Meeting Convened at 13:07
Craig Berger
Bryan Mattingly
Chris Kimberlin
Chris Harried
Chris H:
Meetings over last week
Friday met with Jack Seuss (CIO, VP of IT) and Collier Jones (myUMBC [system for polls] Architect)
Concerns raised in terms of voting integrity were low to non-existent
Data is secure, votes are valid
Spreadsheets are new, had not been done in previous elections
Identifying information had to be removed
Asymmetric encryption to form group identifiers
"Concerns were satisfied for me and Chris K"
Chris K:
Checked network access, only Collier, colleague and UMBC Serves accessed
Write-ins were a problem, so only President and VP were the only ones able to be provided
These were the only people with access?
Chris H:
We were asking valid questions
"No member of the administration brushed off our concerns"
Chris T:
Nothing to add
Jack S mentioned that they were valid concerns, good suggestions (ITE Staff / Security Specialist suggestions)
Craig B:
Chris T and I would leave for any vote
Chris K:
Only Craig's vote had to be removed (was not on any contentious candidate)
Chris H:
Was a validity test
There were a few emails circulated from us as a body, and the chair has the ability to speak for us as a body, saying there was a vote to invalidate the results of the the election. There was a lot lost from the non verbal communication (texting). While I voted in the affirmative, I meant to vote for tabling the invalidation.
Tomorrow is May 9th. The new president and other officer must be inaugurated. CHecking with the Election Board Rules, and with a majority present, we may call for a vote on certifying the election results.
Chris K:
We had the forum at 12 on Friday, and Gerardo H-C brought forth concerns to the board before the voting happened. Some concerns violations not addressed or publicized. I would like to ask Craig B for those violations relayed to him and Robert C.
Chris H:
We must explain the intricacies of how the allegations were made. The reasons for not bringing things forward are different on a case-by-case basis
Chris K:
It would be good to provide the Senate with a report on what happened. The Senate and Finance Board could use these in rewriting the Election Board Policy
* Robert C arrives
Chris H:
There was a reccommendation to present a formative plan in a meeting with David H, Craig B, Ken S, Nancy Y and administration for a revamp of policy.
I move that we certify the election results in their entirity 
Robert C:
We already took a vote.
Chris K:
Invalid under RRoR.
Chris H:
If invalidated, depriving the announced winner of Property Interest.
Agent usually have coverage under counsel of the princpal, but we may have personal liability.
Saturday, Craig downloaded the spreadsheets, the PINs were there so he was not sure about the ability to release due to FERPA concerns.
Chris K:
We agreed that Robert should see where Calvin placed.
Chris H:
I clarified my vote, thus Thursday's vote was not valid.
Chris K:
Friday night Calvin vote
Chris H:
"The Election Policy is poorly written."
Why the hell was this before Robert was Chair
"I voted to invalidate the elections"
Election Board votes 3-2-0-0 to validate the elections.
Motion fails to release the individual complaints.