Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "26145261",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 8-26",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145261"
}

{
    "id": "26145261",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145261",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 8-26",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nDocument appraising the effectiveness of various campaign polling outlets and related companies. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date\n\nDocument appraising the effectiveness of various campaign polling outlets and related companies. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145261",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/61/1452/26145261/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-8/Contested-08-26.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/61/1452/26145261/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-8/Contested-08-26.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/61/1452/26145261/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-8/Contested-08-26.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145261",
    "naId": 26145261,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/61/1452/26145261/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-8/Contested-08-26.pdf",
    "mediaId": "15de817377d15854",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n8\n26\n>\nCampaign\nOther Document\nDocument appraising the effectiveness of\nvarious campaign polling outlets and related\ncompanies. 2 pgs.\n8\n26\nCampaign\nOther Document\nDocument appraising the effectiveness of\nvarious campaign polling outlets and related\ncompanies. 2 pgs.\nFriday, August 27, 2010\nPage 1 of 1\n28\nThe performance of each vendor is appraised:\nCompuGraphics is headed by Terry McCarthy and has close ties with the\nCuyahoga County Republican organization through William Bennett. This firm\nmaintains the Cuyahoga County Voter Lists. This firm performed very poorly\nand should not be considered for any future business. They underestimated\nthe jobs and did not have the technical management talent to accomplish\nthe tasks. One of the Committee's staff was sent to Cleveland to direct\nthe project.\nC. Howard Wilson Company is headed by C. Howard Wilson. This company also\ndid a very poor job. Data was in many cases 30 or more days late. Failure\nto check outputs for correct precinct structure in California caused numerous\nre-runs, cost the Committee more than $10,000 and delayed delivery of a usable\nproduct more than four weeks in some areas. Technical management was poor.\nMr. Wilson left the project to attend to other business. Numerous counties\nhad to be removed from Wilson and given to other vendors because of his\npoor performance. One of the Committee's staff was sent to California to\ndirect the project.\nAlthough Premier Printing and Mailing had responsibility for only one county,\nHarris County, they were unable to perform the job and the county was sent to\nanother vendor for conversion. This firm is operating in the dark ages of\nautomation and should not be considered for any work of this type.\nEd Nichols Associates is headed by Edward Nichols and performed creditably\nfor the Committee. Most of the work which was taken from-other vendors was\nsent to Nichols. As the volume of work increased, the quality of the out-\nput went down. Nichols was not sufficiently staffed to handle the greater\nvolumes. Second, Nichols made certain promises to Pennsylvania Republicans\nto allow them access to the data in exchange for their cooperation in ob-\ntaining the source data. This was done without Committee approval and against\nhis specific instructions.\nA.R.A.P. converted the data for New Jersey and wrote the Committee's edit\nprograms. They subcontracted all programming and computer work to Automated\nData Research (ADR), also of Princeton. The A.R.A.P. group was headed by\nEvan Gray and the ADR programmer was Robert Wickendon. Because A.R.A.P.\nsubcontracted all programming, it is difficult to assess that aspect. However,\nthe technical management at A.R.A.P. was not good. Wickendon was the only\nperson who understood their software. After the last shipment, Wickendon\nleft for a prolonged vacation and no one was available for more than\ntwo weeks to correct several problems that developed in their last shipment.\n29\nCambridge Opinion Studies converted voter data for Connecticut. The project\nwas headed by Richard Hochhauser. All the work was from hard copy source\ndata. A major error was made in the position of the telephone number, which\ncaused only the first six digits to be shown on manuscripts. Cambridge\nregenerated these lists for each one affected.\nCohasset Associates is headed by Bob Williams. All work was done on a\nsubcontract basis. Work was delivered on time. The only complaint is that\nWilliams does not stand behind his work. When errors were detected in pre-\ncincting the data, causing a re-run, Williams originally agreed to cover\nthe cost of correcting the error and regenerating the manuscript. He later\nreneged on this agreement.\nOne other vendor was used during the primary -- Compass Systems of San Diego,\nCalifornia. Compass was contracted to convert California data for the\nprimary election. Tom Hoefeller was Project Manager. The firm did a very\npoor job -- delivering data for only 20 of the 31 counties required.\nIn summary, no firm which converted voter registration data did an out-\nstanding job. Some, such as CompuGraphics, Wilson and Premier, did extremely\npoor jobs and should not be used in the future. Others, such as Nichols,\nCohasset, A.R.A.P. and Cambridge did average jobs. In choosing any firm,\nthree criteria must be weighed: technical experience, sufficient manpower\nand political backing. The greatest single fault with all of the firms\nwith which we dealt was lack of technical management and lack of sufficient\nresources to do the job. It appears that the companies with political ex-\nperience in data processing are so small that they lack the means to do\nthe job properly. Similarly, the larger firms, such as UCC, do not have the\npolitical experience to handle the jobs.\nDATA EDIT AND STANDARDIZATION\nA standard computer edit program was developed and supplied to each of the\nstate vendors and to UCC. The purpose of this program was to validate the\ndata in the original county files prior to submission to UCC. The edit was\ndesigned to be run as a final processing step by the state vendors after\nall data had been converted into the standard format. It was also to be\nrun by UCC to validate that the correct data has been submitted by the state\nvendor. The edit program was designed to validate input data, not correct\nerrors. Thus, it was designed to display real or potential problems for\nmanual checking rather than attempting to correct them.\nThe edit routine consisted of the following:\n1. A set of error-checking sub-routines\n28\nThe performance of each vendor is appraised:\nCompuGraphics is headed by Terry McCarthy and has close ties with the\nCuyahoga County Republican organization through William Bennett. This firm\nmaintains the Cuyahoga County Voter Lists. This firm performed very poorly\nand should not be considered for any future business. They underestimated\nthe jobs and did not have the technical management talent to accomplish\nthe tasks. One of the Committee's staff was sent to Cleveland to direct\nthe project.\nC. Howard Wilson Company is headed by C. Howard Wilson. This company also\ndid a very poor job. Data was in many cases 30 or more days late. Failure\nto check outputs for correct precinct structure in California caused numerous\nre-runs, cost the Committee more than $10,000 and delayed delivery of a usable\nproduct more than four weeks in some areas. Technical management was poor.\nMr. Wilson left the project to attend to other business. Numerous counties\nhad to be removed from Wilson and given to other vendors because of his\npoor performance. One of the Committee's staff was sent to California to\ndirect the project.\nAlthough Premier Printing and Mailing had responsibility for only one county,\nHarris County, they were unable to perform the job and the county was sent to\nanother vendor for conversion. This firm is operating in the dark ages of\nautomation and should not be considered for any work of this type.\nEd Nichols Associates is headed by Edward Nichols and performed creditably\nfor the Committee. Most of the work which was taken from other vendors was\nsent to Nichols. As the volume of work increased, the quality of the out-\nput went down. Nichols was not sufficiently staffed to handle the greater\nvolumes. Second, Nichols made certain promises to Pennsylvania Republicans\nto allow them access to the data in exchange for their cooperation in ob-\ntaining the source data. This was done without Committee approval and against\nhis specific instructions.\nA.R.A.P. converted the data for New Jersey and wrote the Committee's edit\nprograms. They subcontracted all programming and computer work to Automated\nData Research (ADR), also of Princeton. The A.R.A.P. group was headed by\nEvan Gray and the ADR programmer was Robert Wickendon. Because A.R.A.P.\nsubcontracted all programming, it is difficult to assess that aspect. However,\nthe technical management at A.R.A.P. was not good. Wickendon was the only\nperson who understood their software. After the last shipment, Wickendon\nleft for a prolonged vacation and no one was available for more than\ntwo weeks to correct several problems that developed in their last shipment.\n29\nCambridge Opinion Studies converted voter data for Connecticut. The project\nwas headed by Richard Hochhauser. All the work was from hard copy source\ndata. A major error was made in the position of the telephone number, which\ncaused only the first six digits to be shown on manuscripts. Cambridge\nregenerated these lists for each one affected.\nCohasset Associates is headed by Bob Williams. All work was done on a\nsubcontract basis. Work was delivered on time. The only complaint is that\nWilliams does not stand behind his work. When errors were detected in pre-\ncincting the data, causing a re-run, Williams originally agreed to cover\nthe cost of correcting the error and regenerating the manuscript. He later\nreneged on this agreement.\nOne other vendor was used during the primary -- Compass Systems of San Diego,\nCalifornia. Compass was contracted to convert California data for the\nprimary election. Tom Hoefeller was Project Manager. The firm did a very\npoor job -- delivering data for only 20 of the 31 counties required.\nIn summary, no firm which converted voter registration data did an out-\nstanding job. Some, such as CompuGraphics, Wilson and Premier, did extremely\npoor jobs and should not be used in the future. Others, such as Nichols,\nCohasset, A.R.A.P. and Cambridge did average jobs. In choosing any firm,\nthree criteria must be weighed: technical experience, sufficient manpower\nand political backing. The greatest single fault with all of the firms\nwith which we dealt was lack of technical management and lack of sufficient\nresources to do the job. It appears that the companies with political ex-\nperience in data processing are so small that they lack the means to do\nthe job properly. Similarly, the larger firms, such as UCC, do not have the\npolitical experience to handle the jobs.\nDATA EDIT AND STANDARDIZATION\nA standard computer edit program was developed and supplied to each of the\nstate vendors and to UCC. The purpose of this program was to validate the\ndata in the original county files prior to submission to UCC. The edit was\ndesigned to be run as a final processing step by the state vendors after\nall data had been converted into the standard format. It was also to be\nrun by UCC to validate that the correct data has been submitted by the state\nvendor. The edit program was designed to validate input data, not correct\nerrors. Thus, it was designed to display real or potential problems for\nmanual checking rather than attempting to correct them.\nThe edit routine consisted of the following:\n1. A set of error-checking sub-routines"
}