Scot Free? Scot Free. - The 1/07 Felony Conviction, 3/07 Prison Sentence & 11/07 "Probation" Deal for Manipulating the 12/04 Presidential Recount

In what seems a large but still rapidly-growing almost fungal dynamic in Cuyahoga and Ohio politics, with insider deal-making politicians at all levels being left alone to make their deals AND their tightly-woven cover stories to keep us "confident" and "believing" - once again and still, and in both normal and legal senses of the word, "Justice" seems have been been thoroughly pulverized. Sadder and more ironic still is that this time the deals, the stories, and the very blatancy of the abuse of power, reflect the pulverization of Election Justice - one of the few ways, if it were to truly exist, we'd have left to at least be able to "throw the deal-making bums out," or to get them to listen to us. Now it appears that even that is gone.
I write, however, not to make things look even more bleak. But I do hope that these new facts might also shock some readers, (as they continue to hit me with (now brief) shock) - enough to go and watch for yourselves, and say "no!" to such disconnection from the best our humanity has graced us with, and thus from justice, in all forms of the word.
What I also find shocking, and deeply sad, is that even the press either can't or won't follow these threads and tell us what's occurring. And that even when the good guy press knows, they've either sold out, don't have the revenue, or have become so thick skinned that they too just laugh it all off as "just politics," as they run to catch the next event they consider a better benchmark of tragedy, gore, or "government."

Remember the Cuyahoga Recount Trial where the jury convicted two CCBOE mid-level managers of feloniously handling ballots in the legally paid-for and legally-requested local recount of the still often nationally-questioned '04 presidential election between Bush and Kerry; and the judge sentenced them to 18 months in jail? (Also see film here.)
The trial that hit national and international news and struck relief in the hearts of many that maybe justice really did still live, somewhere in the system that's supposed to be serving us all equally? The trial that could possibly send some message to those who make the many big and small decisions about our election results - thus, about who "wins" and who "loses" & about who will be making the next round of decisions "for us" often behind closed doors where we can't see: that there can be negative consequences for deal-making and other illegal intrusions into our will.
The January '07 trial that evoked excited stirs among many election integrity activists that "things will be better now," a stir that still often remains resistant-to facts that the whole trial even in the courtroom was continually pulled into the realm of politics, not justice or truth, especially by the defense; and thus, often seemed far more an unspoken political battle and legal show (much like the recount in question) and about skirting the truth or justice, rather than getting to it.
Remember the trial that also evoked sadness and some curiosity among many familiar with the CCBOE in '04 and in '07 - that two mid-level, basically non-decision-making manager-women seemed to be quietly taking rap, and in March '07, were sentenced to prison for 18 months for decisions, that in the normal course of the CCBOE, seemed impossible and very unlikely to be able to be made or carried out by them alone; decisions far more likely and possible (and even with some evidence showing) to have been made, or were at least known about (but not stopped) by decision makers "above" them - member(s) of the board, and/or then Director Vu who often followed the orders of Board Chair Bennett, and/or Vu's Deputy, Gwen Dillingham (also the former sister-in-law of one of the convicted workers.)
No one could quite figure out what they had been promised, or were so afraid of, that would keep them so quiet so long, even while their stories wavered and didn't add up, and the lack of truth seemed so apparent.
Remember the trial that struck fear among many elections and other government workers nationally, that the same fate could befall them for following orders that do not coincide with the law and/or that they would get no good deals if they not follow orders?

Well, it seems that the entire matter, including their jury-drawn felony convictions and 18 month jail sentence in the Ohio Reformatory for Women is virtually over - with no jail time (they were out on appellate bond until their Nov.5, '07 "appellate hearing" - where their "probation deal" was announced.)

And it NOW seems it's BEEN OVER SINCE last Nov. 5, the day before the '07 election, when their "appeals hearing" was held (unbeknownst most, since it did not appear in their case dockets, nor on Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold's online docket) where their pre-set deal was announced.

And what was the November-announced (just in time to have the election distract us) deal between Kevin Baxter, Special Prosecutor appointed by Cuy. Prosecutor, Bill Mason; Roger Synenberg, former R-elections board member, in part along with Bennett; and Judge Saffold? (Here's a link to another blog, which contains some links to articles about Saffold. With this, I am neither indicating endorsement, nor non-endorsement of the opinions of that entire blog site, but certainly of the blogger's right to speak. The articles linked in this Saffold post, however, certainly represent facts accurately. And another Saffold link. It should be noted from this one, that one set of Baumgartner's charges in her 8-yr. ordeal you'll see in this article, included charges that Kevin Baxter, the Erie County Special Prosecutor assigned to this '04 recount case, and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason who assigned him to it, had a long history of trading cases where it appeared they wanted "to get rid of" the case or the complainant. Those Baumgartner charges which were found online via Google searches in '05 when Baxter was first assigned, seem no longer apparent.)

• That these women would be put in a special probation program, called "the Diversion Program" - a 6 - 18 month program for first time offenders, who had admitted guilt and remorse, thus signs of rehabilitation; and a program, if completed while "being good" the entire time, would allow each felon's record would be expunged.

And what else was so special about their deal?

Special was:

• they of course, got the minimum time in the Diversion (probation)Program - 6 months, which had it ending around April 27, '08, - but which hearing Saffold put off (because she said she'd be out of town,) until March 27, 2008.
• Also Synenberg "asked", and of course was granted, per the deal, that no finding of guilt was to be found.
  
  What's so special about that is that, per another deal apparently made between Bob Bennett and the womens' lawyers around the time the of the first grand jury indictments in September of '05, where either Bennett or the entire board agreed that when or "if" the indictees were found "innocent," the elections board/ the Commissioners/ and well... let's just say it, bottom line, the taxpayers would also pay all the womens' legal fees!
  (For download here - See the letter from the third indictee's lawyer, presented to the CCBOE for payment of his legal fees after that woman was found innocent by the jury in January, presented per those prior arrangements. )
  Now isn't THAT "special!"
  
  You see, it seems that the 9/05 indictments were nothing more than an attempt at a "bone-throwing" - a "see-justice- (wink, wink) is-being-done - to the many activists who volunteered and and paid and were at the December '04 recount; and who knew for certain that the recount ballots had been illegally pre-selected and pre-counted, making the Recount of the also highly questionable '04 election results, also nothing but a fake show.
  Possibly because undeniable incriminating video later showed up from election integrity activist Kathleen Wynne, who's now in Texas; or because there really was a (bi-partisan) political pissing-match-deal "war" going on between the defense and the board, and the prosecutor's office, (as it seemed all through the trial;) or because of other unseen deals, the jury trial ended up ensuing. The jury came up with the felony convictions, and the judge sentenced the women to the max.
  
  Thus, with the Nov. 5, '07's "no finding of guilt" and looking toward expungement of records, immediately after that less than 1-hour deal announcement/"appellate hearing" - Synenberg was pronouncing the women's "innocence" (!-two very different things) to the press - an important concept for him, and to anyone else who may have been footing parts of his bill since before the Sept. '05 indictments - meaning it could all be paid....by the taxpayers.
  
  His approach to Cuyahoga CCBOE and /or the Commissioners for that money, seemingly remains the main "other shoe to drop" in this deal - if it has not dropped already...
  
  

And as they say on late night infomercials...

But that's not all!....

So what ELSE was so very special about their 11/07 deal that has just recently shown up? On March 27, '08 after again seeing nothing on her docket about the "end-of-Diversion" hearing, I called Saffold's bailiff, (who could not be described as forthcoming, nor non-inquiring about my identity and my interest,) to find out if the hearing was proceeding that day or sometime in the future.
He told me to call the Prosecutor. I called Baxter's office, and after a few tries over the past months, someone in his office finally suggested I call the Probation Department. A call to the Cuy. Probation Department, again not met with forthcoming information nor lack of interest in my identity, did get me transferred to the Diversion Department - and got me to one of the most refreshing women with whom one would ever want to speak.

• She told me what an odd case this one was... that though there was a journal entry that the women had been put in the Diversion Program - she had never seen them, they had never been clients of the Diversion Program, and they had never shown up.
  
  Then with the recent help of another, I found out last week, what ELSE was so special about that Nov. 5, '07:
  It seems that part of their Nov. deal, that kept them out of jail, and promised to get their records expunged, and possibly to have taxpayers pick up their massive legal tab for what they did and would not speak about, was also that they NEVER WERE REQUIRED TO SERVE ANY DIVERSION OR PROBATION duties or responsibilities or time either! They - and everyone involved - just walked off Scot Free!

Also related to me was that part of the deal said that they were to be following Erie County (Baxter's home county) procedures - a nice "covering touch" for any inquiries, don't you think?

No one - but US - essentially had to pay consequences (over and over and over again) for what was illegally done to us - faking our '04 presidential recount, which prevented us from seeing what may have also been illegally done to our '04 presidential election results, when "Bush took OH"
(Though Kerry won Cuyahoga, it is the overall numbers as accumulated into state numbers that matter. A small shift here, as in some other counties, could have aided the larger strange shift statewide, to cause the small-margin Blackwell/Bush "victory")

And remember - by November, '07 Vu also had been long gone from his approx. $120K Director job here, off to San Diego, since approximately the previous March, hired by a previous Utah election-crony for his next election stint, as Assistant Registrar of Voters at about $130K/year; after being allowed to "resign" here (per Bennett's insistence) despite a number of especially Dem calls for his firing or demotion; and allowed to take with him another $40K from Cuyahoga coffers as separation/consultancy agreement.

And by that time Bennett and the rest of the previous board were also long gone, removed by the SoS in the first half of the year, Bennett with a struggle, for which he stated plans to have taxpayers also pay for his lawsuit against the SoS too.
His public post-trial rants and campaigns of disinformation about the trial, the '04 election, the Prosecutors (who wouldn't deal the trial away - though on second thought, maybe they should have just done that. It would have saved us all alot of money, time and hoping things could turn out differently in Cuyahoga) and on other items have seemed to have quieted. (I don't know what he's doing behind the scenes.)

And by that time, Gwen Dillingham was also long gone, with her "resignation" and her March $40K "separation/consultation" agreement, which was also negotiated by none other than the same former board member, trial "defense" attorney, her good friend, Roger Synenberg, who it appears originally brought her to the CCBOE around '92, under his board tenure, as his "administrative aide."
(You can see this '92 early mention of Dillingham in this 18/15/92 PD article, available for download here, as it was saved from library-card accessed, PD archives. For more context about that article, and a review of the many '92 happenings/"foul-ups" as it is termed, at the CCBOE under Synenberg's CCBOE board tenure, refer to this 12/31/92 PD article, available for download here, also from library news archive. And for those of you who have access to such newspaper archive searches, after reading below, you might find it interesting to search many of the '91- '93 articles written by then PD-reporter, Bill Sammon. THAT was what journalism is supposed about.)

Will there be an end of "Diversion-That-Never-Was" hearing? Will Cuyahoga taxpayers also get stuck (or have they already gotten stuck) with the massive legal tab, for not only the Prosecutor, but also these womens' deal-making "defense" lawyers - seemingly working against us/against justice/against election justice? I don't know.

What will you do to try to find out, and do something about this, and other such continuing, entangled, ugly messes?

Tuesday's Election: Cuyahoga BOE-"10"; Diebold/Premiere -"Zero"

The only decent thing that's come from Florida, 2000 and Ohio, 2004 is that huge numbers of Americans are finally aware that the people we're told are the winners of our elections, has far more bearing on each of our realistic hopes for a future, and even whether or not we ourselves have a warm home in winter, food on our tables, healthcare when we're sick, and the ability to get to some sort of job - than any football games, clothes ads, or the latest big screen tv.
Of that growing number now concerned about elections, more are finally shocked out of the false primitive "spell" that the people's only election concerns "should be" with 1. contributing nicely to and volunteering for "our" candidates/"party" - too usually the ones we see as serving our own self-interested desires the best; 2. maybe, voting - just to be "good citizens" (though between elections we're rarely thought of, let alone listened to, other than whether or not we've paid our taxes) ; and 3. that we "should" listen to what we're told are our election results, but only to check whether or not "our" candidate or issue "won" - before going back to our sports, tv, (now, just a little, after paying for gas) shopping, and if one is lucky, our daily job of business as usual.

More are finally aware that our elections have been usurped from right under our noses; and that we have no idea - and every reason to NOT believe - that the results we're told truly represent our collective will; that our elections have somehow been variously stolen, at times with a combination of inside "dirty tricks" to doctored numbers created by the richest and/or most corrupt - sycophants, incumbents, and their appointees - completed with "doctored" stories from an often, also revenue-scared and sold-out national media.

The horrible news is of course, the lives lost; a living planet on last gasps; the majority of Americans steeped in unidentifiable fears, with thoughts of success having turned to those of survival, violence rampant among even our children, and discussions of whether or not human torture is torture being a norm. The horrible news too is that so many have just given up on, and dropped off of what is so suspected as now only the corruption that has become U.S. elections.

However... No longer in Cuyahoga!
Though Cuyahoga County, Ohio, the 15th-17th largest voting districts in the U.S., previously under Misters Bennett and Vu, Ms. Dillingham, et al, previous to this new director and board, certainly qualified as the U.S. poster child for questionable to bizarre election incompetence, and arrogant and blatant insider-"ownership"-political manipulations, that is no longer!

Under Platten and the new board, still to date, the CCBOE remains on track to becoming a model of what boards of elections can and must be: working hard to even publicly identify and quickly and thoroughly solve all sources of problems - for the voters and for election integrity; stabilizing policies and procedures - for the voters and for election integrity; training and promoting good use of employee talents and teamwork - for the voters and for election integrity; employing honesty, immense respect for the public and implementing transparency wherever possible - for the voters and for election integrity, etc.

What happened Tuesday
As an election Observer, I was completely notified of upcoming dates and times of BOE activity, and welcomed in to really watch. (Compare with last year: http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2006/11/observers-as-suspected-criminals-at.html)
and
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2006/11/it-gets-worse.html

noted below, that we started on Sunday with absentee ballot opening and rectifying, but not counting.

Though actual absentee scanning and tabulating was to begin at 7:30 am, I chose to begin closer to home, first voting and checking out 3 additional polling places. All were comfortably up and running, welcoming, though slow in voter turn-out.

I noted a few poll worker/election day technician training issues yet to be addressed, but all 4 polls I visited had not even a hint of the mayhem or confusion experienced early in the day in both May '06 and November '06.

Also Platten and her staff address noted and solved problems immediately when possible, as they came up, and when not possible and not immediately critical, they listen and assuredly note and solve them later. Now even when there are problems there is someplace to actually call and get the call answered, and to actually get help.

All polls were open by 6:30 am.

Early in the day, Platten reported that the biggest problem to still be worked on is still getting all 6,000+ poll workers not only properly recruited, trained, and scheduled, but to have them show up for duty for this long, mission-critical, one-day stint - a huge logistical challenge for any organization.
Through concerted effort and outreach to high schools (17+ year old voters,) colleges, corporations and other organizations, the CCBOE went into election day, unusually, with sufficient and extra recruited and trained workers. For this election they wrote, called at least twice, sent reminder cards, had poll workers send back confirmations and called those who did not send them back, and still the Monday night meeting before election morning and the morning itself brought last minute surprises and needs to scramble, re-assign and fill in.

The biggest poll worker no-show problem was among the 1,000+ Election Day Technicians/people hired specifically to set-up, take down and troubleshoot ("babysit") Diebold's machines (and if not busy, help voters find their right lines.) My understanding is that approximately 20% of EDT's did not show up.

The CCBOE will be doing careful inquiry and post-analysis on what kept so many away to solve the problem. My guess is that it has to do with one or a combination of the following problems - most having to do with "Diebold-zero points"
1. The Diebold/Premiere machines are so "fragile" and necessitate so much oversight and troubleshooting to get them set up and minimally secure, and problem free throughout the day - that there is far too much detailed, critical information for people to intake in a four or five hours, too many detailed things to do in too short a period of time especially in large polling places, and then to feel responsible for throughout election day. So rather than risk not remembering everything properly, or having to use their manual too much, or risking what had been construed by the past board as the workers' public failure, people just don't show up.

In my opinion, this overwhelm is due mainly to the machines' user-unfriendly, cheapest construction, incompetent design and numerous built-in security holes that people need to try to make up for, (despite the machine's $2700/per price tag,) which makes the machines unfit for normal use, with normal people in a decent sized election. The printers are still jamming frequently, the screens still freeze, they need all kinds of logged written seals, incident reports, etc.
As example, at the Shaker Rec Center, my last of eight poll visits, a full 6 of their approximate 15 machines had to be taken off line/shut down by the end of the day. We don't know how many votes got overprinted with a machine jam before a voter noticed ( there is no alarm or error message) or how many voters (or EDT's) got confused when their machine froze.

2. And/or, far less likely, especially with the same day evaluation of trainees and various trainers, there was an EDT training problem to be solved.

On Monday night, during the Monday night pre-meeting of election day workers, the CCBOE fielded 2100 calls, mostly about missing workers - a problem they had to start solving immediately. On Tuesday morning , between 5:30-9:30am they took 1600 calls to solve mostly set-up and missing worker problems.

There were other minor poll worker training problems which I will note in my Observer report, to be addressed in training, including more visible posting of helpful signs provided for inside the polling place (like not needing to vote on Issue #1 - "the stripper bill" which didn't, in the end, have enough signatures to be validly on the ballot;) the campaigning 100-foot, mark-off flags being far too far from, or too close to the polling place; one's misunderstanding that voters don't declare a party affiliation in a non-partisan race; a few hard to find polling locations once inside a school, library etc. etc.

On the very positive side, even where poll workers may have been having machine problems they knew to provide paper ballots ( though most precincts had at least one machine operating at poll opening;) at my arrival as an election observer, not a voter, three polling places knew to have me sign-in in the back of the poll book as having been in their location; all poll workers seemed relatively happy; no one I experienced was having trouble with understanding voter ID's - they were in the main, calm .

Also, I visited one of the 5 pilot locations, where the CCBOE tried centralized voter sign-in, then "concierging" voters to the the proper precinct table. This experiment is one solution to a last-year recurring problem of voters getting to the right location, but having their votes not count because they voted at the wrong table/precinct; and to have a centralized location for taking off-line and really solving sometimes confusing provisional voting problems/actually finding the person's registration, directing them to the right location, etc.
Though only one voter came in while I was at this school set-up, the appearance of the poll looked more streamlined, organized, and welcoming. I've heard good things since about the experiment from a few voters and poll workers there.

Most of the 580+ polling locations and 1436 precincts were complete and workers ready to leave at the end of the day, as I remember by about 8:00 - 8:15 pm. ( The CCBOE has a call-in tracking system, calls those having trouble, reminds how to close down, and calls those who don't call in.)

The smoothness of the day was all due to systems put in place, written, and constantly refined in many small elections, most since March '07.

It was not due to low voter turn-out, since the same amount of prep needs to happen for all precincts, no matter how many people show up to vote.

It was truly well done, and is admitted to still be a work in progress - with suggestions truly welcomed. Platten's determined to get everything really solved and smooth - for everyone.

Back at the board Tuesday morning... absentee scanning.
When I arrived back at the board at about 10 am to observe the absentee scanning, they were just getting started with the actual count.

Kudos to Platten! She began that phase - even after all the "stress testing" and other types of testing of the scanners - with the testing of each scanner before they got started, to make sure, in public, that each scanner was working and reading correctly. She wanted it public, and with no time/"air" between the final "extra" tests ( even feeding the ballots in all four directions) and the tabulation, to make sure the count was one of integrity.

In this process each scanner is networked directly into the tabulator. The ballots for each precinct had been counted twice, and they were counted again to make sure they still had the same number of ballots per precinct that had been returned to the BOE by Sunday. (Monday and Tuesday's absentees will be included in the later certified count, as well as the approximate 3,600 Provisional votes, the approximate 360 votes cast on paper at the board on Monday and Tuesday (Tuesday's being Provisional, by law,) and any overseas that may come in the 10-day waiting period after election day.)

I have a few questions about this process, about such things as how the scanner knows what ballot style it's reading marks for, (what's on the greatly different ballots in different suburbs - which if off, could make a huge difference in a precinct's vote counts.) We began their very willing explanations, but I ran out of time. Though I have full confidence in that CCBOE process I witnessed, especially with their willingness and certitude in beginning their answers, I want to find out, since this could be a huge issue in less diligent boards or ones of less integrity.
I hope to interview the ballot department to get a fuller explanation soon. They remain very open and willing.

The entire absentee scanning/tabulation process went very smoothly. They double checked all numbers and finished by 1:30pm.

Highly unlike last year, members of the board were present to help and answer questions the entire time, as was the Director and Deputy Director.

Remakes
After a short lunch, the ballot department and the Director and Deputy Director began remakes - the ballots the scanners could not read when inserted in any direction, that had to be redone, matching voter intent so the scanners could read the new ones.

With all of the testing of the scanners, weeding out those that did not work perfectly, and lo and behold a written process (!) this year, there were only 33 remakes of the almost 24,000 ballots scanned, compared to multiple big grey bins of them - hundreds - last year.
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2006/11/it-gets-worse.html
That's when, with Mr. Vu, Ms. Dillingham and the board nowhere in sight, and with no overall or specific plans or policies thought-out for the board, the ballot department was left guessing what to do, what Mr. Vu may have wanted, and had to spend days with many workers on doing hundreds of remakes. Then when Mr. Vu arrived the next day, he had them doing bins of remakes of remakes, with ever-varying directions of how to interpret voter intent. It was not good - for anyone - and it was bizarre.

This time it took Jane and Pat McDonald, the Deputy Director, a relaxed but intent, less than one hour to remake the ballots with oversight, and get the originals and remakes filed correctly, etc.

Just like all other procedures that I've witnessed at the board, there were written directions pre-created by a team, and which were all signed off on by everyone involved in the process indicating understanding. (The ballot department and I were laughing, remembering the bizzarities of last year: Imagine! an actual procedure! that everyone understands! can do! and agrees that favors the voters!)

The problems with these 33 ballots, making them unable to be read the first time by the scanner included such things as possibly a paper fold, in just the "wrong position"; the voter using light check marks instead of filling in the ovals; a completely coffee stained but still humanly readable ballot; and someone who cut off the "timing marks" all around the margins, apparently thinking that these codes might identify him/herself.

Election night back at the board.... CCBOE still - 10; Diebold - really zero, or below
When I arrived back at the board from my second half of poll visits in the wind sleet and hail, the CCBOE again was ready. The media area for watching into the tabulation room was set up, along with the computer feed onto a large screen, with the absentee numbers already posted at poll close, badges were ready allowing people various points of access, the parking lot was just beginning to receive vans from the regional drop off sites (not a taxi cab was in sight, let alone with only a taxi driver hauling our votes as happened last year) etc. All workers were there, and there was a plan for everyone in the intake room - memory cards ( in a pre-marked business card holder, so workers could immediately see if one was missing) went one place for bar code checking-in and one designee passing to tabulation; poll books another, being filed correctly by precinct as they arrived; provisional ballots another place for counting and checking in; incident reports, another; paper trails, another; certificate ones, another; and supplies another place, all while the bags were re-filed properly in the basement etc. It was a well-oiled, diligent, very large team effort. I can't even begin to compare to the confusion last year.

On the third floor the IVR poll closing check-in was hopping. A bank of trouble shooter hotlines was manned for those having trouble shutting their polls down, and more.

It had been a very good election day in Cuyahoga. There were no 5-hour meetings taking managers away from their posts, so everyone could listen to or have to add to false claims of how "perfectly" things were going, or how bad voters or observers are. There was not even a set-up for the big election night press conference to do the same.

It was just a really good, smoothly working election day, providing fairness, access, help and order to the entire process.

And then entered the Diebold/Premier "more problems."

For Diebold/Premier-"Zero" grade - what happened election night - please see the next post, above.

And the 11/5 Recount Hearing Said?....

This morning's take about what would happen in court today (The Recount Trial Resumes?) regarding the '04 recount convictions of two former BOE officials is pretty much what happened, except for a few points, some of them majorly important.

• I arrived at about 9:10am for the 9am call for witnesses. I was told that the judge was not there yet. She appeared at about 10:10am.

• As noted in the earlier post below, nothing even appeared on the online court docket for this hearing. Very few, even those waiting for the other shoe to drop somewhere, knew about the hearing, also curious. I found out only because some I know had been subpoenaed as witnesses for 9am today.

• Also the fact that the hearing took place the day before a major election could also be considered very curious by some, well-planned by others.

• "No Contest" and "No Finding" - The two women did plead "no-contest" to the previously convicted 4th degree felonious and first degree misdemeanor mishandling of '04 recount ballots. Also today the defense asked that the judge make "no finding" on that pleading this morning.

Per the PD article posted at the bottom of this post, you will see that now, the previous, jury-found guilty verdict from early this year, which brought the18 month prison sentence, is as of today's "no contest" plea, with no finding, now being portrayed by the defense, as those ladies taking no responsibility since they did done nothing wrong.

That is saying that, as established at the earlier trial, their pre-selecting the only ballots that '04 recount witnesses could see, and even laying aside precincts they did not want witnesses to see, thus in a planned, not random, fashion, not allowing recount witnesses to see the vast majority of all the ballots that potentially could have had much wrong with them - was nothing wrong. The defense said, that was because it was "a long time practice," though the Prosecutor, reminded him, though it was attempted, that fact had never been proved in the earlier trial.

However, as has been reported by Ohio 2004 election researcher Richard Hayes Phillips, from over two years of research, findings and photographing across Ohio, he found such things as 2004 punch cards in primarily Democratic precincts, with an extra hole punched, always in the same place in the presidential race - discounting all those presidential votes as "overvotes." (The actual voter's punch would have in most cases made the discounting second punched choice for president.) The potential for Cuyahoga recount witnesses for not finding this kind of inside manipulation, should it have existed, or other types also found across Ohio, especially amidst the now infamous actions of Cuyahoga's now fired previous board, and their "executives" is far too huge to assume in Cuyahoga we got any adequate sample or valid recount.

Yet recount witnesses then legally asked for, and paid for a valid recount.

In Cuyahoga alone, above and beyond the over $100,000 salaries of previous Director Vu (reported as a person of questionable competence, ethics and integrity (http://bocc.cuyahogacounty.us/GSC/pdf/elections/CERP_Final_Report_20060720.pdf -Section 7) and now moved to San Diego's BOE, making $130,000/year) and then-Deputy Director Dillingham, both of whom had been demanded by some members of the board to leave at least twice before they were allowed to resign... with exit pay, and both of whom it is hard to imagine did not at least fully know about this recount mishandling; and above and beyond the millions taxpayers pay for actual elections fairly handled, the volunteers also paid another over $14,000 and spent days training and volunteering for just for a fair chance to see what all went wrong in the'04 election via at least a fair recount.

Similar evidence of '04 election and recount manipulations have been found all over Ohio. One county's recount was stopped early on because Mr. Blackwell, Bush's co-campaign manager in Ohio, declared ballots not to be public information; another had a Homeland Security Alert which the neither the FBI nor Homeland Security ever heard of; and on....

Some of these Ohio recount incidents, and more recently, the finding that the majority of Ohio's 88 boards threw away large portions of their '04 election data well before the legal retention period and despite a court order to keep them so '04 election research could continue- if nothing else, to be learned and handled in a protective way for '08, which it has not been - has only allowed such election injustices to continue.

• The 6 month Diversion Program and Their Records Are Expunged - And beyond the no-contest plea with no finding, the lawyers also had previously agreed that at today's hearing, these two women, Maiden and Dreamer would be put on a "Diversion Program," for six months, instead of proceeding with an appeals trial or going to jail.

The defense a few times in the earlier trial asked for the charges to be dismissed. That was denied each time by the previous judge, Judge Peter Corrigan. The defense had at one point after the sentencing to jail, called for the new trial based upon his claims of new evidence. The Prosecutor insisted there was no new evidence, and again, on and on...

Now this.

Apparently this last week's lawyers' agreement for a Diversion program is a far better deal for these election officials whom the jury found guilty - besides not going through a new trial and still having the prospect of jail hanging over their heads, or even just having to hope for a really easy probation officer.

At first glance, this Diversion just sounds like the latter an easy, short probation. But a little bit of research shows that the Diversion Program also allows for much more - their entire record to be expunged at the end of their 6-month, minimum time, program - as long as they're good. And who wouldn't be.

For a bit more info about Diversion see http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us/Unit.aspx?uid=6&uname=General%20Felony

It says in part:
"Diversion and Early Intervention Programs (EIP)
These programs are for first time offenders. Diversion is for non-violent and non-drug related offenses and Early Intervention Programs (EIP) is for first time drug related offenses.

These programs are utilized to hold the offender responsible for their criminal conduct and place them in a supervised program. The goal is reestablish the offender in the community without a felony record after the successful completion of a number of requirements such as, but not limited to:
• Admitting to the crime
• Regularly reporting to a probation officer
• Completing community service
• Undergoing drug testing
• Paying all restitution to victims
• Paying all court costs


After successful completion of the program, which lasts from 6 months to 1 year, the offender’s record is expunged.
The Unit not only handles the largest volume but the widest range of cases. Cases include,
but are not limited to, the below listed offenses in the Ohio Revised Code: Offenses Against Person/Property


Attempted Murder
§2923.02/
§2903.02

Aggravated Robbery
§2911.01

Kidnapping
§2905.01

Felonious Assault
§2903.11

Domestic Violence
§2919.25

Aggravated Arson
§2909.02

Burglary
§2911.12

Breaking & Entering
§2911.13

Drug Possession
§2925.11

Illegal Processing of Drug Documents
§2925.23

Grand Theft Motor Vehicle
§2913.02

Receiving Stolen Property
§2913.02

Identity Theft
§2913.49

Forgery
§2913.31

Passing Bad Checks
§2913.11

Insurance Fraud
§2913.47

Criminal Simulation
§2913.32

Drug Trafficking
§2925.03

Illegal Assembly or Possession of Chemicals for the Manufacture of Drugs
§2925.04.1
Failure to Comply w/ Order or Signal of Police Officer
§2921.33.1

Bribery
§2921.02

Intimidation
§2921.03

Retaliation
§2921.05

Perjury
§2921.11

Tampering with Records
§2913.42

Obstructing Justice
§2921.32

Escape
§2921.34

Illegal Manufacture of Drugs or cultivation of marijuana
§2925.04
Carry Concealed Weapons
§2923.12

Having Weapons While under Disability
§2923.13

Improperly Discharging Firearm at or into habitation or school
§2923.161

Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle
§2923.16

Unlawful Possession of Dangerous Ordnance
§2923.17

Deception to Obtain Dangerous Drugs
§2925.22

Permitting Drug Abuse
§2925.13"

• What will be expected of them for the 6 months? We have no idea. The Defense reported today that Cuyahoga County program has agreed to oversight it....
Most with whom I've spoken, imagine the absolute least, with the women living at home in their normal daily lives, and reporting in. Will they even be asked to repay the recount monies contributors handed to the CCBOE for a fair recount per the restitution suggested above?

• And today's PD reported (see article below) that the defense also is now even starting to push for taxpayers to also pay their enormous legal fees for this end-run no justice to the voters of Cuyahoga.

In March, 07 the lawyer for the Rosie Grier who got acquitted at the earlier trial, Mr. Dominic Vinantonio came to the Cuyahoga Board and with a letter addressed to the Board/Bob Bennett, then-Chairperson, that referred to an earlier letter signed by Bob Bennett, (the latter letter to be uploaded soon) asking for Vinantonio's legal fees to be paid by the taxpayers because his client had been found innocent.

At that March board meeting, that board agreed to recommend that payment from the County taxpayer coffers. (That seemingly also gave Mr. Bennett the idea, when he sued to try to keep his job, when the SoS released him early this year, to have taxpayers pay his legal fees too.)

The letter said in part:


Also see (and to better see the above exerpt from the above linked letter): http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-thats-not-first-time-weve-picked-up_30.html

My understanding, however, is that Assistant County Prosecutor, Dave Lambert wrote an opinion in response to that request, and denied such payment. I have not confirmed whether payment was tendered or not.

Now,the other defense lawyers are trying for the same thing. (?Expungement= innocence?)
And don't forget, we also paid for the Prosecutor too - by default.

Now, expungement could even allow Maiden and Dreamer back into election work.

In 6 months, we may or may not see where the "rubber" of politics may "hit the road " in our new board - so far excellent and extremely non-partisan. Will the two R-members suddenly demonstrate themselves to be more beholdin' to their GOP friends, Bennett and both defense attorneys, than to the people? We can only hope and insist not.

• So in short, now the "no contesting" women, with "no finding," are after "Diversion," due back in Court on 5/27, apparently to see how they "Diversioned"/allowed themselves to be somehow "monitored" for 6 months, and for expungement.

That is the "politics" of Cuyahoga and election justice.

One of the few very brightly shining spots since March however, for a touch of local light, breath and maybe even hope, has been the excellent performance of the new Director and Board to date.

• Here is the PD article from today.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/11/elections_board_workers_to_tak.html

Elections board workers take plea deal
Posted by
Jim Nichols
November 05, 2007
11:26AM

Categories: Crime, Impact

A special prosecutor ended a two-year drive to convict two county elections workers for rigging a ballot recount during the hotly contested 2004 presidential election.
In a plea deal announced this morning, prosecutors let the two women take probation without admitting any wrongdoing.
Jacqueline Maiden, the board's third-ranking staff member, and middle manager Kathleen Dreamer each pleaded no contest to negligent misconduct and failure to perform official duties during that November general election. The charges are, respectively, a felony and a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 18 months in prison.
That's exactly the sentence Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Peter Corrigan imposed last March after a jury convicted Maiden, 60, and Dreamer, 41, of those same charges. But Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer ordered that another judge hear the defendants' argument for a new trial because Corrrigan appeared biased toward the prosecution.
The upshot of that: Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold ordered a new trial, which was to begin on Monday.
Instead, the three-year-old case withered away.
Typically, after a no-contest plea, a judge finds a defendant guilty or not guilty. But under the plea deal's terms, Saffold made no finding. If the women don't break any laws during their six-month probationary period, the case against them will close, and they can have their records wiped clean.
Despite that, Baxter said he is satisfied and vindicated. The no-contest plea, he said, is an affirmation that the prosecution's facts and allegations are correct, Baxter said.
"As a prosecutor, you're looking for a fair resolution, not necessarily just a conviction," said Baxter, who is the Erie County prosecutor. "The bottom line that we still say today is that the recount was manipulated. We still believe that. But at the end of the day, these two ladies took some responsibility for their actions."
Dreamer, 41, and Maiden, 60, declined to comment afterward. But Dreamer's attorney, Roger Synenberg, emphasized that the defendants absolutely did not take any responsibility.
"If that had been a condition of this plea, we would've gone to trial," Synenberg said. "They're not accepting responsibility because they didn't do anything wrong.
"That might be Kevin's spin on this, but that's not the way it was."
Synenberg also said he will press the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections to pay his "substantial" legal fee.
"The board said it would pay if there was no finding of guilt," he said. "Well, there is no finding of guilt."
At issue was how the board and its staff conducted a sample recount of ballots after third-party candidates demanded a countywide vote recount. That sampling was meant as a test of the validity of tabulating machines; if a hand count of the sample - 3 percent of the county's votes - proved the machine count accurate, the board could assume the broader automatic tabulation was also accurate and forego a tedious, expensive and potentially embarrassing hand recount of all 600,000-plus votes.
The board staff rigged the sample count because the precincts actually were secretly selected in advance of the closely watched recount, said Baxter, who was brought in to try the case because Mason is the board's lawyer. The pre-count ensured the 3-percent sample included only precincts whose hand and machine counts matched.
Dreamer, Maiden and a third worker, Rosie Grier, were charged for the fudging. They countered that the board had always done things that way - with the knowledge of its attorney, one of Mason's assistants.
"There was no evidence to that effect - none," Baxter said.
He faulted the media for spreading that "convenient misrepresentation," and for falsely portraying the board managers as low-level employees. Such media portrayals, and a string of editorials in The Plain Dealer that blasted the prosecution as an "overreach, weakened the prosecution's moral foundation by persuasively misrepresenting the case's facts," Baxter said.


COMMENTS (5)

Posted by DKMcClurkin on 11/05/07 at 12:21PM

Wait just a minute! Mason's office approved this not-according-to-O.R.C. sampling rig, so these ladies are excused? Maybe it's time to bring Mr. Mason up on charges. I was a witness to the so-called recount and heard the announcement first-hand that the precincts had been selected "not-quite-randomly" in order to be "representative."
It's clear to me that these women were pushed out in front to take a rap for something the Chairman and Director contrived to hide reality. My concerns are: 1) What did they want to hide - the unreliability of the secretly coded electronic machines? 2) Why did they do this - to mask the fact of greater votes for the Democrat vs the Republican" 3) Did they know something the public did not - that Cuyahoga County was being much watched nationally and they didn't want the embarrassment of the truth?
Smoke? Yes. Fire? YES.


Posted by BelloStronzo on 11/05/07 at 1:14PM
The Board of Elections manages elections and counts/certifies the votes. Here we have Elected Judges. Elected Supreme Court Justices. Elected County Prosecutors. Everyone is pushing this quietly under the rug. Nothing happened. Everything's OK. No one's to blame. It was all a mistake.
Anyone else smell something rotten?


Posted by BastaPasta on 11/05/07 at 1:35PM
The corruption continues. Admitting they were wrong means Bush may not have been President. The questions were raised in 2004 why the election problems where the worst in majority black neighborhoods of Cleveland and Columbus and the liberal college town near Kenyon University. Here we are today saying something wasn't right but we're not going to push the issue. Disgusting.


Posted by steds5150 on 11/05/07 at 1:55PM
I am now officially disenfranchised. Why bother voting when it doesn't count?


Posted by mypinion on 11/05/07 at 3:38PM
If Judge and I use that term losely Stickland-Saffold had anything to do with this corruption was a definite that is one evil human being.

The PD article is Copyright Cleveland.com 2007

And Now for Some FACTS Added to Bennett's "Campaign of Disinformation"

The video below shows Chair Bennett's opening remarks at the 3/21/07 board meeting, the rest of the board's public refutation of agreement with him (for one of the first times in almost 3 years;) and Mr. Coaxum's, the most dedicated and wisest there, resignation.
As to Bennett's opening remarks, any truly random sample of video on this blog with him in it, demonstrates the absolute opposite nature of the real, not created picture Bennett puts forth about his "dedication" to open and fair elections, and "open mindedness" in working with colleagues."

(Dave Lambert - the direct superior of Reno Oradini, Assist. Cnty. Prosecutor, who normally handles board legal matters - was sitting directly in front of Bennett, as he was in attendance instead of Oradini. When you see the film, you'll understand why.)


Regarding '04 recount whistleblower, Fran Lally, Lally's testimony as I remember from the trial, (until I get a copy of the transcript which Bennett ordered without board approval for $2500.00, but is now public record), Lally stated that days before the recount, he accidentally walked in on was later determined to be the illegal pre-count process.
He saw as I remember, at least 5 board employees there handling the '04 ballots (which law states are not to be unsealed until the time of the recount.) From their immediately quieted demeanor when he entered, and their handling the ballots, he sensed something was wrong.

It was on the day after the main recount, which happened on December 16, 2004, when witnesses were first present, when a smaller group of witnesses returned to check for proper ballot books being used in precincts, when Lally heard those witnesses talking about how so many had noticed that the ballots had been presorted and pre-counted, when his previous suspicions seemed more confirmed. (Those 12/17 witnesses were looking to see if the proper ballot book per ballot rotation had been included per precinct. BTW, they did find that the proper book was not always included, which would have made voters cast votes/punch holes for non-intended candidates.)
Lally stated clearly that he did not tell his boss, Michael Vu, but went to the prosecutor on December 17, that same day, for legal help, because he believed that his boss, Michael Vu actually knew about whatever was going on. Lally was Vu's Executive Assistant. He had daily, firsthand knowledge of Vu's and the deputy director's work and ethics.

Regarding Candice Hoke, that Bennett now claims he didn't know what legal guidance roles Hoke and her husband took for the '04 recount, demonstrates either a major hearing impairment or completely not listening, or lying. Hers was not a role that was hidden from the board.
Hoke in fact had been in conversation with Vu in her guidance role about the negative legal implications of Vu's insistence that the board was not going to use as first sample, a 3% random selection of all ballots done before witnesses, per the law - but that they were going to do the sample selection themselves, by themselves, of a supposed "random" selection of precincts with 550 votes or more cast - which includes then only 8% of all precincts - before any witnesses got there.

And George Taylor, Hoke's husband, stood before the board on December 22, at the recount certification meeting, and told them of the anomalies the witnesses had found, making us suspect the foul play that later got convicted.
But did the board do anything about it? Take him seriously?
Or did they tell him like they tell everyone else "they'd look into it" - before this matter, like all others citizens have brought to them, got shoved into their very large black hole? Take a guess.

Bennett said that had they known they would have gotten a court order to do a "redo!" HAH! We've actually witnessed them schedule board meetings around their own other engagements. They would have added to their "business as usual" only 3 days before Christmas, with board vacations waiting too? HAH!

Though Hoke's role as principal of her own "Center for Election Integrity," as "the Public Monitor", is in my opinion also a highly questionable one for democracy, the public, and transparency - and with the access, control of even activist information and volunteer labor, and some public funding for staff she was able to garner, all mostly before the public even became aware - she did nevertheless, produce some good and revelatory reports for citizens and for the name of the usually-paid Center.
Those special access, public revelations, apparently are NOT what Bennett expected from the deal. (I will consider in a future post more facts about why I firmly believe this "Public Monitor" role should also be resigned in the name of excellent election integrity.)

As to Reno Oradini, the Assistant County Prosecutor, who normally handles legal matters for the board of elections - unlike what Bennett describes, once informed of what they were really doing, not just handed old written procedures where ballot pre-counting and swapping were NOT included, Oradini DID do something.
He, according to procedure, prepared a memo with his knowledge, and took it to his bosses in the Prosecutor's office, who decided to proceed with an investigation of the CCBOE. He could not have stopped the certification. And it's been long publicly long apparent that when Mr. Bennett does not like Oradini's findings of actual law (he starts calling him "Mr. Reno" - like "boy!")) he hardly remains open to hearing Oradini's decisions about the right things to do.

It seems that the prosecutor's office, headed by William Mason, is still investigating, still trying to "smoke out" in this traditional culture of political appointments, cover-up and don't tell on superiors - the truth of what happened in '04 and '06, and who all knew about it.

In the next video you'll see Lambert excellently reply about Bennett's continuing the "campaign of disinformation." (Bennett's repetitive disinformation themes actually seem eerily similar to, and an extension of, the tacts and tactics used by the defense in the trial and sentencing hearing.)




Next, Bennett goes on and on and on to the press after the meeting. Some say he obviously "protests far too greatly" to not obviously have his own personal investment in these previous board employees "getting off."

Looking for a new director, deputy director & the 90 days in between

It's official. After a few five+ hour executive sessions with their lawyers, former CCBOE Director, Michael Vu's is now a CCBOE consultant, through June 30 at about $11,000/month. Gwen Dillingham, per the agreement she worked out on her very last day, 2/28, with her lawyer Roger Synenberg (yes the same former board member, and lawyer for Kathy Dreamer in the trial article below) representing her (yes, it's probably exactly what you're thinking...) will be a "consultant" until the end of August, at approximately $9,000+/month.

With current HR Director and Administrator, Jane Platten taking over the Interim Director duties, through the May election, there may be a chance for the atmosphere at the board to become far more competent, and far less fearfully toxic.


Also, at least temporarily, there need be no change in the Chairmanship of the election board. Platten is a Dem, as was Vu declared, so the Ohio GOP head, Bob Bennett, (Robert T.) can remain as Chair, per the split prescribed in Ohio law. There have been more than a few conjectures that his desire to remain Chair might ultimately limit the board's choices for director to only Dems who apply, though he denies that to be true.


Also to be noted is that there has been public wrangling about forcing the ouster of Dillingham and Vu since July, '06, when the Cuyahoga Review Panel report was released about the CCBOE and the debacle May'06 election, http://bocc.cuyahogacounty.us/GSC/pdf/elections/CERP_Final_Report_20060720.pdf
It showed often scathing revelations about Vu and Dillingham's lack of "integrity" and competence.
The board then had at least two such wrangling meetings ( a bit refreshing when usually things are just decided ahead of time) with a 2-2 split across party lines, about the forcing out. Bennett and fellow R, Sally Flourkewicz, who ALWAYS goes along with Bennett, said they stay; the two Dems, Ed Coaxum and Loree Soggs, were adamant about their leaving even then - "stopping the hemorhaging" as they say.

However, there were "problems" with Bennett sending the tie down to Columbus, for Blackwell's office to break; then the board got together and seemed to "make up" to get the Commissioners to appropriate another more than $5 million for 900 more Diebold machines and Diebold "extras" (to cover the number of breakdowns in the first 5,000+, only months-old Diebold machines!!! Makes one wonder if anyone promised Diebold a minimum millions in orders); and eventually the public was just waiting for the "other shoe to drop" while it appears the board was waiting to see what happened at the recount rigging trial- maybe if any wrong doing finally fell into the lap of Vu, Dillingham, or even themselves.

That the shoe dropped now, right after the recount trial is telling. If everything were on the up and up, and if none of them had "goods"on the others, the trial would be a completely separate issue. However, now that some lower managers got convicted to show the public that "justice was done" (and while they are all now dealing in all ways possible to keep THEM out of jail, thus quiet;) while the higher ups all stayed free of prison threat and reputation stain - says a lot.

In fact, that Dillingham waited until the last day of her resignation to negotiate her "buy out" consultancy - which in a normal world would have left her little leverage, as the board could have just fired her if they could not agree to her terms, (albeit with another 2-2 tie taken to the SoS office.) This seems to point to the fact that she has a lot of personal knowledge leverage (and I don't mean about the election process.)

And that Bennett, in the PD article linked below, was quoted as saying that Gwen got a longer consultancy- months of pay - than Vu ( though they equal to about the same total amount) because of her 17 years of service to the board, when all facts show that at least the last few years have been years of spreading lack of integrity into our election process, and that her head was on the line a few times before - shows that nothing is really as it's made to look here in Cuyahoga.

SoS Brunner's Directive 2007-01
New Secretary of State Brunner, a breath of fresh air, in this matter too, while probably also speaking off the record, weighed into this whole dynamic publicly with her very first, very objective SoS directive:
Minimum Qualifications of Directors and Deputy Directors of BOE's
http://www.sos.state.oh.us:80/sos/electionsvoter/directives/2007/Dir2007-01.pdf

One sad and almost funny thing about it is that she had to specify that to qualify, the director and deputy of our Ohio boards must have at least a GED. That demonstrates the level to which political hackery and nepotism have devolved Ohio's boards of elections, supposedly "leading" democracy's most sacred trust.
Near the end of the directive she spells out that a local board must vote to break a tie in their selection process at least 5 times in one meeting, to try to break their partisan conflict, before sending the decision to her office to break.

The Search Committee
Also, the board named an 8 member director search committee on Feb. 6 to find candidates. It is headed by Captain William Wilkins a former CCBOE director, '95 - 2000, and former Coast Guard captain. It contains the heads of both county parties, others to partisanly balance, and the most acquiescent of local election activists. Their applications process has been extended through 3/7.
The big joke goes - Who would want that job? (Wilkins himself, it appears was set up by others' non-responsibility taking, and forced out in 2000.)

For more details about this, see Joan Mazzolini's Plain Dealer article from yesterday.
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/117274210873470.xml&coll=2

And what about the sentencing of the two women convicted of felonious election actions ?

I just got an email inquring:

Hello All: I have been eagerly anticipating the
sentencing of Ohio BOE workers convicted of
manipulating the 2004 election outcome. Has anyone
heard anything yet? Have these people been sentenced
to jail time? Please advise.

Here was my reply that I thought might be of interest to more:
The sentencing of Jaqui Maiden and Kathy Dreamer was originally scheduled for 2-26. The defense, however filed a motion for a continuance of the sentencing hearing.
It was granted for March 13. (Oddly, the way I, in Cleveland, had to find out about the delayed hearing, was from tireless Kathleen Wynne, formerly of BlackBoxVoting, now living in Texas, and who was a lead testifier for the prosecution.)

So no, they have not been sentenced yet. (They have however, been assigned a probation officer to whom I assume they must report.)

However, happening concurrently in that regard are:
1. The defense has also filed two motions for a new trial - apparently for two different reasons (which I don't know clearly) - as almost a rote route to the next step which is going to the court of appeals. An appeal has been stated as certainty, if those motions for new trial don't work. I highly doubt that the former will be granted, since a throw out of trial was attempted before the last one ended. Those attempts were summarily denied by Judge Corrigan before. Still with no good reason for throwing the last one out, I still don't see him granting a new trial now.

So after he denies the motions, it's on to the court of appeals - I'm guessing still without prison sentence.

2. Also on Feb.5 the Cuyahoga board announced that they had just adopted "a new policy" regarding payment of managers/employees who leave under "extraordinary circumstances". ( I call it "hush money" ( ...alas, still paid for by taxpayers.))

You see, the board's OWN culpability, knowledge, and responsibility, along with the Director's and Deputy Director's ( the latter two both just resigned and leaving) in the fraudulent '04 recount actions have NEVER been publicly explored - and in fact has been skirted - to a bizarre degree.
ie. Who above those women could have told those non-decision making managers told them to do what they did and/or allowed them to do it with full knowledge of the felonious events. ( It appears pretty clear from testimony at trial, the staff makeup of the CCBOE, the layout of the building, history, and statements made even before the trial, that superiors seemed to have full knowledge of what was being done - and in fact there were at least 5 more BOE employees in the room helping. )

The WHO IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR the fraud on the electorate - who could do it all over again thinking they can get away with it with no consequences - is the REAL question - and has been all along, though it's been unasked and thus unanswered, even all during the trial. It seems that the major thing women could be guilty of is "lying" and protecting them.

The not asking out loud, the women risking jail to continue the culture of cover up and protection, (maybe believing that this too could be made to just "go away" as so much else is in the corrupt political dynamic of Cuyahoga politics) is what made the whole trial so bizarre - so obviously off point, and made all the other straws at which the defense grasped look so ridiculous.

The prosecutor had even promised the women immunity before the trial if they would tell, and has said that even now he is willing to "talk to them". But the people who might possibly be implicated - are some on the board - like Bob Bennett, the powerful head of the Ohio GOP - so there's some powerful protection to be kept. (And it really doesn't even seem as if the women were paying for their own defense...ahem.)

So right now, Maiden under the CCBOE"brand new policy" is to get paid for all of her overtime and vacation pay, instead of just let go with no payment - to the tune of over $27,000 ...of taxpayer money - more than many taxpayers make in a year. That's one heck of alot of vacation time. (I've just asked for the supporting docs.)
Dreamer, lower in position, is getting over $8K.

Also most people's understanding was that the women were fired and off the BOE payroll as of 1/24 (because of election law and the felony convictions) - the day of conviction. They were however, still on the payroll as of Feb 5 - though not working.

Also, now as the Director has resigned, and the Deputy, they are being retained as "consultants" for some months.... getting somewhere around $40,000 each for a few months of "consultancy"- also of taxpayer money. (Though they could be implicated in the recount felonies, they seemingly also have the leverage of ability to implicate more. It appears that they too need to be kept "happy".)

So that is the current state of affairs from the convictions.

As was just noted on the Case-OH list there was an article published on January 24 in the Cleveland Free Times about the trial, "House of Ballot Cards" That article was way off base in many many ways - and for reasons I can only conjecture, but will not do that here.
http://www.freetimes.com/story/4694

For a fuller understanding please also read my reply to that article, "Ballot Boxed" published in the FreeTimes on 2/7.
http://www.freetimes.com/story/4774

And for here, I add, that I also put the full letter written, including the more enlightening parts, but needed to be left out because of space, though the Free Times did do a job of excellent journalistic integrity. It is posted under comments below.
And no, I'm not just talking to myself here. I just have not yet widely distributed the address/existence of this blog. Feel free to do so, and to comment. Also, I'll post some film of the last days of the trial, film of CCBOE meeting parts with implications for other jurisdictions (as the below post about Diebold EMP's, and alot more about the many other "interesting happenings" here in Cuyahoga...

Hope this helps.