The URL can be used to link to this page

Board Meeting Agenda Packet 01-11-2022MEETING AGENDA Date: January 11, 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. c.Pledge of Allegiance d.Approval of Agenda e.Approval of Minutes (10/26/2021, 11/1/2021, and 12/14/2021) 2.Procedural Matter – Parameters for Public Comment Period 3.Public Comment and Question Period •2-minute limit •20-minute limit total 4.Director’s Report a.Financial Update b.List Maintenance c.Proposed FY22-23 Budget Enhancements d.Relocation of Storage Facilities e.2022 NC State Board of Elections Conferences 5.Statutorily-Required Business a.2022 Primary Election One-Stop Voting Plan b.Approval of Out-of-Precinct Voting Place for Precinct W18 for 2022 Elections c.Adjustment to Precinct Boundaries for H03 and W18 for New Apartment Complex Draft d.2021-2023 Appointment of Judge e.Adoption of FY22-23 Recommended Continuation Budget 6.Old Business •Approval of Minutes (9/14/2021, 10/05/2021, 10/12/2021, 10/19/2021) 7.General Discussion •Other Elections-Related Matters 8.Adjournment *Agenda packets are sent via email in advance of meetings. Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 Subject: Approval of Agenda Summary: N/A Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 1d Draft 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 10/26/2021, 11/1/2021, and 12/14/2021 meetings. Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 1d Item # 1e Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections October 26, 2021 5:00 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 Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear; Susanne Werner, NHCDP; Jill Hopman, NHCDP; Matthew Emborsky, GOP; Jean Michael Akey; Debbie Barlok, NHC GOP; John Jaskey; Mike Torbit; Tabitha Meready; ? Torbit; Will Knecht, NHC GOP. Virtual attendees: Julius Rothlein; Jim; Sharon Smith; Jody Kemp. OPENING Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:08 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 Kemp moved that the agenda be approved with one change under New Business, to consider item 4. b., Chief Judge/Judge Substitutions before item 4.a., Review of Absentee Ballot Applications, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Carter called on the public attendees, in-person and virtual, for their comments or questions on topics that are within the Board’s jurisdiction, limited to two minutes each. He reminded the audience, this being an official meeting, to observe proper decorum and to yield the floor to a Board member or staff to ask or answer a question. Virtual attendee Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP, made two public records requests, first, to review the absentee ballot application forms received by the NHC Board of Elections. Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 The review will assess whether the requester provided the required identification warranting issuance of an absentee ballot. Second, to review the official register of absentee ballots required by NCGS §163-228(a) and (a1). He further asked for several changes in processes for the remainder of the One Stop early voting period and Election Day: (1) Allow observers to look inside the DS200 before voting begins to verify no ballots have been inserted into the machine after it was cleared and closed the previous day; (2) Count manually and record the number of ballots removed from the DS-200 during closing before sealing them in polybags; and (3) Include voters who voted provisionally on the daily list of voters given to observers or runners. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to speak to his requests. The Director asked that the public records requests be submitted in writing for response. Mr. Rothlein said no email is needed, that Member Kemp will distribute a copy of Mr. Rothlein’s remarks and requests to the Board and staff. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the public comment and question period. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report on the One Stop early voting in progress. The Director reported One Stop is running smoothly. A recurring challenge is the ballot on demand printers. The site officials have dealt with those challenges quickly to keep voting running smoothly. Approximately 4,500 voters so far have voted, ahead of the 2019 pace, but unclear if the numbers indicate higher turnout or a shift between voting methods. Today is the last day to submit civilian absentee-by-mail requests. Chair Carter called on the Board members for any general discussion. Member Kemp asked about a complaint about a sign at the Senior Resource site. He asked who oversees sign violations? Director Hunter-Havens said the Board of Elections can regulate the buffer zone, where electioneering is not allowed. Otherwise, by statute, NCDOT has some sign enforcement responsibility. The report she received concerned a fender-bender allegedly due to a sign blocking a driver’s line of sight. The sign had been moved when she checked on it the next day. The candidate or a representative relocated that sign. Member Kemp asked whether the Senior Resource Center is a county facility? It is. Member Kemp asked the Chair when the Board might address Mr. Rothlein’s requests? Chair Carter said this is an appropriate time. He asked Member Kemp which of the items is most important to Mr. Rothlein and the Republican Party? He said the first two items will likely need to go to the State Board so by the time we hear from them it will be past Election Day. The change in procedure to allow observers to look in the DS200 before voting begins is the first priority. There are reports from other jurisdictions about ballots left in machines overnight. Let’s give the observers the chance to see that the machines are empty before voting resumes. Second priority is the manual count of ballots when removed from the machines. Just because the public counter has changed does not mean that is the number of ballots being removed at the end of the day. Chair Carter clarified that the requested inspections would occur at the beginning and end of the day. Is it your understanding that these inspections are taking place, but observers are not allowed to observe them? Director Hunter-Havens said that observers are not allowed in the polling place during opening. Unauthorized persons are not permitted access to the voting equipment. Part of the opening procedure is having the bipartisan team of officials open the DS200 and check the blue bin, following processes established by the State Board. As for the second item, manually counting ballots during closing, observers are allowed to watch the closing process at a distance that preserves the confidentiality of voted ballots and absentee identification Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 numbers. The ballots are not manually counted unless there is an issue in reconciling. There are other checks in place to assure that voted ballots match voter history. Member Bryan asked the Director to explain those other checks in the audit process. The Director said that between Election Day and canvass staff reconciles all voter history captured in the electronic pollbook against the number of paper ballots cast. When there are any differences, for which there are several possible reasons, reconciliation tells the story as to why. The State Board runs checks through all the software and provides reports to us identifying where the differences are. We then must describe the reasons for any differences in a report to the State Board. The second check is the sample audit hand-eye count of two precincts or One Stop sites in a specified contest randomly selected by the State Board. Bipartisan teams of four people conduct that sample audit count, two as talliers, one caller and one observer. The goal is to be sure the machine results match the actual ballots. When the results do not match, it is often because the voter’s error kept the machine from reading the voter’s selection. The bipartisan team follows directions from the State Board to determine whether the voter’s intent is clear. If it is, the team will award a vote to the intended candidate. It is not unusual for a candidate to pick up additional votes during the sample audit count. Member Kemp said this is part of the reason why he has been emphasizing the need to appoint Republican and Democratic judges, so that each party is represented when machines are opened and tapes are signed. If State regulation prevents observers from being present during opening, it is even more important to have bipartisan representation in the polling place. Member Hunter said unaffiliated voters should have equal right to serve as precinct officials as the statute provides. The most important qualification is residence in the precinct. She trusts that the people who take on the role of precinct officials take their oath seriously to carry out the election successfully and fairly. Unaffiliated voters are just as qualified to do that as are Democrats and Republicans. While I can’t speak to the distrust that exists, unaffiliated voters have the same right to choose to affiliate with a party or not, and should not be penalized for that choice. My fear is that if we pander to that line of thought and appoint only Republicans and Democrats, the outcome is automatically questionable. Chair Carter said there are a small number of precincts where we have two unaffiliated voters and one Democrat or one Republican are appointed, and that gives me no concerns. He is comforted by the presence of observers as an extra layer of safeguards. Member Bryan understands restrictions on access to voting machines. Could it be resolved by using video to observe without touching? Is the issue about preventing touching to avoid tinkering or adulterating the machine, or is it about looking inside the machine? He tends to think the concern is about unauthorized manipulation of the machine. This Board is not authorized to change the rules, but it seems like a small matter that could be easily resolved by Facetime or a similar technology. Director Hunter-Havens said this is the duty and responsibility of the site leads and precinct judges. Member Bryan continued, saying that manual counting of ballots at closing is not too onerous in a municipal election, but a completely different burden in a statewide or presidential election. Is it just not required or is it too onerous a job to complete timely? Director Hunter-Havens said that manual counts can produce different results. The issue is maintaining a proper chain of custody of the ballots. The safer approach is to remove the ballots, organize them, and place them in a polybag for secure return. Then if there are differences between ballots and voter history, it can be investigated. County boards of elections do not implement administrative changes in response to requests from observers. The State Board and its legal team need to vette such a request to assure uniform administration of elections across all 100 counties. Member Bryan asked if a manual count at closing is too onerous or not. Director Hunter-Havens said is not warranted given the other safeguards in place to assure that ballots cast match voter history. If there is a discrepancy, it must be reviewed and reconciled. This is the responsibility of the site Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 leads and their bipartisan team. They have sworn an oath to perform their duties in compliance with the statutes and the administrative code. Member Bryan said he understands all that and agrees with it. But is it an onerous task to add? The Director responded that it is adding an additional step that is not warranted. The voting equipment is tested and tabulating correctly. Adding more steps does not necessarily assure greater accuracy. Voter turnout varies widely by election and by polling place, from less than 100 ballots to 1,500 ballots. The key is the uniform process for each election and uniform administration across all 100 counties. Member Hunter observed that having more hands physically on the ballots is not a good idea, especially in light of concerns about ballot tampering. The concern is the security of the ballots. Manual counting can lead to more questions and problems. Member Bryan asked for clarification from the Director, that in comparing the number of ballots against voter history, you will catch a discrepancy? She said for one the software will show any unusual activity and will flag that transaction as a possible conflict. She gave the example that occurred today, where the ballot failed to print and the software made note of the incomplete transaction. That prompts staff to review that conflict and research further using the incident report completed by the site lead which resulted in cancelling the incomplete transaction. Chair Carter asked the Director where to find the rules for observers in the polling places the statute, NCGS §163-45, or the Administrative Code? She said they are in the Administrative Code as well as SBE numbered memos. Chair Carter turned to the third question from Mr. Rothlein, regarding publishing the names of voters who voted provisionally on the daily list of voters available to party observers or runners. Director Hunter-Havens said that observers can obtain the list of voters who have cast regular ballots at designated times during the day and after closing of the polls. She previously received this same request and sought guidance from the State Board. Provisional ballots are conditional until researched and the county Board acts on them, and thus are not public records. Should SBE guidance change to allow publication, she will of course make the names available. The SBE Legal Team is reviewing the request, but no final answer has been provided so far. Member Hunter asked at what point is a provisional ballot no longer conditional. The Director said that once the county Board acts on the provisional ballots and the approved or partially approved ballots are scanned at the pre-canvass meeting, the ballot is cast, and the list becomes a public record. Member Kemp asked if there is a log of absentee ballot requests that flags when a voter who requested an absentee ballot presents to vote at a One Stop site or on Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens said there is an electronic log of absentee ballots cast, but not of the request forms. Voters who request an absentee ballot or were mailed an absentee ballot may choose not to vote the ballot, and instead vote in person. The log flags the occasional situation, usually a mistake, where the voter has forgotten submitting the absentee ballot or thinks it is a different election, or where a voter has cast an absentee ballot and voted at a One Stop site or precinct on Election Day. The staff will bring any such situations to the attention of the Board with a recommendation as to which ballot to cancel, after investigation by the State Board Investigations Team. Member Kemp asked whether provisional ballots are logged the same way. The Director said no because they are conditional ballots until researched and approved by the Board. When the staff begins researching the provisional ballots and discovers that the voter cast a second ballot, that information is reported to the State Board for investigation. Member Kemp asked, when the provisional ballot is printed during One Stop, is it marked with a unique identifier like other One Stop ballots? The Director said the provisional application has a unique identifying number that also appears on the issued provisional ballot, linking the application and ballot to that voter. Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 Chair Carter reviewed the Board meeting schedule: Monday, November 1 at 5:00 p.m.; Tuesday, November 2 at 2:00 p.m.; Monday, November 8 at 2:00 p.m., and Tuesday, November 9 at 11:00 a.m. The next meeting after that is the regular meeting on Tuesday, December 14 at 5:15 p.m. Hearing no further matters for general discussion, Chair Carter closed the general discussion period and turned to the next item on the agenda. NEW BUSINESS b.Chief Judge/Judge Substitutions to fill vacancies for the 2021 Municipal Election Only Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to present her report on administrative assignments of five precinct officials as shown on the spreadsheet provided to the Board. Four judges and one chief judge advised they are not available to work on the municipal election day but are available to work future elections. After taking into consideration residency in the precinct, skill sets, and willingness and availability to work, staff has identified five officials who can step into the needed positions. These assignments apply for this election only. Attention was also given to party affiliation, making every effort to replace the chief judge or judge with someone of the same party whenever possible. The recommendations include assigning three Unaffiliated officials to replace two Democratic judges and one Democratic chief judge, one Republican to replace a Republican judge, and one Democratic official to replace an Unaffiliated judge. Chair Carter noted that none of these assignments occur in the precincts the Board was struggling with in previous meetings. Director Hunter-Havens said there are a handful of vacancies where staff is balancing residency, party affiliation and skill set in a very dynamic process. There is also a trained back-up pool of election officials available. Five officials dropped out as recently as yesterday. Member Kemp asked where to find the statutory authority to make these appointments? He assumes it is §163-41 (c) or (d)? Director Hunter-Havens said the Board is not making appointments to fill vacancies. These are administrative substitutions for this election only. The referenced statute requires these officials. These administrative assignments are presented to the Board as a matter of information. Member Hunter asked if approval of the Board is required? The Director said no, the list is presented for endorsement of the administrative assignments. Member Kemp asked the Director is that authority in writing? He is looking at (d) which requires the chair to make appointments to fill vacancies. The Director said (d) addresses a vacancy in the original appointment. These substitutions arise because the appointed official is not available for this election but otherwise will continue in that position, following the state-wide guidance and procedure in place for all county boards of elections. She agreed to follow up with the State Board for something in writing. Member Kemp asked why (d) does not apply? Chair Carter said he understands that a vacancy only arises when there is a resignation or death, removal, upon appointment of a successor, or any other cause. Member Kemp asked whether the Board is appointing these officials? Chair Carter said no, these are assignments. The Director said these are assignments for this election only and ends when canvass is completed. They are temporary substitutes for appointed chief judges and judges who are unable to serve in this election. Member Kemp asked about the substitution for M02 judge Lindy Ford. The Director said she is not available because she did not complete her HR forms timely, so we are unable to assign her. Member Kemp said she was appointed by the Republican party chair so she must serve, we can’t replace her. Director Hunter-Havens said she remains the appointed judge, just is unable to serve this time. Member Kemp asked if the substitutions had completed the required paperwork. The Director said yes and at this point we can only substitute with people who are in our election officials database. It is too late to on-board anyone else. Member Kemp says she has texted Mr. Rothlein that she is prepared to serve. The Director said she has not completed the on-boarding Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 process by the established deadlines, and we are unable to pay her. Member Kemp said her text indicates she was told M02 is not open for the municipal election. The Director said that is not true and no one would have told her that. It is illegal to allow her to work when she has not completed the necessary paperwork. She can serve in the next election. Member Kemp asked if the Board needs to vote on the substitutions? Director Hunter-Havens said previous boards would endorse and support the administrative assignments, usually unanimously. She is reporting the substitutions as required but it does not require Board action. Chair Carter said he supports the substitutions with reservations and moved to support the temporary assigned substitutions, second by Member Hunter, without reservation. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion carried by majority vote. a.Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to present the returned absentee-by-mail ballot applications for approval. She reported there are 63 returned absentee ballots: 61 Civilian and 2 Overseas. One of the Overseas ballots was returned by email. She has copied the affirmation and attached it to the envelope. The second Overseas ballot was returned by regular mail. Two Civilian ballots have anomalies but meet the requirements for approval. The voter for one of these started to sign on the Witness line, realized it and signed on the voter’s signature line. She checked with the State Board who said that was not disqualifying. The second ballot involves two voters who live in the same household. All the requirements were met, but for some reason they initialed in the space at the top reserved for County Board use. Again, she reviewed the anomaly with the State Board who advised it was not disqualifying or invalidating. Both are flagged for the Board’s review. [Member Kemp left the meeting.] She passed the container- return envelopes to the Board for review, bundled by precinct. [Chair Carter left the meeting.] [Two minutes later, Member Kemp returned.] [One minute later, Chair Carter returned.] During the review, Member Kemp said he is wondering about a process where the Board is only reviewing the return envelope without seeing the original request for an absentee ballot and the log for in-person return. He has asked the Director to see both. She advised that an individual member of the Board cannot see it, but the Board may request to see them. Board review determines that the absentee-by-mail ballot was returned properly, but does not address whether it was obtained properly. Member Hunter said the signatures on the return envelope are a method of self-authentication of the prior steps in the process, making review unnecessary. Member Miller noted this was a point of much discussion by the Board in the last election when the procedures were changed, emphasizing that the voter and witness signatures are the safeguards. Director Hunter-Havens said, just like a voter registration application, the request for absentee ballot form contains verifying information – last four of social security number or driver’s license number verified by the issuing agency – that serve as a cross-check and the request cannot be processed by the software without it. The request is not valid without that information. The request goes to the incomplete queue and the voter is sent a letter to supply the missing number. Member Kemp asked if the request form is scanned electronically. Director Hunter-Havens said the requests are retained electronically and the application must be linked to the applicant’s voter registration record. He asked if staff keep a log that verifies who returned the absentee ballot request. Director Hunter-Havens confirmed that the person delivering the form completes the returned requests log which includes identifying whether the deliverer is the voter, a near relative, or verifiable legal guardian. All forms are uploaded to the State Board each election cycle. Member Kemp said we are seeing just the tail end of the process without seeing the requests and return logs. Director Hunter-Havens said the special Board meetings are designed specifically for the Board to review and approve or disapprove the returned absentee ballots. Chair Carter said that if he had someone’s social security number or driver’s license number, he could submit a request to have an absentee ballot mailed to that person’s address. Member Kemp said the Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 request form allows sending the absentee ballot to a different address, other than the registration address. Member Hunter said the returned absentee ballot requires the signatures of the voter and two witnesses who are verifying the identity of the person who completed the absentee ballot. It is a self-authenticating document. She does not see the value in reviewing the earlier steps in the process. Secretary Miller said, rather than self-authenticating, there are a number of points of outside authentication. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp what he is wanting to see. Member Kemp said he requested to see the log and was told he could not unless the Board allows it. He said there is a jurisdiction in a nearby state where the county registrar did not require the social security number and processed the application, and is now being sued, prompting his questions about the application process. Here we are validating the process by the Board’s review and being told that the software will not process the request without all the required verifying information, but seeing the requests and logs would make the process whole. Chair Carter asked Director Hunter-Havens what would be involved in providing the access Member Kemp has requested. She said that if the Board wants to make an individual confidential document available to an individual Board member to look at with no notes or photographs or making copies allowed, the Board must approve that by majority vote. It does not allow us to bring the register into a Board meeting to compare every single ballot. There are other checks in place to do that. The absentee register becomes a public record on Election Day upon opening of the polls. The purpose of the special absentee Board meeting is to approve the returned ballot applications. Member Kemp said he has a problem with something being considered confidential from this Board. I can see it as to an individual Board member, but we are responsible. Not being able to see official records raises all kinds of red flags for me. Chair Carter said it is not appropriate to do this tonight on short notice. Member Kemp said maybe on Monday we can look at a random sample because on Tuesday the counting of ballots begins. Director Hunter-Havens said that is not possible without a majority of the Board authorizing review by an individual Board member. There are other administrative checks and safeguards in place to monitor the process. The Board’s role is to review and approve the returned ballot applications. Member Kemp reminded the Board of the report from Mr. Rothlein at a previous meeting that outlined his concerns after reviewing absentee-by-mail container-return envelopes after the 2020 election, alleging possible problems from that review. Director Hunter-Havens said that many of the situations cited as problems by Mr. Rothlein were related to postmarks, but nonetheless are valid applications under North Carolina law. Chair Carter said that, based on his review of case law, the courts only delve into questions regarding absentee-by-mail ballots when the results are close, tampering is alleged, and the outcome may be affected. While he understands the concerns being raised and does not object to review by the Board, neither does he desire to undertake such a review. The request for review while the election is unfolding is not practical and not consistent with statute. Secretary Miller said he has no problem with allowing Board members appropriate access to documents, but he is concerned the Board is risking a misunderstanding of the Board’s role. Recent discussions veer into the realm of micromanaging the staff, overstepping the proper role of oversight, which is the Board’s role, and not management. We are appointed to serve on this Board because of our character and our general experience. We are not experts in the details of election security, we are not software engineers, none of us have worked as elections security professionals. It is totally within our role to ask questions, to raise concerns, to educate ourselves. I am concerned about this innovative, invasive, and investigative approach in an ad hoc manner that can be detrimental. Member Hunter agreed with Secretary Miller’s sentiments. The request seems unnecessary as a response to a general, unsubstantiated fear. Staff is doing what they are supposed to do. When there are specific complaints, those will be addressed appropriately. Her Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 concern is hindering the staff in doing their jobs by pushing for things that are unnecessary in the absence of specific evidence or allegations of fraud. Going through absentee ballot applications to compare to absentee ballots returned is redundant when the returned ballot is verified by two witnesses. Member Bryan said if it is legally allowed, he has no problem with the request, but is trying to understand where the request is coming from. The voter cannot vote twice. Is the question that the voter did not request the absentee ballot? Member Kemp said that the absentee request form is required to contain certain information and if it does not, then the form should be returned and no ballot sent. Chair Carter described two possible scenarios. In the first, the voter fills out the request form but does not include all the required information. The second scenario is more nefarious but not very likely, where some organized group is making requests for absentee ballots without the voter’s knowledge and attempting to intercept and vote the ballot illegally. He was not aware of the concern that a voter may fail to complete the request correctly but receive an absentee ballot. Member Kemp said he is concerned that the SBE is not following the law and the county board is required to follow the guidance of the SBE. The appearance is that the law is not being followed by the SBE when they make rulings that contradict the law. Member Hunter disagreed with that statement. The State Board are the experts on North Carolina election law. Member Kemp said there is a “must” versus a “may” in NCGS §163-41 (c) and the State Board said this Board “must” vote when the statute says “may” vote. Member Bryan agreed there are instances where the State Board has overstepped, and federal judges have stepped in and said so last year. They are not infallible. Regarding this request, unless there is some indication of fraud, he sees no harm in checking that administratively someone sent a ballot properly as a check on internal elections operations. Chair Carter said he would be concerned if the Board received reports that voters were receiving ballots that were not requested. He would want to know that a voter did not fill out an absentee request form properly but still received an absentee ballot. He has no problem with Member Kemp seeing what he is asking to see and legally able to see as long as it is done as the State Board deems appropriate and it does not impose an undue burden on the Director and her staff. Member Bryan asked about one of the ballots under review. The assistant also served as a witness. That is permissible. Regarding a different ballot, there are two different printed witness’ names, but the signatures look like the same name. Does that need further review? It is debatable, but looks similar. Director Hunter-Havens said, as a rule, signature comparison is not permitted. If the Board has a question, the Board can approve or disapprove the application. The guidance regarding signatures requires clear evidence. Secretary Miller reviewed the application and observed two different signatures, two different printed names and it appears the first name of the second signature was crossed through and something written on top making it hard to read, and two different addresses. Member Bryan said the last names are the same. He said he wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention, but he is not saying the application is invalid. Member Kemp said this Board delegates duties to the Director for which it is responsible. Being told that there are things in the process that are confidential and the Board cannot see them is a red flag that has been raised because of the guidance of the State Board, nothing to do with Director Hunter-Havens. The State Board is telling her that the full Board must authorize an individual Board member to see confidential information, then the Director can work out the arrangements. He is asking to see the log sheets to see what information is recorded. He has read about a problem in a nearby jurisdiction. It is helpful that the Director says that an application for an absentee ballot cannot be entered into the system without all the required information. He is getting questions about voting integrity, and he does not have answers for them. If he can say he Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 has looked at the records, what else do you want me to do, giving them an answer instead of “I don’t know”. This is the basis of some of the questions that he is asking. The pressure is on him to be show that integrity, that he believes is there, is in fact present. He has said all along he believes in the integrity of the system. His goal is to demonstrate that and have this Board and the State Board demonstrate that to the public in a way that leaves no doubt. Chair Carter appreciates that the members are all pulling in the same direction. He asked Member Kemp if his statement about delegating certain duties is referring to the Resolution the Board adopted in their first meeting? Member Kemp said if everything that is done by tradition that is not explicitly in that document is continuing to be delegated, that is the challenge because this Board does not know what has been delegated by tradition. This Board is blind to the process. Member Hunter asked if it is true that to allow Member Kemp to see the log requires unanimous consent of the Board? Director Hunter-Havens said the State Board legal team’s guidance is that an individual Board member has no authority to require staff to provide this access. However, the Board, by majority vote, may take official action to allow an individual member to come to the office and review the register, and we will make that happen, as instructed by the majority vote of the Board, making sure staff has the capacity to assign a staff member to sit with the member to ensure no copying, no notes, and no photos are made of the records. These are like voter registration applications, which cannot be shown without proper oversight of the process to protect confidential documents and maintaining the proper chain of custody of the documents. Member Bryan asked, if the Board approves his request to look at the register, does the motion need to include directing that a staff person be present? Director Hunter-Havens said having a staff person present is automatic in carrying out that direction, to make sure that no improper actions are taken while reviewing confidential documents. Chair Carter asked how long would it take for someone to review the register? The Director said it depends on what the person is trying to do. There are a little less than 400 entries, one row each, on the registry. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp how long he thought he would need? Member Kemp said he has taken the same oath that we rely on other people to keep, and he has a problem with the challenge here to his integrity in his review. He will agree to whatever it takes, no pen or pencil in the room, leave his cell phone out of the room. Chair Carter said we all took the same oath, and no one is saying anyone would not uphold that oath. He asked to focus on the mechanics of getting the access being requested. He asked Member Kemp how much time he would need. Member Kemp said if the request forms are together in a file, he can flip through them in a few minutes. Director Hunter-Havens said it would not be the original forms, it will be a print-out like the one she provided for the One Stop applications, one row of data per request. The absentee register is a report that can be printed. Printing each request form is a much more labor-intensive process requiring redaction of confidential information and involving many more staff hours to prepare. The forms are scanned in batches and stored after entry into the registry. Some may be in the office; some may be in storage off-site. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he has issues with reviewing the summary print-out? He said he wants to see both. He has enough concerns with being told he can’t see it, so he would love to see both. Director Hunter-Havens said, at this point in the election schedule, she does not have staff capacity to produce a record of that level of detail. That would involve printing out each application. Following an exchange between Members Kemp and Hunter, Member Bryan said the answer to this request should not be no, but appreciates understanding the logistical challenges involved. Director Hunter-Havens said the work involved is not possible while wrapping up One Stop voting and preparing for Election Day. The records are mixed in with other scanned records, such as voter registrations. Staff will have to hunt through the boxes, retrieve the request forms, assemble and verify the number of forms, copy and redact. She is happy to fulfill the request, just not enough time to do so before Election Day and the post-election cavass work. The original request was a public records request to review the absentee register. A Board member’s request to review the unredacted forms themselves will require further State Board guidance. Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 Chair Carter moved that Member Kemp and any other Board member who wishes to join him be permitted to review the register under the supervision of the staff on or before close of business Friday, October 29 for up to one hour, and as soon as practicable after the final canvass, that Member Kemp and any other Board member who wishes to join him, be permitted to review the absentee ballot request forms for as long as they would like subject to staff availability. Member Kemp said he would like to see the readily accessible application forms. Chair Carter said his motion would allow that after the final canvass. In response to a question from Member Bryan about the time limit, Member Kemp said an hour is more than sufficient. He wants to be able to say he looked. He wants to see at least some of the application forms, what is readily available, before the Board votes to approve the absentee ballots on Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens will need guidance from the State Board legal team as to the format of those forms for such review. The absentee register does not have confidential information, other than the absentee code, but the actual request form includes social security numbers (last four), driver’s license numbers, and dates of birth which are confidential. No absentee request can be honored until the social security number or driver’s license number is verified by the respective agency. There are checks in place to verify that the voter is eligible to receive an absentee ballot. Chair Carter said he believes and trusts those checks. He also believes Board members should have as broad access as possible to the primary documents as the law allows. Chair Carter repeated his motion, that Member Kemp and any other Board member who wishes to join him be allowed to inspect the log for up to one hour under the supervision of the staff on or before close of business Friday, October 29; further after the completion of the final canvass in New Hanover County, subject to legal guidance by the State Board of Elections, that Member Kemp and any other Board member who wishes to join him be able to inspect all absentee ballot request forms received by the New Hanover County elections office for the municipal election, under the supervision of Director Hunter-Havens and her staff, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter, Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted nay. Motion carried by majority vote. Upon completing review of the absentee ballot applications, Chair Carter moved to approve 61 civilian absentee ballots and 2 military/overseas ballots as presented, and to direct Director Hunter-Havens and staff to take the preliminary steps to tabulate the ballots, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented the One Stop Application Certification for the 3,139 applications received between October 15 and October 25. Chair Carter moved to approve 3,139 One Stop absentee applications, second by Member Kemp. Member Bryan asked to review the printout. [Member Kemp left the meeting at 7:09 p.m.] Motion carried unanimously. Secretary Miller clarified for the record that the vote was 4 to 0 on the motion. The Board members present signed the two Certifications. Chair Carter asked the staff to proceed with resetting the room for ballot scanning. The public in- person attendees were asked to step out while the room is reset and the DS-800 is started, then they will be invited back to observe the scanning process. [Member Hunter left the meeting.] Virtual attendee Julius Rothlein asked, pursuant to an on-going request to review the absentee container-return envelopes, when the 61 envelopes approved at this meeting will be available for review. Chair Carter asked him to hold his question until the Board members return and the room reorganization is done. Chair Carter returned to Mr. Rothlein’s question and addressed it to Director Hunter-Havens. She will schedule use of the Oak Room in the Library and reach out to Mr. Rothlein when she is able to schedule. She said they stayed about 20 minutes last time. She will also reach out to the Democratic Party officials. Draft Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 ADJOURNMENT Member Bryan moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:49 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on Monday, November 1, 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 BY: __________________________ _________________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Draft Board Minutes – 11/01/2021 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections November 1, 2021 5:00 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 Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager; Jennifer, PrintElect Public Attendees: Loraine Buker, LWV-LCF; Susanne Werner, NHCDP; Jill Hopman, NHCDP; Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP; John Jaskey; Jean Michael Akey; Richard Poole, NHCDP; Matt Heiser; Andre Brown, NHCDP. Virtual attendees: Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Sharon Smith. OPENING Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:02 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. Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones; reminded them that the meeting is livestreamed and recorded; and thanked them for observing the County’s mask mandate. He asked the virtual attendees to stop their video since the meeting is livestreamed and recorded. AGENDA Member Kemp moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. Draft Board Minutes – 11/01/2021 PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTIONS Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. Speakers should limit their comments to matters related to the Board’s agenda. Matt Emborsky, NHC GOP, said that observers reported that election officials were doing phenomenal work during One Stop voting. His party has had a full complement of observers during One Stop voting, but found out Friday they would not for Election Day, having only 7 observers allowed for 20 precincts and none for 21 precincts. He is concerned about what this says about the transparency of the election. He asked the Board to reconsider and make the public aware of this. He understands the decision came from the State Board and he has made inquiries there for more information. Chair Carter said that county political parties can appoint observers by statutory deadlines. The list from the Republican Party came in after the deadline, and the list from the Democratic Party also raised questions. Director Hunter-Havens said the county Republican Party submitted a list of site-specific observers after the deadline and these would not be accepted. The county Democratic Party appointed at large observers during One Stop and these would be allowed to carry over to Election Day, based on guidance received from the State Board. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment and Question period. NEW BUSINESS a.Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. She presented 92 absentee- by-mail applications, 88 civilian and 4 overseas, and recommends their approval to the Board. She brought two absentee-by-mail applications to the Board’s attention. One voter failed to sign the container-return envelope before submission, but was able to cure the defect timely, according to State Board Numbered Memo 2021-03, and the cure certification is attached to the envelope which is included in the group recommended for Board approval. Another ballot was returned using the ADA-accessible portal with two witnesses who have the same address, but one of the witnesses left off the city, state, and zip code. Following the guidance of State Board Numbered Memo 2021-03, it is possible to determine that the correct address can be identified and therefore she recommends approval of the pending absentee application, which requires Board action. The Board began their review of the absentee-by-mail applications. [Member Kemp left the meeting at 5:19 p.m. and returned at 5:21 p.m.] Draft Board Minutes – 11/01/2021 Member Kemp asked about the presence of tape on a container-return envelope. Director Hunter-Havens said it is not unusual for a voter to tape the container-return envelope closed as extra security for their ballot. In the absence of evidence that the envelope was re-opened or tampered with, such as torn edges, the staff can conclude that the tape is the voter’s way of securing their ballot and will recommend approval. The Director told of another recent instance where the voter received the container-return envelope already sealed, having gotten wet. The voter opened it to use it, taped it closed, and wrote a note with the return envelope explaining what had happened. Staff called the voter and confirmed the explanation, and recommends approval. All such situations are brought to her attention, and reviewed and investigated as needed. Member Kemp said he was looking at the absentee list and wondered what status “S” means. Director Hunter-Havens said “S” or “SP” usually means spoiled but she would need to see what he was seeing to be certain. Member Kemp asked if the person who returns an absentee ballot in person is documented somewhere. Director Hunter-Havens said the person completes a form kept at the front desk listing who returned an absentee ballot in-person and their relationship to the voter. Chair Carter said a container-return envelope looks irregular but is probably valid. The notary wrote that the voter appeared on 8/27 (August 27), which is before absentee ballots were mailed. The notary probably meant October 27. Director Hunter-Havens said the question is whether that falls within the definition of a notary deficiency that invalidates the application. Chair Carter said it appears to be a technical error that is not considered a deficiency, according to State Board Numbered Memo 2021-07. [Chair Carter left the meeting at 5:46 p.m.] Discussion and review continued among the Board members about the statutory and Numbered Memo 2021-07 provisions regarding notary certifications. [Chair Carter returned to the meeting at 5:48 p.m.] The Board concluded that the misprint of the date is a technical error that does not invalidate the document, in this case, the ballot return envelope, and is acceptable. Member Kemp moved approval of the 92 absentee-by-mail ballots that are recommended for approval, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Member Hunter moved approval of the additional pending absentee-by-mail application, submitted through ADA-accessible portal, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. After discussion of how to proceed with the remaining business, the Board agreed to complete the agenda and then scan the approved absentee-by-mail ballots. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to present the One Stop ballots for approval. Director Hunter-Havens presented 4,953 One Stop applications made from October 26 to October 30. All have met the requirements to vote and have completed all steps to qualify. Member Kemp asked how many voters filed same day registrations during One Stop. The Director has not done a full review but estimates 50 or fewer. Member Kemp asked if a same day registrant’s ballot is cast as a provisional ballot. The Director said Draft Board Minutes – 11/01/2021 that same day registrations are processed each night and a voter registration card is mailed. If that card comes back undeliverable, a second card is sent. If the second card is returned undeliverable, then the ballot is retrieved and disqualified. Member Kemp asked about the ballot and voter identifier. The Director confirmed that the identifier enables retrieving the One Stop ballot when necessary. Member Kemp said an email dated October 30 was sent regarding two ballot challenges, one on October 22 at the Northeast Library site, the other on October 23 at the Cape Fear Community College site. He asked the Director if she was able to resolve those questions. The Director said these questions concerned in-county address changes, which a voter can do during One Stop or on Election Day. The voter is required to present a HAVA ID to verify the new residence address. A formal challenge requires submitting a challenge form. There was nothing in either of these questions that arose to a challenge nor was there anything improper about the address changes. Member Kemp said one voter presented an ID that did not appear to show the new address. The Director said it must because the software requires confirmation of the new address to process the update. Chair Carter asked about the certification form for the approved absentee-by-mail applications, which shows 93 but 92 were approved. The Director will make the correction and present the updated certification form at the meeting on November 2 for signatures. Secretary Miller moved approval of the 4,953 One Stop absentee applications, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. b.Chief Judge/Judge Substitutions for the 2021 Municipal Election Only Chair Carter called for consideration of two substitute assignments of precinct officials who will serve on Election Day, November 2, and called on the Director for her report. Director Hunter-Havens said two officials are unable to serve on Election Day. Deputy Director Caroline Dawkins identified two officials, residents of the affected precincts, to step into the positions, whose names are now before the Board for information: in precinct M02, assigning a resident Democratic substitute for the appointed Democratic Judge; in M03, assigning an Unaffiliated substitute for the appointed Republican Judge. Chair Carter asked about the balance among the Chief Judge and Judges in precinct M03. Deputy Director Dawkins said the Chief Judge and the substitute Judge are Unaffiliated and the other Judge is a Democrat. There are nonresident Republicans serving as assistants. Residency in the precinct along with technical and administrative skills were taken into consideration in selecting an administrative substitute. Member Hunter moved to ratify the two administrative assignments for precincts M02 and M03 as presented, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Member Kemp asked if all precincts are fully staffed for Election Day. Director Hunter- Havens confirmed all staff is assigned. Chair Carter asked what happens if the Chief Draft Board Minutes – 11/01/2021 Judge or a Judge do not show up on Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens said the two Judges recommend someone to fill in as Chief Judge. If a Judge is not available, the Chief Judge will select one of the assistants to serve in that role. She will report any changes to the Board when they meet on Election Day at 2:00 p.m. Typically, such changes are necessary due to unexpected health issues and most occur over the weekend before Election Day. Deputy Director Dawkins confirmed there are 223 people assigned to work on Election Day. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. Director Hunter-Havens reported that all is in place for Election Day. All polling places are set up and secured until 5:30 a.m. tomorrow, with support from the County IT team who will serve as technology rovers alongside supply rovers on Election Day. Adequate back-up equipment is on hand to address any equipment challenges, particularly printers. The Director brought NCGS §163-42 (c) to the Board’s attention, which authorizes county boards of election, by unanimous vote of all the members, to appoint and assign emergency election day assistants who must be registered voters in the county and otherwise qualified to serve as precinct officials. In reviewing all precinct official assignments over the weekend, she identified 7 precincts where the number of non- resident transfers exceed the number of resident officials. She is requesting the Board to give unanimous approval to the pool of emergency officials to serve as needed on Election Day. The goal is having adequate staffing in place to serve the voters while maintaining bipartisan balance and observing the requirement that non-resident transfer not equal or exceed the number of resident officials assigned. The Director identified the affected precincts: •H03, Bradley Creek Elementary School. •W08, Spencer Education Building. •W13, UNCW Ollie Center. •W15, Moseley Career Performance Academy. •W18, Seagate Baptist Church. •W24, UNCW Campus; and •W29, Williston Middle School. Deputy Director Dawkins has created a chart to track assignments to verify a minimum of two Democrats and two Republicans in each precinct. While the distribution varies from site to site, she is careful to have at least the minimal level of party representation in these seven precincts as officials are shuffled and assigned. After discussion of the provisions of NCGS §163-42, chair Carter moved approval of the reallocation of election assistants as presented by the Director pursuant to NCGS §163- 42(c), second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. Draft Board Minutes – 11/01/2021 Chair Carter called on the Director to summarize a situation encountered over the weekend that required action by the Chair. The Director said in three precincts, W08, W13, and W24, the majority of Judges are non-resident transfers. She consulted with the State Board, whose guidance was that the Chair can and should give approval of those assignments, which cannot be done administratively. The situation arose due to last minute health issues and some COVID-related concerns. These were precincts where the Board was not able to appoint Chief Judges or Judges unanimously, leaving the previous non-resident appointee as a hold-over appointment who is not available to work. Member Kemp asked what the party affiliations are for these precinct officials. [Member Hunter left the meeting at 6:40 p.m.] Deputy Director Dawkins said that she was paying close attention to the bipartisan requirements as she was considering those assignments. She went to her office to retrieve the information. [Member Hunter returned to the meeting at 6:41 p.m.] Member Kemp said the Republican county chair submitted names of non-resident transfers in August, and they were not appointed because they were non- resident transfers. Now they can’t be appointed because they were not on-boarded before October 1. He sees a disconnect in the process. If more Republican judges were needed, these nominees should have been on-boarded. This sequencing needs to be fixed. Many of the suggested names are serving as observers because they were not appointed as precinct officials. Chair Carter encouraged both parties to encourage members who are interested in serving as precinct officials to get their applications in serve in 2022. Director Hunter-Havens clarified that these are administrative substitutions for this election only, not appointments to serve unexpired terms as chief judges and judges. Most of the party-submitted August nominees completed the on-boarding process and some served during One Stop and are serving on Election Day. Member Bryan said that a lot of work in staffing precincts revolves around residency, when the more important factors are training and ability to do the work. He asked for thoughts on why residency in the precinct is so important. Director Hunter-Havens said she understands from state- wide discussions about this challenge that it is driven by neighbors knowing neighbors to detect fraudulent voting by someone posing as a precinct resident to vote. Chair Carter added that, in the past, precinct officials had the final say on who was eligible to vote and could not be second-guessed by the county or state boards or the courts. Now the requirement seems vestigial. The State Board Associate General Counsel has told her that this is very much under discussion due to anticipated shortfalls next year in the numbers of available precinct officials. Chair Carter called on Deputy Director Dawkins for her report on the party composition of officials he assigned over the weekend. She reported as follows: •W08: 1 Republican and 1 Unaffiliated are appointed, with an Unaffiliated substitute. •W13: 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. •W24: 1 Unaffiliated, 1 Republican, and 1 Democrat. [Member Kemp left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.] Secretary Miller said that, as this process has unfolded since August, both parties are more aware of the process and the various deadlines. What surprised people this year will not surprise them in January. Draft Board Minutes – 11/01/2021 Chair Carter asked if there were any other matters for general discussion. [Member Kemp returned to the meeting at 6:52 p.m.] Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he had any further items for discussion. Hearing none, Chair Carter closed the General Discussion period. Member Hunter moved to direct the staff to proceed with preparatory steps to scan the approved absentee-by-mail ballots, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. Scanning began at 6:58 p.m. Scanning of 93 absentee-by-mail ballots was completed at 7:27 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:29 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 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 Draft Board Minutes – 12/14/2021 REGULAR MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections December 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 Systems Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP; Mike Torbit; S. Torbit; Bob Gatewood; Jill Hopman, NHCDP. Virtual Attendees: Loraine Buker, LWV-CFA; Jenna Dahlgren, staff; Chris Tisbert, staff. OPENING Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:15 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. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Kemp were present, constituting a quorum; Members Hunter and Bryan arrived at 5:23 p.m. Chair Carter said that, while the Board members are wearing masks, masks are now optional while attending the meetings. He asked attendees to take a moment to silence their cell phones during the meeting. AGENDA Member Kemp moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Draft Board Minutes – 12/14/2021 MINUTES Chair Carter said the draft Minutes of 9/14/2021, 10/05/2021, 10/12/2021, and 10/19/2021 were sent to the Board with the agenda packet and are lengthy, but were not posted with the public agenda. He moved to postpone approval of the Minutes to the January 12, 2022 regular meeting, to allow more time to read them, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT a.Draft Parameters for Public Comment Period Chair Carter reviewed proposed procedures to give more structure and set parameters for the Public Comment period. He cited as general authority that the Board may adopt procedural guidelines to facilitate the effective management of board meetings. He developed the draft based on input from the Board members and Director Hunter-Havens. He noted that the most effective way for members of the public to comment is by sending their comments by email to the Board members and Director Hunter-Havens. When received before the meeting, the public comments may be read into the record, will be acknowledged as received, and discussed or take further action as appropriate. The Public Comment period will last twenty minutes, with each speaker limited to two minutes. On concluding the public comment period, the Board will not accept further public comment, subject to certain exceptions. The exception is the situation where the Board takes up an item of new business that did not appear on the original agenda, the Board will hear from an officer of each political party to make one minute of comment per item of new business. Chair Carter said that another feature of the proposal addresses special meetings, such as the scheduled statutory absentee meetings, where public comment will be limited to the specific purpose of the meeting. When a special meeting coincides with a regular meeting date, the proposal is to hold the regular meeting for the purpose of open, broader public comment session to hear comment on any election issue. When the Board calls a special meeting, public comments will be limited to the stated purpose of the called meeting. After reviewing the draft procedures, Chair Carter moved their adoption, second by Member Hunter. Discussion of specific items followed. Section 3.c., clarifying that when a special meeting, such as a special absentee meeting, coincides with a regular meeting day, the Board will conduct a regular meeting following the usual agenda separately from the special meeting agenda. The Board amended the proposed language to read, as moved by Member Hunter, second by Secretary Miller: If a special meeting falls on the same day as a regular meeting, both meetings shall be held, and the board may transact any business before it during the regular meeting. Draft Board Minutes – 12/14/2021 Member Bryan requested amending section 2.a. to read: “the public comment period will last no longer than 20 minutes,”. Board members expressed concerns about section 2.d.: “party officer” is more restrictive than a “party representative”; duration of comment by the party officer, one minute v. brief v. short v. discretion of the chair. There was further discussion whether these are guideline as opposed to hard and fast rules. Chair Carter said this would all be subject to vote by the Board present to allow additional public comment, such as a situation where the Board wanted to hear from the public, but their position was not being advocated by one or both of the parties, then the Board could make an exception. Member Bryan asked if this policy is binding on future Boards. Chair Carter said he does not expect it would as he has not seen what previous Boards have done and does not consider it binding on him. Prior practice may be a good suggestion but is not binding. He does not intend it to be binding on future Boards. Member Bryan said the Chair should have some discretion in managing comment time limits and not cut a speaker off mid-sentence. Member Hunter suggested saying “a short response” without quantifying a time limit. In response to a question from Member Kemp, Chair Carter said that additional agenda items from Board members under section 2.e. should be added to the agenda instead of raised during the General Discussion, but does not preclude addressing later-arising items. Member Bryan said the Board should be more intentional about informing the public of the agenda. Director Hunter-Havens said agenda items submitted following section 2.e. would be added as new business but may require response or review by the State Board. The Board always has the option to discuss or postpone consideration. Secretary Miller said General Discussion is generally not the place for motions to be considered. Director Hunter-Havens said that public feedback regarding agenda items that have produced intense discussion is that it is difficult to follow the discussion and easy to lose track. Sometimes these items need time and opportunity to flesh out ahead of time. County boards have limited authority and need State Board guidance before acting. Member Hunter said listing something as “New Business” implies action will be taken, where General Discussion means what the name says. The public should have advance notice of items on which the Board intends to act. After discussion, Chair Carter moved to postpone consideration to the January 11, 2022 regular meeting, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. b.Public Comments Chair Carter called upon the public in-person and virtual attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. Matt Emborsky, NHC GOP, asked for an update on the public records requests that Julius Rothlein has made. Director Hunter-Havens said she has responded to all the records requests made by Republican party leaders, but one requires extensive staff support for which there is a fee. That information has been emailed to the party leaders and will fill that request once the fee is paid. She forwarded one request to the State Board for guidance, but has fulfilled all other requests. Draft Board Minutes – 12/14/2021 Chair Carter said the Board members and the Director received an After-Action Report and the Morris PowerPoint from Julius Rothlein on behalf of the Republican party about a week ago. Director Hunter-Havens read an email public comment from Janet M. Hyde asking questions about list maintenance, signature verification on mail-in ballots, and counting of only absentee ballots for which there is a request from the voter. The Director will respond to the questions with additional information as able and clarification as needed. In response to a question, she said that third parties are allowed to send blank absentee ballot request forms to voters, but not forms which have been partially filled in. Seeing and hearing no further comments from attendees, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. a.Financial Update Director Hunter-Havens reported that the overall budget is a little below expected expenditure year to date, even though several items are encumbered, fully expended or exceeded. She noted that contracted services stands at 100.3% expenditure due to cost to rent laptops and printers for two additional One Stop sites. M&R Equipment is 100% expended. This line item funds maintenance and repair work by the contractor for voting equipment, PrintElect, providing routine maintenance on various machines used in elections at a set charge. Insurance and Bonds stands at 160.3% spent, which she is looking into for more information to explain what is paid from this line item and why it is so much higher than budgeted and in previous years. Risk Management manages this line item and charges back to the departments. b.List Maintenance Update Director Hunter-Havens summarized the list maintenance activities from September through November 2021: •Removed 1,642 voters from the voter registration rolls consistent with NCGS §163-82.14. •Processed 3,779 new registrations, 1,819 duplicate registrations, and 2,827 registration update forms. Most of the activity comes through DMV. List maintenance activity is less than usual because no new voter registration activity occurs once the voter registration deadline for the municipal election is reached. Member Hunter asked about the duplicate registrations. The Director said that voter registration forms are received from DMV transactions and voter registration drives that do not make any actual changes to the voter’s previous registration. These are treated as voter registration updates for processing to ensure catching updates such as party affiliation Draft Board Minutes – 12/14/2021 changes and address updates, and generate a new voter registration card that meets the contact requirements. The category arises from the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). List maintenance data is a snapshot of activity at a particular point in time, not an audited report. Monthly removals from the rolls continue after the voter registration deadline, generated from death records and new out of county registrations. Voter updates are processed continuously, but once the voter registration deadline is reached, no new voter registrations are processed until after the election. The Director noted she has updated the visualizations reporting period from December 2018 to January 2020 for less crowded visuals. Postponement of the March primary by court order will allow NCOA (National Change of Address) to proceed in the first quarter. Changes cannot occur within three months of a federal election and would have postponed NCOA until after the March primary. c.Candidate Filing and Redistricting Update Director Hunter-Havens said that the dates for candidate filing for the May primary remain on hold, awaiting direction from the courts, and will be announced as soon as the dates are set. Dates for One Stop early voting and submission of observer lists are set as these track back from the date of the primary. She has notified all polling place facilities and precinct officials of the changes in the primary schedule. Member Kemp asked about postcards sent to some voters seeking applications for precinct officials. Director Hunter-Havens said this is a targeted mailing to 37 of the 43 precincts to voters aged 65 to 70, approximately 14,000 voters, in the age range of the largest cohort of precinct officials, which has generated about 100 new applications so far which are in various stages of the on-boarding process. The pool of precinct officials has been notified of the primary election schedule changes for their planning and will be surveyed in February for their availability to work during the May primary. NEW BUSINESS a.Adoption of Regular Meeting Schedule Chair Carter called for any discussion or questions about the proposed Board meeting schedule for 2022. Member Kemp moved approval of the schedule as submitted, second by Member Hunter. Secretary Miller noted there are three dates when the regular meeting date coincides with a special absentee meeting date which the calendar lists as Special meetings. He asked whether additional public notice is required when there are dual meetings as to timing. The time of the Special Absentee meeting is set by statute to start at 5:00 p.m. Past practice has been to consolidate all agenda items into one agenda for the combined regular and special business. After discussion, the language of the schedule and of the notice published on the NHC BOE website are adequate. Motion carried unanimously. b.Polling Place Change for Precinct W28 Draft Board Minutes – 12/14/2021 Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. The Director reported that Precinct W28 was moved out of precinct for the 2021 municipal election when no public or private facility could be found within the precinct. After the election, Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church agreed to allow use of their Activity Center which meets all requirements for access and parking, and is within the precinct boundaries. The facility contract will not allow any electioneering on the premises, which private properties have the option to require. Director Hunter-Havens said the facility contract covers the 2022 elections. All polling place agreements will renew in 2023. Chair Carter moved approval of the Resolution to Adopt Polling Place Change in New Hanover County, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. GENERAL DISCUSSION Member Kemp said it would be helpful to get the draft Minutes as soon as the draft is completed and not wait for the agenda packet. Chair Carter asked that the draft Minutes of the December 14 meeting be expedited ahead of the prior incomplete Minutes and be sent upon completion to the Board to review. ADJOURNMENT Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:32 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion passed unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on January 11, 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 Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 Subject: Procedural Matter - Parameters for Public Comment Period Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N/A Summary: The Board may adopt procedural guidelines to facilitate the effective management of board meetings. The proposed parameters for the public comment period and preparation of the agenda are as follows: 1.We want the public to be able to ask questions and make comments during the designated period, but we want to keep the meetings short. 2.In order to encourage members of the public to submit questions and comments ahead of time in writing, we will distribute the draft agenda to the public before it is formally approved by the board. 3.In order to encourage members of the public to submit questions and comments ahead of time in writing, we will make reasonable efforts to acknowledge receipt of those comments, summarize them for the record, and if possible respond to them, at least briefly, on the record, with further follow-up in writing as needed. 4.In order for us to give one another notice of issues that we would like to discuss, we will try to submit items for discussion to Rae by 5pm on Tuesday before the meeting. 5.We will keep a General Discussion period at the end of the meeting that is more free form, where any of us can raise issues or ask questions that we did not give notice of in advance, but we will generally not proceed to act on those matters but will usually save more fuller and more informed discussion, and any potential action, for another day. 6.We will sometimes desire or permit additional public comments later in the meeting, especially by the parties on issues in which they’re particularly interested, but such additional comments will be at the discretion of the board and should be kept brief. Document/s Included: Resolution Regarding Public Comment Period And Preparation Of Agenda Board Action Required: Board Action Required Item # 1dItem # 2 Draft RESOLUTION REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PREPARATION OF AGENDA At a meeting duly called and held on January 11, 2022, at 1241 A Military Cutoff Road; Wilmington, North Carolina, the New Hanover County Board of Elections (“BoE” or “Board”) adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board holds Regular Meetings once per month; and WHEREAS, at its Regular Meetings the Board may consider and act upon any matter within its jurisdiciton; and WHEREAS, during the two-month period around an election, the Board generally holds Special Meetings at least once per week; and WHEREAS, these Special Meetings are generally required by statute to be held for a specific purpose, such as considering Absentee Ballots or conducting a Final Canvass; and WHEREAS, the Board values input from the citizens of New Hanover County with respect to matters within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, it is generally proper for the Board to answer questions posed by the public regarding matters within its jurisdiction (or to ask the Elections Director to answer them); and WHEREAS, the Board wishes to provide several ways for members of the public to provide input and ask questions; and WHEREAS, on such way that the Board wishes to receive public comments and questions during its Regular Meetings and Special Meetings; and Draft 2 WHEREAS, the Board holds a large number of meetings and those meetings often last a long time; and WHEREAS, there are many matters of business that require the Board’s attention; and WHEREAS, N.C. Open Meetings Law severely limits Board Members’ ability to condcut business other than during a meeting; and WHEREAS, the public, the employees of the Board, and the Board itself all have an interest in efficient meeting that conclude within a reasonable amount of time; and WHEREAS, reasonable limitations on in-person public comments during Board meetings will balance the competing interests of (i) receiving as much input as possible and (ii) conducting the meetings as efficiently as possible; and WHEREAS, the Board prepares a draft agenda prior to each of its meetings; and WHEREAS, one of the first items of business at each meeting is to approve the draft agenda; and WHEREAS, the Board has delegated to the Director the responsibility for preparing the agenda; and WHEREAS, the Director has generally released the draft agenda to the Board the week before each meeting but has not generally released the draft agenda to the public before the Board has approved it at the meeting; and WHEREAS, the public will benefit from having access to the draft agenda at the same time it is made available to the Board; and WHEREAS, the public will be better able to submit comments in writing prior to the meeting if it has access to the draft agenda at the same time as the Board; and WHEREAS, last-minute changes to the agenda are occasionally necessary but also serve to dilute the benefits of distributing the agenda in advance; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: 1.The Board ratifies its prior delegation to the Director of the duty of preparing and distributing the agenda for its meetings. 2.The Director may place upon the agenda any matter that she believes is appropriate. Draft 3 3. Any Board Member who wishes to place a matter upon the agenda may do so by emailing the Director by 5:00 pm on the seventh day prior to the meeting (generally by 5:00pm on the prior Tuesday). 4. By simple majority, the Board may decline to take up any matter on its agenda, or upon taking up such matter may table it at any time. 5. The Director shall make the draft agenda available to the public at the same time that she distributes the draft agenda to the Board; and 6. The best way for the public to provide input and ask questions is generally by emailing the Director with a copy to all Board Members. 7. When members of the public submit questions or comments in writing prior to the meeting and request that the Board acknowledge receipt of the questions or comments on the record, then the Board will generally (i) acknowledge receipt of those questions and comments during the public comment period of the meeting and (ii) to the extent practicable, summarize the questions or comments received in writing. The Board may, in its discretion, respond to those questions or comments during the meeting or ask the Director to respond to them. 8. The public comment period shall be 20 minutes long at Regular Meetings and 10 minutes long at Special Meetings. 9. All public comments must pertain to matters within the Board’s jurisdiction. 10. Public comments made during a Special Meeting shall pertain to matters on the meeting notice for that Special Meeting. But if the meeting notice provides that the Special Meeting shall be held for the purpose of certain enumerated matters as well as “any other business properly before the board” or similar catchall language, then public comments shall pertain only to those matters enumerated in the meeting notice. 11. All public comments shall be limited to two minutes. 12. Anyone submitting questions or comments shall state their name. If that person is affiliated with a party or organization, the Board respectfully requests that they state their affiliation. 13. The Board and the Director may respond to questions and comments at the time they are made, they may follow up at a later time, or both. In order to facilitate effective communication and maintain order, members of the public making comments or asking questions shall yield the floor to Board members or the Director when the latter is seeking clarification or responding to the question or comment. Draft 4 14.The Board may limit duplicative comments. 15.The Board from time to time may, in its discretion, allow for additional public comments later in the meeting, especially from representatives of the two main political parties on questions in which they have an interest, but any such additional comments shall be brief. 16.The Board retains authority to modify these procedural rules at any time by majority vote. January 11, 2022 _______________________________________ Oliver Carter III, Chairman Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 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 # 3 Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 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 6th Period (December) •Operating Expenses expended through FY21-22 6th Period (December) •Grand Total expended through FY20-21 6th Period (December) 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 697 voters from the voter registration rolls in December of 2021 consistent with NC Gen. Stat. §163-82.14. •Processed 1,006 new registration forms, 228 duplicate registration forms, and 557 registration update forms in December of 2021. c.Proposed FY22-23 Budget Enhancement Request There are several budget enhancement requests that will be submitted for FY22-23. I have included a general overview of these enhancement requests below, with a more comprehensive review of these requests scheduled for the February board meeting. •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 a 15-hour day). o Increase rate of pay for Assistants from $120 to $225 per day ($8 per hour to $15 per hour for a 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. •Increase in Rate of Compensation for Administrative Technician (PT) from $16.1876 per hour to $18.00 per hour. The Administrative Technician position is a year round part-time position (15 hours per week). Item # 2 Item # 4 Draft d.Relocation of Storage Facilities The storage space for the Board of Elections will be relocated from the current Government Center complex to leased space located off US Highway 421 North. The tentative start date of the new lease is February 1, 2022. The new leased space will be used to store and prepare all voting equipment and supplies that are currently being stored at 230 Government Center Drive. e.2022 NC State Board of Elections Conferences The State Board will conduct a virtual training conference on Monday and Tuesday, March 14-15, 2022. The conference will be held online - just like the last conference. The registration website for this conference will open on January 19. I will submit individual registrations for all board members so that you may view the trainings with your own login ID and password. I will send additional information about the conference as it becomes available. The dates for the August Conference are July 31, August 1, and August 2. This conference will be in-person. The NC State Board of Elections will send out more information on the August conference soon. Document/s Included: Financial Year-To-Date Budget Report 6th Period (November); NVRA Report December 2021; NVRA Visualizations Report; NVRA Report Definitions Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Draft January 6, 2022 BOARD OF ELECTIONS BUDGET REPORT SALARIES & BENEFITS FY20-21 ACTUALS FY20-21 6TH PERIOD ACTUALS FY21-22 6TH PERIOD ACTUALS FY21-22 TRANSFERS /ADJUSTMENTS FY21-22 ENC/REQ FY21-22 REVISED BUDGET FY21-22 PERCENT USED SALARIES 302,294.78 159,758.10 153,092.18 0.00 0.00 438,217.00 34.9% CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES 423,477.82 303,424.74 102,919.52 0.00 3,750.00 558,889.00 19.1% 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 18,494.35 12,229.95 0.00 0.00 76,890.00 15.9% RETIREMENT-LOCAL GOVT EMPL 32,346.56 17,667.80 17,760.48 0.00 0.00 49,218.00 36.1% GENERAL 401-K 0.00 0.00 3,678.76 0.00 0.00 25,123.00 14.6% MEDICAL INSURANCE EXPENSE 44,352.48 20,319.34 25,292.12 0.00 0.00 80,648.00 31.4% LONG TERM DISABILITY INSUR 595.89 311.11 242.81 0.00 0.00 754.00 32.2% SALARIES & BENEFITS TOTAL 846,489.63 533,465.00 317,916.93 0.00 3,750.00 1,237,713.00 26.0% OPERATING EXPENSES FY20-21 ACTUALS FY20-21 6TH PERIOD ACTUALS FY21-22 6TH PERIOD ACTUALS FY21-22 TRANSFERS /ADJUSTMENTS FY21-22 ENC/REQ FY21-22 REVISED BUDGET FY21-22 PERCENT USED CONTR SERVS 440,126.65 311,368.10 103,310.52 14,128.00 186,205.72 283,237.00 102.2% RENT 4,125.00 0.00 625.00 0.00 0.00 2,375.00 26.3% ADVERTISING COST 3,038.78 0.00 844.80 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 21.1% CELLULAR EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 456.00 0.0% POSTAGE EXPENSE 92,317.90 61,240.85 13,456.40 -1,814.00 4,126.46 56,936.00 30.9% M&R-EQUIPMENT 35,405.77 0.00 50,855.00 0.00 0.00 50,855.00 100.0% PRINTING 95,308.17 8,116.16 23,343.45 -5,000.00 3,979.10 121,300.00 22.5% PRINTER-COPIER COSTS &SUPP 10,164.75 3,429.96 2,326.76 -2,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 31.0% SUPPLIES 291,535.75 79,985.07 8,021.71 -1,814.00 3,307.33 57,740.00 19.6% 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 0.00 267.68 0.00 0.00 500.00 53.5% 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 0.00 0.00 26,852.00 160.3% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 978,312.73 470,277.90 248,562.39 0.00 197,618.61 623,649.00 71.5% GRAND TOTAL 1,824,802.36 1,003,742.90 566,479.32 0.00 201,368.61 1,861,362.00 41.3% Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS NVRA REPORT Reporting Period:-12/1/2021 12/31/2021 Totals Active 148,811 Inactive 25,669 Total Registration 174,480 REPORTING PERIOD Registrations Approved 1,600 Total Registrations Removed 697 Inactive Registrations Removed 130 New Registrations 00 - No Application Source 5 01 - Public Assistance 10 02 - Disability 3 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 921 06 - Mail-in 17 07 - In-person 6 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 18 17 - Registration Drives 26 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 1,006 Duplicates 00 - No Application Source 5 01 - Public Assistance 9 02 - Disability 2 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 152 06 - Mail-in 4 07 - In-person 0 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 7 17 - Registration Drives 2 21 - Medicaid Renewal 1 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 5 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 19 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 1 of 5Jan 06, 2022 4:43 pm Draft NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 99 - Voter Change On Verification 22 228 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 2 of 5Jan 06, 2022 4:43 pm Draft NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Changes of Information 00 - No Application Source 9 01 - Public Assistance 16 02 - Disability 1 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 430 06 - Mail-in 19 07 - In-person 15 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 28 17 - Registration Drives 1 21 - Medicaid Renewal 1 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 3 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 11 99 - Voter Change On Verification 23 557 Verifications # of 1st & 2nd verification mailings sent 4,715 # of 1st NCOA mailings sent 0 # of 1st verification returned undeliverable 198 # of verification returned by voter 45 Confirmations # of confirmations returned by voter 29 # of confirmations sent 197 # of confirmations returned undeliverable 50 # of confirmations not returned at all 125 COUNTY STATISTICAL Constitution 0 Democratic 51,138 Green 0 Libertarian 1,481 Republican 53,522 Unaffiliated 68,339 American Indian 381 Asian 1,325 Black 19,510 Multi-Racial 967 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 11 White 134,546 Other 3,349 Undesignated 14,391 Hispanic 3,459 Not Hispanic 118,236 Undesignated 52,785 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 3 of 5Jan 06, 2022 4:43 pm Draft NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Female 85,719 Male 73,036 Undesignated 15,725 Unprocessed Registrations - Incomplete Queue 00 - No Application Source 12 01 - Public Assistance 3 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 154 06 - Mail-in 4 07 - In-person 1 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 1 17 - Registration Drives 1 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 0 99 - Voter Change On Verification 1 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 1 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 0 99 - Voter Change On Verification 1 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 1 06 - Mail-in 0 07 - In-person 0 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 4 of 5Jan 06, 2022 4:43 pm Draft 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 5Jan 06, 2022 4:43 pm Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft NVRA The SBE has an automated process, so there is no need to submit the report on a monthly basis, it is available for counties that would like to run the report for informational use. NVRA Report definitions: Prior to reviewing the NVRA report the following items need to be considered  Statistics are based on a time period  Temporary voters are ignored in these statistics.  These are interpretations of the SEIMS NVRA reports, not anything generated outside the SEIMS application.  See NVRA change explanation in the supplemental section. Description Definition Registrations Approved Number of verified voters during the time period. This is based off the following verification description: ‘NEW VOTER: VERIFIED’ Total Registrations Removed Number of voters that had their status changed to REMOVED during the time period Inactive Registrations Removed Number of voters that had their status changed from INACTIVE to REMOVED during the time period Total Registrations Removed Number of voters that had their status changed to REMOVED during the time period New Number of NVRA flagged new voter records by source code during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are combined into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively. Sources ‘98’ and ‘99’ are ignored because these are change source codes Change Number of NVRA flagged change voter records by source code during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are combined into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively Duplicate Number of NVRA flagged duplicate voter records by source code during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are combined into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively Draft Verification:# of 1st & 2nd verification mailings sent This is based off the following verification descriptions: ‘NEW VOTER: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘NEW VOTER: 2ND VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘VOTER CHG: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘VOTER CHG: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘LIST MAINT: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’ Verification:# of 1st verification returned undeliverable Number of 1st verification mailings returned undeliverable to the county during the time period. This is based off the following verification descriptions: ‘NEW VOTER: ADDR CONFIRMATION TO FWD ADDR (PRIOR TO MAILING)’, ‘NEW VOTER: 2ND VERIFICATION (PRIOR TO MAILING)’, ‘VOTER CHG: ADDR CONFIRMATION TO FWD ADDR (PRIOR TO MAILING)’, ‘VOTER CHG: ADDR CONFIRMATION TO OLD ADDR (PRIOR TO MAILING) Verification:# of verification returned by voter Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘99’ changes Confirmation:# of confirmations returned by voter Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘98’ changes Confirmation:# of confirmations sent Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘98’ changes Confirmation:# of confirmations returned undeliverable Number of confirmation mailings returned undeliverable to the county during the time period. This is based off the reason changes to ‘CONFIRMATION RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE’ Confirmation:# of confirmations not returned at all Number of confirmation mailings not returned to the county at all during the time period. This is based off the reason changes to ‘CONFIRMATION NOT RETURNED’ Supplemental Explanation – NVRA Change/Duplicate Description For 1/7/2012 forward: NOTE: An NVRA Voter Change is marked if one of the following fields is changed (with a non-administrative change).  Name  Mailing Address  Birth Date Draft  Party  Residential Address NOTE: An NVRA Duplicate is marked if a voter change occurs but was not one of the fields indicated above to represent an NVRA change. Prior to 1/7/2012: NOTE: An NVRA Voter Change is marked if any of the fields below are updated for a voter.  Drivers license  Gender  Confidential Flag  Race  Party  Precinct  Mailing Address  Status  Municipality  Phone number  Name  Ward  Birth date  Residential Address  SSN NOTE: An NVRA Duplicate is flagged if none of the above occur, but one of the following fields are changed:  Reason  Registration date  Source  Application date  Comments  Language Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 Subject: 2022 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Plan Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N.C. Gen. Stat §§ 163-227.2(b), 163-227.2(h), and 163-227.6 Summary: The New Hanover County Board of Elections must determine hours for the 2022 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Voting period. The deadline to submit the early voting plan to the NC State Board of Elections is February 18, 2022. For all sites approved for one-stop voting, a county board of elections must provide the following: 1.County boards of election shall conduct one-stop voting beginning on the third Thursday before an election and ending on the last Saturday before the election. 2.Mandatory weekday hours for one-stop sites are 8:00 am - 7:30 pm during even-numbered years. 3.Mandatory hours on the last Saturday before Election Day are 8:00 am – 3:00 pm. The following uniform weekend and weekday requirements enacted in Session Law 2018-112 (Senate Bill 325) are still in effect in even-numbered years: •Weekday Uniform Hours – All additional one-stop sites (not the county office) must have the same schedule. If the Board of Elections office is open for any hours outside of normal business hours (except for the last Saturday), then the weekday uniform hours’ requirements would apply to the Board of Elections office. •Weekend Uniform Hours – If any one-stop site (including the county office) is open on a Saturday or Sunday (excluding the last Saturday), then all one-stop sites must be open for the same number of hours on that day. Sites may be open on one or both Sundays and sites may be open for different hours on a weekend, provided the number of hours is the same. •If Any Site, Then All Sites – Any day a one-stop site is open, all one-stop sites must be open on that day. At a minimum, the New Hanover County board office must be open during regular business hours (8:00 am – 5:00 pm). Any other schedule for the board office requires the unanimous approval of a one-stop implementation plan and the new uniform requirements apply (see above). If the county board is unable to reach unanimity regarding a one-stop plan, a member or members of the board may petition the State Board to adopt a plan for it. If petitioned, the State Board may also receive and consider an alternative petition from another member or members of the county board. Item # 2 Item # 5a Draft Document/s Included: Absentee One-Stop Voting Proposed Sites; Absentee One-Stop Voting Proposed Plan; Absentee One- Stop Voting Supplemental Statistics, Resolution to Adopt the 2022 Primary Election One-Stop Implementation Plan (Provided at Board Meeting) Board Action Required: Action Required Draft 2022 Statewide Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Period Proposed Sites Draft Proposed Sites There are five proposed sites to be used during the 2018 Statewide Primary Election Absentee One- Stop Voting Period. All of the facilities are public and are permissible for use. The proposed sites are as follows: NHC Northeast Regional Library David E. Paynter Room 1241 Military Cutoff Road Wilmington, NC 28405 NHC Senior Resource Center Multipurpose Room 2222 South College Road Wilmington, NC 28401 CFCC Health Sciences Building Rooms L-112, L-110A 415 North 2nd Street, Wilmington, NC 28401 Draft Carolina Beach Town Hall Police Training Room 1121 Lake Park Boulevard Carolina Beach, North Carolina 28428 CFCC - North Campus McKeithan Center BB&T Auditorium 4500 Blue Clay Road Castle Hayne, North Carolina 28429 Draft CF02 CF01 H11 H12 FP04 WB M02 FP08 CF05 CF06 FP03 M03 H03 M07 FP07 H08 W30 H02 H13 H05 FP06 W31 W15 M04 H04 H06 H10 W16 W25 W26 W24W28 W17 W27 M06 W21 W29 H01 W08 W18 W03 W13 W12 2022 Primary Election Proposed One-Stop Sites NHC Northeast Library CFCC Health Sciences Building McKeithan Center CFCC North Carolina Beach Town Hall NHC Senior Resource Center 0 2 41 Miles Draft 2022 Statewide Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Period Base One-Stop Plan Draft 2022 Primary Election Proposed One-Stop Implementation Plan Week #Days Week 1 Thurs - Fri Mon - Fri Sat Sun Mon - Fri Sat Total Hours of Operation 155 Week 2 8-7:30 12-5 12-5 Week 3 8-7:30 8-3 Days of the Week Operating Hours All Sites 8-7:30 RoomSite Name Carolina Beach Town Hall Police Training Room 1121 Lake Park Boulevard Proposed One-Stop Sites CFCC Health Sciences Building Rooms L-110A and L-112 415 North 2nd Street CFCC North Campus-McKeithan Center BB&T Auditorium 4500 Blue Clay Road Address Northeast Regional Library David E. Paynter Room 1241 Military Cutoff Rd Senior Resource Center Multi-Purpose Room 2222 South College Road 775 $100,100.00 15 Total Hours of Operation Five Sites Estimated Costs Five Sites Days of Operation Draft 2022 Statewide Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Period Supplemental Statistics Draft 2022 Statewide Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Implementation Plan Supplemental Voter Turnout Statistics Election Date Total Registered Voters Total Ballots Cast Percent Voter Turnout 3/15/2016 158,364 55,443 35.01% 11/8/2016 169,930 112,588 66.26% 5/8/2018 165,987 16,363 9.86% 11/6/2018 172,566 89,403 51.81% 3/3/2020 168,115 52,682 31.34% 11/3/2020 177,350 132,309 74.60% 2016 Primary Election 2016 General Election Total Votes Cast 55,443 Total Votes Cast 112,588 Total One Stop 16,040 Total One Stop 70,733 % Vote at One Stop 28.93% % Vote at One Stop 62.82% 2018 Primary Election 2018 General Election Total Votes Cast 16,363 Total Votes Cast 89,403 Total One Stop 5,568 Total One Stop 53,286 % Vote at One Stop 34.02% % Vote at One Stop 59.60% 2020 Primary Election 2020 General Election Total Votes Cast 52,682 Total Votes Cast 132,309 Total One Stop 20,009 Total One Stop 87,341 % Vote at One Stop 37.98% % Vote at One Stop 66.01% Draft 2022 Statewide Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Implementation Plan Supplemental Voter Turnout Statistics OS SITE CODE OS SITE NAME GVT New Hanover County Government Center SRC New Hanover County Senior Resource Center PVL New Hanover County Pine Valley Library NLB New Hanover County Northeast Library CAB Carolina Beach Town Hall CFCC CFCC Health Sciences Building ARB New Hanover County Arboretum CBC Carolina Beach Community Center CFC CFCC -Wilma W. Daniels Art Gallery MSL Moose Lodge CFN CFCC-North Campus McKeithan Center One Stop Site 2016 Primary Election 2016 General Election 2018 Primary Election 2018 General Election 2020 Primary Election 2020 General Election GVT 7,492 18,917 2,241 14,054 6,351 11,721 SRC 2,845 18,843 945 13,243 9,563 PVL 4,621 9,283 NLB 3,241 17,164 1,483 14,032 5,276 15,744 CAB 1,589 8,901 495 7,273 2,337 CFCC 870 6,871 404 4,684 1,424 ARB 8,010 CBC 8,040 CFC 6,038 MSL 10,890 CFN 8,052 TOTAL 16,037 70,696 5,568 53,286 20,009 87,341 Draft 495 404 2,241 1,483 945 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 CAB CFCC GVT NLB SRCVotes CastSite 2018 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Site Total 221 478 680 879 791 747 607 512 405 214 34 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PMVotes CastTime of Day 2018 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Time of Day Total 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Votes CastDate 2018 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Date and Site CAB CFCC GVT NLB SRC Draft 7,311 4,699 14,084 14,088 13,287 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 CAB CFCC GVT NLB SRCVotes CastSite 2018 General Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Site Total 903 2,301 4,212 6,396 6,979 6,939 6,472 5,950 5,322 3,832 2,552 1,603 8 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PMVotes CastTime of Day 2018 General Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Time of Day Total 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Votes CastDate 2018 General Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Date and Site CAB CFCC GVT NLB SRC Draft * As part of reconciliation, 7 records of voter history were added after close of OS voting due to PW error 2,337 1,424 6,351 5,276 4,621 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 CAB CFCC GVT NLB PVLVotes CastSite 2020 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Site Total 1 730 1,430 2,234 2,501 2,896 3,022 2,696 1,853 1,369 750 468 59 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PMVotes CastTime of Day 2020 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Time of Day Total 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Votes CastDate 2020 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Date and Site CAB CFCC GVT NLB PVL Draft 8,010 8,040 6,038 8,052 11,721 10,890 15,744 9,283 9,563 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 ARB CBC CFC CFN GVT MSL NLB PVL SRCVotes CastSite 2020 General Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast By Site Total 2 5,914 6,553 7,816 8,322 10,779 10,081 10,410 9,383 8,160 5,424 3,807 690 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PMVotes CastTime of Day 2020 General Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast By Time of Day Total 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Votes CastDate 2020 General Election Absentee One-Stop Votes Cast by Date and Site ARB CBC CFC CFN GVT MSL NLB PVL SRC Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 Subject: Approval of Out-of-Precinct Polling Place for Precinct W18 for the 2022 Elections Applicable Statutes and/or Rules: N.C. Gen. Stat § 163-130.1 Summary: The polling place change for precinct W18 from First Assembly of God to Sea Gate Baptist Church, an out-of-precinct polling place, was approved by the Board at the June 15, 2021 meeting. Karen Brinson Bell , the Executive Director of the NC State Board of Elections, approved the out-of- precinct polling place change for the 2021 Municipal Elections. Per statute, the polling place usage agreement must be reevaluated prior to the next election to determine whether it is still the only available option. In this precinct, the only available public facility is Winter Park Elementary School, which lacks adequate interior space for a voting enclosure and has insufficient parking to meet the needs of voters in this precinct. We have not been able to obtain permission from any other private facilities within the precinct boundaries to use their facility as a polling place for the 2022 elections. Sea Gate Baptist Church is still the only available option for precinct W18. Per N.C. Gen. Stat §163-130.1, county boards of elections, by unanimous vote of all its members, may establish a polling place for a precinct that is located outside that precinct. If granted approval by the Executive Director at the State Board, the polling place usage agreement must be reevaluated after the next general election to determine whether it is still the only available option. Document/s Included: Images of the current polling place for precinct W18; Resolution to Maintain Polling Place Change (W18) (Provided at Board Meeting) Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 5b Draft 1 Precinct W18 – Current Polling Place Polling Place Name & Address Sea Gate Baptist Church 6115 Oleander Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403 Aerial Image Polling Place is 2.7 miles from current polling place. Draft 2 Voter Parking Lot Polling Place Entrance Voting Enclosure Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 Subject: Adjustment to Precinct Boundaries for Precincts H03 and W18 for New Apartment Complex Applicable Statutes and/or Rules: N.C. Gen. Stat § 163-128 Summary: There is a new apartment complex under construction at 3528 Adirondack Way in Wilmington, NC that crosses the precinct boundary between W18 and H03. The county planning department cannot assign two address points to the same building, and the county board of elections cannot differentiate the geocode segment used to assign ballot styles by unit numbers. We need to adjust the precinct line to go around this building as opposed to going through it while without crossing the census blocks for the precincts. Both precincts share the same jurisdictional array as it relates to US Congress, NC Senate, NC House, and NC Superior Court. Both precincts are in the same municipality. Document/s Included: Images of the current and proposed precinct boundaries with census blocks for precincts W18 and H03, Resolution to Change the Precinct Boundaries of W18 and H03 (Provided at Board Meeting) Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 5c Draft Adjustment to Precinct Boundaries for Precincts H03 and W18 for New Apartment Complex New Apartment Complex at 3528 Adirondack Way Proposed Precinct Changes for W18 and H03 Draft Adjustment to Precinct Boundaries for Precincts H03 and W18 for New Apartment Complex Current Precinct Configuration of W18 and H03 Proposed Precinct Configuration of W18 and H03 Draft Adjustment to Precinct Boundaries for Precincts H03 and W18 for New Apartment Complex Current Precinct Configuration – All Precincts Draft Adjustment to Precinct Boundaries for Precincts H03 and W18 for New Apartment Complex Proposed Precinct Configuration – All Precincts Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 Subject: 2021-2023 Appointment of Judge 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. 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 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). Susan Walker was appointed to serve as the Republican judge for precinct W27 for the 2019-2021 term. Ms. Walker has agreed to serve in this role for the 2022-2023 term, since her appointment has held Item # 5d Draft over, pending board approval. The Chair of the NHC Republican Party has requested that Susan Walker be appointed at the Republican Precinct Judge for the balance of the 2021-2023 election cycle. Ms. Walker resides within the precinct boundaries of W27. Document/s Included: 2021-2023 Precinct Judge Nomination Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary and approval Draft Appointed Precinct Position Vacancy Recommended By: Party Affiliation Name Home Precinct Years of Service since 2014 Resident of Precinct (Y/N)Notes W27 J-R Board of Elections R Susan Walker W27 11 Y Ms. Walker was appointed to serve as the Republican judge for this precinct for the 2019-2021 term. Ms. Walker has agreed to serve in this role for the 2021-2023 term, since her appointment has held over, pending board approval. Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 2022 Subject: Adoption of FY 22-23 Recommended Continuation Budget Applicable Statutes and/or Rules: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-33 and 163-35 Summary: The attached proposed budget will cover the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 and is inclusive of the 2022 General Election. The preparation of the budget is a duty that was delegated by the county board of elections to the Director. The Board of Elections is administratively responsible for providing budgetary requests for the items allocated in the attached report. Document/s Included: FY 22-23 Next Year Budget Detail Report Board Action Required: Staff recommends Approval Item # 5e Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User:khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 1 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTED 16 BOARD OF ELECTIONS 10 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 11016102 400122 - COUNTY CANDIDATE FILING FEES 15.00 * Soil and Water Candidate Filing Fees 1.00 15.00 -15.00 11016102 400165 - FEES .00 11016102 400370 - PRINTING FEES 100.00 * Printing Fees for Public Records 1.00 100.00 -100.00 Requests TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 115.00 60 SALARIES & BENEFITS 11016100 610000 - SALARIES AND WAGES 424,020.00 * 1.00 .00 48,257.00 ELECTIONS SPECIALIST (1215) 1.00 .00 93,358.00 ELECTIONS DIRECTOR (10762) 1.00 .00 44,990.00 ELECTIONS LOGISTICS COORDINATO (11515) 1.00 .00 71,050.00 ELECTIONS DIRECTOR, DEPUTY (12155) 1.00 .00 55,000.00 ELECTIONS SYSTEMS SPECIALIST (16137) 1.00 .00 45,000.00 PROGRAM COORDINATOR (16196) 1.00 .00 32,373.00 ELECTIONS SPECIALIST (16426) 1.00 .00 33,992.00 ELECTIONS COMPLIANCE SPEC (16427) 11016100 611400 - TEMPORARY SALARY .00 11016100 611500 - CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES 227,822.00 * Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User:khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 2 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTEDOne-Stop Official Compensation Hourly 1.00 119,600.00 119,600.00 Wage $10 per hour plus $25 trainingOne-Stop Costs for 2022 GeneralElection includes compensation for 8 to10 officials working staggered shiftsfor up to 17 days for five (5) sites.Officialsare paid $10 per hour and receive $25for attending a 3 to 4 hour class.Estimated costs are based on previousone-stop schedules approved by theBoard and current statutoryrequirements.Multipartisan Assisatnce Team Member 1.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 Compensation$25 per visit for 2 Team Members plus$25 trainingMultipartisan Assistance Team includescompensation for 20 visits for the 2022General Election to assisted livingfacilities to assist residents withrequesting absenting by mail ballotsand completing absentee by mail ballotapplications. Required by statute.Election Official Compensation Chief 1.00 78,152.00 78,152.00 Judge, Judge, & Assistants 43 pollingplacesChief Judge, Judge, Assistant, andSupply Rover compensation includes flatrate for Election Day work plus $25 forattending a 3 to 4 hour mandatoryclass.Chief Judge and Judges receive anadditional $25 for supplementaltraining needed to properly preparethem to successfully execute requiredtasks on Election Day.Post-Election Audit Team Compensation.1.00 480.00 480.00 Eights officials at $10 per hoursaverage 3 hoursBoard Member Compensation 1.00 14,050.00 14,050.00 Chair and Four MembersBoard Member Compensation is based onmaximum salary for one board meetingper month. Maximum salary is $4,050 forchair and $2,500 for other four (4)board members receive $2,500.Part-Time Election 1.00 14,040.00 14,040.00 Administrative Assistant15 hours per week for 52 Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User: khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 3 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTED11016100 611500 - G0231 CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES .00 11016100 611500 - G0531 CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES .00 11016100 611500 - G0532 CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES .00 11016100 611500 - G0540 CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES .00 11016100 611500 - G0562 CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES .00 11016100 611600 - OVERTIME PAY (OTP) 8,227.00 * Overtime Compensation for 2022 General 1.00 8,227.00 8,227.00 Election Overtime pay for six (6) full-time employees. 150 hours for the Program & Outreach Coordinator, Database & Systems Specialist, and Logistics Coordinator. 120 hours each for two Elections Specialists. 20 hours for the Compliance Specialist. 11016100 611600 - G0231 OVERTIME PAY (OTP) .00 11016100 611800 - MISC PAY TAXABLE (MPAYT) .00 11016100 612000 - CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE .00 11016100 613000 - FRINGE BENEFITS - TAXABLE .00 11016100 621000 - SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES 32,067.00 * .00 .00 2,992.00 FICA .00 .00 700.00 MEDICARE .00 .00 5,618.00 FICA .00 .00 1,314.00 MEDICARE .00 .00 2,789.00 FICA .00 .00 652.00 MEDICARE .00 .00 4,387.00 FICA .00 .00 1,026.00 MEDICARE .00 .00 3,298.00 FICA .00 .00 771.00 MEDICARE .00 .00 2,790.00 FICA Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User: khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 4 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTED .00 .00 653.00 MEDICARE .00 .00 2,007.00 FICA .00 .00 469.00 MEDICARE .00 .00 2,108.00 FICA .00 .00 493.00 MEDICARE 11016100 621000 - G0231 SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES .00 11016100 621000 - G0531 SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES .00 11016100 621000 - G0532 SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES .00 11016100 622000 - RETIREMENT-LOCAL GOVT EMPLOYEE 48,338.00 * .00 .00 5,501.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT .00 .00 10,643.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT .00 .00 5,129.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT .00 .00 8,100.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT .00 .00 6,270.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT .00 .00 5,130.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT .00 .00 3,690.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT .00 .00 3,875.00 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT 11016100 623500 - GENERAL 401-K MATCH 10,600.00 * .00 .00 1,206.00 401K NHC RETIREMENT .00 .00 2,334.00 401K NHC RETIREMENT .00 .00 1,125.00 401K NHC RETIREMENT .00 .00 1,776.00 401K NHC RETIREMENT .00 .00 1,375.00 401K NHC RETIREMENT .00 .00 1,125.00 401K NHC RETIREMENT .00 .00 809.00 401K NHC RETIREMENT Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User:khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 5 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTED.00 .00 850.00 401K NHC RETIREMENT 11016100 625000 - MEDICAL INSURANCE EXPENSE 80,648.00 *.00 .00 10,081.00 BUD_MEDICAL/DENTAL .00 .00 10,081.00 BUD_MEDICAL/DENTAL .00 .00 10,081.00 BUD_MEDICAL/DENTAL .00 .00 10,081.00 BUD_MEDICAL/DENTAL .00 .00 10,081.00 BUD_MEDICAL/DENTAL .00 .00 10,081.00 BUD_MEDICAL/DENTAL .00 .00 10,081.00 BUD_MEDICAL/DENTAL .00 .00 10,081.00 BUD_MEDICAL/DENTAL 11016100 626000 - LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE 1,143.00 *.00 .00 130.00 BUD_LTD .00 .00 252.00 BUD_LTD .00 .00 121.00 BUD_LTD .00 .00 192.00 BUD_LTD .00 .00 148.00 BUD_LTD .00 .00 121.00 BUD_LTD .00 .00 87.00 BUD_LTD .00 .00 92.00 BUD_LTD TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 832,865.0070 OPERATING EXPENSES 11016100 700000 - CONTR SERVS 191,057.00 * Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User:khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 6 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTEDCell Phone Service Contract 1.00 942.00 942.00 Sonim XF5x Flip Phones monthly costsincluding active and inactive rates.$14.99 per line while active and .35cents per line when inactive. $749.50for one month when 50 phones areactive, and $192.50 for 11 months whennot activeDelivery and Pick up of Voting 1.00 15,750.00 15,750.00 Equipment and SuppliesDelivery of Voting Equipment for 2022General Elections (2 trucks forOne-Stop and 7 Trucks for Election Dayat $1750 per truckPitney Bowes Mailing Machine Lease 1.00 5,509.00 5,509.00 Mailing Machine and Postage Meter foroffice required to mail out voterregistration materials andabsentee-by-mail ballots in a timelymanner to comply with statutory andadministrative requirements.Plotter Lease 1.00 4,100.00 4,100.00 Generate maps and other outreachmaterials needed to effectivelyadminister elections.Election Coding for the 2022 General 1.00 7,100.00 7,100.00 ElectionBased on recent rates and projectedcosts for 2022 General ElectionRental of Laptops for 2022 General 1.00 48,686.00 48,686.00 ElectionRental of Laptops and Printers forTraining, One-Stop, and ED. Costs forcomputer rentals for electronicpollbooks and election officialtraining for 2022 General Election. Perthe recommendation of InformationTechnology and County Management, theBoard of Elections transitioned frompurchasing laptops to renting laptopsfor Training, One-Stop voting, andElection Day voting. Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User: khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 7 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTED Temp Employees through Temp Agency 1.00 85,553.00 85,553.00 for election support in the office Temporary Employees: Expenses related to utilization of a temporary agency to provide in-office clerical support prior for 2022 General Election. The estimated costs is $16 to $18 per hour, with additional 36% markup paid to agency. The use of a temporary employee agency will ensure the Board of Elections has adequate and consistent clerical support in the office during the election. In addition, this will ensure that the Board of Elections maintains compliance with the FLSA regarding hours worked in a year for truetemporary employees. Storage of Election Records 1.00 2,625.00 2,625.00 Wilmington Records Center: (0.4375) * (500) * (12) = $2,625 - Storage of election records at the Wilmington Records Center per recommendation of Facilities Management. Previously, election records were stored in the basement of the Main Library. Retention of Documents is a Statutory Requirement. Document Destruction 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Adherence to Retention/Destruction Guidelines Canvass Pro Plan 1.00 150.00 150.00 Yearly subscription to digital marketing platform that we use to create social media and marking materials EasyVote 1.00 6,750.00 6,750.00 Effective Management of Election Official Database Adobe Creative Suite CC2017 Cloud Based 1.00 2,880.00 2,880.00 Production of outreach and training materials for three licenses Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 1.00 816.00 816.00 Production and editing of .pdf documents for four licenses Articulate 360 1.00 2,598.00 2,598.00 Virtual training platform that includes both Storyline 360 to develop custom interactive courses that work on every device for two licenses Zoom 1.00 600.00 600.00 Easy access virtual training and outreach for three licenses Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User:khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 8 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTEDVyond1.00 1,998.00 1,998.00 Animation software for outreach andvoter education for two users 11016100 700000 - G0024 CONTR SERVS .00 11016100 700000 - G0137 CONTR SERVS .00 11016100 700000 - G0231 CONTR SERVS .00 11016100 700000 - G0531 CONTR SERVS .00 11016100 700000 - G0532 CONTR SERVS .00 11016100 700000 - G0540 CONTR SERVS .00 11016100 700000 - G0560 CONTR SERVS .00 11016100 700330 - RENT 1,750.00 *Private Polling Place Rental Fees 1.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 Rental fees of $125 per election for 14private facilities 11016100 700335 - RENT-EQUIPMENT .00 11016100 700350 - ADVERTISING COST 2,025.00 *Required Legal Notices and Voter 1.00 2,025.00 2,025.00 EducationStatutory Requirement 11016100 700350 - G0531 ADVERTISING COST .00 11016100 700365 - CELLULAR EXPENSE .00 11016100 700370 - POSTAGE EXPENSE 38,980.00 *Postage for Voter Card Mailings 1.00 24,900.00 24,900.00 Voter Card mailings trend overcomparable yearsPostage for Absentee by Mail Mailings 1.00 10,880.00 10,880.00 Abs by Mail mailing trends overcomparable yearsBusiness Reply Mail Account 1.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 Based on returned cards in comparableyearsPolling Place Change Notifications 1.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 Statutory requirement if change pollingplace or precinct boundaries Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User:khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 9 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTED11016100 700370 - G0024 POSTAGE EXPENSE .00 11016100 700370 - G0531 POSTAGE EXPENSE .00 11016100 700390 - TELEPHONE EXPENSE .00 11016100 700430 - M&R-EQUIPMENT 50,855.00 *Voting Equipment Maintenance Contract 1.00 50,855.00 50,855.00 Firmware/Software Agreement with ES&S 11016100 700500 - PRINTING 54,795.00 *Ballots for 2022 General Election 1.00 36,585.00 36,585.00 Statutory RequirementVoter Card Mailings 1.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 Estimated 65,000 cards x .09 per cardEnvelopes for Voting Notices 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Window EnvelopesEnvelopes for Administrative Letters 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Non-window EnvelopesBackup Paper Poll Book for 2022 General 1.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 ElectionEmergency Pollbook Labels and ReferenceCopyAbsentee Envelopes 1.00 3,850.00 3,850.00 Outgoing/Incoming Abs Envelopes (CIV,MIL/OVR)Provisional Envelopes 1.00 1,160.00 1,160.00 Statutory Requirements for ProvisionalVoting during One-Stop and on ElectionDay 11016100 700500 - G0531 PRINTING .00 11016100 700500 - G0532 PRINTING .00 11016100 700512 - PRINTER-COPIER COSTS &SUPPLIES 7,000.00 *Costs for copier usage 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 11016100 700512 - G0532 PRINTER-COPIER COSTS &SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700520 - SUPPLIES 84,495.00 *50 Regular Voting Booths and 26 ADA 1.00 12,997.00 12,997.00 Voting BoothsVoting Booth Enhancements Approved inFY20PPE Costs 1.00 6,445.00 6,445.00 PPE for In-Person Voting Sites Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User: khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 10 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTED Expenses related to regular office 1.00 2,519.00 2,519.00 supplies Supplies, water cooler, and plotter consumables Expenses related to election-specific 1.00 62,534.00 62,534.00 supplies Toner, ballot stock, BOD consumables, USBs,Seals, Tape, Storage Boxes, I-Voted Stickers, Security Seals, Polybags, and DS200 paper rolls 11016100 700520 - G0024 SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700520 - G0213 SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700520 - G0231 SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700520 - G0287 SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700520 - G0531 SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700520 - G0532 SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700520 - G0540 SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700520 - G0560 SUPPLIES .00 11016100 700542 - SUPPLIES-COMPUTER&OTHER .00 11016100 700542 - G0024 SUPPLIES-COMPUTER&OTHER .00 11016100 700542 - G0183 SUPPLIES-COMPUTER&OTHER .00 11016100 700542 - G0213 SUPPLIES-COMPUTER&OTHER .00 11016100 700542 - G0231 SUPPLIES-COMPUTER&OTHER .00 11016100 700548 - SUPPLIES - EQUIPMENT .00 11016100 700592 - SUPPLIES-PURCHASE OF COPIER-NO .00 11016100 700599 - PURCHASE CARD EXPENSE .00 11016100 700680 - ENHANCEMNT & STRATIGIC INTIA .00 Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User:khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 11 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTED11016100 700700 - DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 470.00 *Dues and subsciptions 1.00 470.00 470.00 Annual membership dues. Association ofDirectors of Election) and NorthCarolina Board of Election MembersAssociation. 11016100 700825 - EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENTS 250.00 *Reimbursement for election-related 1.00 250.00 250.00 expenses 11016100 700825 - G0231 EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENTS .00 11016100 700905 - TRAINING & TRAVEL 6,500.00 *Election-Related Conference Attendance 1.00 6,500.00 6,500.00 FeesRegistration and Hotel Fees for twoconferences 11016100 701050 - INSURANCE&BONDS .00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 438,177.00TOTAL BOARD OF ELECTIONS 1,271,157.00TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,271,157.00 GRAND TOTAL 1,271,157.00 ** END OF REPORT - Generated by KAREN HURLEY ** Draft NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT Report generated: 01/06/2022 16:33User:khurleyProgram ID: bgnyrpts Page 12 PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET ACCOUNTS FOR:GENERAL FUND VENDOR QUANTITY UNIT COST 2023 REQUESTEDField # Total Page Break Sequence 1 1 Y N Sequence 2 3 Y N Sequence 3 10 Y N Sequence 4 0 N N Report title: 01/06/2022 16:33 |NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE |P khurley |NEXT YEAR BUDGET DETAIL REPORT |bgnyrp PROJECTION: 2023 FY22-23 BUDGET FOR PERIOD 99 Report type:3 Include employee with benefit detail:N Budget level:1 Percentage change calculation method:1 Print detail lines:B Print first or second year of budget requests: F Print revenue as credit:N Include cfwd in rev bud:N Include cfwd in actuals:N Print totals only:N Include segment code:N Include report grand totals by account type: N Print full GL account:N Double space:N Suppress zero bdgt accts:N Print as worksheet:N Print percent change or comment:C Print text:N Amounts/totals exceed 999 million dollars: N Print five budget levels:N Report view:D Draft 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, 10/05/2021, 10/12/2021, and 10/19/2021 meetings. Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 6a Draft 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. Draft 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. Draft 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 Draft 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. Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft 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. Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft 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. Draft 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 Draft 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. Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft 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. Draft 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. Draft 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 Draft 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. Draft 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. Draft 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 Draft 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, Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft Board Minutes –10/05/2021 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections October 5, 2021 5:00 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, Election Systems Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees – In Person: Bob Gatewood; Gail Collier; Janet M. Heid; Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear; Becky Jaskey; John Jaskey; Stephanie Fortunato; Matthew Heiser; Susan Kreamer; Tom Kreamer; Annie Thi, YouCanVote. Public Attendees - Virtual attendees: Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Jody Kemp. OPENING Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:04 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. Chair Carter reminded the attendees that face masks are required under the mask mandate in effect in New Hanover County. This meeting is being livestreamed and recorded. AGENDA Member Kemp moved adoption of the agenda as submitted, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. Draft Board Minutes –10/05/2021 PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. He asked speakers to give their name before speaking. John Jaskey expressed his concerns about election integrity, raising a need to analyze the results of the 2020 election. He presented copies of three documents regarding forensic audits. Mr. Jaskey requested that Board order a formal forensic audit and preserve election records from the 2020 Presidential Election for that purpose. Matthew Heiser asked the Board for assurance that the public will have access to watch the counting of the vote on Election Day, citing NCGS §163-182.2. While he could not give that assurance at this time, Chair Carter could assure that this Board is committed to following the North Carolina General Statutes, North Carolina Administrative Code, and guidance from the State Board of Elections. He will provide clarity on public access to observe counting of ballots at a later time. Stephanie Fortunato, precinct chair for M04, noted the pandemic-related expanded requirements for absentee voting put in place for the 2020 election, including expanded early voting, relaxed voter identification, and the extended canvass period for absentee- by-mail ballots without legislative action. She has concerns regarding cleaning up voter rolls to remove deceased, ineligible and inactive voters; securing chain of custody for returned absentee ballots; and allowing bipartisan observers in polling places during opening and closing the polls. She offered to send her statement to the Board members and was directed where to find their email addresses. An unidentified in-person attendee asked Chair Carter for further clarification of his comment about bi-partisan teams of precinct officials. He explained that in all but two precincts, one Democrat and one Republican official are appointed. The exceptions include Unaffiliated voters as allowed by statute. There cannot be three judges of the same political party by statute. Becky Jaskey asked if the appointments are publicly available. Chair Carter responded that the names are public information and are available on the NHC Board of Elections website. She requested a full forensic audit of the results of the 2020 election to instill trust in the process, and asked the Board to hold a special meeting to begin the process. Chair Carter said the Board will hold the canvass of the 2021 Municipal Election on November 9 which is open to the public. Director Hunter-Havens said the absentee ballots would be counted on Election Day at 2:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public and will be live-streamed also. A special meeting will be held on November 8 where the Board will review the provisional ballots, and any absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day and received not later than November 5, in preparation for the final canvass the next day. Another learning opportunity is to serve as an observer appointed by one of the political parties. Susan Kreamer said she went through training today as a laptop operator and found the elections process to be far more secure than she had thought. She had two questions: are Draft Board Minutes –10/05/2021 mail-in ballots mailed only to voters who request them (yes), and are voting machines connected to the internet (no). Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment session. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter opened the General Discussion of other election-related matters. He notified the Board of his Order, dated September 26, 2021, appointing Anne Randall as Judge in Precinct W13 to fill a vacant position arising from the death of the previous appointee, effective September 27, 2021 at 4:00 p.m., pursuant to NCGS §163-41(d). Eight chief judge and judge positions remain to be filled. Appointees serve until their successors are appointed. Member Kemp asked whether Ms. Randall is a resident or non-resident of W13? Chair Carter said she is a non-resident transfer. Seven vacant appointments remain which will be addressed under New Business. Member Kemp asked about the timing and qualification of appointment of precinct assistants. By statute this is a Board responsibility. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to review the process. The Director said that the Board appoints chief judges and judges for two-year terms in odd-numbered years. County directors assign precinct assistants to serve election to election. They are not appointed by the Board because of high turnover and there are too many moving parts to the process. The political parties are encouraged to submit names and the staff recruits applicants through the elections website. Applications are due from four to eight weeks before Election Day to manage all aspects of the on-boarding, assessment, selection, training, and assignment processes. Statutory requirements for party affiliation representation are followed, along with consideration of prior experience, administrative skills, formation of functional teams, and scheduling for training. Member Hunter asked is this not one of the duties the Board has delegated to the Director? The Director said that traditionally county boards delegate the assignment of precinct assistants and filling vacancies among chief judges and judges to the Director. Director Hunter-Havens informed the Board of the September 4 State Board legal update that observers will be allowed during municipal elections going forward. She has forwarded the guidelines and deadlines to the county party chairs. NEW BUSINESS a.Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. The Board received two Uniformed and Overseas Civilian Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) ballots. UOCAVA voters are permitted to submit their ballot with a required signed attestation by email or through the State Board portal or by regular mail. The voted ballot is printed and placed in the absentee envelope and the attestation is Draft Board Minutes –10/05/2021 attached to the envelope. The Board circulated and reviewed the two UOCAVA ballots. Upon approval, the UOCAVA ballots will be secured to be duplicated and scanned at a subsequent Board meeting in preparation for counting on Election Day. A first mailing of approximately 300 absentee ballots have been requested and sent to date, compared to 18,000 in 2020. Member Kemp moved that two UOCAVA absentee ballot applications be approved, in accordance with NCGS §§163-229 (b) and 163-230.1 (e) (2020), second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. b.Chief Judge/Judge Substitutions to Fill Vacancies for the 2021 Municipal Election Only Chair Carter called on the Director for her report. Leading up to Election Day, the appointed chief judges and judges may become unavailable to serve. In recommending substitutes for unavailable appointees, the staff follows a sequence of factors, party affiliation of the unavailable appointee first, including contacting the party chair for assistance as needed; contacting on-boarded officials to discern interest in serving; precinct of residence; and skill sets and knowledge base for high quality and high functioning teams. There are eight substitutions recommended. Deputy Director Dawkins confirmed that seven of the eight recommendations are current appointed officials in precincts where municipal voting is not taking place, or have served in the role in previous elections. One is a new official recommended to get election experience. All have agreed to serve in the assigned position. In six precincts, balance between Democrat and Republican appointees is maintained, and in two the balance will be party and Unaffiliated officials with assistants appointed to achieve bipartisan teams. In no case are all three officials of the same party. Chair Carter called for any discussion by the Board. Member Kemp noted that in two precincts, H10 and W27, an Unaffiliated substitute is replacing a Republican appointed official. The county Republican Party has previously submitted names for these positions, and he would like the Board to consider those Republican nominees instead of Unaffiliated officials. Deputy Director Dawkins said that those names were reviewed for any who lived in the precinct needing a substitute and any new officials who had completed the on-boarding process. She reached out to assigned assistants of the same party affiliation to identify someone willing to serve. After those officials declined to serve or did not return calls, she moved on to Unaffiliated assistants. The list before the Board reflects the staff assessment that these are the right people to serve for this election and they have agreed to serve in this capacity. Chair Carter asked Deputy Director Dawkins to review the number of precinct official applications received in the past month and number of training and information sessions. She has reviewed about 60 applications received due to the additional efforts of both parties over the past month. She reached out to all applicants who applied by September 21. All applicants received an email inviting them to sign up for information sessions, which are scheduled for three session times on one or two days each week. Upon completing the information session, an applicant receives two emails, one to complete an Draft Board Minutes –10/05/2021 e-skills assessment of comfort with technology use which does not eliminate that applicant from consideration. The second follow-up email outlines the next steps the applicant must complete to become eligible to work an election, consisting of required HR forms (W-4, NC-4 and direct deposit) and a visit to HR to complete the I9 process to confirm eligibility to work in North Carolina. Once completed, the applicant is contacted to determine interest and availability to work in this election. Of the additional applications received, 45 signed up for an information session. Anyone who did not complete the HR process was sent a reminder email that the deadline to complete the process was 11:00 a.m. on October 4. Administrative deadlines are necessary as the on- boarding process must occur alongside training schedules and the dynamic assignment process to get officials trained and scheduled to work both One Stop early voting and Election Day, while backfilling positions where officials have become unavailable. Keeping in mind that these are not Board appointments but rather staff-initiated administrative assignments, Secretary Miller moved to support the administrative substitutions for the listed eight precincts for the 2021 Municipal Election only, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp noted that the agenda packet cites §163-41 as authority for this administrative action and asked which paragraph applies? Chair Carter said the cited section does not explicitly mention substitute appointments, but his review of about three dozen court decisions suggests that the courts frequently defer to the historical practices of the county board of elections that are consistently followed over time. Member Kemp pointed out that the list shows the chief judge position in H10 and judge position in W27 as vacant, which means that the Chair can make those appointments by statute. He noted that he relied on the Chair’s resolution in making several appointments at the last Board meeting, voting to appoint several Democrat judges but two of the Republicans appearing in that resolution were not appointed. He moved to amend the motion to remove H10 and W27 substitutions from consideration so that the Chair can make those appointments as authorized in §163-41(d). Secretary Miller seconded the motion to amend for purposes of discussion. Chair Carter said it may be misleading that these two substitutions are labelled “vacant” when in previous Board discussion we learned that the positions are not vacant. Director Hunter-Havens said that the 2019 appointees to the two positions in question did not confirm their availability to serve in this election, but are otherwise willing to continue serving, making these temporary vacancies. Chair Carter said he had worked with Member Kemp before the previous meeting to draw up the resolution he presented to fill several remaining appointments. Member Kemp thought going into that meeting that all members were on Board with those appointments and that was not the case. He had not circled back with Member Kemp after his one-on-one discussions with the other Board members to convey that everyone was not on board. He expressed his regret that he did not catch that misunderstanding earlier and did not get everyone on the same page before moving forward. He wants to take the question of when the Chair is authorized to make appointments under advisement. Draft Board Minutes –10/05/2021 Member Hunter said from the Board’s previous votes she thought the positions were clear. Coming into the last meeting it may be possible to have one impression, but the discussion made it clear where everyone stood. Her question is why the Board is having this discussion when the assignments are already made? Revisiting the matter is an unproductive use of the Board’s time. The positions were clear from the vote, some compromises were made and some were not. Chair Carter agreed that the previous meeting discussion was candid. The Open Meetings law restricts how the Board may communicate outside of meetings and there are good reasons for those restrictions. Member Bryan asked Director Hunter-Havens whether Board affirmation is required? She said that she prefers to have the Board’s unanimous support as has been given in the past, but it is not required to move forward administratively. All polling places are required to have a chief judge and judges as directed by §163-41 which is why it is cited as support, not for the process of appointment but for the fact that these positions are required by statute. Chair Carter said that he is opposed to the amendment. He prefers to give his support to all eight substitute assignments even if they may not have been his first choice to serve in these positions. To the extent that any of these assignments results in one of the parties not being represented, he would encourage both political parties, and particularly any party that may feel it is disadvantaged by the assignment, to assign observers in that precinct. Member Bryan said he initially was in the same place as Member Kemp but quickly realized everyone was not on the same page. He is satisfied that the administrative assignments for these precincts provide representation for both parties. He is also satisfied based on his previous experience that irregularities at the polls are almost non- existent. Secretary Miller said he planned to vote against the motion to amend and called the question on the amendment. He explained that a yes vote on the amendment changes the main motion to support the staff substitutions of six instead of eight names under consideration, a no vote keeps the main motion as a vote of support on all eight names. Member Kemp voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Member Kemp offered a substitute motion to remove the H10 chief judge and the W27 judge so that the Chair can appointment Republican replacements for the remainder of the terms under §163-41(d). Chair Carter ruled the motion out of order as this is a temporary substitution, not filling a vacancy, and there is a different motion on the floor. Member Kemp said his motion is a procedural one, to remove and replace the incumbent appointees who are unable to serve for this election, and appoint replacements to complete the terms. The substitute motion was not seconded. Member Kemp stated that he would vote no to prevent unanimous approval of the main motion. Director Hunter- Havens reminded the Chair that a unanimous vote is not required to support the substitutions. Draft Board Minutes –10/05/2021 Secretary Miller called the question on the main motion, to support the administrative substitutions for the listed eight precincts for the 2021 Municipal Election only. Chair Carter treated Secretary Miller’s calling the question as a motion to cut off debate, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Hunter and Kemp voted aye; Member Bryan voted no. Motion carried by majority vote. Chair Carter called the vote on the main motion. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion carried by majority vote. Member Kemp challenged the validity of the vote. The agenda cites §163-41 as the basis for the vote. He sees nothing in §163-41that supports this vote. He asked that his challenge be noted in the minutes. Everything the Board does regarding appointments under paragraph (c) requires unanimous votes, calling into question the validity of substitute assignments by majority vote. Director Hunter-Havens reminded the Board that this action is not appointing chief judges and judges. These are administratively making temporary substitute assignments under a policy followed by county boards state-wide and following the guidance of the State Board of Elections to staff polling places with chief judges and judges as required by statute. Chair Carter asked if the substitutes would take an oath (yes) and whether the assignments will expire upon completion of the final canvass (yes). Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he wished to put his previous motion back on the table for discussion. Member Kemp moved to remove the previously appointed H10 chief judge and the W27 judge, declaring those positions vacant, and the Chair appoint their successors as early as tomorrow pursuant to §163-41 (d), second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter said that §163-41 (d) provides that a vacancy arises when the appointee resigns, dies, is removed from office, or for other cause, and requires notice to the official under consideration for removal and an opportunity for that official to be heard. Member Kemp said that staff have made efforts to contact the incumbents without success and should serve as the required notice. Chair Carter said that the notice would need to be specific notice that the board is considering removing the person from the appointed position and give an opportunity for the person to be heard by the Board at a specific time and date. Member Bryan said he felt the Chair may be reading too much into what notice is required to satisfy due process for removal. Deputy Director Dawkins said these two officials have diligently served in previous elections. Before any steps are taken toward removing them, she would like the chance to attempt contact with them once more to honor their prior service. She would like to find out their intentions, whether they want to continue to serve. That effort would mean a lot to the officials before any formal steps are taken to remove them. Then those two precincts can be reassessed with the Board. Chair Carter said the point that resonates with him is these officials, appointed in 2019, have served well. The only reason removal is being considered now is that they did not respond to an email. They have done nothing wrong. Member Hunter said she trusts the process the staff followed to fill these positions, made necessary by the Board’s inability Draft Board Minutes –10/05/2021 to agree on the appointments. The Board needs to take the necessary action to get through the municipal election when it can revisit these appointments. The objection is the appointment of unaffiliated voters to serve but that does not disqualify them. She agrees with Member Kemp that bipartisan representation is needed. But someone who is registered as Unaffiliated meets the criteria to serve in these positions. After further discussion, Member Kemp withdrew his motion to allow the eight substitute assignments go forward and avoid delay. Member Bryan asked the party affiliation of the 2019 appointee as chief judge in H10. Deputy Director Dawkins, noting she does not have that information in front of her, said the usual procedure is to appoint someone of the party of the governor, then consider someone regardless of party who is willing to serve, their work history and the other factors. Member Kemp asked whether the open positions in W24 and W13 have been filled. Deputy Director Dawkins reported that temporary vacancies continue to arise in a number of precincts, but she has not yet identified temporary replacements to present to the Board today. This is a daily task at this point. Member Kemp said the Board could declare all the unfilled positions vacant, allowing the Chair to make the appointments as soon as tomorrow. Chair Carter said there are two schools of thought on that appointment process, but traditionally only one of the three positions can be filled by a non-resident following the section (d) process. That is the guidance received from the State Board. Secretary Miller said, based on last year’s experience, the Board will see lists of changes to be made at every meeting up until Election Day, that is how dynamic the process is. Procedural innovations made here, in the midst of the process, undermine stability. Member Kemp said he is trying to follow the code and is not asking for process changes. ADJOURNMENT Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:40 p.m., second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 12, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. APPROVED BY:RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: __________________________ _________________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Draft Board Minutes – 10/12/2021 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections October 12, 2021 5:00 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, Election Systems Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees – In Person: Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear; Gail Collier; unreadable name; Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP; Mike Fox; Claudia Campese; Elizabeth Richards; Susanne Werner, NHC DP; Susan Mulligan; John Jaskey; Becky Jaskey; Matt Heiser; Matthew Morrissey. Virtual attendees: Jeanette Koshar, AAUW; Mike (no last name); Thila Bell. OPENING Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:03 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 Kemp moved adoption of the agenda as submitted, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their phones; thanked them for honoring the County’s mask mandate; and notified the audience that the meeting is being recorded Draft Board Minutes – 10/12/2021 and live streamed. Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. Elizabeth Richards asked when will the mask mandate be lifted? Chair Carter told her that question is not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Elections. Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear asked how observers who are Unaffiliated may be appointed as observers, since there is no Unaffiliated organization to make appointments. She was advised to reach out to the party chairs. Director Hunter-Havens agreed to ask the State Board legal team for information on options for Unaffiliated voters. Mike Fox asked the Board to support a full forensic audit of the 2020 election. Chair Carter distributed a copy of the statute addressing post-election audits and pointed out that it charges the State Board of Elections with the process of auditing elections, and there is no legal process for the county boards to authorize an audit. Becky Jansky, noting the Board begins the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, asked why the Board did not also say a prayer. Claudia Campese said she supports the Board doing a forensic audit. Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP, asked whether voters will be required to wear masks to enter polling places. Director Hunter-Havens said precinct officials will be required to wear masks, but voters are requested but not required to wear masks under the current mask mandate. Mr. Rothlein asked whether observers will be allowed to review the absentee- by-mail return envelopes before they are accepted or tabulated, and when will that occur. Director Hunter-Havens confirmed with the State Board legal team that absentee-by-mail return envelopes are not public records while they contain a ballot, becoming public records only after the envelopes are opened and ballots removed. She so notified NHC GOP chair Knecht this afternoon. The applications approved to date will be opened and scanned at the October 19 meeting and she will set up a time to review the redacted container-return envelopes after that as timely as she can accommodate it. Matthew Morrissey offered information about a forensic audit process. Virtual attendee Jeanette Koshar, American Association of University Women, expressed her concerns about the cost of and challenges in the process to obtain voter identification should it be required in future elections. Elizabeth Richards asked about observers and mask requirements for voters and election workers. She demanded answers about when and how the mask mandate will be lifted. Chair Carter excused her from the meeting. Draft Board Minutes – 10/12/2021 Matthew Emborsky endorsed conducting a forensic audit of the 2020 election. Claudia Campese asked whether a non-municipal resident can serve as an observer in the municipal election and why can an Unaffiliated voter vote in a primary election. Member Bryan advised that the State party makes that decision. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment session. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter opened the General Discussion time for Board members and called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. She reported that the three One Stop early voting sites are set up for opening Thursday morning. Deputy Director Dawkins successfully contacted the two officials for H10 and W27, as discussed last meeting, and is awaiting confirmations of their willingness to continue serving. Member Bryan asked whether staff had encountered any difficulties with staffing three One Stop sites. The Director said the sites are staffed but, as with election Day officials, the situation remains dynamic with daily changes. She maintains a pool of emergency officials to draw on as openings occur. Chair Carter asked, looking ahead to final canvass, what issues might arise. The Director noted election protests, requests for recounts, and voter challenges may arise. During the pre-canvass meeting, the Board will oversee the hand-eye sample counts, part of the election audit process, review supplemental absentee-by-mail applications, and review provisional ballots. The pre-canvass meeting is scheduled for November 8, the day before canvass on November 9. NEW BUSINESS a.Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Director Hunter-Havens presented 7 absentee-by-mail ballot applications for Board review and approval or disapproval: 4 civilian with all requirements completed, 1 military, and 2 overseas absentee ballot applications meeting UOCAVA requirements for Board approval or disapproval, in accordance with NCGS §§163-229 (b) and 163-230.1 (e) (2020). For the civilian ballots, two have voter and two witness signatures, and two were signed by the voter and notarized. The military and overseas ballots have the required attestation attached to the container-envelope. A bipartisan duplication team is standing by to duplicate the military and overseas ballots which were submitted electronically. The Director passed the container-envelopes to the Board to review while protecting confidential information. Member Kemp moved approval of the 7 absentee ballot applications, in accordance with NCGS §§163-229 (b) and 163-230.1 (e) (2020), second by Secretary Miller. Motion Draft Board Minutes – 10/12/2021 carried unanimously. Board members signed the Absentee Meeting Ballot Certifications for the ballots approved today and for the two overseas absentee ballots approved on October 5. Chair Carter reviewed the statute regarding the authority of county boards of election to maintain order during its meetings. He advised that the Board will not tolerate disruptions of its meetings. He moved to bar the person who disrupted this meeting from the next meeting on October 19, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp asked if there is anything she might do to attend the next Board meeting. Chair Carter said that she could return to the October 26 meeting if she addresses election-related matters and refrains from addressing the mask policy. Secretary Miller agrees this person was out of order and disruptive in addressing matters not germane to the Board’s agenda, but he is more inclined to allow her to attend the next meeting if she is informed of the potential consequences of such behavior. Member Hunter said her behavior is inexcusable and, with her child being present, she was concerned with her unpredictable behavior. As Board members, residents, and taxpayers, no one should be subjected to that kind of behavior. Sheriff’s deputies will be present going forward. Member Bryan said that she may be barred from attending in person but would still have access through the live stream of the meeting. He has difficulty with banning her from a meeting. Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote on the motion. Chair Carter and Member Hunter voted aye; Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Secretary Miller moved that the Board request on-going law enforcement presence at their meetings, at least through the final canvass, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Member Kemp moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:14 p.m., second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 19, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. in 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 Draft Board Minutes – 10/19/2021 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections October 19, 2021 5:00 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 Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear; Matthew Emborsky; Jeanette Koshar; Susanne Werner, NHCDP; John Jaskey; Becky Jaskey; Matt Heiser. Virtual attendees: Julius Rothlein; Jim; Unidentified caller; Jody Kemp. OPENING Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:01 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. All members were present. Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence all cell phones; notified the audience that the meeting is being recorded and live streamed; and thanked them for honoring the County’s mask mandate which remains in effect. AGENDA Member Hunter moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTIONS Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions on Draft Board Minutes – 10/19/2021 topics relevant to matters within the jurisdiction of the Board, limited to two minutes each, and reminded speakers to observe proper deference and decorum toward the Board and staff. Virtual attendee Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP, made the following requests in the interest of transparency: 1.Following up his previous request of October 12, when will the Republican observers be able to review the absentee-by-mail container-return envelopes to be reviewed at this meeting and future meetings? 2.See the chain of custody logs completed for absentee ballots returned in person at the One Stop sites for verification of return by the voter or near relative. 3.Allow observers to enter the polling place at the same time as election officials to observe the opening of the DS200 machines, including inspecting the emergency bin and the blue bin to ensure they are empty. 4.Allow observers to see the opening zero tape signed by the precinct officials. 5.Allow observers an alternate location to view the DS200 during voting. 6.Confirm that all ballots placed in the emergency bin are scanned and the bin is empty. 7.Allow observers to manually count all ballots in the DS200 at closing before being placed and sealed in polybags, to verify the machine count. Attendee Jeanette Koshar called for less divisiveness and finding common ground to preserve one of the pillars of democracy, free and fair elections. Procedures for absentee ballots require checks and balances without workarounds, such as signature comparison. North Carolina is one of three states that require two witnesses for absentee-by-mail, a difficult hurdle for the elderly and those who live alone. Attendee Matthew Emborsky requested the presence of observers during tabulation and compilation of voting results. He advocated for post-election audits to verify results, detect fraud, and identify problems with voting systems. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the public comment and question period. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report on the status of the municipal election. The three One Stop sites processed about 1,500 voters during the first two days of early voting. The second week is usually slower. Approximately 350 absentee-by-mail ballots have been sent to mostly military and overseas civilian. The goal for turnaround upon receiving a request for an absentee-by-mail ballot is the next business day. Chair Carter asked about the scheduled pre-canvass meeting on November 8. Director Hunter-Havens said that meeting was set for 2:00 p.m. by the Board Resolution adopted August 17. Draft Board Minutes – 10/19/2021 Secretary Miller asked for an update on staffing polling places for Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens said that process remains dynamic with officials notifying the office to decline serving this time. Deputy Director Dawkins knows where there are holes in the schedule and is working on replacements while also monitoring One Stop and training. Attention is paid to the party affiliation of the person dropping out and the balance in the precinct. Deputy Director Dawkins has reached out to the H10 and W27 2019 officials as the Board requested in the October 5 meeting. The H10 official has agreed to work, and response is pending from the W27 official. In response to a question from Member Kemp, the Director confirmed that the office is now fully staffed with the new employees continuing to learn their positions. In addition, she has brought in seven temporary employees to support the work of the staff and office in preparations for the election. That number will increase to about 15 for the 2022 Primary. Member Kemp asked the status of his previous request to review the chain of custody log for in-person returned absentee-by-mail ballots. The Director has submitted the request to the SBE legal team for guidance on procedures for shielding confidential information to make that happen. NEW BUSINESS a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Director Hunter-Havens presented 29 absentee-by-mail ballots for Board review and approval or disapproval: 2 UOCAVA and 27 civilian applications are recommended for approval today. She drew the Board’s attention to one container-return envelope where a notary is the witness. The notary’s commission expires 8/9/2022 but the notary wrote 8/9/2021. According to NCGS §10B-67, entry of an erroneous expiration date does not affect the notary’s certification if the notary is lawfully commissioned at the time of affirmation. Approval of the application is recommended. The Director passed the container-envelopes, sorted by precinct, to the Board for review. Member Bryan asked how many deficient applications have been received? There have been two or three which were spoiled and reissued. None have required a cure certification so far. Member Kemp asked whether absentee-by-mail voters are required to include a photocopy of their photo ID with their ballot? Under the current court order, photo ID is not required. Secretary Miller asked the Director to review the process for scanning the approved absentee applications. The approved ballots will be removed from the container-return envelope and scanned, but not tabulated, using the DS800. The ballots are then secured, and the scan results are stored on secure USB drives and held securely until 2:00 p.m. on Election Day when the scanned results will be tabulated for posting after the polls close. Once the ballots are removed and any confidential information is redacted, party observers will be able to review the container-return envelopes. One additional step in the process today is duplicating the UOCAVA ballots which are received electronically and any machine-rejected ballots. A bipartisan duplication team is standing by to do that duplication, involving a caller, a marker, and a monitor. The Board will review both the electronic ballot and the duplicate ballot for accuracy. Draft Board Minutes – 10/19/2021 At the completion of the Board’s review, Secretary Miller moved acceptance of the 29 absentee ballot applications, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented the electronic poll book for 1,554 absentee ballots cast at the three One Stop early voting sites through October 18. She said, in the last step of Election Day preparation after the One Stop sites close on the final Saturday, the One Stop voting history updates the electronic pollbook on every laptop for Election Day and secured for delivery to each polling site on Monday. Secretary Miller moved approval of the One Stop electronic poll book as submitted, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. Member Hunter moved to authorize the staff to prepare and scan the approved absentee ballots, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. Upon conclusion of scanning, Director Hunter-Havens reported that 38 ballots were scanned as the Board approved on October 5, October 12, and October 19. ADJOURNMENT Member Bryan moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:41p.m., second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 26, 2021, at 5:00p.m. in 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 Draft Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections January 11, 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 Draft