You
From
Mr.
And
PTom
And
Tyr
In a
Isn't it
Our
believe
It
administrator wolf has this meeting been properly noticed yesterday's meeting was noticed in
accordance with wisconsin's open meeting laws thank you i asked that this meeting be put on our
calendar primarily to address the recent information that came to light regarding
the discovery by madison officials city of madison officials of 200 ballots that were not
tallied were not accounted for and it started it i believe december 20th or so or december 19th
when the commission first discovered that this was even an issue and as is set forth in our
materials you'll see sort of the timeline of what our staff discovered and what they tried to
figure out um we then as is also in the materials as some of the appendices received
statements from the madison city attorney and the madison clerk
i asked our staff to answer the question of whether and what authority we had as a commission
to instigate our own investigation into this matter um we are the final canvas we are the final
arbiters of the votes in the state of wisconsin and we needed to know why those ballots weren't
accounted for and weren't included in our canvas um the integrity of the election process is
important and we needed to know and understand this so i asked staff what authority do we have
to investigate and what does that look like um and what you have in front of you is a memo
from staff summarizing the answer to that question and also summarizing the things that we can do
as a commission and i want to be clear that this was at my instigation and request
that there is no position of staff one way or another on what we should do or whether we should
do it but rather this is an answer to my very specific question um the sum total of the information
we have as to the matter of these missing ballots is contained in this memo um this is literally
everything we know if you include those appendices we have no additional information
and that's why i think an investigation is important i also thought it was very important
that this commission convened as a group to address this important issue and i also thought
it was important that we do so formally and that we do so following our powers and the available
statutes um sometimes we address things that are more um just a matter of exchanging a few
documents or a few calls um we we've certainly done it that way in the past but given the seriousness
of what happened here our lack of knowledge information that was not given to us in a timely
fashion i think we need to do something more um formal and and the like um so i asked council
for the wc to tell us the answer to what can we do and how do we do it um and i'm going to ask
attorney sharp to give us that introduction and again procedurally today's meeting is simply
do we want to investigate um and my suggestion obviously is i think we should
my other suggestion was that we do a two-member bipartisan drafting of what those questions and
document requests look like um and um i would suggest that don and i simply draft those
drafted more discovery um that are our esteemed staff council um and we have templates for these
sort of things and can probably get that out very quickly um and also that we make public
what it is we're asking for in other words that this process be transparent so that the public
knows that we are working on this what we're asking for and so that we can make sure that
folks understand how seriously we're taking this so i'm going to begin by asking attorney sharp
to summarize what we are allowed to do and what that process looks like thank you chair jacups
and good morning commissioners um the memo for this agenda item begins on page three of your
materials and is accompanied by attachments a through f um so as the chair said this discussion
does pertain to the 193 absentee ballots that the city of Madison did not count during the
November 5th 2024 general election and i do want to reiterate at the outset that the commission
staff have verified independently that these uncounted absentee ballots did not impact any
federal state or local race or referenda on the ballots in question um so if it's okay
with you chair jacups i'd first like to start by providing an overview of how the situation first
came to commission staff's attention and then i can provide a summary of the statutes that
govern the commission's investigation authority please do so okay um so on the afternoon of
December 18th 2024 the city of Madison clerk's office staff contacted commission staff to request
assistance with entering their reconciliation data from ballots cast during the November 5th
general election the city of Madison explained that they had realized that two of their awards
had absentee ballots that were not processed on election day this meant that their total ballots
issued number did not match their voter participation numbers meaning they had more ballots recorded
as received than ballots counted the city of Madison staff sought the commission staff's
assistance with entering and recording the uncounted ballots in the statewide voter registration
system and it appeared that the primary purpose of the initial outreach from the city clerk's office
was data entry system assistance not solely to notify the commission of the uncounted ballots
during this election the next day on December 19th commission staff requested a call with the
city of Madison clerk the Madison city attorney and irrelevant members of their staff in order
to gather additional information on December 20th that call took place and commission staff
requested that clerk witzelbell provide a detailed statement regarding the uncounted absentee ballots
including how many ballots were uncounted and when the clerk's office first discovered these errors
clerk witzelbell provided a statement to commission staff on Monday December 23rd
and I will note even though the memo that was provided with the clerk's office press release
was dated December 20th it was received by commission staff on December 23rd.
On December 26th clerk witzelbell's office issued a press release disclosing the uncounted ballot
situation to the public and the mayor also issued her statement and then also on December 26th as
chair Jacob said she directed commission staff to prepare a memorandum outlining the legal process
for the commission so it could consider opening an investigation pursuant to Wisconsin statute
5.06 subsection 4. So the purpose of the investigation would be to create a complete record of what
transpired so that the city of Madison can implement improved policies and so that all
Wisconsin clerks can benefit from understanding how to avoid similar issues in the future.
So Wisconsin law does expressly permit the commission on its own motion to investigate
and determine whether any election official with respect to any matter concerning election
administration or conduct of elections whether that official has failed to comply with the law
or has abused the discretion vested in him or her or intends to do so.
After such an investigation the commission is authorized to summarily decide the matter
and may by order require any election official to conform his or her conduct to the law
to restrain them from taking any action inconsistent with the law or to require the
official to correct any action or decision that is inconsistent with the law and if that language
sounds familiar your note that the order that would be issued for after an investigation is the
same type of order and decision that the commission would issue to resolve a 5.06 complaint.
So if the commission does choose to authorize an investigation there are a
remainder of the memo and your materials outlines the areas of inquiry that staff compiled as
likely to result in pertinent information given the subject matter. So given all of that I'm happy
to answer any questions but I will turn the remainder of this discussion back over to Chair
Jacob's for this agenda item. Are there questions for attorney sharp regarding what
the process would look like for an investigation or authority anything like that?
Commissioner Spindell. Yes I was just wondering in terms of why we want to do an investigation
as opposed to taking a complaint on this and what the difference could be in terms of
doing the investigation versus doing the the staff work on the complaint.
So that that's a fair question and that was part of the discussion I had late December with staff.
And my inclination was that this was such a serious oversight
and I didn't want to wait for a complaint. I felt it was important that the commission
act promptly and also that we use the powers that we have to get out the information we want
because remember in a complaint process we get a complaint we send it to the
respondent to give us some reply or response to it.
That response may not have the answer to the questions we want and I have real questions
about what all happened here that would probably be broader than what would be raised in a complaint
and I would want to know those answers sooner rather than later. Some of it is just speed.
I thought this was so egregious that it was important we we move immediately.
Commissioner Thompson and then Boston.
Now I think this is a good idea and in response to
Commissioner Spindell doesn't preclude a complaint being filed at all. It just gives us
you know a better ability to go gather all the information. We haven't done that before.
This is a good time to do it.
And the other thing I noted that we got a comment I think
from the City of Madison clerk just I saw that in saying that they would
fully cooperate and that we didn't even have to send formal. So I mean I think
finding out
you know how 193 ballots didn't get counted because there are a lot of hands on these ballots.
And so I'm curious how it happened. So I thought it was a good idea and I think we should go forward.
Commissioner Bosselman.
Well when I first started looking at this I think I was looking at it from the perspective
of the clerk and I'm thinking to myself if if there was some type of a misstep that happened
it could happen in a different municipality a smaller municipality or bigger municipality.
And I just think it's important to understand you know what happened how it happened.
What needs to be done to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Because I look at it as we that eventually the Commission would be able to give guidance
making sure that don't don't miss this step in the future. And that's how I looked at it.
I didn't look at it as a as a a complaint of a complaint is filed that's fine.
But I looked at it as the position that the that our Commission is in is to make sure that
we do whatever we can to provide guidance that it doesn't happen anymore.
And unless we find out how it happened I don't know that we can give that guidance.
So I look at it as a as a positive in a sense that how do how do we move forward from this
and how do we make sure this does not happen again in the future.
So that's how I look at it.
Mr. Miller I saw your hand up.
Yeah I agree the legislature was certainly concerned about the
investigative power of the government accountability board when it
eliminated that agency and created this agency in the ethics commission.
But the legislature also explicitly said that the Commission in very limited circumstances
and this is one of them may on its own motion investigate an election official.
There are the the powers as I read the stats powers of the Commission
are a little bit more limited when it's done its own motion than when there's complaint.
And I think that's fine.
My concern here is not with the magnitude or the magnitude is significant.
The issue is why was this not determined or caught by the time of the either the local
canvas of the county campus.
And you know these errors can happen and it seems to me knowing what little we do know
is my assumption is either there was a failure to follow procedures or our procedures aren't
good enough and we have the correct and so I think one of those two things has occurred
and I think it's incumbent upon us to determine that.
And I'm glad to see that the city of Madison is now saying that they will cooperate.
I'm a little my biggest I saw my biggest concern here is why it took
a month and a half for this to come out.
And that's very very disturbing and I'm hoping we can determine why that happened as well.
Commissioner Spindall.
Yeah.
I just I understand what we're talking about in terms of the complaint process and so forth.
And this is brand new for us.
I guess we've had a couple opportunities to do an investigation before which did not go through.
And I guess we need to take a look at is this something that we want to get into.
Are we opening Pandora's box by starting to you know to to do this.
And I think that the points have been very well laid out in terms of what's happened here in
Madison and what's happened here in Madison and in terms of what we need to do going forward.
And it is taking a quite a step and as Don mentioned one of the reasons for the GAB
being dissolved in the Wisconsin-Lesh commission starting was that the investigation
by the GAB really got out of hand.
But I think we're sort of limited in this and that we're talking only about that we're able
to investigate the actions of the in terms of the you know election officials.
And it seems to me that if we're going to investigate Madison which in my opinion the
sins basically were the discrepancies not being caught by the canvassing either the city or county
canvassing boards or in the 36th state of LA in terms of getting this this information to
WAC which should have been coming to us immediately.
Then I call on the commission to investigate the same sort of thing at the what happened at
the central count on November 5th and the many problems and discrepancies which here
you know brought major international media concerns as well as the Trump campaign
Republican Party concerns in terms of what took place there with the results not being
reported until 4.35 a.m. so I think if we do if we do one then we need to you know to do both.
I'm commissioner Thompson then bustleman the you know I think commissioner spindell
the you imply that Milwaukee because the count came in or the at four something in the morning
had something to do with something inappropriate when we all know there was legislation pending
that wasn't signed that would allow people to start that process early.
There there is no similarity between what had happened in Milwaukee and in Madison.
I think that what we have on the table is a proposal to investigate Madison.
I think we should do it if there's a complaint that comes in on Milwaukee it's there but I don't
think we should muck up the process we should get at I mean Don is really right that when we when
I first heard about I go like you know I didn't know how could happen that you know 193 days
I mean 193 ballots and it was like I mean that should have been picked up at the canvas and so
as Mark said we got to find out what happened so if we we need better guidance we need to do it
or as Don said you know figure it out and I don't think it serves
our the bigger picture Bob to throw Milwaukee in and start 2025 and that kind of partisan
manner anyway so that's my comment I'm not sure boss woman well I still look at this
probably is maybe is a bigger picture maybe from a clerk's perspective but I see this is being
procedural and I see this is something that can happen somewhere else even though it's never
happened before and I think it's just important that if there's a safeguard if there's a guidance
that we need to give to make sure that that this doesn't happen again I think it's important
that we find out how how it happened and what we need to do to give that guidance I don't look at
this as a as a blame anybody I'm looking at this from the perspective of how do we make
sure this doesn't happen again and how do we make sure that all the polling places in the state
all the municipalities in the state are following a procedure to make sure this doesn't happen
again I'm and like I say I'm not looking at this as a punishment or something we need to
investigate we need it because of the wrongdoing we need to investigate it to make sure it it
goes smooth in the future and that we don't have any other problems and that's how I look at it
I look at it as a solution not an investigation to find wrongdoing I look at it as an investigation
to find a solution that it doesn't happen again thank you and I think that following up on what
you just said March we have an election in February so we we need to know what went wrong sooner
rather than later and Bob that's also an answer to your question of why aren't we waiting for a
complaint we have about six weeks until our next election so the more information we can learn
about what went wrong even if we're only able to send out a quickie clerks memo saying hey
there's a step here don't forget about it as we work on more formal guidance I think we want to
do that because certainly our February and April elections for a judge and the like we we have
elections that are separated by 200 votes in April and in February that's that's not uncommon
so I definitely think that our duty to figure out what happened and help our clerks so that
it doesn't happen again is important the other thing too is when we've had other mistakes made
by municipalities when now I forget the name of the town up north gave the wrong ballot to 100
people we knew about it within minutes of it happening of them figuring out what happened we
were in the loop we were able to work with them to figure out the solution we figured out what
the problem was we put it in our canvas so that when we canvassed at the state level we were able
to incorporate that and and that sort of transparency is just sort of missing here so we can't be a
part of the solution until we know what went wrong and and unfortunately we just don't right now
there is a recommended motion commissioner we pull head or hand up oh I'm sorry commissioner
Rabel please go ahead no that's okay I was going to completely agree with Marge and
poll worker and clerk error happen this is about making sure it doesn't happen going forward
um and I completely understand how they wouldn't find out about it in the canvas
if it wasn't until they started to reconcile that they discovered it so I think there's
there's some process or procedure that just it needs to be corrected
Mr. Miller so I would make the recommended motion with option number one
I'm sorry you're making the recommended motion with option one option one to summarize and
return it to the commission yes okay that's the motion is there a second
a second commissioner bustleman I saw your hand up first commissioner bustleman said seconds
is there further discussion regarding this motion commissioner spindel go ahead yeah I'd like to make
a friendly amendment to this motion that the Wisconsin Lex Commission authorized an investigation
pursuant to Wisconsin's statute 5.064 to determine whether or not the city of Milwaukee
election commission executive director Paula gaziras and the deputy director
Bonnie Chang has failed to apply the law and abusive discretion regarding the problems
resulting in the central count and vote not being received to the public at approximately 4.25 a.m.
on November 6. Since I think that's not likely to be agreed by one I will second the motion
for purposes of discussion okay so second the motion sorry but so that's just a ridiculous
and bizarre conspiracy theory since we literally knew that's what was going to happen we put out
press releases that that was what was going to happen we issued statements that that was going
to happen we talked to national media explaining that was going to happen and we have not I would
point out received a single complaint about it so this supposed concern by partisan people
about this apparently was not so concerning that in the two months giver takes since that election
nobody made a complaint nor is there a plausible explanation of how
that what could possibly be the abusive discretion other than just reiterating a word that's a
foundation for it so I'm not going to support that that's a waste of our time and energy if
someone wants to file a complaint and allege something specific that they think was a violation
they're allowed to do it but nobody's done it so can't be that important to folks right now
and this isn't a tip for tap this is that that's not how this works we don't punish one person
because we're dealing with someone else that's just not how this works I can't imagine that's how
we want it to work commissioner boston and I see your hand right and having seconded that motion
I would I wouldn't accept that as friendly emotion and I would just make the recommendation if if
commissioner spindell would like that that he make a motion after this one and that we deal with
it as a separate motion okay well isn't there a time wise moving to amend the motion
he asked for a friendly amendment you don't know she's correct she's seconded so
it can't be accepted as a friendly amendment because she is the seconded person if he wishes to move
he can move to amend the motion to include that and then we vote on the amendment and then we return
to the original motion if he wishes to amend the motion to whatever he just read he can do that
but that wasn't what he amended so I think marjor's point of order is accepted and there is no
friendly amendment so I think okay what I understood he's saying is that he wants to amend the motion
is that right commissioner spindell that's correct no he has to make a new motion because
this motion was not procedurally correct if he wants to make a new motion he can make a new motion
okay if you'd like me to do that I'll be happy to do that again would you like me to repeat that
you have to put it in proper form okay my motion would amendment to this motion is at the
wisconsin election commission which is a commission authorizes an investigation pursuant to wisconsin
statute 5.064 to determine whether or not the city of moiaki election commission executive
director pala gazarus and the deputy director bani chain has failed to apply the law and abused
their discretion regarding the the identified problems in the pursuing the central count
and vote not being released to the public until approximately 4.25 a.m. on november 6 and
is that your motion after that motion no no nope nope nope we're going to follow procedure is that
your motion don't tell me about after the motion that is that your motion your motion to amend
yes my motion to amend oh second there's a second to make mr millis I have a point of order I want
to ask attorney with tecca are we noticed to deal with that issue that was obviously why I had my
hand raised on the document I think the commission doesn't need to examine whether we would be
um we did essentially notice this meeting for almost verbatim what commissioner spindell
read with regard to the second municipality but our agenda only contemplates the city of
madison and so I think it would more likely be appropriate under the open meetings laws
to perhaps note that that should carry forward to the next agenda if the commission's vote
we can put that for another meeting okay so i'm looking at our open session agenda
item c reads discussion and possible action on authorization of wistat 5.06 sub 4
investigation of city of madison clerk regarding 193 uncounted absentee ballots for november 5
2024 general election
so it does not appear we are noticed to address this as to the city of milwaukee
at all um so I don't believe the commission can hear it at this meeting
i just spindell you want to be heard on i think you should tell me why we would have the right
to that's why i am i think the whole purpose of this meeting from what i could read here
was to determine whether or not we were going to do an investigation
and the investigation that's listed here happens to be in the city of madison but the the main
purpose of this meeting as you outlined when you first spoke was whether or not the commission
should do an investigation so this is the important part point here in my opinion
in terms of whether or not the the commission is going to move forward with a new program
basically of doing investigations such as this and the so i think that's a wrong reading of the
uh of the thing i think this is certainly open uh the the fact that the commission
is going to decide whether or not to do an investigation is the main purpose here and therefore
that bringing in the city of milwaukee and and there are several problems i i know uh commissioner
topson uh said that there's no real problems there well uh you know i don't want to go through a
list um the workers showing up an hour late the door to the high speed counters closed at nine
but then open uh no urgency through it but yet a highly experienced staffs of supervisors uh
uh it's supervising the whole process so i i think uh that the investigation the word investigation
opens us up for additional uh talk in memos and so forth and so on on uh investigations additional
investigations as well i believe as chair
i have to rule that the motion is out of order because we are not properly noticed
for that motion i just have one question and then we move on is that all right the question uh go
ahead and ask your question this question is to you are you willing to put on a future agenda
uh maybe the next one that calling for an investigation of the city milwaukee
election commission central count situation on November 5th 2025 only if i am provided with some
reason why that investigation is needed in other words if you and you you and i can talk to each
other two people can talk if you want to send me specifically what it is that you believe warrants
an investigation in other words information that is not known or has not been provided
to this commission or the press or elsewhere such that our work on this is required
in other words that there's a mystery out there that you want solve
um then we can put it in front of the commission to address but if it's just i don't like how
they handle things and i want them to be uh brought up in front of the commission for some reason to
embarrass or to yell at them or something that's not an effective use of commission time so if you
want to provide to me some sort of statement of what it is specifically that happened that requires
investigation that's not otherwise available um i am willing to consider that so just plan ahead
on doing that don't give it to anyone else just a reminder we can't happen yeah could i ask that
maybe that i present the information or that the information presented to both you and uh into
don and basically no you can't do that bob you can't have three commissioners talking about
something unless you do it in a public meeting otherwise that's a walkie
that the city and walkie election commission is not incompetent it has been uh as has been
alleged they're very competent and there are major problems that occurred during this time in my
opinion uh being election commissioner for 18 years in the city of walkie i'm gonna cut you off
notice we're not noticed on this we're not noticed on it we're not
you you offer to comments are also uh we'll get the information to you you can get me specifically
what your questions are it's on the record here of what i'm telling you sure um but i'm
ruling that the motion is out of order which leaves us with the original motion which was set forth
on page seven of our material having chosen option one commissioner tomsen yes i've moved
the question okay the question having been moved is there any objection hearing none we're going
to call the vote commissioner bostleman aye commissioner millis aye commissioner beeple aye
commissioner spindell aye commissioner tomsen aye chair votes aye the motion is passed commissioner
millis and i will be working today to try to get those questions in proper form and hopefully out
by the end of business today is my goal the next item on our agenda is put there because we do have
an election coming up in february and we do want to address the um just the deadline so
anyone who is challenging the uh nomination papers of someone has the appropriate deadlines
who's presenting on this one that would be me madam chair all right turnie would tuck please
go ahead absolutely um just uh quick uh procedural statutory background so for the spring of 2025
election we know that circulation nomination papers is happening from december 1st through
in january 7th and the commission has already scheduled and agreed upon a time and date of january
14th 11 a.m. the hearings is a nomination paper challenges and ultimately grant ballot access
to qualifying candidates so following administrative code both after two as well as some of the
timeline statutes such as wistat chapter 990 we have made a series of
i don't want to call them recommendations but essentially determinations here that are laid out
at what we believe the timeline to be based on all of those qualifications the primary
before the commission other than reviewing and uh considering both additional times would whether
or not at a rebuttal uh final rebuttal uh filing process to come from the calendar it has been
granted for the last two election cycles uh for the grand fall processes in 2024
so the consideration of whether or not allowed would essentially shoehorn that one additional
filing uh in the morning of january 14th before the commission meet so would likely look much
like it has in the last couple of polls where the commission has been provided with all relevant
materials they are filed in real time and then if there is a rebuttal filed on that morning
we will get to those documents immediately and add that to any materials that we have compiled
to advise the commission on at 11 a.m. for that ballot access meeting and so i would be happy to
field any additional questions you might have on this process but that being kind of the primary
consideration outside of what have been done in the same cycles prior to that okay commissioner
millis i guess i reluctantly agree with the idea of having rebuttals
reluctance is just the frustration with the tight statutory schedule that we're obligated to
comply with my only uh comment on this or my primary comment is i think that we and i thought
we did this in the past but make it clear that the content of any rebuttal has to be limited to
factual or legal arguments made by the challenger's response i don't i don't think we should consider
any new evidence right new legal arguments it's a rebuttal is a rebuttal you're rebutting only those
items that were raised by the challenger in the challenger's response i think that's a good point
because it also minimizes the nature and type of the response and makes it more
accessible and i also agree with that i think rebuttals are really helpful
because then we can go into reading knowing what we're actually arguing about
because otherwise we have this happened no that happened and the nice thing about rebuttals is
sometimes we get them saying well yeah they're right about these but we're going to continue
our complaints about these others and i think that's been um very helpful in focusing the work
we need to do um it has helped focus i think staff presentation where they can be like well
we're not dealing with these so we're not even going to worry about those that's been conceded
we're just going to focus on that and i i think that's been very helpful um can i share spindle
yes just a question um we talked about this before that the challenger must notify
the candidate or whatever of the complaint and then they have to show to us that they really
tried and we all know with computers having problems and they forget to put the dot in between
George and Smith uh that it's very possible that the candidate does not get notified
and so all of a sudden the candidate hears about it during our particular discussion
and also i think we talked at one time about the uh staff of the commission making sure that they
also notified uh the candidate to try and uh make sure that that was actually received and it seems
to me that because of this new process and i guess we haven't had to have for 150 years
that the candidates any candidates who are challenged uh should certainly notify
you the uh the chair uh at the appropriate time that they want to speak and that way that in case
there is a rebuttal to the challenge the candidate gets an opportunity uh to talk about that rebuttal
as well and i think those are very important um aspects of it i i do not think that this is a good
idea our our major objective should be to try and get people on the ballots and not try and find
reasons to um keep them off and again uh why do we need to do this now we haven't done it for
you know i guess since this process started um just so you know Bob in the materials is a
specific deadline by which people are required to tell us what time they want us that they want
to speak so that we can prepare that's actually in that memo so we do that so that everyone knows
that and they and they know the deadline for doing it um so that's one part of that and i think
you're misunderstanding it's this is designed to figure out what we're actually arguing about
that's what rebuttals solve for us they answer the question of what's actually an issue in this
uh challenge and i it has been my experience more often than not that the rebuttals we've gotten
have conceded that the candidate was correct in a certain number of them or that they have
rehabilitated signatures in a certain number of them and has allowed us to focus only on those
things that are not in dispute and i i think that's been a real help in understanding these
challenges you know some of these challenges are you know 300 pages it's really nice to know that
we're only focusing on 50 um and i think that's what rebuttal does for us and um and i do think
it's really been a net positive for our meetings on this because otherwise we wound up with people
talking and they're essentially doing a rebuttal in the talking and that's much less helpful and
i think can be and then it's just sprung on all of us like oh we just learned something as you're
speaking to us and i think that's um a less than ideal well i think that we just had this for
one election the first election we did not have that because it was too close to to the election
however i i think the the thing i'm concerned about is the challenge the candidate after the
challenge may not know about it um and in that situation they need to have an opportunity to know
about it and to respond and there's just not enough time the the deadline is nine o'clock in the
morning we start to work at at 11 and it just seems to me that if we pass this then i would
recommend all candidates that they they they put into um they put into uh their request to talk
at the meeting the the uh next morning okay have you read the motion Bob because it really says
that they have to serve the candidate yeah but they may yeah at nine o'clock in the morning eight
fifty in the morning and then there's no provision as i understand for the uh let's say the candidate
does not say they want to speak the day before uh there's no provision for the candidate to come
back and say hey this is uh i don't agree with this thing or this is not true or whatever
well smart candidates are clearly going to tell us ahead of time just in case and if they choose
not to they need to they need to uh say that they're going to speak once there's a challenge whether
or not uh oftentimes uh in the past they have not they have not done that but i think if there's
smart little planning that you need to do it yeah mr. Thompson i'd make the recommended motion
at page 65 of our materials with the clarification point made by commissioner millis
the rebuttals are clearly limited to items in the response and no new facts and no new arguments
so that's the motion i motion having been made is there a second to that motion
commissioner repel seconds is there further discussion on that motion
mr. mr. speaker offer a friendly uh amendment that the staff also
once the complaint is received makes every effort to contact the candidate that is not a friendly
amendment okay um for what it's worth if i may provide some today because there are some things
better older processes and then there are some things that commissioner spadell would not be
aware has been done since we last met so um yes the code does require that they serve that on
the other party but we also do provide a templated letter with all of the information on the procedure
as well as serving the documents to those individuals as part of that process we also warn them um
when we do have a rebuttal period on the front end of this process when they're initially noticed
that there is a short deadline for rebuttal and if they wish to buy all they're going to want to
keep that in mind also we serve that electronically and obviously staff work quite a bit of extra
hours during these procedures but we don't leave that for a day until we have reached someone with
the you know whether it be the candidates representative the candidate themselves whoever that is
we are calling and searching for information to make sure we have physically spoken to them if
we don't get a response in writing and then ask them to do so um we've also trained and this is
some of the newer processes that we've done um we've worked with the election administration team
to ensure that we try to better solicit um verifiable and and quickly responsive contact
information from these individuals so that we don't get into this position where we don't have that
on record as of yet because in the past not everyone submitted those and it made things harder so
all of those are certainly part of that process and we did have some information in that notice
letter that said they may not address new points of law in a rebuttal but we can certainly emphasize
that in accordance with the commission with us yeah so basically you're saying you do that anyway
you do notify the candidate of this challenge we do realize solely on the services that that is
required in the code um and there are even some provisions in the code that are built in
effect doesn't happen whereby if we don't get that second copy we can charge to copy and send
that out the code's a little antiquated it's it's contemplating deeper than anything else but yes
we we absolutely do not leave that first day because time is of the essence until we have spoken with
someone in that to our time frame correct to get within that initial time frame of that first day
when it's filed so further discussion on the motion
hearing none i'll call the vote commissioner millis
commissioner reeeple hi mr spindell
commissioner i'm sorry you voted no commissioner spindell yes correct okay
commissioner tomsen hi mr bossleman hi chair votes i motion carries 5-1
um so all those persons out there who are candidates are working with candidates you now know the
drill um any other there are no other matters we are noticed for is that correct administrator
wolf all right then i will entertain a motion to adjourn so moved moved by commissioner tomsen
seconded by commissioner spindell i'll call the roll commissioner reeeple hi mr spindell
mr tomsen hi mr bossleman hi mr millis hey chair votes i thank you all we are adjourned
see you in uh 12 days
you
You