MORE (publicly unseen & un-needed) $$$Millions to Diebold, and the CCBOE "Election Officials" Who (gladly) Pour The $$$Millions Into Diebold's Pockets

What would you do if, with someone else's money, and despite all their facts and demands that you not do it - you secretly bought, let's say, a riggable computer to keep the owners' books.
And let's say, the computer salespeople promised ahead of time that you would have nothing to worry about - they would be there for service; it could easily demonstrate that it's saving you and the boss time, money and aggravation, and that it's doing a far better job than if you continued to do things by hand; and because it's a computer which everyone assumes works fine, no one would notice that it's riggable.

BUT THEN, it breaks down; freezes; chews up the papers you're supposed to show the boss; can't keep up with your keystrokes; and very obviously cannot even do what it's supposed to do, etc. - all while the boss keeps giving you more and more expert reports of how bad that computer company is, and expressing angry disatisfaction.

Would you, keep handing the company more and more millions of the owners' money to: assess what's wrong with your computer, and to unilaterally decide what's not under warranty before doing a lot of paid-for repairs? or to train you some more because they didn't train you right the first time? or to buy more computers from them, to cover yourself when the first one breaks down? or, let's say, to rent more peripherals because the first one's can not keep up? Would you keep listening to more of their lies, and keep repeating them to the owners? etc?

Or would you finally insist that they take their junk back, pay for the damages they'd already caused you, and give you back your money?

If you were the Cuyahoga board and former Director, you would do the former.

As I was reviewing events to finally complete my Observer report about the 11/7/06 election, (which I could not stomach re-living before this,) I came across the video which I have posted below.
For that midterm election I was gladly assigned to be the legally designated Observer at the Cuyahoga BOE, for a consortium of 5 statewide Independent candidates, which allowed individuals to be inside the polls and boards of elections on election day, and to watch the counting through certification.
(I shall post that report on this site, both in draft and when I complete, in finished form. It's so much an eye-opener that it might send some into denial, that that can't be happening to our elections, or into more cynicism, that it is.
My intent in publishing, however, is that it sends you, the reader, into enough outrage that you speak up and out to help stop it.)

The video below is one small, (but complete) part of an again, hard to believe, CCBOE 3-hour meeting, on 11/6/06, the day before the election.
It shows the board, under the unexplained term on the agenda "Vouchers", again handing Diebold another 1/2 million dollars, which for the most part would not even show up on our original contracts with Diebold, should someone be interested enough to ask for those.
(Example, one fellow election integrity advocate early this year, indicated he was looking for amounts paid to Diebold, and asked for a list of the contracts with them. Click the link below to see at what he got - an undated, (as many CCBOE documents are) incomplete list of expenditures, with no dollar amounts for the ones that were listed. Though it's undated, we know it was generated after the 11/06 meeting, since that date is shown on it.)
http://adeleeisner.com/Diebold_Contracts_List.htm

I too have asked more directly for information about all monies given to Diebold, ....I ...still await an answer....

The four 8/23/o6 items listed on the contract list above, BTW, totaled (cha-ching!) to more than 1/2 million dollars - for such things as two "project experts" one of whom was rarely seen at the board, the other, after being cajoled to appear at the CCBOE meetings (at $180/hour) could not answer any questions, except how much MORE Diebold was charging Cuyahoga, with more Diebold services and equipment, to supposedly "fix" "our" problems with what they'd already supplied along with promises - for far more than $10,000,000.

And you might want to compare the above 11/6 approvals shown on the list (under the one word name, Vouchers) to the below September 5 agenda, showing already amazing amounts.
(By the way, the inclusion of the version date/time on the agenda that you'll see at the link, re: meeting time and dates that change frequently and often at the last minutes with the board's personal schedules, also had to come from election integrity advocate repeated insistence.)
Click here, then on the 9/5 agenda link.
http://adeleeisner.com/CCBOE%20docs%20directory.html

So, finally on 11/6/06, when wisely the one member of the board who, frequently at least asks the right questions, Ed Coaxum, got the "vouchers" revealed a bit, we heard that some costs that even were on contracts before, were, on the day before the election, to get EASILY doubled.

That Monday, just as over the previous summer of ’06's meetings' ridiculous payments to Diebold, - county taxpayer money that could go for healthcare, education etc. - found these payments defended by Vu and Dillingham (now forced out, so highly paid, CCBOE "consultants"- see blog items below), and were questioned by the board only enough to make it look like someone cares, BUT, again, were easily passed. (While you watch the film below, you'll also notice that Mr.Bennett stayed unusually quiet, but attentively affirming – I guess so if anyone might find out if there might be any kickbacks involved, he might be less “involved.”)

The surprise hidden costs on 11/6 included:
• 2 days of 25 techs to be on the election day helpline! The night before and the day of election, each at $157.50/hour! They would have been sitting next to CCBOE temps making $10, or at most other computer consultants making $25/hour.
Grand total? = $460,000!
(Though this was a "not to exceed amount", I feel pretty certain, (and being unable to get the public information facts from the board,) that that was probably the amount Diebold got.) With 1100 Election Day Technicians, and less than 600 polls, there is no way that 25 Diebold folks were needed for 2 days …Notice Dillingham (kind of) saying that would account for 50 calls from technicians (!) from each polling location! Now what does THAT say about the quality of training DIEBOLD provided for their other hundreds of thousands dollar training contract?!?
• EXTRA printed "opening and closing instructions" for each precinct bag (though each poll worker got a copy at training, that printing also paid to Diebold. With 4 workers per precinct, and usually at least 2 precincts per location - plus, the EDT with personalized support - do you think that was necessary?)
Grand total = $6,300
• And rental of 20 more of the optical scanners that didn't work in May, and had the board in a panic, using valuable time testing and tweaking the week before November 7, because again, the first additional 20 rented also weren't properly reading test ballots in the tests. The board wanted to make sure they would have enough, since the first 20 we bought at $9,000 each for May were so crappy and slow - and didn’t work at all due to DIEBOLD’s liability (CERP report.) (The board, by the way again, did nothing to hold Diebold liable about that May situation, though it cost county taxpayers for hundreds of hours of temp services to supposedly count ( a whole other hard to believe story) the more than 100,000 absentee ballots then.)
The board originally planned to rent only 20 additional from Diebold to make up for Diebold's failures, (also unseen costs.) But at this meeting they upped the rental number to 45 more, for a …Grand total of $27,500.

And there you have it folks, more of our money pouring into Diebold's pockets.
(A part I left out of the film below, which intervened the discussion, was the approximate 1/2 hour dickering over the $3,000 voucher for employees to park near the board building to come to work.)

Some Say Elections Boards Need to "Partner" with Computer Vendors, Because They Have So Little Computer Expertise On Their Own....

...And they add that the 2002 Help America Vote Act, shoved through the 2002 Congress, demanded that the (riggable ) electronic voting systems be spread into every voting district across the nation.
As bad as that Act was, a proper reading however, shows that the machines were NOT demanded, though Mr Blackwell, then Ohio's SoS and 2004 Bush Ohio campaign co-chair made it sound so. And just a little bit of thought shows that the real problems of 2000's election, which HAVA was said to "solve" had little to do with chads.

And when thinking about the above excuse, forget about the computer expertise, that can be independently hired (at alot less than millions.) What about consumer common sense?

And if you were an election official, truly intent on providing your fiduciary duty - fair, accurate, cost-effective elections - and transparent ones, (inherently impossible with Diebold machines. No one from the public has ever even been allowed to see their computer code that tells the machines how to "count" and we thus have no way to to know if and when they are doing that according to normal definitions. Trust them, does NOT work in this situation....)
-wouldn't you at least have looked into the national facts that shows Diebold unethical, an unending money pit, and in way in over their heads, rather than simply ignoring?
And might you not have thought to get a real expert computer expert on staff, representing the interests of the people of Cuyahoga, not Diebold's?

The above thought is also put forth in the following article from Fortune magazine. There, they also mention that
• now as the really big bucks have been wrung from counties with the original billions of federal taxpayer dollars for machine sales per HAVA;
• and now that only follow-up and support and less than billions of proprietary items are necessary;
• and now that the movement toward returning to hand-counted, paper ballots is roaring through the country from citizens waking up to this election horror nationwide;
• and now that such bills have begun being proposed in Congress by a stalwart few, such as HB.6200 demanding we return to verifiable, transparent, hand-counted paper ballots

- so now these vendors are ready to jump ship. Notice in the article, that Diebold is now even taking its name off their "wonderful" voting machines.
http://www.votingindustry.com/TabulationVendors/1stTier/Diebold/fortune11-3.pdf

But where does that leave us? Alot poorer, with "leaders" that very well may not be people we have chosen, and back at square minus-100.

Where that leaves the CCBOE is questionable, however.
Maybe a certain few are not poorer at all. Unless enough people begin standing up to these "election officials", telling them to stop abusing our money and elections, it also may leave them just continuing to "partner" with Diebold's new owners.

Here's the film of part of the 11/6 meeting. (Please excuse the camera moving around a bit. As you'll see, we had one videographer there who does not understand the video etiquette of at least trying not to get in front of another's placed camera) :

It Gets Worse

Yesterday upon my arrival at the CCBOE, at around 3:30p, I found that in fact, Mr. Vu DID create a document about observer "rules" in response to my request - but not quite as asked for.
Dated 11/24/06, it was directed to the Guards ONLY. I never got a copy. They would not give me a copy.Now they watch me like a hawk the entire time I'm there - not just "shake me down" at access. I got to see the document briefly. They say they have "protocols". It lets them know what I - observers - of which I'm the only one - am NOT allowed to do:

• not allowed to talk to anyone - but himself - who is rarely there (while workers are there 12-16 hours a day) and 2 others (who also see how nonsensically and "shitty" he treats me.)
• I'm "confined" to "the pink room" - though I need to be other places to do my job ( with always requested BY ME escorts - see below... )
• that I always need an escort (like it's his idea - and though he does not realize, (because not there) that the few who can escort me are already ultra-busy doing his job, the workers's job, and trying to supervise a by-now completly chaotic ballot handling process, which HE has given NO thought
• that I am allowed a cell phone for calls only - see previous post discussion
• and on....

He apparently reserves the "right" to utterly abuse his "power"with me.... to declare that if I, for instance, open my eyes, I'm infracting his "rules"

He was called yesterday to see if I was allowed to go escorted from pink room to check rejected provisionals on a public computer another had set up for me last week. I got the list I needed to check with late Wed. Was told at first yesterday, I could not use the computer for which someone needed to enter a password - because it was after hours - 5 pm and the woman had left, and she lost her cell phone. If this makes no sense to you - it's because as usual for the CCBOE, it makes no sense. Others were there working until 7:30 - Coordinators until ????

He called the BOE employee back... an hour later - to say??? But he gave his "permission" (I'm told only what others are allowed to tell me.)

That's what it's like at the CCBOE.

I guess maybe I too, would try to hide what's going on if I were him. But if I were him, it would not be... It is - as mentioned above - unauditable chaos.

For instance:
1. AFTER the "absentee "remakes of Sat/Sun (see below) - Vu appeared and decided that all those ballots that had been remade because of overvotes, had to be remade again.

• Before, clear overvotes had been left blank on the remade ballots- so the scanner could read them the second time through.
• Those where voters had crossed one vote off, and marked another - even where they said "yes" or "No" and initialed - clear voter intent - had been marked per intent. Vu later decided they were to be considered non-counted overvotes.
• Before, those where confused voters had also filled in the bubble on the last blank line that was unexplained, but to be used for write-ins but also who wrote nothing in - (just indicating that they had voted that race in their minds ) - were after first remade, to be remade again, and to be considered, according to Vu - non-counted overvotes.

So according to Vu - all those votes had to be remade again..... and many less would count

2. Piles of previously unopened provisionals showed up - I estimate about 250 - ( they should have been opened in their process to get to that point) - unclear if they were OK'd or rejected. They were just put into the process.

3. Tired people, with only a tiny slice view of what they were to be doing were leaving ballots in piles all over the place.
(Have not been able to get an "escort" ( and I know why) to see downstairs and upstairs, where I imagine and understand that voted and unused ballots lay all over the place - with anyone having access.)

4. Someone had re-entered the first early at-BOE votes into DRE's yesterday - because the first week of early voting, (on DRE's) an activist had found mistakes on the first ballots, (wrong party designation for certain candidates was one mistake) which had to be reprinted/"restyled". Don't know if those "remakes" done yesterday were done with voter consent on proper ballots or not.

5. They were trying to get all paper ballots into precinct order - because the (central count, not precinct count) GEMS server that only has 2G of memory cannot handle much more. The ballot style itself takes up alot of memory - not the ballots.
So they were gathering into precincts - ballot styles, so there could be only one style at a time - already counted absentees, remaking remakes, opening newly found provisionals, sorting already handled but not counted provisionals, opening curbside votes... etc. A huge mess, with exhasuted people trying to control it. It's beyond that.

6. When I got to the computer, found some major questions in some provisionals discounted for missing info. They were active, had often voted in many recent elections, etc. Have them marked, but want to emphasize that I don't want to spend the board meeting going through the few I spot checked. I need to see those envelopes, thus reserve the right to amend the count AFTER certification.

7. Registrations given on voting day (changes of address and name, or move into county from another) attached to provisional envelopes were being tossed...until I mentioned something to one person I'm allowed to talk to -which started another whole team of workers going through piled provisional empty envelopes (kept in NO order). (Most departments, actually rightfully, with no overall guidance, think another department is going to take care of certain things - that no one is assigned to take care of...)

8. And there appears SO MUCH LEFT TO BE DONE... and redone and redone.... that finishing even this process by TUesday really looks questionable - unless someone says the heck with it, makes up counts, shoves stuff into the scanners - and says at 5am Tuesday morning, "Look we, finished!" - and Vu claims - while Bennett affirms to the denouncement of anyone who objects - everything was done absolutely correctly!

Will have more later... MUCH MORE! Unbelievable things... but not quite yet.

Most regulars there continue to tell me - as they tell each other - "just hang on" - change is coming soon.

That's not good enough. Each election changes history for us - and the candidates. (If I were a candidate and have seen what I've seen - I'd be screaming for another election - with an actual, auditable counting process - overseen by a competent, not weasley vindictive, incompetent one.

I really do wonder if Vu, after all the millions he's directed unquestioned to Diebold, whom he calls his "partner", not even a high-profit-seeking vendor, and the complete authority over our elections he's given them - except for the paper ballots about which he knows so little - will go to Diebold when he soon leaves. They do say that "like attracts like" - but one would think that even Diebold might draw a line somewhere - as low as that line is.

Director Vu's Next Gig?

Is Michael Vu taking a position at Diebold? After Director Vu's recent dismal performance in the May 2006 primary election, and subsequent unsuccessful attempts of Dems to fire him, it has been widely rumored that Vu had cut a deal to leave the Cuyahoga BOE soon after the general election. But who would be willing to take such damaged goods? Perhaps Diebold, as Vu just directed approximately $10M of Cuyahoga's tax dollars to Diebold in the last 3-months. Sounds like a win-win for both Vu and Diebold, with both getting nice payoffs - all at the expense of Cuyahoga County.

Please stay tuned. But remember, you heard it here first.

Video: Board attacks Election Science Institute

Here is what happens when you conduct an audit of a Cuyahoga-Diebold Election and the results are not favorable. In short, you get attacked. In this August 2006 video, Steven Hertzberg presents ESI's findings to Chairman Bennett, who obviously is more interested in attacking the messenger than in fixing the problem with Diebold machines.





Viewers should note that the questions (see below) asked by ESI have yet to be answered by the Cuyahoga BOE:

1. After 8-weeks of repeated requests to the Board of Elections to provide ESI with data that did not include 17 year old and curb side voters, why did ESI still receive data contaminated with this information? How will the BOE provide accurate data to partisan election lawyers in a timely way during a future hotly contested election result.

2. Why does the Diebold TSX machine not provide an error message when data from a machine does not copy on to a memory card? ESI observed approximately 4% of the machines that did not copy election results from the machine to a memory card without repeated attempts by operators.

3. Did booth officials switch memory cards on Election Day, and what impact does that have on transparency and auditability?

4. Can we confirm why 24 TSX units in the warehouse, used on Election Day, do not have any election data on them at all?

5. Why do over 50% of the VVPAT summaries not match the election archive results, even when all missing VVPATs are eliminated from our analysis?

Update on Provisional Ballots from 2006 General Election

I'm in the midst of getting the provisional info, but right now running down to observe absentee scanning, and to check some provisional rejects. Our provisional department, after my own reasonable meetings with reasonable managers , (certainly not because of a cooperative or informing director) have been wonderful in the list they supplied me. They even broke down rejected because of "missing info" into what was missing.

The managers understand, however, that even just having that list is not sufficient to find if these votes should havebeen counted, and if it may have been lack of poll worker understnading that prevent them from counting. There are often interesting little notes also written on the outer envelopes which shed more light on why some information may be missing, but there has been no OK for me to review the envelopes themselves. Right now, though I've asked to see them,and the department manager checked for me, this has been denied in writing by Prosecutor due to HAVA "privacy"conditions - ability to see whose vote was whose, he infers.

My report on Monday morning to the board at their meeting to, in part, accept or reject the provisionals as put forth, (though they have NOT been there observing the process of validation so are likely to just blindly accept the suggestions of the department under current limitations) will be to reserve the right to check provisional ballot envelopes - after certification, and for me to seek to ammend certified results within the 80 day window allowed for such changes.

Will check some rejects today as they've put up public registration check computers for me - also arranged in manager meetings - again, not director cooperation - though this probably still will not get me the info I still need.

My goal at Monday's meeting will also be to emphasize the need for better poll worker training re: provisionals - with some additional specifics gleaned from overwhelmed and trying hard provisional department - with which I heartily agree , or getting rid of provisionals altogether.
I will emphasize same day registration too - no need for current 30 day wait. It causes disenfranchised voters, and MUCH more work for BOE's.

I have some specifics to demo from own observation - though I could not touch envelopes to see enough notes on them on my own.

Our Candidate and Voter Services department manager, even gave me the provisional report as of yesterday - which is pretty well done, just possibly a very few off here and there - on disc, broken out by precinct, and failure reason. It's BIG file.

Right now we have a total of 15,872 provisionals

12,374 are OK'd.

3,497 failed - a 22% failure rate.

1,335 were determined "not registered"
1,665 - "voted in wrong precinct"
116 - a number which may have changed since
44 - "no signature"
301 - missing ID - no anything, including birthdate nor "10T affidavit"
25 - bad address, but good could not be found
11 were labeled VAV - had already voted an absentee ballot

I feel pretty good that given the remaining mess of our registration system, the workers checked a few different ways to see if they could find people not registered- and did - about 60 - by cross checking birthdates.

General Election Costs Exceed $10M

First, check out the Cleveland Plain Dealer's article on costs of the election. It's seems the $8M is greatly under-reported.

An anonymous county source said at least $10M. Another very high level source intimated that it is closer to $14M.

I have quickly calculated the amounts awarded to Diebold, usually as a sole source supplier, at times for seeming ridiculous things, at often ridiculously high prices, just since August. That seems to add up to around $8M, just to Diebold - 1/4 to 1/2 million at every meeting since August. Some equipment, but many also "expendables" - not one time costs. And those are just the things we know about. There are items that have gone under "vouchers" - broken into smaller - under 15K pieces - so non-reported on agendas, unless asked for (and only possibly gotten after long waits) as "Public Info" requests. Total costs even just to Deibold are probably closer to $9-10M.

BOE's Election Data Archival Process

In late July/August, 2006, in the midst of election data retention concerns, with the federal 22 month deadline approaching while the Richard Hayes Phillips investigation of 2004 punch card ballots was still proceeding and showing many "anomalies", I asked and became aware of SoS Blackwell's Advisory 2005-04. It supposedly allows BOE's to "transfer" (undefined) electronic election data to CD-ROM (in an undefined process) for non-federal races, after only 60 days after an election - wiping off memory cards, presumably for (vendors' ridiculously high) cost reasons.

Further alarmed, I began to question if the Cuyahoga BOE was going to "transfer", and if so, what and how they would do that - the latter of which, my answerers did not know. I also asked for notice to be posted on their website so the public could witness the process.

Very late Friday 9/22/06/early Saturday a notice popped up on their site for transferring on Sunday 9/24 at 8:30am, a time when many are in church and also a Jewish High Holy Day. Unable to attend because of the latter, I called a videographer to ask if he would go and film for me.

Though he then originally would not share the film, he did tell me about it. After I shared the news with some others, the videographer has been persuaded to release some of it the internet.

The clip here is a portion of the 10/2/06 Cuyahoga board meeting, where I asked them about that "transferring" process. The other video clip shows what really happened on 9/24. This press release issued by ESI and Ed Felton discusses the implications of the BOE's actions.

Compare for yourself - and be shocked by both the process and response.

Video: BOE's "Defense" of Laptop "Archival" Process

Video Clips of Cuyahoga BOE 10-2-06 Meeting
About their new "SecurityPlan.



...To hear their "version" when I asked about their "transfer"process,
go to just short of halfway, after stream comes in.

The entire stream is "interesting" though - their constant avoidance of, and many alternate versions of truth...as well as of "security"


What's in this clip:

1. Chris Nance, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Executive Administrator- being put off by Bob Bennett. Of course, there was no additional meeting to discuss the ridiculous "security plan", and there never was planned to be one.

2. Dan and my tamper tape question. I have not been informed of any test as promised.

3. My questions - Notice:

-the completely circular reasoning about tamper tape- What if the tamper tape does not show true security?

- the avoidance of answering about ESI


- Mr. Vu DID answer me in earlier at the City Club. He said they were BOE laptops, period. And he smiled about it, as if he were, as usual, daring me to find out differently.

- Mr. Vu upqoted the memory cards - he quoted the retail price - which was not the price paid. The price paid to Diebold was bad enough $135/each. A PCMCIA card is normally between $18-25 each retail.

-it was not the public's perception that the laptops were for personal use. That was the employees' perception, demonstrating wide unchecked at-home use. And actual personal laptops were used!

- and they circled back to relying on the non-matching archive memory. Also the vote they "certified" as official, as they announced at that certification meeting in May, was hardly accurate. In at least 7% of the total, either they had more ballots than voters, or voters who signed but with no vote cast.

- and the EMP's have not been certified. Diebold has showed no specs for this new hardware showing all their capabilities- which the public needs to see.

4. Vicki's question - The BOE definitely called those 3 professors their "security team" for months throughout 2005 as the BOE "stayed the course toward Diebold, touting that they were taking care of "security."

Cuyahoga BOE is blocking observers

Free Times
Volume 14, Issue 30
Published November 15th, 2006

Does Anyone Know What's Going On?
When It Comes To Voting, There Is No Such Thing As a Straight Answer

Most would have you believe now is a time for celebration. Democrats have taken back Ohio and the U.S. Congress. According to mainstream media reports, those electronic voting machines in use around Northeast Ohio performed wonderfully November 7; not since that girl from Small Wonder have robots been so loved. Lines were shorter. Absentee ballots were counted on time. It was, indeed, a Midterm Midtacular. Oh, and did you hear? Michael Vu, director for Cuyahoga County's Board of Election, is about to become a father! Mazel Tov! Yay, us!

Ahem.

Not so fast. Set that bottle of Great Lakes Christmas Ale down before you toast to our success. (Slowly. That stuff's potent.)

Everything isn't fine. It's a far, far way from fine. If we're Earth, then fine is like beyond Pluto or something. We're that far from fine.

See rest of story at Free Times