ca sos hearing presentation

Information about ca sos hearing presentation

Published on October 29, 2007

Author: Estelle

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Slide1:  Presentation of ES&S John Groh, Senior Vice President of Government Relations October 15, 2007 Topics:  Topics Overview of important facts Our Company AutoMARK Federal qualification/state certification processes Timelines ATS and SysTest remarks Summary Conclusion ES&S Position:  ES&S Position AutoMARK -- federally qualified and California certified Non-functional, de minimis hardware modifications were approved through federal process NASED considered hardware modifications part of existing qualified and certified system State was aware of modified hardware State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system Our Company :  Our Company Mission Maintaining voter confidence and enhancing voting experience Providing secure, accurate and reliable voting solutions History Over three decades, ES&S has had successful track record of producing quality results Compliance with federal and state certification processes First company ever to receive certification of voting equipment under 1990 VVSS and end to end voting system under 2002 VVSS The AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal:  Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Ballot-marking device used by voters with disabilities and other special needs Well-received by voters and election officials Certified and installed in 29 states The AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal Federal Qualification Process:  Federal Qualification Process Overseen by NASED (National Association of State Election Directors) States accept and rely on NASED qualification Evaluation Testing Review Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs) Independent Testing Authorities:  Independent Testing Authorities Function of the Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs) Approved and accredited by NASED Conduct extensive qualification testing Provide detailed reports to NASED Technical Committee as part of qualification process Consider and review hardware changes to already approved voting systems Review submission of engineering change requests (ECRs) Determine action required (if any) Engineering Change Requests:  Modifications to hardware (on previously qualified systems) Do not involve modifications to software or firmware Reasons for ECRs Service and manufacturability COTS, end of life, equivalent hardware parts Engineering Change Requests Engineering Change Requests:  Engineering Change Requests If review finds changes are de minimis (not involving form, fit, or function) No new voting system is created No new NASED qualification number is assigned Previously qualified voting system viewed as unchanged and unaffected Historical practice of states, including CA, did not require notice of de minimis hardware changes AutoMARK Phase 2 (A200):  AutoMARK Phase 2 (A200) Reasons for non-functional modifications to previously CA certified AutoMARK hardware: Ease of preventative maintenance Manufacturability NASED/ITA approved de minimis hardware changes No new NASED qualification number was assigned Existing voting system was viewed as unaffected and unchanged for voters, poll workers and election officials Federal Certification Timeline:  Federal Certification Timeline Federal Certification Timeline:  Federal Certification Timeline California Certification Timeline:  California Certification Timeline California Certification Timeline:  California Certification Timeline AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline:  AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline:  AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline SysTest Labs and ATS:  SysTest Labs and ATS Brian Phillips, President SysTest Labs Incorporated Gary Olivi, VP Technical Operations and COO, AutoMARK Technical Systems, LLC Summary:  Summary AutoMARK -- federally qualified and California certified Non-functional, de minimis hardware modifications were approved through federal process NASED considered hardware modifications part of existing qualified and certified system Historical practice was that states, including CA, did not require notice of same as they were not considered a “change” to a voting system Summary:  State was aware of modified hardware State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system Summary Conclusion:  Conclusion ES&S acted in good faith and has always complied with what we understood to be the practices and procedures relating to the certification process ES&S respectfully requests that the Secretary of State make a no cause determination

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Estelle

personality
19. 11. 2007
0 views

personality

budd hind rev
13. 12. 2007
0 views

budd hind rev

A Mother in Mannville
03. 10. 2007
0 views

A Mother in Mannville

ANGEL pervasive presentation
01. 10. 2007
0 views

ANGEL pervasive presentation

Liderazgo Estrategico
05. 11. 2007
0 views

Liderazgo Estrategico

NewGenLib
02. 10. 2007
0 views

NewGenLib

The Underground Railroad
05. 12. 2007
0 views

The Underground Railroad

Rajaram edited
10. 12. 2007
0 views

Rajaram edited

Chapter 06
05. 11. 2007
0 views

Chapter 06

viajestiempo
12. 11. 2007
0 views

viajestiempo

constellations
13. 11. 2007
0 views

constellations

Celestial Navigation
14. 11. 2007
0 views

Celestial Navigation

Data Center Power and Cooling
15. 11. 2007
0 views

Data Center Power and Cooling

Telstra
26. 11. 2007
0 views

Telstra

DOPE WWW
06. 12. 2007
0 views

DOPE WWW

Presentation TerryHicks
29. 12. 2007
0 views

Presentation TerryHicks

Ecology 10
01. 01. 2008
0 views

Ecology 10

Biomass SouthCoast
04. 01. 2008
0 views

Biomass SouthCoast

IntlPepperCAW06 wyenandt
07. 01. 2008
0 views

IntlPepperCAW06 wyenandt

Rhodes
28. 12. 2007
0 views

Rhodes

FMF Sec of Res pics 06
05. 11. 2007
0 views

FMF Sec of Res pics 06

WilliamRiley
04. 01. 2008
0 views

WilliamRiley

EPCglobal update
15. 11. 2007
0 views

EPCglobal update

Auteur Theory and Robert Altman
19. 02. 2008
0 views

Auteur Theory and Robert Altman

Evaluating Diversified Companies
24. 02. 2008
0 views

Evaluating Diversified Companies

20040225 Peter Overview of h264
27. 02. 2008
0 views

20040225 Peter Overview of h264

russ rev
29. 02. 2008
0 views

russ rev

VBWG05 ASCOT
05. 03. 2008
0 views

VBWG05 ASCOT

Discover seminar2
11. 03. 2008
0 views

Discover seminar2

LT1001N Lecture 3 2006 7
14. 03. 2008
0 views

LT1001N Lecture 3 2006 7

China Outbound Tourism free
27. 03. 2008
0 views

China Outbound Tourism free

050623 Kaj je CIVITAS
01. 11. 2007
0 views

050623 Kaj je CIVITAS

Gene Edwards
30. 03. 2008
0 views

Gene Edwards

CUHistory
13. 04. 2008
0 views

CUHistory

assembly CU final 2 Oct
05. 11. 2007
0 views

assembly CU final 2 Oct

Cooking With Cranberries
05. 11. 2007
0 views

Cooking With Cranberries

6th US History SOL Review
24. 12. 2007
0 views

6th US History SOL Review

CS455 Introduction
28. 11. 2007
0 views

CS455 Introduction

Thorstensen
27. 12. 2007
0 views

Thorstensen

cdr
07. 11. 2007
0 views

cdr

Freak the Mighty
30. 12. 2007
0 views

Freak the Mighty

03 using objects
05. 11. 2007
0 views

03 using objects

AI Lecture72006
16. 11. 2007
0 views

AI Lecture72006

GSA 2006 Heart Disease
01. 12. 2007
0 views

GSA 2006 Heart Disease