* *** REMINDER_NEEDED_IN_ASSIGNMENT_EMAILS TXT - 23 Aug 2024 21:17:34 - JGKNAUTH Reminder Needed in Precinct Official Assignment Emails -------- ------ -- -------- -------- ---------- ------ I think it is a big mistake not to provide a reminder in Precinct Official assignment emails to watch for CJ emails and phone calls. The Staff's 8/22/24 response to my suggestion on this said: "As many precinct's rosters may change before the training period begins, we do not mention receiving emails from Chief Judges in the initial assignment email. This is noted in training and in emails as we get closer to Election Day." I definitely disagree with that delay. It is much too late to do that mention so long after the assignment emails are sent. The rosters are posted to the CJs weeks before classes begin. The BOE Staff tells us Chief Judges to contact our prospective Precinct Officials as soon as we are given the roster. As well as to provide specific information to the assignees about the polling place, proposed Monday Setup time, etc., I assume this contact is to find out quickly who may no longer be willing to serve in the upcoming election so a search for a replacement can begin right away. Having now been a CJ for thirteen years, I can definitely tell you that many dropouts are found this way. Anyway, none of this works well if the assignees don't read the email or answer the phone. I think the assignment emails should include something like this. "The Chief Judge of your assigned precinct will soon be contacting you. Be sure to check your email spam folders frequently and also properly monitor phone calls to you. You can find your Chief Judge's name by searching under your assigned precinct in the "Click here to view ... Assignments" link on the http://www.wakeprecinctofficials.com Home tab." It is too late to fix this for all the assignment emails that were sent weeks ago for the 11/5/24 election, although I had pointed out the problem long before then. However I hope it can be addressed in the future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If the prospective Precinct Officials don't respond to CJ contact attempts because they don't see them, that's a big problem. It's bad if they haven't been reminded in the assignment email to watch for possibly spam-filtered emails from the Chief Judge, listen to all voicemail messages, and know that phone calls from an unknown caller may be from their Chief Judge. The CJ has to try over and over to reach the non-responsive assignees. In a typical roster I usually have at least three or four such non-responding assignees and that often requires repeated attempts to contact them, in some cases eventually having to alert the Staffing Team if all my attempts have failed over many days. An excuse may be that the assignee does not know who their CJ is, so they don't know whose emails and phone calls to watch for. However of course they can now check to see who is listed as the CJ for their assigned precinct via the "Click here to view ... Assignments" link on the PO website. (That ability is relatively new.) That would at least provide the CJ's name if not their email address and phone number. The assignments email should remind assignees about this link. Then they could be more on the alert for contacts from that person. First-time Officials in particular may not know about that link or that their current CJ is trying to contact them after they have been assigned to that CJ's precinct. They need to be told at assignment time. Of course the CJ's intro emails and voicemail messages should clearly identify the sender as a Chief Judge and why they are trying to reach the assignee. It is also advisable that the CJ not suppress sending their caller ID. Yet all that does no good if emails go to unchecked spam folders and voicemail services are never checked and phones with no voicemail service are never answered. Assignees need to be reminded to frequently check their spam folders and voicemail service and answer the phone when they recognize the CJ's caller ID. Possibly the email address the prospective Precinct Official gave to the BOE may not be their normal email address, which they didn't want to make public, or whatever. The assignee must be sure to frequently monitor the registered address and its spam folders. Also, the contact data in the BOE database may now be incorrect. Possibly the assignee changed it and forgot to tell the BOE. Or maybe there is just a typo in the database. Multiple times I have found (after many failed contact attempts) that the BOE database had incorrect information. Reasons for Precinct Officials not responding include: 1) CJ emails were spam filtered. 2) CJ emails were received, but ignored unintentionally. 3) CJ emails were received, but ignored intentionally. 4) The email address supplied to the CJ by the BOE is wrong. 5) Phone calls from unknown callers are ignored; phone not answered. 6) CJ voicemail messages are ignored unintentionally. 7) CJ voicemail messages are ignored intentionally. 8) Phone number supplied to the CJ by the BOE is wrong. I can't say much about a Precinct Official intentionally ignoring CJ attempts to contact them. Those people should not be prospective Precinct Officials. However the unintentional missing of emails and phone calls could be alleviated by better information in the assignment emails as described above. I had published a writeup on this problem in 2021 and had pointed to it often since then. Some of the BOE infrastructure has changed, allowing some better potential help, but the base problem remains the same. See https://jgkhome.name/WakeBOE/Email_Problems_and_Solutions.txt I recently sent to elections@wake.gov a summary of a very bad experience I had in this area -- much wasted time. Jeff Knauth