ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
House of Representatives

COMMllTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-4216

(202) 225-3951
http://www.house.gov/ijudiciary

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER. JR., Wisconsin
CHAIRMAN

JOHN CONYERS, JR.. Michigan
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
HOWARD COSLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOOOLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
WILLIAM J. JENKINS, Tennessee
MAXINE WATERS, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
MARTlN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIG KELLER, Florida
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, lowa
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida
MARSHA BLACKSURN, Tennessee
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RlCK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
WILLIAM 0. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

December 22, 2004

By Fax (937-376-3078) and Mail
Brett A. Rapp
President
Triad GSI
358 S. Monroe Street
Xenia, OH 45385

Michael Barbian, Jr.
Ohio Field Representative
Triad GSI
358 S. Monroe Street
Xenia, OH 45385

Dear Mr. Rapp and Mr. Barbian:

I have just reviewed a tape prepared by the documentarian Lynda Byrket of the hearing
held by the Hocking County Board of Elections on December 20, and based on that tape I have
more questions and concerns than ever about the conduct of your firm in connection with the
Ohio presidential election and recount. In particular, I am concerned that your company has
operated - either intentionally or negligently - in a manner which will thwart the recount law in
Ohio by preventing validly cast ballots in the presidential election from being counted.

You have done this by preparing “cheat sheets” providing county election officials with
information such that they would more easily be able to ignore valid ballots that were thrown out
by the machines during the initial count. The purpose of the Ohio recount law is to randomly
check vote counts to see if they match machine counts. By attempting to ascertain the precinct to
be recounted in advance, and than informing the election officials of the number of votes they
need to count by hand to make sure it matches the machine count is an invitation to completely
ignore the purpose of the recount law.

You as much as admitted that this was your purpose at the December 20 hearing:

Rapp: “Remember: the purpose was to train people on how to conduct their jobs... and
to help them identify problems when they conducted their recount... If they
could not hand recount the ballots correctly, they would know what they
needed to look for in that hand count.”

[break]

Observer: “Why do you feel it was necessary to point out to a team counting ballots the
number of over-votes and under-votes when the purpose of the team is to in fact
locate those votes and judge them?”

Barbian: “It’s an easy mistake as you’re hand counting... It’s just human error. The
machine counts it right. We’re trying to give them as much information as
possible to help them out.

[break]

Interviewer: “You were just trying to help them so that they would’t have to do a full
recount of the countv, to try to avoid that?”

Barbian: “Right.“(1)

It would be very helpful to me, if you could explain what you meant by the above
statements, since on their face, they would appear to indicate an effort to thwart the Ohio recount
law.

Beyond, this question, and notwithstanding your general assertions that you did not
tamper with any votes or violate any law, it appears that notwithstanding the abbreviated hearing
of the Hocking County election board, a number of questions and issues regarding Triad’s
actions remain unanswered. In order to help resolve these doubts and concerns, I would ask that
you respond to the following questions.

Additional Questions Concerning Hocking County

1. Did Mr. Barbian ask Ms. Eaton or any other representative of the Hocking County
Election Board to notify him of the precinct or precincts which were to be recounted by
hand prior to the recount on December 13? Were any similar requests made in other
counties? If so, which ones? At the hearing, Mr. Barbian stated that he required this
information to serve as a “sample.” However, the Eaton affidavit appears to indicates
that he sought the information on the precinct to be recounted, not a sample precinct.

2. Did Mr. Barbian advise Ms. Eaton or any other representative of the Hocking County
Election Board as to how to post a “cheat sheet” to insure that the hand count would
match the machine count? Was any similar advise proffered by your staff in other
counties? If so, which ones? Again, at the hearing, you indicated that you were merely
providing information to the Board, however, it appears that the information was
specifically designed to help them avoid completing a full recount by disregarding any
valid ballots that were not counted by the machines on election night.

3. At the hearing, Mr. Rapp indicated that you could not comment on any matters beyond
giving information the Board of Election workers since it was “interpretational.” Please
explain what you mean by this, given that the Eaton affidavit appears to attribute specific
statements to Mr. Barbian that go above and beyond giving information to the Board.

4. Did Mr. Barbian advise Ms. Eaton or any other representative of the Hocking County
Election Board that he would put a “patch” on the election machinery? If so, why? Was
any similar advise proffered by your staff in other counties? If so, which ones?

5. Did Mr. Barbian advise Ms. Eaton or any other representative of the Hocking County
Election Board that he would be visiting to go over questions that attorneys would be
asking in connection with the recount? If so, was any legal information of this nature
ever given to representatives of the Hocking County Election Board prior to the
December 20 hearing?

6. Please describe any other disagreements you have with the attached affidavit by Sherole
Eaton.

7. Please provide me with a copy of your service agreement with the Hocking County Board
of Elections and the structure and files of the machines in question.

8. Was Mr. Barbian placed on any administrative or other leave status as a result of his
actions relating to the recount or any publicity relating to these matters?

Additional Questions Concerning Other Ohio Counties

9. In which counties in Ohio did Triad personnel interact with election machinery after the
November 2 election and before the recent presidential recount. Please state the counties
and the personnel.

10. Our research indicates that any handling of ballots - which are defined by the Ohio Code
to include election machinery(2) - may only be done in the presence of the entire election
board and qualified witnesses.(3) In addition, any modification of the election machinery
may only be done after full notice to the Secretary of State.(4) When your staff made
adjustments to the election machinery in Hocking and the other 40 Ohio counties, was the
entire election board present? If not, why not? Did you provide any notice of any of the
actions you took to the Secretary of State? If so, please provide us with copies. If not,
why not?

11. To what extent did Triad provide election results to the Secretary of State’s office on or
immediately after election day for Hocking or any other county?

12. Please note which if any of the 41 counties Triad services for election matters contacted
your firm prior to the recount. Was there any cost associated with your services
concerning the recount? If so, how were such costs paid for.

I know that Triad is as eager as anyone to resolve this matter as promptly and completely
as possible. Your response to the above questions will go along way towards resolving many of
the concerns that have been raised with respect to Triad’s involvement in the election.

I would therefore appreciate receiving a response by December 29,2004. Please respond
to me through Perry Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of my Judiciary Committee staff, 2142 Raybum
House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 205 15 (tel. 202-225-6504, fax 202-225-4423).

Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member

Enclosures

cc: The Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. Kevin R. Brock, FBI Special Agent in Charge
Atty Larry Beal, Hocking County Prosecutor

(1) Preliminary Transcript, Hocking County Board of Elections Meeting, December 20,
2004, on file with the House Judiciary Democratic Staff.

(2) The Ohio Code defines a ballot as “the official election presentation of offices and
candidates...and the means by which votes are vecorded.“OHIO REV. CODE 3506.01(B) (West
2004).

(3) Ohio Rev CODE 3515.04 (West 2004).

(4) The Ohio Code and applicable regulations specie that after the state certifies a voting
system, changes that affect “(a) The method of recording voter intent;(b) Voter privacy; (c)
Retention of the vote; or the (d) Communication of voting records,” must be done only after full
notice to the Secretary of State. OHIO ADMIN. CODE 111:3-4-01 (2004).