved as submitted. Member Kemp requested a change on page three, last paragraph, seventh line, adding “where possible” after party affiliation. Secretary Miller requested a change on page four, paragraph six, second line to correct the spelling of the last name from “Willis” to “Wills”, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Carter called upon the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. Suzanne Werner, representing NHC Democratic Party and chair Andre Brown, said she has been working on the chief judge and judge appointments for many years. This year, the Democratic Party recommended six judges and four were rejected because they were non-residents of the precinct. She has brought forward an additional name of a voter who is resident in the precinct to Chair Carter. She was not aware that non-residents of the precinct are now eligible. According to the statute, residence in the precinct is the most important qualification. She is aware that there are recommendations to transfer in and replace a resident Unaffiliated official with a non-resident party-affiliated official. That is an error. In some precincts, Republican and Unaffiliated officials are appointed and no Democrats. Replacing a transfer Democrat with a transfer Republican is inappropriate in those cases. Chair Carter took note that Ms. Werner was reading from the guidance from the State Board of Elections and passed out copies of his edited excerpts from NCGS §163-41 to the Board Members and the public in-person attendees. Seeing no other public in-person attendees wishing to offer comment, Chair Carter called on the virtual attendees for their comments. Leslie Cohen asked whether the August 17 meeting minutes are posted on the website? The August 17 minutes were approved earlier in this meeting and will be posted to the website tomorrow. In-person attendee Susan Kreamer reported she served as an observer on Election Day 2020. At the end of the day, she was told to leave by the chief judge as the precinct officials were breaking down the equipment. She asked that the chief judges be trained to let observers stay. Director Hunter-Havens acknowledged that there was some confusion about allowing observers to remain and that has been noted for future training. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. OLD BUSINESS 5.b. Temporary Transfer of Voters for Precinct H08 Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. Currently there are no registered voters who reside within the municipal boundaries in Precinct H08. The deadline to register to vote in the municipal election is October 8, 2021. The State Board of Elections (SBE) has recommended that the Board temporarily transfer voters in Precinct H08 to Precinct H12 for the 2021 Municipal Election only. Precinct H12 is adjacent to Precinct H08. The statute governing a temporary transfer requires that, when the board assigns voters from more than one precinct to the same precinct, the board shall maintain separate registration and voting records to identify properly the precinct in which the voter resides. (N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-128(a) (2020)) The polling place for Precinct H12 is Porters Neck Elementary School. The voting enclosure is the multipurpose room, which has sufficient interior space to maintain separate registration and voting in the event an eligible Precinct H08 voter registers to vote. Question was raised whether there is a similar situation in H12? Director Hunter-Havens reported that H12 has about 300 to 400 voters in the municipal limits. Member Kemp moved adoption of the Resolution to Temporarily Transfer Voters for Precinct H08, second by Member Hunter. Secretary Miller asked what happens with the chief judge and judges appointed for Precinct H08. Director Hunter-Havens proposed the transfer to Precinct H12 which has an experienced chief judge in place and can navigate the specialized process with the transfer. Precinct H08 officials will not work on the municipal election day but will be in place for 2022. She added that at this time there are no voters to notify of the temporary transfer, but the staff will follow up again after the voter registration deadline. Motion carried unanimously. 5.c. 2021-2023 Appointment of Chief Judges and Judges Chair Carter introduced the next item of business, noting that at least two of the three among chief judge and judges must reside in the precinct. There are 16 vacancies to be filled among 43 precincts. While there are now 15 to 16 names before the Board, not all can be appointed at this time due to the residency requirements. Member Kemp asked whether the names submitted by Susanne Werner on behalf of the Democratic Party were already reviewed by staff? Chair Carter reviewed the four names received from Ms. Werner to fill vacant positions: • W16 – Alex Lee Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 • CF02 – Irving Trust • H12 – Edward Beckes • W24 – Veronica McLaurin Brown Ms. Werner asked the Board to consider Ms. McLaurin Brown for appointment to Precinct W17 instead of W24 to avoid a second non-resident transfer in W24 in deference to the recommended appointment of John David Purnell as the non-resident Chief Judge. Secretary Miller affirmed his position is to appoint the duly recommended nominees put forth by staff. He is willing to engage in further discussion. There are several names beyond the five that were duly and timely put forward by staff that the Board already voted 4 to 1 to approve at the last meeting. He stated he would like the Board to approve those appointments unanimously, then consider the appointment of these further names. Secretary Miller moved to appoint the five chief judges and judges that remain unappointed that were duly and timely recommended by staff. Those five are: • Karl Ricanek III, H10 • Darla Jane Green Hughes, H10 • Margaret Davit, W13 • John David Purnell, W24 • Kathryn Lawson, W27 He reminded that the Board voted in the last meeting 4 in favor and 1 against those appointments. Chair Carter asked for clarification of the resident status of the nominees. Director Hunter-Havens confirmed that Ms. Hughes and Ms. Lawson are residents of the precinct to which they are recommended for appointment. Member Hunter seconded the motion. Chair Carter reviewed NCGS §163-41 (c), second paragraph, where the party chairs’ recommendations are insufficient, the Board may name chief judges and judges who reside in that precinct without the recommendation of a party chair. That would be two of the five that Secretary Miller named in his motion. He has no problem with considering the other three also but thinks it contemplates making the resident and nonresident appointments separately. He recognizes his view is inconsistent with the guidance provided by the SBE legal department in two respects. First, they say we “must” appoint, and the statute says we “may” appoint, we have been over that. Second, the statute focuses on registered voters in the precinct, but then gets into registered voters from other precincts. He does not mind tackling two steps at once and has no problem with the motion on the floor but wants to track the steps as they are laid out in the statute. Member Bryan said SBE clearly could not mean “must” in direct conflict with the statute. Chair Carter said he is inclined to consider they meant “may” instead of “must” and noted the SBE had the opportunity to retract their guidance and have chosen not to, but is not inclined to argue about it further. The statute says “may”. Secretary Miller said, as a non-lawyer on the Board, he feels like the Board is getting into the weeds. This is still the starting point for him. He added that as practice has gone, the Board has not had non-resident judges and chief judges recommended by staff rejected by the Board. The Board is departing from culture and practice. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 Chair Carter said that at step three, the Board must have diligently sought names of resident voters to fill the open positions with in-precinct nominees. Secretary Miller asked if he understands Chair Carter to be saying he would be more comfortable in voting on the names of the two resident appointees first and then move onto the transfers recommended to the Board? Chair Carter responded that he is not saying the law compels the Board to appoint the resident officials, but that the Board may appoint them. It compels the Board to diligently seek to fill those positions. It raises the question whether voting against those nominees is the Board “diligently seeking” to fill those posts with residents of the precincts, or is the Board not being diligent enough? That is a question each Board member must answer for herself or himself. Chair Carter said he would be happy for Secretary Miller to bifurcate the motion, but he is not going to amend the motion. Member Hunter said, for clarification, the SBE is getting “must appoint” from NCGS §163-41(a), setting the threshold requirements that nominees are residents of the county, of good moral character, and able to read and right, and extrapolate from that, if the names presented meet those criteria, the Board must appoint them. Chair Carter said he tends to think that is correct even though the SBE did not come right out and say that. He accepts that as a plausible way to reconcile their guidance with what the statute says. He sees those requirements as a baseline minimum and not an exhaustive list of requirements. That is as close as he can come to what the SBE means. Member Hunter agreed that this is their interpretation of the law, they are the experts, and she intends to follow their advice as the experts. It is the Board’s responsibility to seek their guidance and put it into action. Chair Carter said his perspective is slightly different, that the Board is well-advised to seek their guidance, but also to weigh that guidance against the plain language of the statute, and when there is any daylight between the two, the Board needs to be very careful to adhere to the statute and not to conflicting guidance. Member Hunter said it may be expedient to divide the question as one part may be more controversial than the other. Secretary Miller agreed to withdraw his previous motion and instead moved to approve in H10 as Judge, Darla Jane Green Hughes, a resident of H10 and not a transfer, and in W27 as Judge, Kathryn Lawson also noting she is not a transfer, second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter called for any further discussion. Member Kemp noted that with the appointment of Ms. Lawson in W27 there are already two Democrats appointed as judges there and sees the need for a Republican judge in that precinct. In H10 there are no municipal voters now, so anybody assigned to H10 now is not available to fill judge and precinct needs when they might be needed in the city, whereas the Board can appoint before the 2022 primary when there will be more people available to serve. This allows the Board to conserve judges by not assigning them to precincts that are not voting this year, giving the staff and the Chair more choices to fill vacancies. Secretary Miller said he understood this is a staff nominee and he understands the Board’s duty is to appoint, not hoard officials. He disagrees with Member Kemp in this use of personal, idiosyncratic criteria added to the list the Board must consider. Member Bryan asked to hear from the Director regarding saving judges. Director Hunter-Havens advised that precinct H10 does have municipal voters this fall, about 110 at last check. We try not to inconvenience that many voters by a temporary Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 transfer to another precinct. With a footprint that small, a chief judge and two judges serve as a smaller presence to assure those voters can vote and receive the same level of service as the other precincts with more registered voters. Administratively it is extremely helpful to complete these chief judge and judge appointments so that these officials, who have not served for ten or eleven months, can build their experience, update their knowledge of statutory changes, and prepare to serve in the primary election when there will be a much larger turnout. To save individuals in hopes we can find more people, from an administrative standpoint, does not allow us to build their skills and build their knowledge base so they can better serve the voters in this county. We have a trained election official pool of almost a thousand officials. In start making these recommendations, the key factors are who is available and willing to serve. We are mindful in all our recommendations whether they are residents of the precinct or strategic transfers. Certain positions, such as chief judge, can be very challenging to fill. Many experienced judges are hesitant to take on chief judge responsibilities. Administratively we encourage the Board to appoint as many experienced chief judges and judges as possible so to provide the level of service that voters in New Hanover County are used to receiving. Member Bryan asked Director Hunter-Havens, if there are 110 eligible voters, how many do you expect will vote Election Day versus One Stop? The Director responded that, traditionally, there is less turnout during Early Voting for a municipal election. During a presidential election, about 60 percent voted early voting in-person, the highest it has ever been. In a municipal election, turnout runs around 18 percent, and of those voters who voted in the last municipal election, approximately 20 percent voted during the early voting period. Member Kemp said it has been nearly a month since the Board first considered these appointments and wondered if any additional residents of the precinct have expressed an interest in serving in any of the precincts where there are vacancies not yet filled. Are we going back and revisiting steps we considered in the previous meeting? The names received from the party chairs were appointed. The next step is to diligently seek people who live in the precinct who are available. We are back to the names that were originally submitted so I am asking whether staff have received names of others willing to serve who might replace a transfer or may be a Republican or a Democrat where there is none that could be appointed. Director Hunter-Havens had said she was expecting additional judges to step forward. The Director responded that she was not expecting additional judges to step forward. We have continued to receive responses from the pool of officials, and we have received additional applications from individuals with no election experience who we will continue to on-board to be available to fill vacancies as needed to give these individuals experience so they will be ready to step into a leadership role. We want judges to get experience now to be ready for the primary and general elections in 2022. Chair Carter addressed Member Kemp’s question: these are the only two people that we are aware of, whether names given by county staff or either party, nominated to serve as judges in the precinct in which they live. He asked Director Hunter-Havens if that is her understanding and she confirmed it is. Chair Carter asked if anyone has any information Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 to the contrary. Addressing Member Kemp, he asked if that clarifies things. Member Kemp concurred. Chair Carter called for any further discussion on the motion before the Board. Hearing none, he called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. The motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members. Member Bryan asked whether we know where we can reach some common ground, so we don’t need to go through the entire process? He would like to get some proposals on the table to get this work completed. Member Kemp contended the Board has plowed this ground already, that we are now is in the second sentence of the second paragraph of §163-41(c). We have received from the party chairs names that live outside the precinct and he is prepared to nominate those folks to serve those precincts. If the Board approved the previous motion, those nominees would not be appointable, because there is already one out-of-precinct transfer appointed. Member Hunter pointed out that the two names just voted on are not transfers. Member Bryan agreed that in the previous motion, which he seconded, both reside in the precincts to which they were nominated. Member Kemp said the Board has previously voted on these names. Chair Carter said that as part of the Board’s required diligence in seeking to fill the positions, multiple votes to reach unanimity are appropriate. Appointing Ms. Green in H10 would not prevent appointing a Republican transfer to a position in that precinct, while appointing Ms. Lawson in W27 would. Member Kemp said that there are already two Democrats appointed in W27. Chair Carter called for a motion to vote on these two names separately. Secretary Miller moved to name Darla Jane Green Hughes as judge in H10, second by Member Hunter. She pointed out that Ms. Green Hughes has experience in five previous elections, is a resident of the precinct, presumably of good moral character and can read and write. She meets all the criteria for appointment. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Member Hunter noted Ms. Lawson has served in one previous election, is unaffiliated which makes no difference according to the statute, and moved the appointment of Kathyrn Lawson to serve as Judge in W27, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. The motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members. Member Kemp moved to appoint Dorothy Playforth as Judge in W27, second by Member Bryan. Her name was submitted by the county Republican chair prior to August 17. Chair Carter said that Member Kemp’s motion falls under §163-41(c), second paragraph. This motion presupposes that the Board has already diligently sought to fill the position with in-precinct officials. Once the Board satisfies that pre-requisite, the statute then says the Board may appoint out-of-precinct officials. Those appointments may be based on recommendations from the staff and the political parties. But the statute also says, where Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 possible, the Board is required to seek and adopt the recommendation of the county parties. He finds that particularly important because that same language is not found in the immediately preceding section. He understands the statute to say the parties play an explicit role when the Board is operating under this step of the statute. There may be a difference of opinion among the Board members as to whether we have diligently sought to fill the position with an in-precinct official. He is not taking a position on that quite yet. But if we get past the pre-requisite and do act on the positions, then we are required to consider the input from both parties. [Chair Carter then excused himself from the meeting and asked Secretary Miller to take over the chair.] Secretary Miller addressed questions for further information to Member Kemp. The name that you just put forward was submitted when? Member Kemp responded it was submitted on August 17 and clarified the name being moved for appointment. Secretary Miller noted that she is not the person currently on the list entitled “All Remaining Vacancies and Suggestions” in the Board packet, which lists Samantha Nguyen in W27, not Dorothy Playforth. Unless I am mistaken, this is a new name not presented before. Mr. Rothlein, representing the county Republican party, stated her name was submitted in the beginning for W26. Secretary Miller asked Director Hunter-Havens if she has any documentation of what Mr. Rothlein said. She said she would have to check the emails. She has submitted to the Board each updated version; this is the fifth or sixth effort to summarize all the names that have been put forth. She does not have any information about Dorothy Playforth, but the Board can take any action it chooses. She understood Samantha Nguyen is the name, but may be mistaken. Member Bryan noted that Ms. Nguyen is also listed under W26. Director Hunter-Havens said that may have been an error on her part, for which she apologized. Is Dorothy Playforth a resident of W27? Mr. Kemp reported she is a resident of H13. That means she is a non-resident put forward by the county party chair, put forward under §163-41(c), second paragraph. The Board has made a diligent effort, having voted twice without success on Kathryn Lawson. Secretary Miller said there may be competing interpretations of what has and hasn’t happened, and that is okay. Clarifying, Dorothy Playforth of precinct H13 has been recommended to serve as Judge in W27. Has there been any documentation that she is eligible? [Chair Carter returned to the meeting and resumed the chair.] Director Hunter-Havens advised that both party chairs have submitted names without additional information. She is not in the precinct officials pool. Chair Carter called for any further discussion of the motion on the table. Member Hunter said this is a blatant effort to elbow in Republican judges. The Board has an eligible person who is a resident of the precinct, and has met all the criteria that is outlined by the statute, and Mr. Kemp wants summarily to not approve her, even though she meets all those requirements, in favor of a partisan move to place a Republican in that position. She stated she would not vote to approve the motion. Member Bryan objected to the description as “a blatant effort” and said that there is a genuine effort to balance things out. Having a Republican serve in this position he can support based on the statutory interpretation and the Board is required to approve the nomination of the party chair after diligent effort. We are looking at risks/rewards here. The staff needs to have everybody in place. There are some places in this process where partisanship is involved because we have a particular governor in place. We don’t need to assume that the partisan side always wins, and the other side always loses. This is appropriate under the rules, but may Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 not be what everyone wants. At some point, the Board must appoint somebody. On average, having two Democratic judges and one Republican judge is not a situation where we need to spend an inordinate amount of time to get this completed. We are doing more harm to the election than we would appointing two Democrats and one Republican to the voting site. Chair Carter thanked Member Bryan for his comments and called on Secretary Miller. He asked Member Kemp if he has additional names he wants to put forth, other than the five currently before the Board and recommended by staff? Member Kemp asked the Chair if that is relevant to the motion? Chair Carter said he is not sure if he understands the question, but it is probably relevant. Secretary Miller addressed the relevance of his question. As he stated at the outset, his starting point is that the names before the Board for appointment are duly recommended nominees from staff. He is not prepared to vote for any other nominees. Member Bryan argued that we must. Member Hunter said she would argue that the Board must appoint the slate of resident precinct officials submitted to the Board, and did not. That is what the statute requires. And now we are choosing to implement the “shall” part of the statute which is ridiculous because we did not do what the law clearly states. There are two Democrats and an Unaffiliated person. To say that is favorably weighted one way or the other… that is what the law requires. Chair Carter called for any further discussion regarding the motion on the floor. Member Kemp said it seems to him that we are referring to the staff documentation on the statute, where the word “must” occurs, and not the actual statute, where the word “may” occurs. It requires a unanimous vote. I do not believe I am going against the statute. I believe I am following the statute, which is my oath, and I have the prerogative under the main clause to vote no, and I have done that. I did that on September 1, and I would have done that on August 17 if I had the chance to review the names prior to the meeting. But I did not have that opportunity to review the names prior to the meeting. They were presented to us along with guidance that was counter to the statute, and I was not able to digest the two of those, so I said, “not voting.” I am diligently trying to follow the statute. Member Hunter said the agenda and all the supporting documents were provided in advance. To say that you did not have the documentation is incorrect. All members received the information in advance. She acknowledged she did not understand it and needed some explanation when we got to the meeting on August 17. But we had all the information in advance of the meeting. My second point is that, if you look at the actual statute book, I guess you don’t have that, I can show you that, under §163-41, it says “persons appointed to the office must be registered voters, residents of the county in which the precinct is located, of good repute, and able to read and write.” Those are the criteria. Then we go off into the alternative selection once we are not able to meet those criteria. That is what the statute says. Responding to a question from Chair Carter, Member Hunter confirmed she is reading from section (a). Member Bryan suggested the Board proceed to vote on the motion. Chair Carter agreed to treat that suggestion as motion to cut off debate or calling the question. Secretary Miller asked the Chair to restate the motion. The motion is to appoint Dorothy Playforth as a judge in precinct W27. Members Kemp and Bryan voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 Chair Carter called on Ms. Werner, saying the Board would hear from one member of the NHC Democratic Party and one member of the NHC Republican Party to share their thoughts. Ms. Werner stated that the Board needs to abide by the statute, in which the priority is that the appointee be a resident, and the Board should be voting for the recommendations of the staff. Chair Carter called on Mr. Rothlein as a representative of the NHC Republican Party. Back on September 1, the Board asked Will Knecht to submit names for six positions, and he provided those names. The Board should be able to vote on each of those names. Chair Carter thanked Ms. Werner and Mr. Rothlein for their comments. He recalled telling Mr. Knecht two weeks ago to submit any additional names he had. We all want to appoint precinct officials so that elections can run smoothly, so that the precincts are fully staffed, so that the Director and her team have time to train these folks, without causing undue stress in their lives, and so we are doing the best that we can to serve the voters of New Hanover County. All five of us, no matter what our differences are, we want to appoint people to these offices. Member Bryan said he wanted to find whatever middle ground we can. He senses that there are two very fixed positions, but is trying to find points of agreement so we can get this done. Obviously, we don’t all agree on the interpretation of the statute or whether we should follow the State Board’s advice. When possible, out of respect for the other party, for what we are trying to do, which is to be able to have a sense that their party is represented in as many polling places as possible and would reduce the likelihood of complaints or irregularities. Getting caught up in the language and trying to block that effort may be understandable given your interpretations but is counterproductive too. I think the goal for both sides is, as the Board of Elections and from the staff point of view, to have zero to few complaints about decision made in the field. We have enough legal authority to do that, that we should keep it as balanced as possible. You know my position that the risks are very low by putting in place the staff and party recommendations, who take oaths, are trained, and I have very little worry that there will be any accusations of impropriety. But understanding the more fixed positions on the Board, I am trying to see if there is a way to find legitimate guidance to get us there and let the staff do their jobs. I don’t think, personally, either way we go, whether we appoint all six Republicans or not, there is going to be problems with the election. We reduce that possibility by following the guidance. I understand everyone’s position and I respect it. We can agree to disagree agreeably on various points. If we totally disagree, we don’t fulfill what we are obligated to do which is to complete the election. Secretary Miller spoke to Member Bryan’s comments about seeking middle ground. He asked Member Kemp his thoughts on the appointment of John David Purnell in W24 with two vacant positions left, and what his considerations are; the same for Margaret Davit in W13. Mr. Kemp responded regarding Purnell in W24, he understands that includes the UNCW campus and there are no in-precinct judges of any party so someone must be appointed there. He said he is willing to approve Mr. Purnell. Regarding W13, we are doing something our Director says she likes to avoid, transferring someone into the Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 precinct who has only one year of election experience which prevents any other transfers to serve in that precinct The Chair recognized Director Hunter-Havens to respond. She said that in recommending the appointment of a non-resident chief judge, we are very mindful of the skills needed. Chief judge positions are the most difficult to fill. These are critical positions as all voters and all officials look to the chief judge for guidance and as their primary point of contact in the polling place. Ms. Davit is willing to serve, has experience in one prior election, and in all our contacts with her and our assessment of her, she has the skills and the abilities that we feel will make her a good chief judge. By no means have I said that we do not sometimes recommend a transfer chief judge. I believe my statement was that unless we have more understanding of the service history in the precinct, we strategically save transfers to fill chief judge positions. We ask the Board to appoint residents to those positions because, as we get closer to Election Day, chief judges and judges suddenly become unavailable. We will have some assistants appointed as chief judges and judges at the last minute. We will often use a transfer to fill that position because a resident assistant will not be able to step up. We try to avoid transfers if possible. In this case, traditionally, W13 would need a transfer chief judge and Ms. Davit is willing to step into that position. Chair Carter called on Secretary Miller. He made a motion to appoint John David Purnell as chief judge for W24, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter called for any discussion. Member Kemp went back to the earlier discussion of the statute, prior to inquiring my opinion, it was stated that §163-41(a) requires appointment of a resident of the precinct, but I am not seeing that. I am seeing that it says that the appointee must be a resident of the county in which the precinct is located. But they do not have to be residents of the precinct. I do not see where section (a) applies to that appointment at all, and I believe we are through the first part of section (c) where we ask county party chairs to submit names for transfers. Member Hunter asked if this applies to the appointment of John David Purnell. The statute is permissive in the first instance because we “may” appoint, but if we do appoint, we “shall” appoint those recommended by the party chairs. Member Kemp asked the chair to restate the motion. The motion is to appoint John David Purnell as chief judge for W24. Member Hunter noted staff’s report of his qualifications: he has served in nine previous elections, he has the desired level of experience for this precinct, he meets the criteria, he is a non-resident transfer who meets the staff criteria for recommending his appointment. Motion carried unanimously. Secretary Miller moved to appoint Margaret Davit as chief judge in W13, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter called for any discussion. Member Kemp made a substitute motion to appoint Thomas S. Morris as chief judge in W13, following the county Republican party chair’s nomination and § 163-41 (c), second paragraph, second sentence as the authority for that substitution. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp whether his motion is an amendment of the motion on the floor. Member Kemp agreed to treat his motion as an amendment rather than a substitute motion. Member Bryan made a procedural point that, while an amendment may be possible, for the sake of simplicity, it may be better to vote on one motion and then take up the next. Member Bryan asked whether the original movant, Secretary Miller, would accept the amendment. Secretary Miller summarized the discussion, that he made a motion which was seconded, there is a Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 motion to amend which needs a second, then the Board votes on the amendment. After additional discussion, Member Bryan seconded the motion to amend. For clarification, Secretary Miller said the Board will vote first on whether to amend the motion, and if the amendment passes, the Board will have further discussion and vote on the motion as amended. Members Kemp and Bryan voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Member Hunter voted no. Motion to amend failed for lack of a majority. Chair Carter returned to the original motion to appoint Margaret Davit as chief judge for W13 and called for the votes. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed for lack of unanimous vote of all the members. Member Bryan said he wants to avoid the appearance of partisanship and make more effort to find the balance in these precincts instead of blocking the appointments. Chair Carter distributed a resolution he prepared, entitled “A Unanimous Resolution of the New Hanover County Board of Elections.” He said it may need to be modified but he hopes it will serve as a basis for appointing a substantial number of additional judges. Member Hunter moved to appoint a W16 resident put forth by the county Democratic Party, Alexander Field Lee, as judge for W16, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called for discussion. Member Kemp asked Director Hunter-Havens to confirm that Mr. Lee is a resident of precinct W16. She confirmed Mr. Lee resides in precinct W16 and was nominated by the county Democratic party chair, to whom she reached out for additional names as Chair Carter requested, to give both parties the equal opportunity to submit additional nominees. In response to Member Kemp’s question, the Director confirmed Mr. Lee’s name did not appear on the first list presented to the August 17 meeting. Confirming there was no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Secretary Miller asked Chair Carter if any of the names on the list he presented are resident of the precincts. Chair Carter first pointed out that three of the names on his proposed list have already been appointed: Darla Jane Green Hughes in precinct H10, John David Purnell in precinct W24, and now Alexander Field Lee in W16. Noting the amount of time already spent on this, he asked whether the Board would like to table further discussion of precinct official appointments to address the remainder of the agenda and then come back to the appointments, or if a break would be helpful. Member Hunter would like to identify those names on which the members can reach agreement and approve those, and then consider the names where agreement might be more problematic. Member Kemp moved to appoint the names that Chair Carter proposed that have not already been approved. Member Bryan said he was looking for one of the Democrats on the Board to second the motion. Member Hunter suggested it would be more fruitful to consider the names one by one. Secretary Miller said he is willing to appoint any of the names who are residents of the precinct to which they are appointed, as with Mr. Lee’s appointment. Chair Carter confirmed none of the remaining names reside in the precinct of appointment. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 Member Kemp requested clarification of which part of §163-41(c) the Board is following. Have we “diligently sought” or are we in the second paragraph, second sentence? Chair Carter said in response that each Board member needs to decide that for himself/herself. For himself, he feels the Board is very close to having done their diligence and have worked hard at this. There is disagreement as to which requirements still operate. Member Bryan asked what happens if the Board is deadlocked. Member Kemp said that is what section (d) addresses. Chair Carter said that before we get to section (d), we would look at those officials appointed two years ago who might be still willing to serve. Director Hunter-Havens said that, for positions that are listed as vacant, staff has reached out to the incumbents and not received a response or declined to accept the appointment this time. Those appointees continue to serve until their successors are appointed. If that appointee is not available to serve for this one election, then that vacancy in the appointment can be filled administratively on an election-by-election basis. Previous Boards have been able to do that by unanimous vote. If not, then it becomes an appointment by the Chair. One Stop voting begins October 14 and all election training begins September 28. The administrative deadline for new precinct official applications is September 21. We will prioritize by position applied for, chief judge and judge first, and chronologically by date application was submitted. The last date for information sessions to explain the position and role and assess skills is September 28. The last date to process HR paperwork is October 4. We continue to accept applications after that date, informing the candidate that their name will be kept on file for appointments for the next election and will consider them for appointment to any vacancies that occur. We need to move forward with the critical appointments to conduct a successful municipal election. Member Hunter offered her observations. Looking at the remaining suggestions from Chair Carter, and looking first at the Republican names, Crystal Gayle Wolfe is the only name offered for judge in FP06 and is a transfer, and she is willing to appoint her. And the same is true for Samantha Nguyen in W26; hers is the only name to be put forward. Member Hunter moved to approve the appointment of these two nominees. Member Kemp said there is already a motion on the floor, his motion to approve the remaining names on Chair Carter’s proposed list. Chair Carter said there was no second for that motion. Member Kemp asked whether Member Bryan seconded that motion. Member Bryan said he did not. Chair Carter called again for a second for Member Kemp’s motion. Hearing none, Member Hunter’s motion is in order, second by Member Kemp. Secretary Miller discussed sequencing of the appointment decisions. He does not agree with that as it does not track for him. He remains cautious about jumping around to the different points that different Board members have raised about sequencing. While he is willing to support approval of these two nominees, he still believes the importance of making the other staff-recommended appointments. If we could approve the three remaining recommended appointments in one motion, he would support that. Chair Carter asked if that is a motion to amend the motion? Secretary Miller moved to amend the motion to appoint Karl Ricanek III as chief judge in H10; Margaret Davit as chief Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 judge in W13; Kathryn Lawson as judge in W27; Crystal Gail Wolfe as judge in FP06; and Samantha Nguyen as judge in W26, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp said three of those nominees have already been voted on tonight and that his vote will remain the same. Voting on these names one at a time is more productive, or go back to the original motion. Chair Carter called for any further discussion on the amendment to the motion. Member Hunter said this motion is in the spirit of finding common ground. She said her position is fixed only in the law which requires certain things. As a Board member, she is ethically bound by the law. This is an effort for the parties to get what they want, and more importantly, the staff is getting what they need to move forward to run an efficient election. She added to Member Bryan’s sentiments that a compromise is needed. This is that compromise. Chair Carter noted that when we get into section (c), second paragraph, where it says, “provided that where possible the county board shall seek and adopt the recommendation of the county chairman of the political party affected”, that last phrase, “of the political party affected” is not clear to him. It is not clear that the Board is required to seek and adopt the party chair’s recommendations. It seems to suggest that the Board needs to seek and adopt the recommendation of the chair of one party or the other party but is unclear how the Board determines which of the two parties is “the affected party.” Member Bryan said he assumes it means the party that is not represented among the chief judge and judge positions. Chair Carter responded that is an assumption with no basis in the statute. Member Bryan said it is a logical inference, but without reference to the legislative history, it is not clear. Chair Carter said that should not hold us up as several members have noted there is a need to move ahead with the appointments. There is a sequence, but we are not in agreement what the sequence is. We are doing our best to follow the statute as we understand it. The motion is before the Board to appoint two individuals, then amended to add three additional individuals, and when discussion is completed, proceed to vote on the amendment. Member Kemp asked whether the correct Karl Ricanek is nominated. Director Hunter- Havens said the correct voter, Karl Ricanek III, is the nominee and is a registered voter. Secretary Miller confirmed all the names included in the motion. He said, not being a lawyer, he is not able to parse the statute the way other members are. He feels the Board is cherry-picking certain points. The option on the table seems to be that Member Kemp can get two of his preferred names on this list, or none. He is not prepared to vote on the transfer names before we vote on the Board-recommended names. He will follow the initial guidance given, what Board practice has been previously, the routine process, and as to inserting partisanship into this process, only one party started investigating the voter history of unaffiliated voters to discern whether they were truly Republicans or truly Democrats. He rejects the statement that insisting on voting on the recommendations is somehow a partisan move. This disruption to the routine process is what injects partisanship into the decision. You get two or none, and further discussion will not change my position. Hearing no further discussion on the motion to amend the motion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion passed 4 to 1, carries by majority. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 Chair Carter called for any discussion on the motion as amended. Hearing none, he reviewed the motion and called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. The motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members. Member Bryan asked if the Board should go back to the original motion appointing two individuals? Member Hunter understood Secretary Miller to say either appoint all unanimously or none. Member Bryan said earlier your goal was if we can get any appointed, now refusing. Member Miller responded that after many weeks and many hours of intransigence and obstruction, whatever the good intentions may be…. Member Kemp stated his objection to “intransigence and obstruction.” Chair Carter called for each member to allow the other to speak and to preserve decorum. Secretary Miller started over, saying that after many hours of non-negotiable “no’s”, he feels the Board has reached all the unanimity that we can reach. Member Bryan called on the Chair to move on to other business. Chair Carter asked if anyone wanted to discuss the precinct appointments further at this time. Member Kemp asked the Chair to clarify where the Board is in section (c). Chair Carter said that he understands different Board members are of a different mind as to where the Board is in section (c) at this time. Member Kemp said it seems that Secretary Miller’s complaint is that the Board has made a diligent effort. Chair Carter declined to characterize what Secretary Miller feels. Member Kemp cut off the Chair and said if Secretary Miller is going to characterize me the way he has, then I would say that is diligent. Chair Carter invited Member Kemp to speak for himself, that he feels he has been diligent. Member Kemp said that he and the Board have been diligent in their efforts to fill the positions with residents of the precinct. Chair Carter agreed the Board has made some progress in this meeting to do that, and expressed his appreciation to Members Kemp and Hunter and to Secretary Miller and Member Bryan. This has been a challenging process for the Board. There are certain requirements in the statute that make it particularly challenging. At this time the Board is well served to move on to other business, taking this matter off the table and returning to it at the end of the meeting. Member Bryan said he may need to leave the meeting as it has already run longer than he expected. If his presence affects items that require unanimous vote of the Board, he encouraged the chair to take up those matters first and then he can leave. Chair Carter said he not aware of any other agenda items that require unanimity of the Board other than appointment of precinct officials. He understands that the meetings are running longer, the business before the Board is important, and the Board members are all present. Member Bryan said he is aware of all that, but he sees little prospect of reaching a unanimous decision as each side has indicated their differing positions. 3. Director’s Report Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her reports. [Member Kemp left the meeting.] a. Financial Update Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 The Director explained the template for the monthly financial update, giving a snapshot of the revised operating budget for fiscal year 2021-2022, with year-to-date expenditures, and the previous fiscal year for comparison of the actual expenditures for the previous and the current fiscal years. Bear in mind that this fiscal year is different from the last because the elections are different. In FY2021-2022 there are two elections, the municipal election in November 2021 and the primary election in March 2022, versus in 2020-2021 with one presidential election, a unique election with unique expenditures that were grant-funded. This year there are significant encumbered funds, related to the temporary employees who will support election preparations in the office, separate from the election officials. The encumbered $219,000 for Contracted Services reflects what we expect to spend for both elections, through the 2022 primary election. We have made an offer to fill one of the vacant positions to someone who was working through an employment agency and until her contract ends with the agency, we will be paying her through Contracted Services for thirteen weeks. [Member Kemp returned to the meeting.] Note that transfers and adjustments are zero. She can cover the increased expense through Contracted Services. She invited questions from the Board members. Member Hunter asked the Director, noting the line item for Rent, whether the office is required to pay rent to the County for the office space. The line item covers rent for private polling places for Election Day, based on anticipated rent of $125 for use over a three-day period: for set-up on Monday, use on Tuesday, and pick up on Wednesday. Member Bryan reported that he, the Director and Member Hunter met with the SBE the previous Friday, to present the county’s One Stop plans. He wants to understand the impact on the budget. They presented the majority and minority plans for the alternative second One Stop sites. After their presentations, SBE adopted both plans, which the County Board had not agreed to and did not anticipate. New Hanover County is now directed to have three sites for One Stop Early Voting, which SBE based on the County’s recent sale of the hospital, making the County cash-rich and therefore able to afford the additional site. Conceptually, the plan is not a bad idea, they were just not aware of the SBE’s authority to make that decision. He asked Director Hunter-Havens how that decision plays into the department’s budget. She estimated the cost of full staffing at $25,000 per site. In the municipal election planning process, the Director sends an estimate of the cost of the election to the municipalities for their budget planning. The municipalities are charged with covering the cost of the election. That estimate included one One Stop site. The largest cost is salaries for One Stop officials, based on two shifts on the weekdays, nine hours on weekdays, over 15 days. The weekends are staffed with a single shift and covers only the second weekend and the final Saturday. Staff is assigned with consideration for the same factors as the election day staffing: bipartisan representation, prior service history, and a strong management team. In consultation with Assistant County Manager Sheryl Kelly, the county has agreed to absorb the additional cost. Assistant Manager Kelly noted that by statute municipalities pay the cost of municipal elections. Considering that they did not have this cost in their budgets, in particular the beach towns which have smaller budgets, the County opted not to pass the additional costs along to the municipalities. Chair Carter expressed the appreciation of the Board for the County’s decision. Director Hunter-Havens reported that the assigned budget analysts are on notice that there may be additional adjustments related to the cost Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 for the primary election as well. Member Bryan added that they must have done such a good job in presenting the two plans that they convinced the SBE both plans were right. Chair Carter called on Member Hunter for her observations on the SBE meeting. Member Hunter noted that their agenda is structured similarly to ours, citing the statutory authority for the item, which indicated that the SBE may consider plans A, B, or C. They are not limited to choosing between the plans presented and may create their own plan. She had noted that as she prepared for the meeting, so she was not shocked by the decision because the SBE is very supportive of expanding access, as much as possible and where they can. That seemed to be the impetus behind the decision, making voting more accessible for the voters and favoring enabling more voters to vote. Chair Carter thanked the Board members and the Director for participating in the meeting which took about two hours. Member Hunter noted that Director Hunter-Havens did a great job answering the questions. Chair Carter added that, while this was not the Board’s original plan, it will offer more opportunity for on-the-job training for next year’s primary and general elections. Hearing no further questions, Chair Carter called on Director Hunter- Havens to continue with her report. b. List Maintenance She reported that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) report gives a snapshot of the changes in voter registration rolls over the period from July 1 to August 31, 2021. These reports reflect the tools available to gather this snapshot but is not a reconciliation document. Over the period from July 1 to August 31, 2021, 1,203 voters were removed in accordance with the statute, including 164 Inactive voters; and processed 2,155 new registrations, 939 duplicate registrations, and 1,878 registration updates. The large majority come in from DMV, but as we get closer to the registration deadline and into the higher profile 2022 primary and general elections, the pace of registration activity will increase, based on experience. Some registration activity was suppressed last year by COVID. Member Hunter asked for an explanation of NCOA. NCOA stands for National Change of Address. Confirmation postcards are sent twice a year, typically in January and June, to voters for whom we have received information from USPS of a possible change of address, showing both the address provided by USPS and the address we have on record, giving the voter the opportunity to update their voter registration address. The voter may check the box for their correct current address. Postcards which are returned as undeliverable are resent to the address we have on record. If the second postcard is returned undeliverable, the voter’s status is changed to Inactive. To vote, the voter either confirms the address of record or provides an updated address, and can proceed to vote. Member Kemp asked the Director if she could supply a June list maintenance report if that has not been publicly available. The Director agreed to run the report and post it on the website. Hearing no further questions or comments about list maintenance, Chair Carter thanked Director Hunter-Havens for her reports. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 5. New Business Chair Carter turned to New Business, the 2021 municipal elections notice and called on Director Hunter-Havens to speak to it. a. 2021 Municipal Elections Notice The Director explained this is the notice required by statute. The legal notice is prepared with guidance from the State Board and contains information about the dates and locations of One Stop voting and Election Day voting; the procedures for requesting and submitting absentee-by-mail ballots; the dates, times and location that the Board will meet to consider and act on applications for absentee ballots; and the voter registration options and deadlines. Member Bryan moved approval of the 2021 Municipal Election Notice, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp asked whether the listed delivery methods for return of absentee-by-mail ballots are examples or exclusive? Director Hunter-Havens confirmed those are exclusive for absentee-by-mail ballot return. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter moved to take a five-minute recess. Member Bryan asked the purpose. Chair Carter said it would provide a chance to refresh and return to the previous discussion about precinct officials. Member Bryan noted he was seeing other members shaking their heads. Member Kemp said he has a motion that, he believes, will be received favorably. Chair Carter withdrew his motion for a brief recess. Member Kemp said there were four names brought forward by the chair of the Democratic Party for precincts CF02, Irving Trust; H12, Edward Beckes; W16, Alex Lee; and W17, Veronica McLaurin Brown. He moved approval of those names for appointment, second by Member Hunter. He stated he believed all are non-resident transfers. Chair Carter noted that Alex Lee has already been appointed as judge of W16. and called for any discussion. Secretary Miller requested a few minutes to review the nominees and see who has already been appointed to serve in those precincts. These names were submitted to the August 17 meeting, but the Board has not yet considered them for appointment because they are non-resident transfers. Member Kemp noted these are Democrats who will serve in precincts where there are currently no Democratic judges appointed. He is interested in appointing Democrats instead of unaffiliated judges to fill these vacant positions. Member Hunter clarified that her second to the motion is based on these names being Democrats but not to displace unaffiliated people from appointment. That is not relevant for purposes of appointing these officials. Secretary Miller asked for a sense of the Board for adding to that list Samantha Nguyen as judge in W26 and Crystal Gail Wolfe as judge in FP06, both names nominated by the chair of the Republican Party to fill vacant positions in those precincts. Seeing agreement from the other members, Member Kemp agreed to revise his motion to appoint Irving Trust to CF02; Edward Beckes to H12; Veronica McLaurin Brown to W16; Crystal Gail Wolfe to FP06; and Samantha Nguyen to W26, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the votes. Motion carried unanimously. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 Board members again declined Chair Carter’s suggestion for a brief recess. [Chair Carter left the meeting, handing the gavel to Secretary Miller.] Member Hunter said that appointments in H10, W13, and W27 remain. Secretary Miller asked the Director whether any of these precincts offer staffing challenges or situations for special considerations? Precinct H10 has many registered voters and requires a strong chief judge to assure high quality service to the voters. So far, no resident officials have stepped forward or been identified. The nominee for chief judge, Karl Ricanek III, is a transfer nominated for his strong skill set and experience. W13 is across from UNCW and presents similar challenges as W24 which is on the campus. Voters get confused between the two polling places, generating a higher number of provisional voters. The precinct also has a small pool to draw from for precinct officials. W27 traditionally has higher election day turnout, calling for a chief judge and judges with more service history and strong administrative and technical skills to serve the volume of voters. [Chair Carter returned to the meeting and assumed the gavel.] Secretary Miller asked whether H10 and W13 are more challenging than W27. The Director noted that she only recommends appoint of a non-resident transfer chief judge in situations where the experienced judges are not willing or lack the service history to take on the duties of chief judge. These positions require strong precinct management and leadership skills. Member Kemp would like to nominate the nominees of the Republican Party chair for these open positions. Mr. Rothlein has information to share regarding their qualifications. Chair Carter asked if there was any further discussion from the Board members before hearing from Mr. Rothlein. Member Hunter said she would not favor replacing the resident nominee for W27 with someone who does not have prior experience. The nominee meets the criteria for appointment. Chair Carter clarified that there is no motion on the floor and the Board is in general discussion. Secretary Miller wanted to continue the discussion as he believes the Board to moving toward a solution. Secretary Miller said he would be willing to compromise on the three positions, with great reservations, on H10 and W13, while staying with the staff recommendation for W27. After discussion about hearing from the Republican Party representative, Chair Carter called on Julius Rothlein to address the Board. He noted that the names suggested worked the previous election cycle and he is trying to build on that capacity. Thomas Newton, previously nominated as a judge in W24, has 37 years of national account sales experience and served as a poll observer in 2020. Chair Carter deferred any further comment from Mr. Rothlein to allow further Board discussion. Secretary Miller moved to appoint Kathryn Lawson as judge in W27; Thomas Morris as chief judge in W13; and Sarah Giachino as chief judge in H10, second by Chair Carter. The Chair called for any discussion, noting that Secretary Miller has offered a compromise that reflects a change from his earlier position, which is why he seconded the motion and plans to vote for it. Member Hunter said the challenge for her is the motion is to appoint two people as chief judges who have no prior election experience. Director Hunter-Havens selected the people she nominated for their prior election experience. Her hesitation is the lack of prior experience, not party affiliation. Experience is important in the two precincts under consideration. Member Bryan said the officials are not on an island. Director Hunter-Havens said there is a dedicated call center Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 for the officials to report any difficulties they encounter during the day, such as equipment failures. They receive training to report any incidents they encounter. IT staff are standing by to assist with technology either by phone or on site. Chief judge is such a critical role that selection considers prior election experience as well as information gathered through information sessions and e-skills assessment, and having a working relationship. Member Bryan said we should understand that there is training and accessibility. Chair Carter said we are not throwing them into the 2022 general election, this is a municipal election with less stress and lower voter turnout. Secretary Miller said that he understands and shares Member Hunter’s concerns, but the Director’s information allays those concerns somewhat. The Board is looking at appointing these chief judges as opposed to no chief judges, knowing that there will be training, and this is a municipal election cycle with potential for wide utilization of three One Stop sites which takes some of the pressure off the election day polling places. Without minimizing those concerns, he is willing to accept the risk, considering the alternative. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Member Hunter voted no. Motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members. Member Hunter moved approval of the staff recommendations: Karl Ricanek III for H10 chief judge; Margaret Davit for W13 chief judge; and Kathryn Lawson for W27 judge, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Chair Carter, Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members. Member Bryan said he appreciated everyone’s positions and the progress made today, but we have reached the point that we need to adjourn this meeting. Director Hunter-Havens brought to the Board’s attention the schedule of the absentee meetings with the first meeting on September 28, the date set by statute. Absentee-by-mail ballots will not be mailed until October 4, meaning there will be no returned absentee-by-mail applications to review on September 28. She asked whether the Board would like to cancel that meeting so that proper notice can be given. Chair Carter asked if the Board could discuss precinct official appointments at that meeting if the proper notice is given? Director Hunter-Havens said that date is too late to complete the on-boarding process for precinct officials and there are many other critical functions that must be performed and take priority. Any remaining vacancies will have to be filled with those who have completed the on-boarding process. Before calling for a second to Member Bryan’s motion to adjourn, is it the sense of the Board that we have exhausted our efforts to appoint precinct officials under §163-41(c)? Member Kemp disagreed, efforts not exhausted under the second paragraph of (c), which we have not attempted. Member Hunter disagreed and said efforts are exhausted. Member Bryan asked Members Kemp and Hunter if blocking each other’s attempts to put someone in the positions is better than bending a little bit? Member Hunter rejected that description, that her preferred position is to follow the law and that is what she is standing by. Member Bryan asked if she is following someone else’s opinion of the law? She said she knows how to read the statute and is following the guidance issued by the State Board of Elections. Based on those two things, she is acting within her purview as a Board member. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 Chair Carter asked Secretary Miller whether the Board’s efforts are exhausted. Secretary Miller replied he is not able to say but feels the Board has exhausted its ability to reach common ground, barring some breakthrough. Chair Carter addressed the same question to Member Bryan who responded that he is not clear on what the statute means by “exhausted”. Chair Carter deferred calling for a second to Member Bryan’s motion to adjourn, and instead moved that the Board declare it has exhausted its efforts to appoint precinct officials under §163-41(c). Member Bryan asked what such a declaration would trigger? Chair Carter responded that he believes it allows him as Chair to make appointments to fill vacancies. Member Hunter said she is hesitant to tie the action specifically to the section of the statute, but she agrees the Board has exhausted its ability to reach unanimity on the last three positions. Member Kemp said he felt the Board should seek the recommendations of the party chairman under §163-41(c), section 2, before moving to §163-41(d). Chair Carter withdrew his motion and Member Bryan withdrew his motion to adjourn. Member Bryan requested that Member Kemp read the portion of the statute to which he is referring, and Member Kemp proceeded to read from §163-41(c), second paragraph: If, after diligently seeking to fill the positions with registered voters of the precinct, the county board still has an insufficient number of officials for the precinct, the county board by unanimous vote of all of its members may appoint to the positions registered voters in other precincts in the same county who meet the qualifications other than residence to be precinct officials in the precinct, provided that where possible the county board shall seek and adopt the recommendation of the county chairman of the political party affected. Member Hunter stated her view is that the Board has done that. Both county chairs have submitted names and we have made some movement in appointing some names and then the remaining names have not been approved. The statute reads “where possible … shall”. Secretary Miller asked if we have determined the meaning of “the party affected”? It seems that it is the Democratic party that is affected, following the tradition that the chief judge reflects the party of the Governor. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he is contending that there are names that have been submitted that the Board has not considered yet? Member Kemp responded that he is contending that the Board has not satisfied the second sentence of the second paragraph of §163-41 (c). The Board must do that before moving on to (d). Chair Carter called on Member Kemp to state his motion. Member Kemp moved to follow the recommendations of the Republican Party chair which the Board requested, to appoint as non-resident transfers Sarah Giachino as H10 chief judge; Tom Morris as W13 chief judge; and Dorothy Playforth as W27 judge, second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter called for any discussion. Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 Secretary Miller noted that in W13, Margaret Davit, as a Democratic appointee, indicates that the Democratic Party is the affected party. He has not heard how we are defining “affected party.” In H10, Karl Ricanek III is an unaffiliated appointee who has been denied, so there is no affected party chair to consult. The same for Kathryn Lawson in W27, also unaffiliated. How is the Republican party the “affected party” here when the Board has turned down two unaffiliated nominations and one Democratic nomination for appointment? Chair Carter said no one can offer more than a guess about what is meant by “affected party”. It all falls under the provision that the Board may appoint precinct officials who were not recommended by one of the party chairs. Member Kemp noted that the Director asked both party chairs to submit their recommendations which means the Board must vote on those names. He has not seen a list from the Democratic Party chair. The Republican Party chair’s list was received by email to the Board days ago. Chair Carter said the Democratic Party chair’s list was received today, although some of the names have been submitted previously. Member Kemp asked if some of those names have been approved? Chair Carter said some have been. Member Bryan said that is the point, that the Board has tried to approve some names from the Democratic list without success. Member Hunter said that the Board has also attempted to approve some names from the Republican list without success. Chair Carter said that all have made efforts and made progress. No one has gotten everything that they wanted and that is frustrating, and we have been here for three hours and that is frustrating. Member Kemp said that, if the motion passes, they are appointed. If the motion fails, we are either disagreeing on the names or disagreeing where we are in the process. If we do not agree where we are in the process, we cannot move on. This motion attempts to state where we are in the process. Member Hunter said the motion is trying to force the Board to agree on something where there is no agreement. Focusing on the sequencing remains unclear to her. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Chair Carter and Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted no. Motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members. Chair Carter moved that the Board resolve that it has exhausted its efforts to appoint precinct officials under §163-41(c), second by Member Kemp. Secretary Miller said that he can agree that the Board has exhausted its efforts but is not clear on the meaning of tying it to the referenced part of the statute. Chair Carter withdrew his motion and made a new motion. He moved that the Board has exhausted its efforts to appoint precinct officials, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp pointed out that the statute addresses both precinct officials and precinct assistants as defined in §163-41(b). In response, Chair Carter again withdrew the previous motion and moved that the Board has exhausted its efforts to appoint chief judges and judges, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Member Kemp said this finding allows the Chair to begin appointing precinct judges according to §163-41(d). Chair Carter acknowledged that interpretation may be right but has not studied subsection (d) yet and does not have a final opinion on that. Member Kemp moved that, where precincts do not currently have a Republican appointed as judge, identify those slots as Republican slots so that the Chair will seek to fill those positions with Republican appointees before considering Unaffiliated Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 appointees, second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter opened the discussion by saying he does not support the motion at this time as he does not want to be pinned down, but also will not rule it out. He wants to study the statute, get other input, and then proceed as he finds appropriate. Member Hunter requested the Chair seek the guidance of the State Board of Elections regarding next steps, what the Board is required to do by law, and what the proper procedure is to carry out the next steps. Chair Carter agreed that would be appropriate and he will seek that guidance, but he will not commit to following that guidance until he sees it. Member Bryan said that seeking balance fits the broader goals and he does not want to abandon the progress made so far. Chair Carter invited the Board members to text him if they have further thoughts over the next few days. Member Kemp said that it is inappropriate to designate a vacancy as Unaffiliated because it is not a party, it is a voter status. Subsection (d) talks about parties, not voter status. If the Chair appoints an Unaffiliated voter to a position prior to consulting with the county chair of the Republican party for his recommendation, that appointment would be out of order and should not be accepted by the staff. Chair Carter acknowledged that Member Kemp has been right about a lot of what he has brought to the Chair’s attention over the past month and will weigh his input carefully. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Member Kemp voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted no. Motion fails for lack of a majority. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for any general discussion. The Director reported that, due to the construction at the Government Center, staff will be unable to conduct testing in Suite 38 as planned due to hazards while the walls are going in. That wing of the building is closed during this phase of construction. Voting equipment testing will begin next week, will take about two and a half weeks, and use the Paynter Room adjacent to the Board office. Once testing is completed, the equipment will be moved back to the warehouse at the Government Center for secure storage and distribution from there when polling places are set up. There will be a sectioned-off area where observers may watch the process while staff maintains both physical and electronic security. Director Hunter-Havens asked if the Board has decided whether to cancel the September 28 meeting, so that proper notice of the meeting schedule change can be given? Member Hunter moved to cancel the September 28 meeting, second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter called for any discussion. Member Kemp asked when would the Board appoint precinct assistants to the various precincts? Chair Carter asked if the Board could take up that matter after acting on the motion on the floor. Member Hunter asked the Director whether she or the Board makes those appointments? Traditionally county boards of election staff across the state make those appointments, following the same statutory requirements for chief judges and judges, due to administrative deadlines. Applications are welcome, with or without party recommendations, we on-board as many as we can to fill vacancies that occur during One Stop voting or leading up to Election Day. Tuesday, Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 September 21, is the cut-off date for receiving applications with the last information session for applicants on September 28. Training begins October 4. We cannot continue to push the administrative process beyond these deadlines and meet all the requirements to make the appointments, to conduct required information sessions, to perform required skill assessments, and to coordinate with the County Human Resources department to comply with employment and payroll procedures. Chair Carter acknowledged the time pressures and ruled the question not relevant to the motion on the floor. Member Kemp said the question is relevant to the motion because the Board may need to meet on September 28 to consider precinct assistant appointments. Chair Carter asked the Director if she had any further comments. Director Hunter- Havens said the staff will administratively be unable to on-board applicants and move forward with training the assistants and One Stop officials effectively for this election. Chair Carter asked if the Board must take action to approve that delegation, or is it more of a standing delegation? Director Hunter-Havens said it is a standing administrative delegation. One Stop officials and precinct assistants serve only from election to election, not a set term. The party chairs are welcome to submit or encourage people to submit applications for these positions. In larger elections deadlines must be set two months out to handle the volume, to get everyone on-board, through training and through the Human Resources procedures. Member Kemp read a portion of §163-42 (b) to the Board: The chairman of each political party in the county shall have the right to recommend from three to 10 registered voters in each precinct for appointment as precinct assistants in that precinct. If the recommendations are received by it no later than the thirtieth day prior to the primary or election, the board shall make appointments of the precinct assistants for each precinct from the names thus recommended…. Creating an administrative bypass by letting the deadline get too close is an inappropriate solution to having the county Republican Party chair appoint Republican precinct officials in predominantly Democratic judge precincts. Chair Carter said Member Kemp might be right, but from the section of the statute he just read, there is an important distinction to be made for this election: this is not a primary election. It is a municipal election, and both of those are different from a general election. He is not prepared to render an opinion or intelligently discuss §163-42. He called on Member Hunter for her discussion. This item is not on the agenda for this meeting and certainly Board members can add items to the agenda. But this item is not before the Board today and was not added before the agenda was adopted. Member Kemp noted the Board has not had the General Discussion item yet. Chair Carter said the discussion is tied into the motion to cancel the meeting. While it has opened a can of worms, it is not out of order. Chair Carter called on Member Kemp for any further discussion. Member Kemp said his point is that, if the Board does not have an opportunity to appoint Republican judges, we must have the opportunity to appoint Republican precinct assistants. Chair Carter called for any further discussion. Member Bryan asked whether both parties could recommend precinct assistants? Chair Carter suggested that, with representatives Board Minutes – 09/14/2021 of both parties present here, if they have recommendations, to email names to Director Hunter-Havens. We can consider them for either this election or the March 2022 primary. Director Hunter-Havens said it would be more helpful if anyone who wants to serve as an election official to complete the precinct official application on the county Board’s website. Applications will be accepted through Tuesday, September 21, but after that we do not have the capacity to reach out to interested individuals. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion carried. Chair Carter called for any further business to come before the Board. Hearing none, he called for a motion to adjourn. ADJOURNMENT Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 8:42 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 5, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., at the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _______________________________ _____________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: Observers Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-45, N.C. Administrative Code 08.NCAC 20.0101, NC State Board of Elections Administrative Summary “Tips for Monitoring or Observing the Election as Polling Sites” Summary: The county board of elections has previously discussed the perceived discrepancies between the statutory and administrative guidance regarding observers that is outlined in NC General Statutes Chapter 163 and the NC Administrative Code with the administrative guidance provided by the NC State Board of Elections in their “Tips for Monitoring or Observing the Election as Polling Sites” document. This guidance document was produced by the NC State Board of Elections to assist county boards of elections in the management and regulation of observers at in-person voting sites. Our office has been in communication with the State Board regarding this matter. Representatives of the State Board have expressed their plan to review and revise as needed their guidance documents for all election-related processes, including the regulation of observers and electioneering at all in-person voting sites, for the 2022 elections. Prior to each election, we reach out to representatives of the State Board to confirm that all guidance documents used by our office for the election are current and up to date. Any revisions made by the State Board to these administrative guidance documents will be adopted and implemented by our office. Document/s Included: NC State Board of Elections Administrative Summary “Tips for Monitoring or Observing the Election as Polling Sites” Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Item # 6 OUTSIDE MONITORS TIPS FOR MONITORING OR OBSERVING THE ELECTION AT POLLING SITES Allowed:Prohibited: OBSERVING THE ELECTION INSIDE (appointed by political party) Anyone has the right to watch or monitor the election OUTSIDE the polling place. All activity must remain outside the marked 50’ line at all times. Outside monitors often include individuals, candidates, political staff, and advocacy organizations. Outside observers must maintain good order at all times. The chief judge has the duty to ensure a safe and orderly voting site and has the right to remove anyone who is disruptive. Allowed:Prohibited: RUNNERS (appointed by political party) Runners are appointed in advance by a political party to collect lists of people who have voted. The county party chair may send a runner instead of having an observer receive the voting list. The schedule to obtain a list is 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 4 p.m. A party is only entitled to one list at each of the designated times. NOTE ON VOTER ASSISTANCE Any registered voter is entitled to assistance entering/exiting the voting booth and filling out a ballot. Any voter may receive such assistance from certain relatives. Voters who are disabled, blind, or unable to read, speak, or write English may receive assistance from a person of the voter’s choice, provided that the person is not an employer or agent of the voter’s union. There is no limitation on the number of voters a person can assist. • Pass out campaign material and sample ballots. •Speak to voters. •Conduct polling. •Monitor and report concerns and complaints. •Enter the polling place or curbside voting area unless they are actually in the act of voting. •Obstruct, intimidate, or interfere with any person registering or voting. • Make observations and take notes. • Observe the registration, ballot, and help tables withoutimpeding voters or precinct officials. • Walk outside the voting enclosure to observe the curbside voting area. • Obtain the list of people who have voted at least at the following times: 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 4 p.m. • May possess personal electronic devices, as long as they are not disruptive to voters or election officials. • Report concerns and incidents to the chief judge and/orcounty elections director. •Observe closing procedures. •Do not enter the voting enclosure before the polls open. •Do not speak to voters or assistants. •Do not wear or distribute campaign material. •Do not stand behind the registration table or help table because poll books and laptops display confidential voter information. •Do not enter the voting booth area. •Do not interfere with the privacy of a curbside voter while the voter is voting. •Do not board a bus or other vehicle containing curbsidevoters. •Do not provide voter assistance. •Do not photograph or video voters without the consent of the voter and the chief judge. •Do not photograph or video a candidate without the candidate's consent (in this instance, it is not necessary to obtain the consent of the chief judge.) Members of the public may not enter a polling site to observe the election process. Only election observers appointed in advance by the political party may be inside a polling place. The chief judge will designate a place for observers that is close enough to hear the voter state their name and address, but far enough to not impede the voting process. Each party may assign at least two observers per precinct and an additional 10 at-large observers for the county. No more than 2 precinct-assigned observers and 1 at-large observer from the same political party may be in the voting enclosure at the same time. Precinct observers may be relieved after serving for at least 4 hours. NC State General Statute – OBSERVERS & RUNNERS NCGS § 163-45. Observers; appointment. (a)The chair of each political party in the county shall have the right to designate two observers to attend each voting place at each primary and election and such observers may, at the option of the designating party chair, be relieved during the day of the primary or election after serving no less than four hours and provided the list required by this section to be filed by each chair contains the names of all persons authorized to represent such chair’s political party. The chair of each political party in the county shall have the right to designate 10 additional at large observers who are residents of that county who may attend any voting place in that county. The list submitted by the chair of the political party may be amended between the one stop period under G.S. 163 227.2 and general election day to substitute one or all at large observers for Election Day. Not more than two observers from the same political party shall be permitted in the voting enclosure at any time, except that in addition one of the at large observers from each party may also be in the voting enclosure. This right shall not extend to the chair of a political party during a primary unless that party is participating in the primary. In any election in which an unaffiliated candidate is named on the ballot, the candidate or the candidate’s campaign manager shall have the right to appoint two observers for each voting place consistent with the provisions specified herein. Persons appointed as observers must be registered voters of the county for which appointed and must have good moral character. No person who is a candidate on the ballot in a primary or election may serve as an observer or runner in that primary or election. Observers shall take no oath of office. (b)Individuals authorized to appoint observers must submit in writing to the chief judge of each precinct a signed list of the observers appointed for that precinct, except that the list of at large observers authorized in subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted to the county director of elections. Individuals authorized to appoint observers must, prior to 10:00 a.m. on the fifth day prior to any primary or general election, submit in writing to the chair of the county board of elections two signed copies of a list of observers appointed by them, designating the precinct or at large status for which each observer is appointed. Before the opening of the voting place on the day of a primary or general election, the chair shall deliver one copy of the list to the chief judge for each affected precinct, except that the list of at large observers shall be provided by the county director of elections to the chief judge. The chair shall retain the other copy. The chair, or the chief judge and judges for each affected precinct, may for good cause reject any appointee and require that another be appointed. The names of any persons appointed in place of those persons rejected shall be furnished in writing to the chief judge of each affected precinct no later than the time for opening the voting place on the day of any primary or general election, either by the chair of the county board of elections or the person making the substitute appointment. If party chairs appoint observers at one stop sites under G.S. 163 227.2, those party chairs shall provide a list of the observers appointed before 10:00 a.m. on the fifth day before the observer is to observe. At large observers may serve at any one stop site. (c)An observer shall do no electioneering at the voting place, and shall in no manner impede the voting process or interfere or communicate with or observe any voter in casting a ballot, but, subject to these restrictions, the chief judge and judges of elections shall permit the observer to make such observation and take such notes as the observer may desire. (d)Whether or not the observer attends to the polls for the requisite time provided by this section, each observer shall be entitled to obtain at times specified by the State Board of Elections, but not less than three times during election day with the spacing not less than one hour apart, a list of the persons who have voted in the precinct so far in that election day. Counties that use an “authorization to vote document” instead of poll books may comply with the requirement in the previous sentence by permitting each observer to inspect election records so that the observer may create a list of persons who have voted in the precinct so far that election day; each observer shall be entitled to make the inspection at times specified by the State Board of Elections, but not less than three times during election day with the spacing not less than one hour apart. Instead of having an observer receive the voting list, the county party chair may send a runner to do so, even if an observer has not been appointed for that precinct. The runner may be the precinct party chair or any person named by the county party chair. Each county party chair using runners in an election shall provide to the county board of elections before 10:00 a.m. on the fifth day before Election Day a list of the runners to be used. That party chair must notify the chair of the county board of elections or the board chair's designee of the names of all runners to be used in each precinct before the runner goes to the precinct. The runner may receive a voter list from the precinct on the same schedule as an observer. Whether obtained by observer or runner, each party is entitled to only one voter list at each of the scheduled times. No runner may enter the voting enclosure except when necessary to announce that runner’s presence and to receive the list. The runner must leave immediately after being provided with the list. 441 N Harrington StreetRaleigh, NC 27603 Phone: 919-733-7173 Email: elections.sboe@ncsbe.gov For additional information about observers, runners, and assistance see: 08 NCAC 10B .0101(a), .0103, and .0107 09202016 Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections February 15, 2022 Subject: General Discussion Summary: This is an opportunity for discussion on other elections-related matters not included in the meeting agenda. Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Item # 7