Database Error Leaves nearly 1,000 Rockville Voters Without Ballots
Due to reporting errors, the City of Rockville has suspended the ballot tracking system for the imminent election. Several voters lodged complaints with the Board of Supervisors of Elections in Rockville, stating they were notified via email that their votes had been cast, despite physically holding their ballots. David Sklar, a board member of BOSE, relayed an incident where a voter received an email alert that his ballot was en route for delivery, and within five minutes, another email confirmed the receipt of his voted ballot at the election office, even though the ballot was still in the voter’s possession. This incident raised concerns about potential election fraud.
At the Board of Supervisors of Elections’ (BOSE) meeting on Thursday, October 26, 2023, Chair Robert Kurnick acknowledged the severity of the issue, “Rather than trying to ascertain what should have happened, I think what we have to tell people is that the system was flawed in several respects. We’re sorry but it’s Taylor’s system….The whole point of this is to confirm voter confidence and it’s doing the opposite….It’s really bad.” Officially on the City’s website it’s described as an “unexpected issue technology affecting the ballot tracking system,” but there’s more happening behind the scenes. Turns out nearly 1,000 voters in Rockville did not receive ballots for the upcoming Mayor and Council election due to an error in the voter database.
The Taylor Corporation (no relation to City Clerk Sara Taylor-Ferrell) is a private company that manages the packaging and mailing of Rockville’s ballots but is largely invisible to voters. Although the ballot voters received in the mail has the return address of the City Clerk’s Office, it was mailed from another address and Taylor’s name does not appear on the materials. The State of Maryland uses Taylor for processing other government documents and the City of Rockville hired Taylor to package and mail the ballots this year.
The process is confusing but according to BOSE Chair Robert Kurnick, the “State of Maryland Board of Elections provides names and addresses to the Taylor Corporation, and they send out the ballot. In the last election, Maryland permitted voters to get delivery of their ballots online, so when the State of Maryland provided the name and addresses to Taylor, it would have a name and an address but for some people, it had a name and a ‘web delivery.’ So Taylor did not have addresses for those people, who in the last election, asked to have their ballots delivered online…of which there are hundreds.” The City Clerk stated it was about 800-900 ballots that were not mailed due to missing addresses in the State’s voter database. The City Clerk discovered the error when she received a copy of the database earlier this week.
The City Clerk is in the process of mailing the missing ballots and BOSE has prepared a statement for the Mayor and Council and the candidates for the upcoming election (see below), along with a message on the City’s website that noted, “This technical issue has not affected the integrity of the city’s election process. This issue affected only the ability of voters to track their ballots through the United States Postal Service. The issue had no effect on the actual delivery of ballots.” No mention of the missing ballots, alas.
The City Clerk also mentioned that a couple of thousand ballots have already been received and will be sent to the Montgomery County Board of Elections for processing. Ballots received will be posted on the City website starting on November 1; ballots are not counted until the polls close on Election Day.
Please remember to vote early by mail. Ballots must be received by (NOT mailed to) the City of Rockville by 8 pm on November 7. If you’re running late, two outdoor drop boxes are located at City Hall and Montrose Community Center. Four indoor drop boxes are located at the Senior Center, Lincoln Park Community Center, Twinbrook Community Center, and Thomas Farm Community Center only during hours of operation.
City Clerk Ensures Election Integrity Amid Questions on Adam Van Grack’s Voting Record
In response to my previous blog post about the potential errors in the database of “returned ballots” for Rockville in 2019 (in other words, who voted in the 2019 Rockville election), the Rockville City Clerk provided the explanation below. Let’s be clear this is a database for the 2019 election, not 2023. I’ve worked with many City Clerks over the years and Rockville’s City Clerk/Director of Council Operations Sara Taylor-Ferrell is among the best I know. She points out Council candidate Adam Van Grack could have voted in 2019 (and he told me he’s a regular voter and that he voted in 2019, so I’m accepting his word) but not in Rockville because “his residential address on his voter registration was in Gaithersburg from 2015-2021.” She also points out that Montgomery County accidentally left out a portion of Rockville when they provided the City of Rockville a copy of the database. It was immediately corrected and we should be in good shape for the November 2023 election—but I’m guessing the City Clerk will doublecheck the database from now on.
I want to clarify information provided to you from Mr. Van Grack and posted on your blog of his voting record.
The Clerk’s office receives the voter database from the State of Maryland via the Montgomery County Board of Elections, as no local municipality has control of the State of Maryland registration database.
Candidates and interested parties can request a copy of the voter database that is provided to the City by Montgomery County Board of Elections. In early June we received a copy of the voter database with voters’ history, however at that time it was brought to my attention by Mr. Van Grack that one Rockville City voter district was omitted.
District 10 was omitted due to redistricting last year, part of Rockville’s District 10 area was split between Gaithersburg and the City of Rockville. When updating the street file tables in the Maryland State of Maryland registration system (the street file indicates the county and municipal district voting locations of a voter) Rockville’s District 10 was inadvertently omitted from some the data. This was corrected by Montgomery County within 24 hours and the updated voter database was sent to all the candidates and interested parties notifying them of the missing data.
According to the voted 2019 City of Rockville election database provided by the State of Maryland, Mr. Van Grack could not have voted in the 2019 City of Rockville municipal election because his residential address on his voter registration was in Gaithersburg from 2015-2021.
Mr. Van Grack requested an update to his current address in Rockville on April 29, 2021. Mr. Van Grack also requested an Absentee Ballot for the 2020 Gubernatorial election using his Gaithersburg address.
I appreciate that Mr. Van Grack noticed that District 10 was omitted in the June requested data, however Mr. Van Grack is in District 8 and not 10 for voting in the 2023 Rockville municipal election.
The City Clerk takes the election process seriously and ensures the voters receive accurate information, as we do not want misinformation circulated out to the voters that would question the integrity of the election process.
Per the previous email from Judy [in the City Clerk’s office], this information is public, and you can request additional information on what has been provided to you from the State of Maryland at sbe@maryland.gov.
Rockville Violated Open Meeting Law, Says State Board
The Open Meetings Compliance Board for the State of Maryland has determined that the City of Rockville violated the Open Meetings Act, according to a seven-page opinion issued today to Lois Neuman, Chair of the Board of Supervisors of Elections in the City of Rockville:
We have concluded that the [Mayor and] Council and the Elections Board did not timely adopt meeting minutes for meetings in 2015, and we have noted that the City will be adding staff to enable these public bodies to do that more quickly. We have also concluded that the Elections Board’s practice of providing notice through its agendas did not always convey the required information reasonably in advance of each meeting.
All “public bodies” in Maryland, which includes most state, county, city, school, and other boards and commissions, should “hold their meetings in public, to give the public adequate notice of those meetings, and to allow the public to inspect meetings minutes” in order to “increase the public’s faith in government, ensure the accountability of government to the public, and enhance the public’s ability to participate effectively in our democracy.”
I’ve noted the inconsistency of minutes for city boards and commissions previously and it’s received attention at times by the City, but with the truly awful delays with the Board of Supervisors of Elections during an election year in 2015 (by the end of the year, missing minutes stretched back to March), I felt I needed to Continue reading →
Is Rockville Moving Towards or Away from Transparency?
This week the City of Rockville responsed to my complaint that the City held nearly two dozen meetings last year without documenting their decisions and sharing them with the public. Among my complaints was that the Board of Supervisors of Elections failed to post minutes on a regular basis since March 11, 2015 and the Mayor and Council failed to post minutes of a closed Executive Session on January 25, 2015.
The City approved most of the missing minutes last week, which meant that it’s taken more than a year to provide minutes for some meetings. (If you watched the March 21 Council meeting, you probably didn’t notice it because it was part of the Consent Agenda and approved with no discussion.) That’s probably unacceptable under Maryland’s Open Meetings Act, which requires that minutes be provided “as soon as practicable.” The issue is now in the hands of Open Meetings Compliance Board, who is expected to announce their opinion next month. Although the Board doesn’t have the ability to compel the City to follow the law, it is incredibly embarrassing because it publicly and independently confirms that the City isn’t meeting openly and transparently, which is the basis for a genuine democracy.
The City says it wasn’t able to prepare the minutes because the City Clerk’s office prepares the minutes for both the Mayor and Council and the Board of Supervisors of Elections and “the City Clerk’s Office has been extremely short staffed.” That begs the question, so why was the City Clerk’s office short staffed? It’s because Continue reading →
2015 Campaign Finance Reports Shows Plenty of Holes in the System
January 15, 2016 was the deadline for the latest financial reports for the 2015 campaign for Mayor and Council in Rockville, which covers the week before the November 3 election through the end of the year. Although this includes the hottest period of the campaign, it’s also assumed to be the quietest financially because most contributions and expenses have already been made. For the 2015 campaign, however, that short period represented 19 percent of the revenues and 38 percent of the expenditures so it wasn’t a fallow period.
More than $17,000 in contributions arrived in candidates’ bank accounts after October 26, including last-minute donations between candidates and from planning commissioners, creating a few more connections that weren’t apparent earlier. Expenses exceeded $60,000, most of it concentrated in the mayoral race between Bridget Newton and Sima Osdoby and the council campaign of Richard Gottfried. Gottfried spent an additional $9,715 for a campaign total of nearly $50,000—by comparison, the other Council candidates spent an average of $6,812 and mayoral candidates averaged $25,416.
2015 Rockville Campaign Expenses for the period ending December 31, 2015. Patrick Schoof’s data is incomplete.
For the 2015 Mayor and Council race, the eleven candidates raised $88,615 and spent $161,550 in total. The averages in this election are thrown off by Gottfried’s extraordinary campaign, so if we exclude him and the mayoral race (which is always much higher), the average amount raised by Council candidates was Continue reading →
Rockville Candidates Missing the Forest and Trees for the Rocks
Last week, I received the following email message from Joe Jordan, who is closely associated with Bridget Newton‘s election campaign:
Max, there have been at least two occasions where Clark Reed has been seen wearing a handmade name tag that reads “Rockville City Council – Clark Reed”. It was pointed out to him at the MPT showing on Friday, yet he wore it again at RTS on Saturday. Recalling two years ago, I recall how you were concerned about integrity and propriety and following election guidelines, and while nametags may not be covered under them, I am sure you can see how misleading his nametag can be.
Can I be confident in the fact you will bring this to his and Sima [Osdoby]’s attention, and ask that, at a minimum, he and all slate candidates use the wording “candidate for” if they are not incumbents.
Thanks for your attention to this important matter.
Mr. Jordan is correct that name badges are not specifically addressed in Rockville’s election code (although it addresses nearly everything else: “any pamphlet, circular, card, sample ballot, dodger, poster, advertisement or any printed, multigraphed, photographed, typewritten or written matter or statement or any matter or statement which may be copied by any device”) and that I value transparency, honesty, and accuracy in government (and in business and personal relationships). I’ve passed his message onto the candidates of Team Rockville, but just to clarify, each candidate that is part of the Team is responsible for his or her own campaign (I don’t manage individual campaigns, just the Team’s; and this blog is mine, not the Team’s).
More important, though, I am growing increasingly concerned with the topics deemed important in this election. Richard Gottfried sent out the first campaign mailer of the season and accused his opponents of associating with “fat cat developers” without providing any evidence. On the Twinbrook Listserv a couple weeks ago, Brigitta Mullican complained about the inaccuracies in my blog post (I said Beryl Feinberg worked in the county’s office of management and budget) and that she wasn’t allowed to post comments, then recruited Beryl Feinberg to pile on:
Continue reading →
Rockville’s Government Transparency Score Earns Fs for Six Groups
In 2012, I reviewed Rockville’s boards and commissions to assess how openly they conducted their meetings during the previous year. It was a miserable showing, with about half not providing agendas or minutes. Four years later, it has improved and yet six “public bodies” received failing grades, including the Mayor and Council.
On September 1, 2015, I tallied the number of meetings and minutes posted on the City website for 2015 (that’s nine months from January 1, 2015 to August 31, 2015). By dividing the number of minutes by the number of meetings (cancelled meetings don’t count), I calculated a “government transparency score.” So if a commission had posted 9 minutes for 12 meetings, that would earn them a Minutes Score of 9/12 or 75%. The higher the score the better and anything lower than 60% is an F. Here’s how they fared: Continue reading →
Max for Rockville 