[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFP Evaluation Team NDA
You've amply demonstrated in the archives of this list why you're on the committee, from just your last couple e-mails we learn: you find it annoying when citizens stand up for their rights and you don't think democracy is the best form of government.
That, and you conveniently forget that even when there's just one bad choice, you can always vote NOTA.
Please, feel free to reply, it helps set the public record straight about who is actually reasonable in this debate, and who would do the best job of critically evaluating claims by the Clerk or vendors, and ultimately, who really cares about the USA, the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and who's willing to compromise our democracy, even just this one time! 

Joe






On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Delta wrote:


Open Government is fine to a point......
Annoyance government is counter-productive.
Again, if someone doesn't think *exactly* like you then they are worthless, 
eh, Joe?
If they don't do what *you* think they should do, then they are sellouts? 
Bite me.

Read my email.....
I said PITAs will get very little co-operation......I didn't say they
shouldn't exist.
Stop putting YOUR words into MY mouth.
That sucks and I think that much less of you.
Libertarian philosophy is NOT necessarily ACLU philosophy.....not by a long 
shot.
Get over it.
*I'm* on the Committee because I want to see the right things done....not 
stir up everything for the hell of it and my own aggrandizement.
You're welcome to discuss issues and if they are relevant. I'll bring them 
up to the committee as a whole.
But being a PITA will make me that much less interested in what you have to 
say.....right or wrong.

that's the way the world works.....

Bo


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:11 AM
To: CVV Voting
Subject: Re: RFP Evaluation Team NDA



I think there's another corollary which is kiss up to the incompetent
clerk's office too much and you lose all your credibility.

Maybe he wanted to see it to see what the panel members signed away
without uttering a peep.

I would have thought that the Libertarians were as concerned about
open governance as the ACLU, but I guess not.

Seems like there no end to the "selling out" of the people going on
in politics these days.

I'll bet old King George found all the original American Patriots to
be pains in the ass, too.

Joe



On Mar 14, 2006, at 3:51 AM, Delta wrote:


There is an axiom in public service/government:

The bigger a pain in the ass you are....the less co-operation you
will get.
whether you're right or wrong.

There's also a little corollary:
Rub elbows with PITAs and you will be considered a PITA, too.

I think Neal is seeing ramifications from Crazy Al's actions....
Of course, Neal isn't helping any....why is it necessary to see these 
non-disclosure documents? what the hell do they have to do with
choosing
election equipment????

Not that I don't agree with the Open Meeting laws.....but I see
them abused
too many times.

Like now.

Everybody in CVV wants to have their two cents counted.....and for
what??
for crissakes, the county is only considering RENTING these things
for one
election.....and we have ONE choice.....how much affect could
ANYone have on
this decision??? And it's entirely temporary!! How much *more* will
you know
about this system if you use it once? and don't hand me that
conspiracy to
defraud the voter crap. EVERYONE involved wants a fair election.
It's just a
matter of what can make it easier without compromising integrity.

If you people would give just a friggin iota...and let this process
continue
with *minimal* interference.....you could concentrate your
resources AND the
favors you curry....on the REAL DEAL.....when the County chooses a
system to
BUY.

but, nooooo.......
Lets play like big shots and demand everything we can to show we have 
power.....because we can.
THAT's why democracy is a very bad form of government. (A quote
form the
great Roman Statesman, Seneca)

Bo Shaffer


-----Original Message-----
From: Some Guy [mailto:someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:34 AM
To: CVV Voting
Subject: RE: RFP Evaluation Team NDA


I'm thinking that you could have asked one of the members of the
committee
what they had agreed to do or signed and they might have shown
you. Showing
you the agreement divulges nothing.

Members of this list have signed this document.

SG

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:12 PM
To: CVV Voting
Subject: Re: RFP Evaluation Team NDA


On Mar 10, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Neal McBurnett wrote:


The team members also have already signed a confidentiality
agreement
of some sort.  (That will be modified now that they are using the
open
meetings procedures.) I asked Liss for a copy, and he suggested I'd 
need to do an open records request for that.  Amazing - secrecy
about
the secrecy agreements! It is so infectious it gets downright silly 
if you can retain your sense of humor.



I got your open records request right here: