Worley and Diebold, Revisited (again)

As discussed here and here, negotiations between Secretary of State Nancy Worley and Diebold, Inc., for the new statewide voter registration database fell through in August.

Worley said the failure to reach an agreement related to her insistence that the State of Alabama own the voter registration database software rather than license it from the vendor. As a result, there's a question as to whether Alabama will fully comply with the federal law requiring the system by the 1 January 2006 deadline.

Worley told The Huntsville Times that the state would be "substantially compliant" by 1 January. However, that is telling. It means that the state will not be fully compliant. In terms of forward progress, I wonder how Worley would define "substantially compliant". I'm also wondering, though, why we won't be fully compliant.

My previous posting on this issue describes the timeline of Worley's decision-making on this issue. It illustrates a breakdown in the process - and more, a breakdown in her management of the Secretary of State's office - that probably had us on a path toward non-compliance regardless of the latest developments regarding the Diebold negotiations.

A newly-obtained document, though, shows that Worley has apparently not been vigorous in protecting the interests of Alabama's voters and has put the state even further behind in meeting the 1 January deadline.

This document shows that Diebold, as of 15 June 2005, indicated its position that the software would be licensed to Alabama, rather than sold to the state. However, Worley didn't discontinue negotiations with Diebold until sometime in August. The document raises some questions that should be answered by Worley.

1) What representation was made by Diebold in its original proposal for the statewide voter registration system? The Request for Proposal (RFP) released by Worley specifically stated that Alabama required ownership of the software to be transferred to the state. Did Diebold meet that requirement in its proposal? If Diebold did not meet that requirement, it should never have been selected to enter contract negotiations.

2) If Diebold stated in its original proposal it would meet the ownership requirement of the RFP, why did Worley not hold the company to it? When Worley received the 15 June document from Diebold, contract negotiations should have been suspended until this ownership issue was resolved. At that time, if Diebold was unwilling to honor the RFP requirement for state ownership, Worley should have cancelled negotiations and selected an alternate vendor from others that submitted proposals. Worley should not have taken approximately two months to determine whether or not Diebold would meet the terms of the RFP, especially with the approaching 1 January deadline.

3) Did any other vendors meet the RFP's ownership requirement? If so, why did Worley release a new RFP, allowing licensing, in August rather than going with another participating vendor? If not, and Diebold indicated in June it would not comply with the ownership requirement, why did Worley not release the new RFP until August?

As important as these questions are, the answers to them - or lack of answers - will not change the fact that Alabama has about three and a half months to implement a new voter registration system statewide. Experienced voter registration officials and computer systems managers question the ability of the vendor and the state to fully implement and debug the new system and train officials to use it by the deadline 1 January deadline. Even Worley admits that she doesn't expect the state to be in full compliance by that deadline.

The federal law requiring this new system was passed by Congress in 2002. The original RFP was released in August of 2003. Therefore, Worley will have had over two years to get this project up and running before the federal deadline.

Ironically, with Worley being up for re-election in 2006, Alabama's voters will not have to wait long to hold her accountable if her mismanagement of this project creates problems with the voter lists next year.