RE: Citizens Committee on Election Reform Proposal

["Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I didn't think that true. Still don't. What I do think is that public and
outside pressures like HAVA and a dead existing system pushed them into
leaping before looking.

The committee wasn't run all that well, but it has something to do with the
organization running it. Besides, I've been on lots of committees and boards
were a handful of people do all the work.
At the very least I would have expected some pass on and discussion amongst
the members. I think that you'll recall that I wanted to set up a chat list
for the members, all of whom were computer literate enough to email.
That didn't happen and when I was out ill I couldn't get anyone's notes.
Worse than grammar school.

There was a bit of being treated like third graders, but I tend to act like
one so it sometimes is hard to tell how people are responding or giving a
presentation.
We were told that we were there to select a good ADA complaint DRE - but
every vendor showed us at least an hour of paper ballot scanner technology.
And we needed that for why? Absentees? I was looking at some pretty
expensive hi-speed stuff for more than a few absentees.

Yeah there was another agenda. And there always is

-----Original Message-----
From: kellen carey [mailto:kcarey636@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 12:31 PM
To: Some Guy; Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net
Cc: LPBC Board; LPLD
Subject: RE: Citizens Committee on Election Reform Proposal

Paul,

Yes, Paul, that Committee was nothing more than a
rubber stamp.  That's why Kolwicz, perhaps
appropriately, quit.  I will never again be part of a
rubber stamp committee.

But please be clearer about any advice it offered: it
didn't offer any advice at all.  You, and maybe
others, might have suggested this or that, while I
clearly voiced my opposition to any purchase of DREs,
but there was no Committee recomendation, at all.

They didn't want one, and the Committee never met to
discuss a recommendation.

kell

--- Some Guy <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Joe (et al),
>
> In my letter to the commissioners and the clerk
> asking for a position on the
> 'review' committee I noted that the HAVA advisory
> committee was really not
> allowed to finish its work. Within a few weeks of
> completing our task the
> county and the clerk appeared to lose interest and
> seemed to be coming to
> their own conclusions.
>
> That impression gelled on the very day that we
> attempted to deliver our
> findings. The 12th of December 03. The day prior Joe
> and members of CVV gave
> a 10 minute presentation to the BOCC on what HAVA
> really meant and why
> buying DRE was such a bad plan.
>
> Few people who were members of the HAVA advisory
> committee bothered to show
> up on the morning of the 12th, since they'd either
> read the papers about the
> BOCC hearing the day before, or were called by the
> elections staff and told
> that they were no longer needed. But some citizen
> members did show up
> despite being 'blown off' by the county.
> At the start of that meeting, Tom Halicki explained
> that the BOCC had made a
> decision not to purchase DRE at this time, but may
> do so in the future. We
> were thanked for our service and for all intents and
> purposes were released
> from our duties on the committee.
> Members of CVV who were present at that meeting will
> recall that I demanded
> that the clerk and county hear our advisement,
> despite what the BOCC had
> decided the day before. We were heard, and our
> advisement was if and when
> DRE were purchased that the Hart/Intercivic E-Slate
> had received committee
> accolades, with the Avante system as a close second.
> The Avante was the only
> system presented that produced a paper ballot; and
> the E-Slate the easiest
> to use for the disabled. Our goal had been to
> suggest a system that was
> ADA-HAVA compliant.
>
> My point in this relation of history is that the
> county had empanelled an
> advisory committee; spent a good deal of money on
> it; pulled in lots of
> resources and vendors; and had many people working
> very hard on this
> project.
> And then with little fanfare told us on the very day
> that we were to deliver
> our findings - that we had no job and our work was
> being disrespected.
>
> This is not the first time that the BOCC has done
> such a thing. I've watched
> it occur in other areas such as land use.
>
> So my fear would be that the BOCC and the Clerk are
> once again putting
> together a 'feel -good' campaign and that the work
> of this new committee
> will be entirely ignored. I have doubts that the
> findings of the county
> committee will have much impact, given past
> experience. The BOCC and the
> Clerk may use the work of the committee to foist
> their own plans on the
> electoral population.
>
> This is reminiscent of the DOE being allowed to
> investigate itself by the
> DOJ during the cold war. Anyone with background in
> our region can recall how
> the FBI ended up discovering huge cover-ups at Rocky
> Flats by the Dept of
> Energy.
> This is the norm in Boulder and beyond. Right now
> the Boulder PD is
> investigating itself concerning the hill riots.
>
> If any of you manage to find a position on the
> about-to-be-formed county-run
> committee, do not let the county decide on what
> music you will dance to.
>
> Some Guy who doesn't dance to other people's music
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:47 PM
> To: Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net
> Subject: Citizens Committee on Election Reform
> Proposal
>
>
> CVV:
>
> Based on several discussions I've had over the last
> two days, it seems
> clear that there is a great deal of dubiousness
> about the potential
> effectiveness of the County's proposed "Elections
> Review" committee as
> it is being chartered.
>
> Thus, with others, I propose that we establish an
> independent and
> parallel "Citizens Election Review Committee" that
> will both attempt to
> provide the public with factual information about
> what went wrong and
> specific recommendations that will prevent such a
> debacle from
> recurring.
>
> In addition to providing the leadership that Boulder
> County citizens
> have come to expect from CVV on this issue --
> including what Boulder
> County should do next to achieve the Trustworthy
> Elections that we have
> been denied -- I personally feel that the other
> purpose of this
> Citizen's Committee will be to prevent additional
> misinformation being
> disseminated by the Elections Office and County
> Information Officer,
> hold our officials accountable, and clean up the
> mess that is our
> current Elections Office.
>
> Again, this is a proposal to have a parallel
> committee that is outside
> the control or influence of the Elections Office
> that will also provide
> a public report on what went wrong and how to
> prevent it from happening
> again.
>
> Is there agreement among CVV on the need for this
> citizen's committee
> or do folks feel confident that the Commissioner's
> review panel will be
> sufficient? I would also like to try and include
> others local citizens
> that have not previously participated in CVV, in
> particular, poll
> watchers and elections judges who may also have
> information and
> opinions about the internal workings of our
> Elections Office.
>
> If there is no serious objection, I also propose to
> alert the press to
> the formation of this committee ASAP so that we can
> get the maximum
> coverage and awareness in advance of our first
> public meeting.
>
> Joe
>
> Joe Pezzillo, Citizen Activist
> Boulder, Colorado USA
> jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx
>
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com