Shaffer v. Shnelvar as representatives

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Josh:

Let's compare my actions and Bo/Clerk's.

On Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:13 PM (a full month before this current
brouhaha), Mary Eberle sent out an eMail in which my name was listed as
representing the Libertarian Party.  Thirty-six hours later (Thu, 23 Mar
2006 06:28:50 -0700), Mary sent out an eMail (full text, below) that read:

  Dear Marianne,

  Could you please send this message to the Commissioners as well? In the
  files sent previously, Ralph Shnelvar was listed with the affiliation
  "Libertarian" on the last page. He does not represent the Libertarians.
  I apologize for the error.

That's what should have happened with Bo's "representation" of the CVV.

I am proud to associate myself with CVV, CAMBER, and the Paper Tigers.  We
follow the straight-and-narrow.  I am equally proud to be a _member_ of the
Libertarian Party but I don't take on the mantle of representing them
without permission.

A pity that the Clerk and her associates don't play by the same set of
rules.

More, below.

Ralph Shnelvar



On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:01:47 -0600, you wrote:

>This is getting old, Joe, and I think you are grasping at straws here.
>
>Bo Shaffer is a member of CVV.
>
>Bo Shaffer was on the RFP Evaluation Team.
>
>A member of CVV was on the Evaluation Team.
>
>1 + 1 = 2
>
>No formal written invitation was sent to any of the Evaluation Team members.  No fancy invitations.  No formal RSVPs.  I called each of the members personally and asked them to participate.  Bo Shaffer (a member of CVV) was INVITED to participate.  He chose to do so and we are glad that he did.  His contributions to the Evaluation Team were invaluable and we appreciate his participation.
>
>It would be a misrepresentation for anyone to imply that CVV was not represented when, in fact:
>1. A member of CVV was on the Evaluation Team
>2. There were five separate opportunities during the evaluation process for any member of the public to offer testimony, including members of CVV.  Whether they declared their membership or not, members of CVV did testify (yourself included).
>3. We received and reviewed several written submissions from members of the public (including members of CVV) during the drafting of the RFP.
>4. We received and reviewed several written submissions from members of the public (including members of CVV) during the evaluation process.
>5. Several members of CVV offered testimony during yesterday's public hearing.
>
>If you disagree with Bo, that is between you and Bo.  But it is a misrepresentation on your part to imply that CVV was not represented when IT IS A FACT that a member of CVV was on the Evaluation Team.
>
>If you are a member of a political party, but you do not agree with every part of your party's platform, does that disqualify you as a member of that party?  Of course not.  We all have the right to agree to disagree.  That is one of the great things about this country.  Are you trying to say that if a member of CVV disagrees with another member of CVV, that person should not still be considered a member? 

If you are a member of the Democratic Party, does your affiliation with that
political party make you a representative of that party?  Of course not.  No
group at CVV appointed Bo to represent the CVV.  Indeed, Bo has stated (on a
public forum) that he disagrees with the positions of the CVV.
 
>
>I think it is you who are making misrepresentations when you imply that Linda Salas lied yesterday when you know she did not.  
>
>I'm sure we could go back and forth about this for days/weeks/months, but I have other work that I need to do.  At this point I doubt that any amount of factual information I give you will change your mind or keep you from continuing to make misrepresentations or false innuendo about the Evaluation Team or the Clerk's Office so I think it would be wise for us both to agree to disagree.  After all, that is our right.

Josh, I'm really disappointed in you and the Clerk.  The easiest thing to
have done was to say, "Oops, we had a member of CVV on the evaluation team
but he was not a representative of CVV."

When I go off to represent a group, I ask permission first.

>
>
>Thank you,
>
>Josh Liss

Ralph Shnelvar


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:50 AM
>To: Liss, Josh; CVV Voting
>Cc: Bailey, Shelley; Salas, Linda
>Subject: Re: Did Linda Salas Lie to Boulder County?
>
>
>
>I'm not disputing that members gave testimony, or ultimately if Bo is  
>or isn't a member of his own choosing at any given time (although he  
>did "back off" from the group in 2004, you may have read).
>
>I'm disputing the representation that CVV was invited to participate.  
>You may recall that it took Neal McBurnett speaking out of turn to  
>force the Republican member to acknowledge the public, and I don't  
>recall that anyone ever said "I'm here speaking on behalf of CVV".  
>Your lawyer was there, she might recall that I complained that CVV  
>was not represented (as well as three other citizen action groups),  
>and that in fact sometime after that, you must have added the name  
>CVV or Citizens for Verifiable Voting to your committee roster.
>
>Linda clearly represented that CVV was invited to participate on par  
>with the other named members such as the League and the parties.
>
>Show us the invite you sent to CVV to participate, or is there one?  
>Who signed the non-disclosure on behalf of CVV? Where is CVV's copy  
>of the binder?
>
>I think you have misrepresented. You are the one who chose to include  
>mention of CVV in your report, and Linda is the one who chose to  
>attempt to agglomerate the good will of the CVV common law mark and  
>confuse the "marketplace" by suggesting an association where none  
>exists.
>
>For servants of the public trust, this type of intentionally  
>deceptive behavior is unconscionable.
>
>I await the invitation to participate or a retraction, you can even  
>send a bitmap PDF and I don't think anyone will complain about that  
>this time.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>
>Joe Pezzillo
>PO Box J
>Boulder, CO 80306 USA
>jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx
>303-938-8850
>
>
>
>On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Liss, Josh wrote:
>
>> Original email failed to reach some of the intended recipients, so  
>> I'll try this again.  Please see response below.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Liss, Josh
>> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:39 AM
>> To: '=SMTP:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx'; Salas, Linda;
>> '=SMTP:cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>> Cc: Bailey, Shelley; Reichert, Marianne; Bo Shaffer (E-mail)
>> Subject: RE: Did Linda Salas Lie to Boulder County?
>>
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> I think you have misunderstood.  Linda said a member of Citizens  
>> for Verifiable Voting was *ON* the Evaluation Team.  Bo Shaffer is  
>> a member of CVV, is he not?  Hasn't he been a member of CVV for a  
>> long time?  Has Bo been kicked out of CVV?
>>
>> Linda also said that testimony was heard from such groups as CVV,  
>> the Paper Tigers, and the Center for People With Disabilities.  As  
>> a member of CVV and the Paper Tigers, you did testify before the  
>> RFP Evaluation Team, didn't you?
>>
>> The answer to your question is "NO".  Linda Salas did not lie to  
>> Boulder County.
>>
>> I hope this clarification helps.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Josh Liss
>> RFP Evaluation Team Chair
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:54 PM
>> To: Salas, Linda; Liss, Josh; CVV Voting
>> Cc: Bailey, Shelley; Reichert, Marianne
>> Subject: Did Linda Salas Lie to Boulder County?
>>
>>
>>
>> 4/6/2006
>>
>> Boulder County Clerk Linda Salas:
>>
>> Today, in testimony before the Boulder County Commissioners, you
>> stated that Citizens for Verifiable Voting had been invited to
>> participate in your latest RFP evaluation committee.
>>
>> Please immediately produce the invitation you sent to CVV to
>> participate or publicly retract your statements.
>>
>> A Boulder County attorney and the Commissioners have been CC'd on
>> this e-mail.
>>
>> If you do not produce the invitation you claimed you extended to CVV
>> or retract your statements, the next step will be to present this
>> information to the press.
>>
>> You have made false statements before the Boulder County
>> Commissioners before (1/29/2004), I can compile a complete list if
>> necessary.
>>
>> You may make your written statement of retraction to the CVV mailing
>> list, a statement from your staff will not be sufficient.
>>
>> Joe Pezzillo
>> PO Box J
>> Boulder, CO 80306
>> 303-938-8850
>> jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Paper Tigers recommend not selecting eSlate
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:28:50 -0700
From: Mary Eberle <m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Wordrite Editorial Services
To: Reichert, Marianne <mreichert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: 
<81A8EABA9F8D8146B23F5F1A7FD4DD6304586913@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Marianne,

Could you please send this message to the Commissioners as well? In the
files sent previously, Ralph Shnelvar was listed with the affiliation
"Libertarian" on the last page. He does not represent the Libertarians.
I apologize for the error.

Sincerely,
Mary

Mary C. Eberle
1520 Cress Court
Boulder, CO 80304, USA
(303) 442-2164
m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Reichert, Marianne wrote:
> yes and it was sent to the Board as well
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Eberle [mailto:m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:03 PM
> To: Reichert, Marianne
> Subject: Re: Paper Tigers recommend not selecting eSlate
> 
> 
> Hello Marianne,
> 
> Thank you for your help on this communication. I am hoping that you also 
> saw the somewhat later message with a revised file attached and passed 
> that one on too!
> 
> Thank you again,
> Mary
> 
> Mary C. Eberle
> 1520 Cress Court
> Boulder, CO 80304, USA
> (303) 442-2164
> m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Reichert, Marianne wrote:
>> I have forwarded your e-mail to each of the Commissioners.
>> Marianne Reichert
>> Constituent Services Liaison
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mary Eberle [mailto:m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:13 PM
>> To: Barbara Anuta; Bo Shaffer; Deb Gardner; Faith Gross; Jana Petersen;
>> Liss, Josh; Marty Neilson; Harlan, Mike; Wurl, Nancy Jo; Hansford, Tim;
>> Salas, Linda; Ashcraft, Susan; Reichert, Marianne
>> Cc: Al Kolwicz; Carolyn Bninski; Geof Cahoon; Ivan C. Meek; Joe
>> Pezzillo; Kellen Carey; Margit Johansson; Myriah Conway; Neal McBurnett;
>> Paul Walmsley; Peter Richards; Ralph Shnelvar; Scott A. Morris; Stith
>> Bennett; Mary Eberle
>> Subject: Paper Tigers recommend not selecting eSlate
>>
>>
>> Dear Boulder County RFP Evaluation Team and Other Interested Parties,
>>
>> Please see the attached for the details behind our recommendation.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> The Paper Tigers of Boulder County
>>
>> [sent by Mary C. Eberle
>> 1520 Cress Court
>> Boulder, CO 80304, USA
>> (303) 442-2164
>> m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>