For Some Interested in Checking Out Samples of Our "Official Ballots"

Some have approached me wanting to check out the "paper trail" from Diebold DREs. These, "our official ballots", each one possibly holding up to 300-500 voters' "official ballots" do not print in whole, or are otherwise illegible, approximately 10% of the time, as was proved by July's ESI Report, and re-demonstrated again recently.
We do not need a re-demonstration again but a method of assuring that each voter gets an official ballot, as long as we're forced into using these unreliable and completely non-transparent DREs, that have been proved riggable, also by ESI and many computer experts.
Also, Board of Elections workers in every county using these unreliable printers, need exact instructions of how to get an official ballot for every voter. According to law, and previous Attorney General opinions, the "official ballot" is "the "voter verfIED" "paper trail."
Once it is found that the machine has eaten it, crushed it, not printed it, etc., it is too late. What are citizens to do? Certainly not blanketly allow people inside a board to possibly pick out the wrong memory card, or the wrong data base, or even the wrong machine, to without the voters' supervision, supposedly "recreate" hundreds of official ballots at a time.

Voters, board workers, elections need a far clearer method of getting our official ballots. And this, just one of numerous problems with Diebold DREs, does not seem possible with them.

In fact, their lack of reliability, along with legs crashing, screens freezing, votes being switched by the machine, termed "a calibration problem," and the software that's counting never having been seen by any truly independent expert, let alone by us, all are just a few of the (more minor) reasons that these machines do not belong in any citizens' election. There are many others.

Some nationwide election integrity activists are studying some of these other reasons these machines do not belong in our elections.

I post a beginning sample of "official ballots" from one Beachwood (suburb) precinct. (There are other precincts in Beachwood.)

With a Public Information Request to the Cuyahoha elections board, and the truly wonderful cooperation of Interim Director, Jane Platten, working with a staff who now feels supported, and thus, free to cooperate well with citizens, I got hundreds of pages of such copies - each "ballot" from one precinct, and each taking two pages. I have not yet counted how many ballots I have.

Here are the first 25.
They are numbered 1a, 1b; 2a, 2b, etc. The number being the ballot number in order of my scanning, the a - the first page of that ballot; the b - the second page.
These are in jpeg format.

For those studying, I did not want to reduce, combine, omit, etc. for I know it might be important to see these ballots in their original form, with all original choices, and as copied.
I have absolutely NO reason believe that the copies are anything but accurate representations of the originals, with only the limits of copying machine capabilities, now scanner capabilities, intervening.
Hope this helps those of you in WA and NH, etc.
By right-clicking on each choice, you'll find the pages downloadable.


http://www.box.net/shared/va6liy
mh0s

Next 20 ballots


http://www.box.net/shared/h4ku3vabsh

The Wisdom, Not Politics, of Brunner's Administrative Oversight

Especially in light of some of the false verbal and attempted spurious legal attacks by past Board Chair,Bob Bennett on Secretary of State Brunner, claiming purely partisan interest as she removes the past Cuyahoga elections board, and puts the newly arriving staff and board under the Ohio Secretary's Administrative Oversight, it's important to note the non-partisan wisdom of her actions.
Mr. Bennett, in his panic of losing his own and partisan control from fear, is only projecting himself on to Brunner's wise actions.

Brunner, as a past elections law attorney, and with broad experience, intelligence and insight about
• management;
• true leadership that develops people rather than questionably and confusingly demands, with fear as consequence;
• and about the importance of fair, transparent, verifiable citizens' elections to all our futures, is determined to develop Ohio's elections system as one of professional knowledge and qualified merit, (instead of closed political patronage and dealmaking) on the inside, and transparent, accurate, and fair even to citizens who must depend on the fair system we need, expect and pay for.

In another post I will outline the little-seen dangers we've endured to democracy and to we, the majority - consequences of Mr. Bennett's and others', old political hackery method of running past Cuyahoga (s)elections.

Here, I will deal mostly with the false charges that by removing the board and putting Cuyahoga under oversight, Dem Brunner is moving to have government control the people's elections; and/or particularly, from the old traditional dualistic way of thinking, to have blindly partisan Democrats take over the larger power. Neither is true. Again those are merely fearful, false projections from an immediate and hopefully soon past reality, into what can potentially become a far healthier and truer election system for us all - the kind of election system that from 6th grade democracy classes and with the help of alot of false pictures painted for us with our own dollars, most have mistakenly been assuming has been producing "election results" thus, choosing our future leaders.

Not only have such false charges come from some Republicans trying to ward off Democrats now getting to use blind partisanship to run our societies forevermore, instead of themselves, but some concerns have come from well-respected election integrity activists as well.

Respected election attorney, Paul Lehto said in one communique with his first reaction to the Administrative Oversight:

The conflicts of interest when government runs elections essentially by itself are rife, and will not be solved until the public's active and direct role in public oversight of elections is created and restored.

Below is a paraphrasing of my reply to Paul.

I absolutely agree with your above statement on its face.

In this case, however, SoS Brunner has demonstrated NO plans to run Cuyahoga's elections by her office alone. In fact she has demonstrated the opposite.

Soon after taking office, as one her first steps, she developed professional means for wide and serious inclusion of individual citizens, groups and election officials from across the state to truly work together and closely with her office, to bring Ohio's election systems and processes to model fairness, transparency, accuracy, and integrity.

Her visionary Voting Rights Institute, comprised of members of both parties and Independents; election integrity advocates and election officials; and group representatives and individuals whose common goal is passion to better Ohio's election systems is one example. Because of great interest expressed by people not among the first core VRI group, a core group originally designed to change and spread each year, she has also developed means to include all those interested in helping get the work of change done.

In the case of Cuyahoga, you may have missed the point. Even the statutory requirements to conduct elections demand a board of elections, and often a director and deputy to take ultimate and legal responsibility.

Currently we have

• no board, (only the one person who has refused to resign and is, still for his own devolving political reasons is suing the SoS... and letting taxpayers pick up the tab for his legal bills,)
• an interim director,
• and no deputy, with only a joint committee having reviewed applications for the above two and ready to suggest how to fill those positions.

The new board cannot be completely chosen and seated until Bennett's war cries and legal circus is done. The new director and deputy cannot be chosen, nor can those applying for top staff, feel comfortable accepting the positions until the new board is seated.

So at very base, someone needs to take the legal responsibility and give guidance for the current staff's day to day actions right now. There is currently a fast upcoming May election that is being prepared right now, that demands, by law, even such things as some legally valid superior's approval of such things as purchases of supplies and vendors, additional staff and pay, etc.

Even when all the above positions are filled, the above new leaders to the CCBOE will be just that - new. Some may have absolutely no elections experience, or partially skewed elections or political experience.

• They will all need some compass point "north" in Ohio election guidance and continuity, as well as skills training, but from ones who won't do their actual decision making for them.
• They will need someone(s) there to rely upon for practices and procedures, where there are currently none - or only a lists of disjointed tasks often developed by a staff person who was left to somehow wade their way out of some non understood overwhelming task...and on time.
• They will need guideposts of betterment and possibilities, to move from what the staff has collected from the long-past, closed culture of indifference, cover-up, and top management by fear.
• They will need modeling of the dynamics of sound management in a legally and ethically bound agency that is there to serve the people, but which currently has in every major department only an interim manager - a previous staff person of the above culture, taken from another department to "temporarily" fill a management void through recent years of people leaving or being forced out of the culture, and was just left there.
Those departments, without guidance and confidence themselves, could only continue to feel it's right and safest and best to keep citizens from seeing in.

The SoS/Cuyahoga Oversight agreement,for the above sound management and support reasons, is being developed with the current interim director who has herself shown herself responsive and open to citizens input and oversight, and who is doing an amazing job, with literally the entire agency suddenly on her shoulders.

So far the Oversight, has also been generally laid out fluidly, allowing the Oversight to end before the stated 2008 time, should the CCBOE be able to begin operating and operating well and newly, as an agency there to serve citizens with fair, accurate, transparent elections, while allowing citizen oversight, before that time.

Just as citizen oversight in a democratic (small "d") process, is not citizen "takeover, SoS oversight also does not mean government TAKEOVER!

Your comparison to the concept of Blackwell taking over the Cuyahoga board is hardly apt.
Even when there was a full complement of board and top management in Cuyahoga's BOE, Blackwell's authoritarian style was one of making big decisions for the locals, often ones that seemed quite politically beneficial for himself and his party- but often taking NO responsibility for those decisions especially when what he told boards to do was legally, financially or operationally questionable; nor any responsibility for making his directives clear and implementable.
Bob Bennett followed along, however (or "helped" Blackwell) and pressed his man Vu and the agency into service - usually and worse, with no one quite understanding even what they were doing, let alone why.

Brunner's, already widely demonstrated style and idea of what good management and good elections must be, on the other hand, actually seems aligned with your statement :

"The conflicts of interest when government runs elections essentially by itself are rife, and will not be solved until the public's active and direct role in public oversight of elections is created and restored."

She, unlike Blackwell, has never demonstrated that she wants government to run elections, only that we all have the ability to oversight, and make elections better - ones that truly deserve our real confidence. She unlike many "leaders" we've experienced, is a leader, not a ruler. She is in her own life a parent, and recognizes when she can offer help and a necessary fall-back, until a fledgling gets off the ground, confident enough itself to open the confidence of the many.

This Cuyahoga election oversight, just like citizen oversight, and like the every huge issue before the nation today is NOT a partisan issue. To reduce it to one is to again fall far short of the real question of what do we need to make things better for the most number of people - black, white, purple or green; Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Other.
To reduce it to one, or to accept such dualistic perception, just continues to demonstrate (thank you Mr. Einstein) the level of actual consciousness that got Cuyahoga's system and the nation's election system into the mess originally.

If the Republicans are shaky about it, let them come and help, and work for a fair system, one with NO partisan agenda, that can then hold the partisan conflicts of campaigns with a fair hand.

Another of your statements in your email disturbs me even more, however:

"But government has numerous levels of conflict of interest. They ALL get all their money and power from elections, yet are counting the votes if not personally on their own race, it is still for their "company" the government. They have conflicts because they are self protective like all human beings and don't fall on their swords the moment a problem comes up, they instead engage in CYA. EVen long time activists pull punches to as to preserve some form of relationship with certain politicians, and this so-called "Collegiality" is much strong between most government agencies. Bureaucracy itself is a force to slow down the truth and defeat its progress in its general slow pace."

I agree in some part with your last sentence, though I think it's also far too great an oversimplification in this context.

As to your blithe acceptance of government and activists "leaders" engaging in CYA - instead of defining the real systemic problems, and truly calling upon others, to work with others as peers, not overlords or gurus, to solve them - I strongly disagree.

Such blithe acceptance is exactly the cop-out that some "integrity" activists also use to salve their souls when they too have sold them for their own good over the whole, just like the "leaders" they say are so "bad" and are working against.

It's only non-blithe-non-acceptance of such behavior, to really model and help one another in the human evolvement of which we are all capable, despite the fact that we see it so little, to the next step of recognizing and honoring everyone as much as ourselves, that we can begin to crawl out of this mess. Yesterday's tsunami in the Solomon Islands is a tragedy to and of each of us. And maybe, just maybe with real fair and tansparent elections in the US we can eventually lead the end of killing the living earth on which we all live, instead of continuing for the "good" of a few CYA'ers.

Brunner's oversight is for just that reason. In Cuyahoga we've had devolved CYA to blatant , impacted, and incompetent cover-ups for so long, she wants to make sure that as "we we're getting back to good" (as they say is first step in the mold removal business,as they remove all the fungus infested wood) that a supported "health" of the CCBOE can emerge into its own system - so THAT can take over, with citizens on board, on it's own.

Without the Oversight, all we get is the fast track of CYA to incompetence and corruption all over again.

Dangerous Irony: Proofing Paper Ballots in an Electronic World

Yesterday, I posted the CCBOE media release inviting citizens, by Ohio law, for today's 24 hour proofing period of the ballots for the next, May's election. Late this afternoon I went.

I, like most board employees and managers I observed during the chaos of scanning the absentee ballots last November, got dazed by the enormity of the poorly set out task and the confusion and forgot the ultimate purpose of why I was there - to PROOF ballots that are to be used in the next election to make sure they are correct.

It was not until I got home that I realized the irony - the really dangerous irony - of having citizens review and proof paper ballots in an effort to facilitate transparency, when in Cuyahoga voting is done on a $20+ million electronic system.

Just as with any Microsoft Word document we create, we all know that there is lots of computer code that exists within the document - codes that create the formatting styles, the fonts, the colors, the tab widths, paragraphs, etc. - but this code is not revealed on a print out of the document.

There is the same kind of code inside the electronic ballots {Ballot Definition File (BDF)}, that we use when we vote on a touchscreen voting system. And that code inside the BDF, if improperly configured - negligently, incompetently, or purposefully - could possibly affect election results, as was investigated in Florida's 2006 HR13 election (Congressional race) where an unusually high number of undervotes were discovered.

In addition to all the other major factors that demand we must get rid of electronics in citizen elections, such as soaring costs; multi-vector security holes that also easily allow insider riggability and anyone's hackability; the operational unreliability; and counting secrecy - now to truly be able to proof our ballots, we need to get digital copies of all the ballot styles, which in Cuyahoga countywide elections can number up to 1400, and which show the underneath codes. Then we need independent computer experts, along with regular English text proofreaders, and those familiar with the candidates and issues to do the proofing together.

As long as we have DRE's, which I hope is not long at all, no less is sufficient.

Ballot "Proofing" at the CCBOE

Yesterday, I posted the CCBOE media release

With no BOE help available, and no signage for this "public event", the lovely camera woman who was there from Ohio News Network to follow the story of how many people showed up for the proofing, had to point me to the specific pile she had seen the one other person who had come directed to. Cheryl Ellis, the Community Outreach woman whose name was on the media release for information, saw me and waved and left the building shortly after I walked in. Two others disappeared into the Community Outreach office.

I sat down to plow my way through to "proof" to find the approximate first 200 sheets, all of the Democratic Primary for the Clerk of Rocky River Court, with what appeared to be the exact same ballot, just with the two candidate's names alternating first position, and the indecipherable, but changing "BOE-speak" versioning code at the top.
Most citizens choosing to come to proof, to take advantage of this right, but not familiar with the BOE, would not have even recognized that alternating candidate positioning as the position rotation per precinct, as demanded by Ohio law.
Most would have had to give up right there. Some in that situation, might have also mistakenly ascribed their lack of understanding to themselves, and walked away, saying everything was good.

Having enough CCBOE experience to know this was typical and know it was not my lack, I asked again for help. Another in Community Outreach said she couldn't help. She didn't know about the ballots.The lovely camera woman then pointed me to a woman who was picking up other papers from the other end of the table, telling me that she was the woman who had helped the man who had come to proof earlier.
When I asked that "helper" however, she said she couldn't help me, because she didn't know about the ballots. We were being filmed.

ONN's watching reporter, Brian McIntyre went into the Community Outreach office to get the last person there, who said he didn't know either, but he went to get Matt, the head of the Ballot Department.
By the time Matt arrived, I had found the small precinct codes, again indecipherable to the unfamiliar, but which allowed me to be able to figure out basically what I was looking at.

Matt came and explained that, yes, Rocky River Courts should have 143 or 149 precincts, (I don't remember,) thus the same number of pieces of paper. There were far more Rocky River sheets than 149, however. It was getting late, I didn't count. In retrospect, and had I the time, I should have. It is these small details reflective of much larger systemic problems that capture the board's attention, while they deny the broader view.

I checked a few of the similarly repeated issue papers, like the Independence levy.
But I never really proofed anything. It was impossible. Even had the pile been easily found and understood, four to five hundred sheets of anything is far from a any citizen, "stop-in" PROOFING situation.
I did ask Matt if his department had proofed. He said, especially after last election, yes they had. They had a team of whiz-bang temps go over the ballots carefully. They had found many mistakes on the first round, and after about four rounds and finally moved commas, etc. thought they were right.
I didn't even ask how they got all the ballots that were supposed to be the same, the same; ie. if they had to proof each one of the approximate 500 ballot styles individually, or if they had made global changes as each change was found necessary.

At the CCBOE, having to change each one individually is still a strong possibility. Adapting to their being paid to work for citizens, for accurate, fair, transparent elections for citizen's elections, not just or the sake of getting a CCBOE task done for the CCBOE seems still a foreign concept.

It Gets Worse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"....