Voting Machines Had Defective Part

But the minutes of the July 12, 2005, meeting of the election board said only that a "technology refresh" would be conducted to bring voting units from the four counties "up to the same specifications as the equipment in the later phases of the implementation." The minutes did not mention the replacement of thousands of system boards.

Board Chairman Gilles W. Burger and members Joan Beck and A. Susan Widerman said they do not recall being told that system boards would be replaced as part of the technology refresh.

Burger said Lamone should have brought the replacement of the system boards to the board's attention. "If she withheld this information from the body she reports to, I think she is not carrying out her duties as a public official," said Burger, who in 2004 sought with other Ehrlich appointees to oust Lamone, a move that was blocked in court.

Goldstein said board members could have learned the details of the technology refresh. "If they had asked, we would have told them," he said.

Within the company's Maryland offices, executives tried to keep confidential any discussion of the need to replace system boards, according to four former Diebold contractors interviewed in recent weeks.

On Dec. 6, 2004, Tom Feehan, Diebold's Maryland project manager, replied to a subordinate's e-mail that referred to Diebold engineers in Ohio replacing system boards in "failed units" from Montgomery. Feehan's three-sentence reply was sent to the subordinate and two other employees who had received the original message.

"All, Please delete all copies of this e-mail," said Feehan's message, a copy of which was obtained by The Post. "It should have been sent confidential. Call me for further specifics."

Morrill said Feehan was concerned that the original e-mail "portrayed a decision as if it had been a final decision when in fact it was not made yet." Morrill said that "there was no secrecy" attached to the review of the system board problem and that at the time of the e-mail, Feehan was discussing the problem with state board staff members.

Diebold's upper echelon also appeared reluctant to discuss problems, according to several Maryland legislators who met privately with company executives in February 2006.

The executives attended an off-the-record session with members of the election law subcommittee of the House of Delegates to discuss the feasibility of Maryland switching to a system that would provide a paper record of each vote in time for this year's elections.

Del. Jean B. Cryor (R-Montgomery) said she asked the Diebold executives several questions, including whether there had been hardware defects in Maryland voting machines. "They assured us that everything is fine," she said.

Del. LeRoy E. Myers Jr. (R-Washington) said that as at other sessions with executives of the company, "it was always 'no problem, no problem, no problem.' "