Back to Vu & San Diego, CA's Whole Barrel-ful of Rotten Apples

In IM talk, this post can only begin OMG! How blatantly ridiculous can it become?
From today's San Diego's North County Times:
San Diego County hires ex-sales rep for Diebold as registrar

By: WILLIAM FINN BENNETT - Staff Writer

NORTH COUNTY -- A former sales representative for the company that made the county's electronic voting machines has been hired as the county's registrar of voters, county officials announced Friday.

In 2003, the county bought 10,000 electronic voting machines from Diebold Election Systems. The county's new registrar, Deborah Seiler, said Friday that she worked as sales representative for the company and was directly involved in the successful effort to sell the company's equipment to the county in 2003.

In addition to her stint at Diebold, the 57-year-old woman's resume reflects a broad background in elections, dating to the late 1970s, when she served as assistant chief of elections with the California secretary of state's office. In 1982, she became assistant to the secretary of state for elections and political reform and held that position until 1989. Between 1991 and 1999, Seiler worked as director of customer relations for the electronic voting machine company, Sequoia Pacific Systems. She also served as a commissioner with the California Fair Political Practices Commission between 1993 and 1997.

In San Diego County, many of the questions surrounding recent elections -- and the hiring of Seiler -- involve electronic voting machines made by Diebold.

Diebold sold more than 10,000 of the machines to the county at a total cost of $31 million.

"Our job was simply to point out the merits of the hardware and the software," Seiler said.

At least one election watchdog says he is not happy with the hire.

"There is always going to be that question, 'Is there a conflict of interest?' " said Carlsbad attorney Ken Simpkins, who unsuccessfully sued San Diego County last year to force it to put enough paper ballots at the polls to cover the county's 1.3 million voters.

"When Diebold's contract comes up for renewal or there are disagreements, is she going to represent her former company or the citizens of San Diego County?" Simpkins asked when contacted by the North County Times on Friday.

Seiler has served for the last three years as the assistant registrar of voters in Solano County. She will start as the new local elections chief next month and earn an annual salary of $150,000, she said.

Seiler said that running the county's elections will not be easy, especially because three major elections are scheduled in 2008 -- the presidential primaries in February, primary elections for state and local offices in June and the general presidential election in November.

With the first of those elections about nine months out, Secretary of State Debra Bowen recently called for a "top-to-bottom" review of the state's electronic voting systems to assure voters that their elections systems were "secure, accurate and reliable." The call for a review added to the growing controversy over the voting machines, which opponents say are rife with vulnerability to vote manipulation.

Seiler said Friday that her biggest challenge is "the uncertainty about the voting system because of the secretary of state's review."

"Uncertainty is always a challenge when you are walking into a major election cycle," she said.

Bowen has said that the review of the voting machines could produce three possible findings: that the machines have no problems, that they do have problems that could be fixed, or that the machines can't be fixed and should be decertified.

It's the potential for decertification that has Seiler concerned, especially in light of the fact that the February presidential primaries are only about nine months away, she said.

"There would be a wholesale change to the system that would require re-education of poll workers and voters and would require a restructuring of our procedures," Seiler said.

Recent years have seen a number of people serve as registrar for the county. Mikel Haas held the job between 1995 and 2001, before stepping down. Sally McPherson took over the job, but retired in 2005 and Haas became registrar again.

In April, Haas was promoted to the job of director of the county's Community Services Group, a job in which he oversees six county departments, including the registrar of voters office. Retired Riverside County Registrar of Voters Mischelle Townsend took over as interim chief elections officer while the county searched for a replacement for Haas.

Seiler's hiring was the second decision by the county in the last month or so to raise questions from election watchdogs. In April, county officials announced that they were giving the job of assistant registrar of voters to former Cuyahoga County Ohio elections chief Michael Vu, who served in that position for three and a half years.

During his tenure, the county gained national notoriety when a federal judge in Cleveland ordered 16 Cuyahoga County polling stations to stay open 90 minutes after the 7:30 closing time in November's elections because of voting machine problems and long waiting lines for voters.

In January, a court convicted two elections workers in that county of illegally rigging the 2004 presidential election recount so they could avoid a more complete review of votes. Vu defended the workers, saying they had followed long-standing procedures and done nothing wrong.

Haas said Friday that he was instrumental in hiring Seiler and he believes that the county has found a "gem."

"Her depth and breadth of knowledge of elections in California for over 27 years was the absolute driving point in hiring her," Haas said.

Asked if Seiler's association with Diebold played a role in the decision to hire her, Haas said: "We use that system, so it's kind of a plus."

-- Contact staff writer William Finn Bennett at (760) 740-5426, or wbennett@nctimes.com.

1. Interesting in this article, besides the open "chutzpah"-abuse going on in San Diego, are the same mantra, foolish excuses used nationally by those who "protect" their ability to continue to, with the least amount of questions, hand over millions of taxpayer dollars to Diebold for their insecure junk (...and for what back???) and that allow insider, undetectable changes to election results. These all include some form of:

• we can't change horses midstream;
• we're (always) too close to an election to think and change make changes ...to provide accuracy, security and verifiability;
• we can't check facts, or we may come up with "unknowns," which would be "bad" for a too-close election; or
• we have a great "solution" for the Diebold "glitches" - which always involves buying MORE Diebold junk and lousy, incomplete services.

2. Interesting also is this article written by a Bennett (of the same spelling,) includes comment by Sally McPherson, another of the former San Diego Registrars. (Haas '95-2001; McPherson,'01-'05; Haas again, '05 - and then I lose count - for Mischelle Townsend's (also with legal complaints still against her) is also in there somewhere - twice.)
But Sally McPherson retired in March, '05, earlier in the same month that Bruce McPherson was appointed Secretary of State for California when Kevin Shelley resigned. Maybe unrelated to anything. Just interesting.


3. Interesting also is that rumor had it back in November, '06 that after the two failed attempts by CCBOE Dem members to immediately oust Vu in July and August '06, that Michael Vu in his borrowed time until after the November election, was trying to get a job at Diebold, after his final axe would come down.

Given the caliber of Cuyahoga's Diebold "Project Manager," Jessica Hiner, who only rarely could answer questions posed to her - unless she was selling something and quoting prices - and who from her "managing" Diebold's "take" from Cuyahoga to well over $15 million, has since gotten a promotion - it seems Vu there might have been the perfect fit.

He, however stayed to follow Bennett's lead in handing over more millions to Diebold, (and sometimes making large amounts hard to find, under lists of "vouchers", not under contracts) - until Bennett could hold Vu's cover no more - after the conviction of the two board employees for the recount rigging.


Though the Bennett/Vu relationship was always "B:'jump'-and-V:'how high?'", obvious to anyone who watched just one meeting, Bennett liked to point out their "separation" stating that Vu was registered as a Dem, and Bennett was registered, obviously as a Republican.
As if that mattered.
Not only can "politics make strange bedfellows" but self-interest and greed trumps all.


4. Also regarding Vu's Cuyahoga registration,
In the case of Vu, and his arrival to the CCBOE/Bennett, at the end of July '03, as I understand it, Vu arrived from Utah as an Independent.
(Salt Lake is where he had worked with Mischelle Townsend, his "mentor", who this year, having been in San Diego, and a few months ago having returned to her old Registrar position as Interim Registrar there, hired him.)

When Vu arrived in Cuyahoga in '03, Democrat Tom Coyne was board chair, and Roger Synenberg,Republican (the one and same!) were on the board, (before Soggs and Florkiwiecz respectively,) and were planning to leave the following January.

When Coyne and Synenberg did leave at the beginning of '04, again, as I remember it, Vu then declared himself a Democrat, so he could be "a major party" Director and Bennett could become the board chair of the opposite party. (Vu's changing parties twice, once as Republican to get the job, then again, so Bennett could be chair, certainly would have attracted too much attention.)

But not only was Vu willing to hold and change parties for the job, (- and again, I need to find and again go through through those '03-'04 very sketchy agendae, minutes and documents to check, since I wasn't there until the '04 election and recount that finally caught my attention) not too long after Vu's arrival came a "Realignment."(One word, no explanation on the agenda)

In February, '04 a few board top staffers with satisfactory work records, and with no warnings, got fired. (During that period, the clerk had unknowingly left the tape recorder going during an executive session, where the old board was casually, deciding on employee moves and salaries according to how it would look, not on merit. A request of the tape of the regular meeting revealed their amazing casual-game mode for moving people around.)

In "board-speak" that "realignment" was to achieve a "leaner, 'less-political' team".(A 2/04 PD article) Bruce Trakas, the business manager and Nancy Minco, the human resources manager, were replaced by now Interim Director Platten, who had been an aid for Tim McCormack and a project manager for the Commissioners.

While that appointment has turned out to be a wonderful gift to this county, the general understanding then, however, was that the board both liked Platten's stellar work, and her easy connection to the Commissioners - the keepers of the funds, especially for their planned and decided purchase of lots of Diebold machines. (That Diebold decision was voted on, and refused to be moved from, since Feb.'04 - before the public had any chance to know - while Bennett's pal O'Dell had recently purchased Global Election Systems for Diebold, "insiderly" knowing lots of national sales were coming down the pike, (before HAVA was passed.))

Trakas sued. The case was either dismissed or settled (which I will find when I locate that file.)

However, as I remember from the Trakas documents, one of the claims was that not only did Vu sell out on his party alliance, but that he was hired, and possibly sworn in by the board in '03, when he wasn't yet even legally allowed to vote in Cuyahoga - which would have been against the law. Ohio law requires a BOE director to be a "qualified elector" in Ohio, which requires a 30 day residency.
As I remember, there was also an allegation in that Trakas suit, that Vu therefore, had his Cuyahoga registration fudged - which is a federal offense.

A thorough investigation of that, as well as his possible other offenses in Cuyahoga, including his prior knowledge of the '04 recount rigging seems certainly in order. His original registration card should be able to be found - again by federal law, as supposedly administered by him while he was here.
(See Do We Still Have Original Registration Cards? - from the 11/27/06 Board meeting at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3218510027399455231)

5. Also interesting, is the fact that California Secretary of State Bowen, like Ohio Secretary of State Brunner, is planning a"top-to-bottom" review of that state's e-voting devices over this summer. Both women campaigned on a platform of election reform, before winning and taking office in January.

Since no state did any thorough review with consideration of the costs and dangers to fair, accurate, verifiable, transparent elections, before purchasing these e-voting systems, this does need to get done certainly before another major election.

With the amount of work that needs to get done, the number of factors that need to be checked, the level of computer and election expertise necessary to conduct a really thorough review , it seems it might benefit the people of both states for them to share some of the work and information while they are doing it, certainly taking into account, each one's state laws.

Just like audits done after the fact, what we don't need are simply more reports of massive machine problems, or lists of policies that cannot, and we know, will not be adhered to by massive numbers of poll workers, in some rose-colored-glasses attempt to put yet another band-aid on the primitive, insecure and often non-operational computer systems that have cost this nation billions; have added more work not less; provide interactive database beginnings for eventually invading even that privacy - easily tracking each person's choices; and worse, in the end, providing no way to verify to voters that the vote results announced were actually the voters' majority choices.
___________________________________

More facts about Deborah, the Diebold Rep's, San Diego appointment as Registrar can be found in an excellent article posted today on BradBlog written by John Gideon.
His facts and additional links there, even show that it was Seiler who sold 1,200 touch-screen voting machines to the fine folks in Solano County, which were later proved uncertified.
_____________________________________

Before or after you check out BradBlog, also look at the post directly below for MORE on Vu in what one San Diego activist calls the "toxic waste dump"; and California Secretary of State SoS Debra Bowen's response to my letter dated April 15 about Vu, San Diego, and the message this sends throughout the elections industry.

Alas - MORE about Vu in San Diego & CA Secretary of State Bowen's reply to my letter re: Vu's appointment as Assistant Registrar of Voters

From the 7/28/06 rally in front of the CCBOE

In the 4/11/07 San Diego North County Times article that started this concept-thread, and prompted my 4/15 letter to California Secretary of State, Deborah Bowen, urging her to thoroughly review Vu's appointment before allowing it to stand

Gig Conaughton the article's author stated:

San Diego County officials declined to make Vu available for an interview Wednesday. However, Vu was quoted in previous interviews as saying it was his decision to resign, based upon his belief that the Cuyahoga board wanted new leadership.

Vu's decision? His belief?? Like it was a choice, as in Santa Claus?
Try a few of these Cuyahoga examples below, and see what you believe about Vu's honesty and competence, even after he left Cuyahoga, apparently still thinking that all he had to do was to say it, and everyone would believe him - and the lack of truth of his words about other lacks, would never catch up with him:

1. A handheld, thus shaky video that speaks for itself. On 7/28/06 people gathered in front of the CCBOE to demand Vu's leaving.


2. The above was a result of the Cuyahoga Election Review Panel's (CERP) report, from the panel that the board had chosen following the debacle May,'06 election under Vu, that was published on 7/21/06. Links to that report, pointing out Section 7 the most concentrated section about Vu, under "Management" and referred to as a "scathing review" in the above video; and the Election Science Institute (ESI) report were both noted in the letter sent to CA SoS for her review.

The morning of CERP's release, July 21,2006 the board held a meeting, which ended in a 2-2 split about Vu's ouster, split along party lines (the 4-person framework, 2-D's and 2-R's of Ohio BOEs seem almost to prevent ability to move forward, rather than help.)
You can download a copy of the official transcript of that 7/21/06 meeting here.
After you read it, see if you think there was any doubt that it was NOT Vu's choice to leave. He was demanded out.

Though Bennett wanted him to stay - since the recount rigging trial was still upcoming, and Bennett was still trying to make the whole thing covered AND gone away; AND be able to get more money into Diebold's pockets - Bennett needed a "satisfied Vu", to continue the business as usual for charade cover. Seeing how bad Vu was, even Bennett, however, was asking for Vu's staying only through the November election. (It DID turn out that Vu was able to stay, and was given the political out to "resign," until right after the trial's sentencing.)

Start at the bottom of page 4 of the transcript, then through page 8 then mixed throughout the transcript, you will find demands that Vu leave.
The following exerpt is from page 8, starting end line 5, with Mr. Coaxum speaking. Later, Mr. Soggs also spoke a number of times, just as directly.
Vu "believed" they wanted new leadership? I'm not sure how much clearer it could get...:

5 (starting my quote...) in
6 view of the performance of the executive
7 management over the past two years and
8 specifically on May 2nd, it is clear to me
9 that these individuals cannot provide
10 innovative responses and sensitive
11 leadership in Cuyahoga County to implement
12 the recommendations of the panel in order
13 to restore the confidence of the electors
14 in Cuyahoga County in a transparent and
15 efficient election process. Mr. Chairman
16 and members of this Board, the hemorrhaging
17 must stop now.
18 Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that
19 this Board request the immediate
20 resignation of Michael Vu as director and
21 Gwen Dillingham as deputy director and
22 project manager for e-voting conversion.
23 Should the director and the deputy director
24 decline to resign, then I move that they be
25 terminated forthwith. Mr. Chairman.

3. And here is a short clip toward the end of that 7/21 meeting where board member, Loree Soggs again demanded Vu's resignation, calling him "dangerous."



4. Then we go to the transcript of the next meeting, 8/7, the day before the August 8 special election. This was almost 3 weeks after the previous meeting.

As the public was there waiting to find out about SoS Blackwell's breaking the tie (actually for the public, an unsure decision, since rumor also had it that not only did the Commissioners essentially dislike Vu - look what he was doing to the county's reputation - but neither was even Mr. Blackwell any great fan of his.)

Starting on 48 of this transcript, you will find that, to everyone's surprise (because Bennett kept it that way...then feigned apology for "overlooking") Bennett hadn't even sent the tie vote to Blackwell for breaking, as was demanded by law, and as clarified by the Prosecutor!

Rather he sent two letters to Blackwell telling him why he didn't think he needed to send the tie vote to him, and why he didn't think the Proscutor was right - a typical duplicitous and devious Bennett tactic - this time for delay. (Notice how he also, in his subtle digging way, started to attempt to diminish Assistant Prosecutor Reno Oradini, by starting to call him "Mr. Reno" - like calling him "boy!") Then at each meeting, Bennett began counting down the days until November, always saying it was now really too close to the election to force Vu out, while both he and Vu kept rushing to ridiculously put more and more unnecessary taxpayer millions into Diebold's pockets. (Re: the latter see the following posts about Summer '06 meetings and their pouring millions ridiculously into Diebold's pockets.)
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-publicly-unseen-un-needed-millions.html
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2007/04/mr-bennett-ccc-diebold-and-poll-worker.html
and
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2007/04/diebold-repairs-another-overlooked.html)


5. Then we can read more articles from the North County Times in San Diego:

a. Here we have a 4/2 article, where Mischelle Townsend magnanimously stepped back into the Registrar role, just in time to hire Vu, (4/11) then again leaving a month later to make way for Deborah Seiler, the Diebold Rep.
Notice that Townsend, like Vu in Cuyahoga, was not even a resident of San Diego when she became the Registrar of Voters again there.

b. Here we have San Diego County Administrator Ekard, a few days later defending Vu. Notice they don't let Vu talk to the press. (Maybe they're on to his untruths and purposefully roundabout "Vu-babble.")
Ekard also off-point for an Assist. Registrar of Voters, calls Vu a "young family man." (So they had a baby. What does that have to do with character and competence for this important job?)
Ekard also refers to telling of the facts about Vu, as "character assassination." However, the person assassinating Vu's character, has been unfortunately, Vu himself in his actions.

c. And there is this little opinion ditty:

Roses and raspberries
By: North County Times Opinion staff -

The 'Premature Consternation' award

A raspberry to those who are already lambasting former Cuyahoga County, Ohio, elections chief Michael Vu, who was recently hired as San Diego County's new assistant registrar of voters.

The county's difficulty in finding a permanent registrar, and that it had to go halfway across the country to find someone to fill the assistant registrar position ---- which pays $130,000 a year ---- is an indication of just how impossible the job of running elections in San Diego County is becoming, at least to qualified applicants.

Qualified applicants? Vu never got it right, and only looked like he got closer with the assistance of a $4,000/week former director who ran Cuyahoga's November's election for him.

On the other hand, check out Cuyahoga's Smoothly Run May 8, 2007 Election, which took place finally without him.

d. This NCTimes article is about San Diego trying to also offer paper ballots at the polls because of activist insistence. Despite workers not offering them and in some cases discouraging their use, still over 8% of people requested and used them, in lieu of untrustworthy machines.

e. This is the 4/27 article about Bowen actually looking into lawyer activist Ken Simpkin's charges of wrongdoing in the November, '06 election.

f. And finally this article is about CA SoS Bowen starting testing of e-voting devices this week to consider the questions of problems, re-certification, etc. in that state.

SoS Brunner is the midst of conducting the same concept in Ohio, though I have not yet heard to date, whom they have hired, nor what the specific goals of the study will be.
Again, I'm not sure why Brunner and Bowen are not working together on this issue, combining resources, and information to cover the vast amount of ground that needs scrutiny. Hopefully they will each clearly lay out what dangers vs. benefits they are looking for before beginning.

Just because of the secret nature of the counting software and the lack of transparency and verifiability of the results, the machines should be not allowed in a democratic election. Vendors like Diebold need to bear financial liability for selling often faulty equipment, that has been obviously unfit for and incapable of conducting a fair, transparent, democratic, efficient and cost-efficient elections.

But What Did SoS Bowen Reply About the Vu Problem in San Diego?

The salient part of the May 2, reply reads:

"Unlike other states, county elections offices in California are not under the direct authority and control of the Secretary of State’s office.

If you would like to contact the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, which has the ultimate authority over the elections officials who serve the county...."

No "direct" control? As the Chief Elections Officer of the state? What about indirect control?

When things inevitably fall apart there, at least election integrity activists can say we properly warned her....
_____________________________
This is a poor reproduction of the reply:
It says in full:

Subj: RE: CORRECTION toletter
Re: Michael Vu's Appointment to Assistant San Diego Registrar Post Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 12:51:00 PM
From: secretary.bowen@sos.ca.gov
To: EisnerA@aol.com
Dear Ms. Eisner:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about San Diego County recently appointing Mr. Michael Vu as Assistant Deputy Registrar.

Unlike other states, county elections offices in California are not under the direct authority and control of the Secretary of State’s office.

If you would like to contact the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, which has the ultimate authority over the elections officials who serve the county, you can reach the Board at:
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions, or if I can assist you on another matter related to the Secretary of State's office, please contact my office at (916) 653-7244.

Sincerely
Debra Bowen Secretary of State

DB:jb:bmc

It says re: "Correction to Letter", because I needed to correct a typo for correctness and had resent the original with the correciton.

My first email cover said:

4/13/07

via email

The Honorable Debra Bowen
California Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Secretary of State Bowen:

I am writing to make you aware of my grave concerns regarding the hiring of Michael Vu as Assistant Deputy Registrar of Voters in San Diego County. As a long time Cleveland, Ohio resident, election integrity advocate, and citizen watchdog of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (Mr. Vu's previous employer,) I urge you to review the attached letter regarding some of the many documented, serious issues involved with Mr. Vu's tenure here, relating to both his competence and integrity, and which ultimately forced his resignation.

As a courtesy, I also want to let you know that I am sending the attached to a few media outlets.

Thank you,
Adele Eisner
Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118

__________________
The second body of email-cover letter read:

Yesterday, I sent you a letter expressing my grave concern regarding Michael Vu's Appointment to
Assistant San Diego Registrar Post.
A typographical error may have caused an inaccuracy in the point reflecting the large budget overruns that occurred under Mr. Vu's directorship for Cuyahoga County's 2006 elections.
Though by the time of this sending I have not had the opportunity to go beyond the Cuyahoga Board of Election's provided information, (which was also under his directorship) to attempt to obtain actual totals, in the interest of accuracy and caution that bullet point can more accurately read as below.
I have also provided the corrected letter in full, which is attached.

Correction:
"Director Vu oversaw a budget overrun for the 2006 elections in excess of 100% of the original 2006 election budget. Though totals have been difficult to determine from the election board's confused records and/or withholding of clear public information, overruns are estimated at more than $7M. This overrun included the necessary contracting with a former Cuyahoga County
elections director to assist director Vu’s management of the November 2006 election, at the approximate cost of $50,000."

Thank you,
Adele Eisner

Letter to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen Re:Michael Vu's Appointment to San Diego's Assistant Registrar of Voters Position

Here is my letter to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, expressing grave concern about Michael Vu's Appointment to San Diego's Assistant Registrar of Voters post.

The letter highlights just some of the many issues demonstrating Vu's lack of competence and integrity which he displayed consistently throughout his 3+ years as Director of Cuyahoga's elections,

• allowing laws to be broken with his knowledge, and/or lack of knowledge or care about his given tax-paid mission of fair, accurate, verifiable elections for the voters of Cuyahoga and Ohio (as statewide and federal election results are an accumulation of results of all 88 counties;)
  
• creating massive budget overruns paid for by the citizens of the county, not only in attempts to cover his own failures, often bungled and also attempted to be covered up,
  

but also in permitting and attempting to cover up the letting of questionable, high-cost contracts,

and even the absolutely necessary high cost in August '06 of the additional hiring of a former CCBOE director, who DID know what he was doing, to allow the November '06 election to actually proceed for Cuyahoga - but in a way that now also ousted, CCBOE chair, Bob Bennett could prevail over widespread, demands for the Vu's firing, keep himself covered, and thus let $120,000/year Vu stay, and walk out saying that HE improved.

• creating a pall of fear and retribution, and uninformed and unrealistic expectations of others over the agency, which eventually prevented even the most talented workers from risking thinking about what they were doing or offering suggestions, but instead, just trying wade their ways out of ridiculous tasks unscathed, (and even at times to not to be "set up" for "taking the fall" for Vu... and Bennett, should a citizen ever find out.)
  

To today, the issues cited in the letter, remain self-unacknowledged, and still with Vu's foolish attempts to cavalierly misrepresent himself and cover up. See this article from the North County Times - San Diego, where Mr. Vu is quoted about his tenure in and leaving Cuyahoga, and his taking the new position. Gig Conaughton the writer has also been provided a copy of this letter.
(See also http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2007/04/stinko-replaced-by-pee-yoo_11.html)

Even Vu's and San Diego "election officials' " characterization to the press of Vu's having been "embattled" and scrutinized only because Cuyahoga is the largest voting district in swing state Ohio, has been proved wrong, as the CCBOE former department manager, Jane Platten has stepped up to transitionally fill Vu's post. Even through the recent brou-ha-ha's of board resistance to resign in response to Secretary of State demands for those resignations; and Bob Bennett's continued rants, false projections of political motivations, and spurious tax-paid law suits against Brunner; and even though Platten stepped into having to immediately prepare for the upcoming May 8 primary, a job she had never overseen - she has fostered more efficiency, clarity, organization, long-term planning, and trust and support among staff, citizens and her superiors, than Vu did in his entire tenure.

Though application of the terms of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance are best left to attorneys - in order to rout out the real sources of corruption in too often non-oversighted, "answering-only-to-their-few-at poltics'-top," election officials nationwide - it is imperative that non-politically motivated, independent legal investigations DO need proceed, certainly in Cuyahoga, and possibly even in San Diego.
See http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2007/04/time-for-department-of-justice-to-step.html
and posts directly below that.

Through today, Cuyahoga Prosecutor Mason with Special Prosecutor Baxter, ARE continuing their possible criminal investigations of the '04 and '06 elections, both under Vu's directorship.

Baxter is the one who brought the recent Cuyahoga convictions for the felonious recount rigging of '04 under Vu, and who, to the day of the prison sentencing of the two non-decision-making employees was still asking, along with the judge, for those women to tell who superior to them at least had knowledge of their actions.

Those women, apparently shocked that things had gone that far, when they apparently were originally assured that if they took the indictments to cover for their higher ups, the case could easily be politically dissolved, and concerned citizens would think that "justice was done" - can not themselves begin to afford the legal fees that someones probably have been at least feeding - until their "innocence is proved" - so that by Bennett's long ago agreement, the citizens would be picking up the tab for that too.
These women seem to feel caught between a rock and verrry hard place. It's still hard to fathom what fears motivate them even now in their quietude, as the same former board member friend of Bennett, thus Vu - "defense" lawyer Roger Synenberg, still continues his deflections of truth of what happened, who all was involved, his apparent bad advice for the sakes of the women, yet works on their appeal. See
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2007/03/sentencing-hearing.html
and
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-what-about-sentencing-of-two-women.html

Citizens' fair, accurate, verifiable elections, which determine our very futures, and the future of democracy itself, cannot withstand an elections industry that would tolerate such a lack of professional standards, complete with cover-ups displayed by Mr. Vu's move. If it weren't for the import of the danger this ridiculous move presents to so many, I too might have chalked it up to yet another piece of evidence worthy of another amazed and cynical shake of the head, logging the facts, and "wishing the man luck" as he leaves.

Ohio's Secretary of State Brunner in her first 3 months in office, and hard work and many accomplishments, has clearly displayed that she will not only not tolerate it, but also that she is willing to work hard to vastly upgrade the knowledge and guidelines that are to guide the everyday actions of elections workers throughout, so that Ohio's elections can reach her goal of being among the nation's best - in accuracy, transparency, verifiability, opportunities for citizen participation and oversight and thus, non-self-serving internal motivations running them. (A copy of the attached letter has also been copied FYI, to her office.)

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has also demonstrated herself as one of this country's first-class fair election advocates, working hard and long toward elections integrity goals. She even selected as her elections assistant, well-known elections integrity lawyer, Lowell Finley, who had represented cases for citizen advocates of fair elections, before he took that position.

I only hope that she will research the facts about Michael Vu, and for all of our sakes, do what she can about this new appointment - one which by the way, he sought while collecting approximately $11,000/month from Cuyahoga taxpayers for his "transitional consultancy" ( through June 30, in an agreement approved by Bennett and the other past board members that states Vu could "travel" while "serving" Cuyahoga) and an appointment that now would even pay him $10,000 more per year than he was making while doing his Cuyahoga damage - now $130,000.

As stated in the letter, more supporting documents can be made available, even ones surrounding Vu's prior knowledge of the deceptive recount rigging.

Time for the Department of Justice to Step In?

Regarding the 3 posts directly following, re: Bennett, Vu, Dillingham, Blackwell, and even San Diego County - this comment came from a very wise friend:

Now it's time for the Department of Justice to step in (... and make thorough investigations and take proper action against all these... these... these ...election officials!?! And let them not forget electronic voting machine makers, Diebold, ES&S, et al.)

We cannot let such investigations and consequences be only "internal" - decided within the "rough and tumble" of Cuyahoga politics, as the PD has called it - left in the hands of the others elected/appointed who may have their own strong political motivations at play.

We also need to get such investigation finally out of county taxpayer responsibility, as it could positively impact fair election rights nationwide as any even brief internet search quickly demonstrates is sorely necessary.

Taking the necessary actions higher could also allow justice to be done for citizens, while giving the new Cuyahoga board, Director and Deputy some breathing room to begin and learn, without immediate criticisms from the past, only the guidance of priority future needs as they've presented.

Stinko Replaced by Pee-yoo!

"Stinko Replaced by Pee-yoo!"...was the title of a Black Box Voting Post on 3/29/07 that states about San Diego County:
(From BBV admin): Does it get worse than this? San Diego Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas was "promoted" (but will still manage the department he mismanaged); he will be replaced by an interim registrar, disgraced ex-Riverside Registrar Mischelle Townsend, who is credited as a "mentor" by Cuyahoga Director of Elections Michael Vu, who was recently terminated in connection with a rigged recount.

And just today Mischelle Townsend, announced about our highly less- than-competent and non-truth telling (CERP report, July, 06) Michael Vu has been appointed Assistant Registrar of Voters there.

She said:
Together with Mikel Haas, we are pleased to announce that effective today, Michael Vu, has been appointed Assistant Registrar of Voters for San Diego.

... He can be reached via e-mail to: Michael.Vu@sdcounty.ca.gov

Prosecutors Mason and Baxter better keep THAT one on file so Vu can be subpoenaed back here to take his due for the destruction of lives, budgets, and elections he caused while here in Cuyahoga.

And I wonder if he expects Cuyahoga residents to keep paying him his approximate $11K/month for his Bennett-allowed sweet-deal "consultancy" for getting the heck out of our hair, through the end of June, and while he packs?

The BBV post on 3/29 went on to quote an article from North County Times - Mar 23, 2007, By: GIG CONAUGHTON

County looking for registrar ---- again

link to article

SAN DIEGO ---- The county of San Diego is looking for a new chief elections officer for the second time in as many years after county officials said Friday that current Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas is being promoted.

County spokesman Mike Workman said that the 49-year-old Haas, who has worked for the county for 13 years and served as registrar twice ---- from 1995 to 2001 before taking over as the county's director of animal services, and from 2005 to the present ---- was being promoted to take over as director of the county's Community Services Group.

Alex Martinez, the group's former director, retired last week.

In his new role, Haas ---- who was out of town Friday and could not be reached for comment ---- will oversee the general management of not only the registrar of voters office, but also the departments of animal services, housing and community development, purchasing and contracting, and the county library system.

Workman said Haas' salary was still being negotiated. As registrar, Haas earned $145,000 a year. Martinez was earning $172,000 when he retired.

County Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard, who was also out of town Friday, issued a statement through Workman praising Haas, who had been something of a "troubleshooter" for the county during his 13 years.

For much of 2004, Haas served as a special consultant to Ekard on election matters, in addition to his duties in animal control. He also previously served as the county's interim head of housing and community development. Before working for the county, Haas also worked for a short time as a reporter for the Oceanside Blade-Tribune, a newspaper that was a predecessor of the North County Times.

"(Mikel) has been asked to fill several different roles over his career and done exemplary work," Ekard stated. "He is without a doubt a top-notch executive and has been a stellar manager for many years."

The big questions now facing the county, however, are how it will find a new registrar, and how difficult the search might be.

County officials readily admit that the registrar position has become an increasingly difficult, and often publicly criticized, job in recent years.

Ekard, speaking in 2005 when Haas began his second stint as county registrar, said, "Quite frankly, it's getting harder and harder to find somebody who wants to do this job, with the kind of scrutiny from disparate groups out there."

Elections officials jobs nationwide have become more high-profile with increased pressure from the federal government to improve outreach to minority non-English-speaking voters, and the switch by many counties to still-controversial electronic voting machines.

The electronic voting machine controversy has stung officials in San Diego County.

Haas resumed his role as registrar in 2005 when Sally McPherson ---- who replaced Haas in 2001 ---- retired after 32 years with the county that featured a sometimes rocky final 18 months.

Anti-electronic voting groups sharply and publicly criticized McPherson as she helped San Diego County move from old paper-ballot systems to electronic voting machines.

That switch was marred by a debut in March 2004 that saw electronic "glitches" cause 36 percent of the county's polling places to open late.

Haas' first elections with electronic machines, meanwhile, last November, ran more smoothly. But Haas was also the target of electronic-voting critics who unsuccessfully sued the county to force it to stock enough paper ballots at polling places to serve the county's 1.3 million voters.

Workman said Friday that the county planned to immediately begin a nationwide search for a new registrar. However, he also said that the county tentatively planned to hire a "recently retired" registrar who could serve as an interim registrar while the county conducted its search.

Former Riverside County Registrar Mischelle Townsend ---- who helped introduce one of the first electronic voting systems in the state in Riverside ---- retired in 2004.

Attempts to reach Townsend on Friday were unsuccessful.

Workman said that Ekard and Haas planned to sit down together next week to begin talking about how his transition to community services would be done, and to finalize salary negotiations.

If this weren't so dangerously true about this nation's very urgently needed fair, transparent elections systems, it would be the makings of a "Real-TV: The Comedy."

A Long Look at the Dysfunction of Cuyahoga's 11/7/06 Election Day Meeting - Under Bob Bennett

"Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it."
George Satayana

For the full effect of Cuyahoga elections under Bennett, click on each video link and watch for yourself.
Start with#1, Bennett's election night speech, watch each one below,then go back and watch #1 again.

1. Election Night Back at the Board - Bennett's Speech
• Bennett continues to:

• ignore facts of systemic election problems brought before him at the day's earlier meeting;
• obfuscate the reality of election day problems, instead of identifying them so they can be solved;
• inferentially and directly attack "his opponents" who want fair voting;
• minimize/or not recognize even the dangers of citizens not being able to properly track election precinct reporting results, while also not being able to watch any "counting" inside the Diebold computers.

2. Michael Vu's first report of a "pretty good election," as desired/choreographed by Bennett.

• confusing polls and precincts and all else, so no one there could get any idea of the problems really going on
• highly under-reporting problems (as seen later) that he as Director should have had knowledge about, but may not have
• continuing to blame BOE problems on those who anyone who can't defend themselves publicly, such as pollworkers and custodians
• inferring that volunteer election day Observers at the polls were obstructive
  
• inferring that one citizen problem (as seen "accidentally" later) was a large one, and Bennett, as usual highlights this, as he constantly refers to citizen/voters as the cheats, himself and BOE "pure."
  

3. Jaqui Maiden's report, when Bennett wanted to highlight citizen cheats. We see Jaqui:

• already indicted, and hesitantly caught again between telling the truth outright, or helping to paint the Bennett-desired picture;
• changing the 4 and 14 polls precinct numbers mentioned before, to 20 more with problems;
• offering assurance that no one was turned away because of machines were not up or malfunctioning, and that all voters were being offered paper ballots, which again turned out to be highly under-"estimated" (as seen later;)
• mentioning that the BOE had sent out precinct-specific paper ballots to those 20 places, without Bennett even questioning where they were getting those ballots - were they printed off Diebold computers, or the official, numbered and auditable ballots created by the print shop; (Though Bennett had stated numerous times to concerned citizens who came to meetings before the election that an independent audit "by a certified company" would occur, no such independent audit ensued nor was even attempted.)
  
• offerring, unlike Vu, that Observers were offering a huge help to a better election day process.

4. Then more Vu report,

• ascribing the still under-reported long lines at the polls being due to too much on the ballot!
• and even laughing, with no disagreement from Bennett, that voters were taking the time to read "Issue 1" that had been removed from the ballot- when it was the board's responsibility to have poll workers inform all voters that the issue was removed.

5. And more staff reports, now showing that:

• despite all the machine problems in May's election, no provision had been made to properly store and immediately count these regular ballots from mostly strongly Democratic precincts, and to separate them from provisionals which needed verification.
• in my later observing of provisional's not counted, there were a number discounted, just because of missing provisional information - because poll workers were unclear about putting the regular votes into provisional envelopes, and then improperly marking them as regular votes needing no further ID.

6. Then with the intervention of Congresswoman Stepahnie Tubbs-Jones, the few people who had actually been at polls or been monitoring and who came to the meeting for other reasons, began coming forward, revealing systemic problems, and shattering all the "pretty good election"/no major problems picture.

• A. A University Heights resident talked of his vote-switching machine, that went unreported, and which Vu euphemistically calls "the calibration problem." We cannot assume that. This careful voter's problem was in a judicial race, little noticed by most. One can only wonder if this "calibration problem" had a pattern in many more precincts, and if it favored one judge.
• B. A Video the Vote volunteer from Massachusetts, expecting to only come to video the meeting, noting two polls to which she had been randomly assigned, but not mentioned by Vu or anyone, where poll workers knew nothing about using paper ballots in the face of non-running machines, and sending voters away. Unfamiliar with Cuyahoga, she seemed amazed at Bennett's trying to make it seem that these were only two more instances, and his refusal to admit that there must be a far wider problem than being reported.
• C. Dr. Norman Robbins concerned about years-long invalid registration rolls and invalid provisional vote verification, causing many votes to be improperly not counted. Though such verification was to start the next day, Bennett told Robbins, as usual, they'd handle that later, which time for Bennett never happens.
  Robbins pointed out that in 2004 he had brought over 900 names, addresses, etc. of voters improperly not counted, and that Bennett let the election certification proceed anyhow. Another hole in Bennett's ridiculous current argument that had he known about '04 counting improprieties, he would have stopped certification of that election and started again!
• D. Marcia McCoy points out more systemic voter registration problems that keep voters' votes from being counted.
• E. Attorney Leslye Huff and the Congresswoman go along with Bennett's usual taking inordinate amounts of time on one issue in a meeting to deflect from the systemic nature of problems at the BOE. You'll see why this video is called "Are you ready to eat your words, Mr. Bennett?" Even that 1/2 hour blew up in Bennett's face, where everyone there could see the incompetence of the board and that Bennett was covering, not helping the magnitude of problems.

7. Then we can see some video of a late-starting polls, 1 of 16 ordered by the courts to stay open until 9pm - Coventry School in Cleveland Heights.

• Bennett only angry about the court order never thought to advise staff to inform those poll workers to make sure voters could still find the polls, typically all 16 with strong Democratic voting, but here with no signs, and in November's pitch dark.
• Also you'll note no poll worker knowing to properly question the presence of the non-voting man who saunters in.

Now, for the full effect of Bennett's obfuscation about Cuyahoga election problems, instead of

• sound management,
• finding sources of problems and fixing them,
• and his unwarranted attacks on "his opponents" who want fair elections,

go back up to #1 and watch his late night speech again.
For all of our sakes, Bob Bennett must leave.

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) :

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.

Observers as "suspected criminals" at CCBOE

Last Saturday, even (especially?) after the Cleveland FreeTimes article referred to below, I was again denied entry to the locked CCBOE while they processed ballots, though I showed guards bent on abusing use of force and to no interest, my credentials, the state election law allowing me entry,3505.21, and the subsequent to last weekend's court order saying I was allowed in.

They:

• attempted to confiscate my cell phone- though most workers were carrying them freely, and possession of cell phone was never a question at the the CCBOE. I finally put it into my car - just to get in.
• hurled false accusations at me ( constant troublemaker, "sneaking unlawful things in all the time" - when truth is never.)
• hurled false rules at me ( "no recording equipment or cell phones allowed in county buildings." - I take them in through security at the Justice Center, the County Commisioners, the BOE regularly)
• forced me to walk around the front of building to the locked door, then to back employee entrance where I found a soundly sleeping guard, to then walk back outside around the building to the front ( the unlocked employee entrance where we stood inside - because no one, though I'd been requesting my due admission for days at that point, had given me any "official tags") a front door, which they would "extend me the courtesy" of unlocking. And they clearly let me know they would withhold "the courtesy"if I were not more submissive;
• would not escort me inside to the close, in-view metal detector because of above;
• called for "back-up" as as they were yelling falsehoods at me,so I began talking at same decibels saying truths back to them
• had 4 sheriff's and one Cleveland policeman standing there bullying me;
• for the "courteous search" they turned my purse completely upside down and shook it out, things rolling everywhere and picked through it, like they were planning to throw me in jail
• confiscated blunt-edged tweezers - because they said, I would "poke someone" - tweezers that pass airport security muster, and have never been a question at any county building- and called them "sharp objects" for their report;
• and when the called Mr. Vu, arrived for his little portion of the day - he joined in the bullying; and said the guards were making the rules (!)
• Vu's resolution was that they should all write up "incident reports" about me for "administrative review" and his "review"! I asked for a form too to get the truth in there.
• Vu or sheriffs, intent on making me wrong, themselves right, also had the maintenance man write up "an incident report"! - a person who certainly did not understand anything about my right to be there nor the situation, and whom I saw once briefly rolling a garbage can in the hall.

The sheriff-guards spent the afternoon, as I noted after I finally got in - going over and over and over their "incident reports - talking and comparing them with one another.

Still trying to get in, and not be thrown in jail for following this duty/right, but to demonstrate some professionality, where none is being displayed, I wrote the following email to Vu and one board member.
I have received no reply as of 11/24 - other than on 11/22 in what is pictured further below - a "professional tag" which "hisself" Vu prepared and even initialed - and which won't mean squat to weekend guards....

With no reply from board member either, don't know if they plan to surprise me at the Monday provisional review board meeting, or the Tuesday, election results certification meeting with their "review". Bob Bennett, head of Ohio GOP, and arrogant Vu puppeteer, I'm sure would salivate at the chance to get me on some good trumped up charges. I have an attorney kept thoroughly advised.

This is the email I sent:
__________________________________
11/21/06

I plan to continue fulfilling my observer role per state statute, 3505.21 through this weekend's CCBOE ballot processing.

I have been denied access the last two weekends, when the building has been locked to "outsiders" - of which I am not one, per the above law, as ballot processing and counting work was proceeding. "Rules" regarding observer access have been changed, at times on the spot, without notice or discussion. Last weekend they were created by guards with no knowledge of laws about observers; and were based on what I know are completely false statements, and completely false accusations of my "assumed -guilty" status for being there,
The only "observer rules" I have received at the CCBOE- and which I appreciated - to avoid my being falsely accused of doing something wrong, with new rules being made up on the spot - and which I have adhered to - were Jaqui Maiden's for her department, on Tuesday, 11/14, the day after the court order and communication directly with Assistant Prosecutor Lambert, finally allowing me access the first time. These guidelines and our own peaceful, professional discussions in the CVS department have allowed us all to proceed with doing what we all need to do.
I shared Jaqui's rules with the Ballot Department on 11/18, as they also had received no agency input about how to best follow this election law, so everyone involved could reasonably to do our jobs. Nor had Community Outreach.
Before this holiday weekend when the building will again be locked to "outsiders" of which I am not a part, as the law allows me in to watch the ballot processing going on inside, I need a written document from the Director or a board member, demonstrating my ability to enter, and all rules that apply to credentialed observers.
I need this document in sufficient time before the Thanksgiving holiday, and with proper contact numbers of those with authority, to be able to discuss and/or negotiate any rules that falsely assume my (or other observers') unique guilt in plans to break election laws, when we have given no reason for such assumption; and/or rules that prevent my or other observers' ability to actually see what we need to, certainly without obstructing work going on at the CCBOE.
Without such professional, clear communication, the CCBOE managers, whom I have found truly attempting to follow the law, and to help everyone involved - also remaining fearful of taking what they might consider reasonable action in this regard - themselves not knowing if they will be breaking some later notified "rule" or not.
You may email that document to me at this address.
Thank you,
Adele Eisner
_________________________________________

This is what I got on Wednesday. Upon receipt, I also asked Vu about my possessing my cell phone - just like all the workers, and about his "rules". He wanted to know exactly why and exactly when I'd need the phone!!! And admonished me to not take photos with it ( which I NEVER have done.) I don't think he gets that I do not work for him - but know that he works for us/me - and thus, I don't even have to pretend that he bamboozles me.

Click to see my "document"....