You wrote:

I have watched the Elections Committee meeting of October 29 video a couple of time and offer some comments. Most of the meeting was a review of proposed changes to M-06. Although specific proposals were not finalized during the meeting there are directions the committee intends to go readily apparent. If you have not viewed the video, I think there are areas of interest,

I am only going to comment here on items of particular interest and not on areas I think are not correctly addressed or understood by the committee. Some those thoughts are in the weeds where most people probably don't think are really important. For example, the committee spent time on defining voting packages relative to the single notice requirement. They do not understand the single notice. But, more to the point for me is that I am strongly opposed to multiple ballot sources, including email reminders to vote that include ballot access. Flooding the zone with ballots just complicates and stresses the process.

My comments:

Casting ballots and duplicate ballots: When a ballot is cast, its votes are now recorded, they are just not visible in the vote tally. When a ballot is considered to be cast should be defined for each balloting method used. The proposal/contract must identify how a second ballot cast (vote counted) is prevented. 

Balloting closure and local drop box: I'm just going to say that the committee does not know how to provide for a balloting closure date/time.

Attesting of the vote count by the committee: This is the most troubling part of the meeting. Cheryl Jacobs seems intent on this being in closed session. There appears to be an agreement that the attesting and announcement of results must be tightly controlled. Even more troubling is the suggestion that the committee can apply tests to the tabulated results. An exception to the open meetings requirements must be cited and I heard none and don't see one. The committee is authorized only to supervise the procedures for tabulating the ballots. The plain dictionary meaning of tabulating is to display data. Some definitions go on to say that it is for the purpose of studying and analyzing the data. The latter is a purpose not a mandate to do a study or analysis. Any results tests must be documented as to how performed and approved in-accordance with OPA procedures (ie resolutions-M-06). What happens if the tests are not met? None of this is in the governing documents and would have to be an implicit authority in performing elections. However, candidate recount request is in the bylaws and maybe that should stay as the control. We don't want the Georgia vote certification rabbit hole rules.

One final comment: There needs to be much more in M-06 and public process information regarding sending out the meeting notice and election materials with a preliminary eligibility list, then following up with a 35-day cutoff list distribution. Also, vote reminders. 

That's enough for now.