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

Re: Did Linda Salas Lie to Boulder County?
Well, if what I say is true, it should all be able to be found in the public record, and guess what, it is! (interesting attempted suggestion that I might make something up that wasn't true, good try, but it's tough when all these facts are at our fingertips everywhere).
Here's the position statement of the group from November 2003, it wasn't just me, there were several dozen folks involved, are you sure you were one of them? 

http://coloradovoter.net/moin.cgi/PositionStatement
But, according to the website (not me), CVV has been inactive since at least November of last year.
Did anyone fact check the RFPET report? I hope this is the only factual detail that was missed. Sure wouldn't want another situation like 2004 where some important and major details about the proposed system were flat wrong, look what happened then!
As it turns out, there is no CVV active, and therefore, there is no CVV to represent, any CVV member would have known that.
So, maybe you were a member of this "CAEV" group you mention and not CVV after all?
Perhaps this is all just a typographical error that the Clerk made and can now clarify in her retraction. The endless series of acronyms are certainly easily confused.
Speaking of acronyms, CVV was very clear in rejecting the "VVPAT" paper trail and instead insisted on the use of paper ballots (and the term), it's in the position statement from two years ago, so I'm starting to get worried that somehow someone has gotten two different groups confused here. I don't recall a "CAEV" being active locally, but maybe that was your group and the Clerk got it wrong in her report and testimony. That would sure explain the vast gulf between CVV's unchanged position from two years ago and the Clerk's latest last minute plan.
FYI, in case it matters, I think I've been very clear that I've been making my recent testimony as myself, sometimes clarifying that I was formerly the spokesperson (appointed) for CVV. However, obviously with these e-mails I've been trying to stand up for the good name of CVV to prevent it from being usurped by people who are opposed to the group's consensus position.
The original goal of the group is unchanged, so you might want to double check which group *you* joined, doesn't sound like it was CVV after all.
Sorry that it took two years for us to realize that your agenda and CVV's agenda are opposite sides of the coin, I'm sure you'd still be welcomed by the group, especially after you learn about our position and understand the amount of work that CVV put in to developing that consensus position and why it says what it says.
I'm sure the Clerk and her elections coordinator can still explain how this mistake was made, maybe I was wrong and it wasn't intentional. The only way we'll know for sure is for the Clerk to make her statement explaining how she came to use the group's name to imply endorsement of her plan when no such endorsement existed and no representative of the group was invited to participate on the RFPET as she claimed.
I'm pretty sure everyone is fine waiting until Monday morning for Linda's retraction. Ralph's retraction was only a paragraph, perhaps hers is much longer? She even still has time to rewrite it to use this story about it being a typo. 

Joe


On Apr 7, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Delta wrote:


so, why isn't it CAEV?
If what you say is true, then I contend the original goal of the group has 
been co-opted by a group of luddites with their own agenda.
The group *I* joined with, was concerned that the elections be verifiable 
and accurate.
We agreed that a paper trail was necessary.....thus the VVPAT
Certain procedures and techniques are necessary to provide accurate election 
results....
THESE are the things I have always though were the goals of CVV.

Maybe it is time to truly go our separate ways.....
You can mark this down in your little book of archives....

I am unsubscribing to this list.
It's as close as one can come to quitting the group.
I fully intend to continue *my* work towards having elections be accurate and verifiable....but I am tired of being associated with such extremists. Although even extremists can be pleasant at times (thanks for the notes 
Al.....)I am tired of infighting.

Enjoy your list sans moi.

Bo


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:04 PM
To: Delta; Linda Salas
Cc: Joshua B. Liss; CVV Voting; Shelley Bailey; Boulder County
Commissioners
Subject: Re: Did Linda Salas Lie to Boulder County?



The fundamental problem with this situation is this:

During 2003, Citizens for Verifiable Voting ("CVV") was formed as an
ad hoc group of local citizens who were opposed to electronic voting.
As an ad hoc group, membership theoretically was (and remains) open
to any Boulder County citizen. Thus, yes, you're a member, even if
you quit the group at least once before.

Since you're a member, you presumably recall that CVV met perhaps
half a dozen times, the largest meeting had approximately 50
attendees, you may have been at that meeting, I do not recall, and if
you'd like, I can dig out the attendance sign up sheets.

During those meetings, every attendee was encouraged to discuss their
concerns and suggestions about elections.

The group heard, discussed and tolerated a wide variety of opinions
and perspectives, ranging from "DREs might be okay under these
limited circumstances" to "hand count all ballots".

After months of in-person meetings and e-mail discussion, CVV was
able to arrive at a CONSENSUS position and adopted the following four
points which we presented to the Boulder County Commissioners on
December 4th, 2003.

1) Insist on the use of paper ballots as the single, official record
of the vote;
2) Allow no secret software in any voting machines or vote counting
machines;
3) Recognize that accuracy is the most important aspect in the
elections, not speed of completing the counts; and
4) Support HR 2239, and other election reform laws at the local,
state, and national level that encompass and resolve all of the above
concerns.


You may find this position statement on the web at:

http://coloradovoter.net/moin.cgi/PositionStatement

The Boulder County Clerk represented to the Commissioners and general
public that CVV was "included," "invited" and/or otherwise given the
opportunity to participate as a full member of the RFPET: CVV was
listed in the enumerated lists of participating organizations; CVV is
listed as a represented organization on the committee's roster; the
Clerk made clear statements to suggest that CVV and it's membership
and positions were represented.

That is the lie.

Even if you are a member of CVV, you were not asked to participate
because of your membership, and the fact of your membership was added
retroactively in a move specifically intended to mislead. If CVV had
been invited to participate, it should have the same "paper trail" as
any other member, including a non-disclosure agreement and a binder
of RFP response materials.

If I'm wrong, then the Clerk can show us the invitation that CVV was
extended to participate, where CVV accepted or rejected that
invitation, and where CVV's consensus position (or the RFPET's
rejection of CVV's position) is represented in the final report.

If not, the Clerk should immediately retract her statements because
no such representation was extended to CVV.

You can attack me, but the truth is the truth, and it's not on Linda
Salas' side. Have you read her campaign literature? Wow, talk about
fiction. Funny she doesn't mention any of the campaign promises she
made in 2002, I wonder why...

I'm sure you'll have equally insufficient explanations for every
other false statement she has made, and you know I've got a list...

Joe

PS - We're still awaiting a copy of that invitation and/or a
retraction on the CVV list!

Joe Pezzillo
PO Box J
Boulder, CO 80306 USA
jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx
303-938-8850



On Apr 7, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Delta wrote:


so, just how "pure" do you have to be to be considered a "member"???
show me your membership list.....

I was there at the beginning and I am still there.
sounds like a member to me.

i do not apologize for the Clerk....I *try* to apologize for you
being a
jerk.

I'm sick and tired of all you little weenies yelling and
complaining because
nobody does what *you* want.....
Your way or the highway???

Nutz.

I am a member of CVV and have been since the beginning....even if I
try to
distance myself from the more fanatical members.....Doesn't matter
WHAT kind
of spin *you* try to put on it.
I was instrumental in getting CVV to be heard by the Team.
CVV voiced concerns and they were listened to.....just not all *your* 
desires were met....GET OVER IT.

You make yourself (and others by association), look petty and
ridiculous,
calling for a written invitation.....
Keep it up and NOBODY will invite CVV ANYwhere.....

Bo


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:50 PM
To: delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Linda Salas; Joshua B. Liss; CVV Voting; Shelley Bailey; Boulder 
County Commissioners
Subject: Re: Did Linda Salas Lie to Boulder County?



Bo-
Just show us the invitation and stop acting like you're "father knows 
best".

Linda misrepresented CVV's participation in the RFPET and you know
it...why are you always the first to apologize for her anyway?
Membership on the open public e-mail list is hardly membership in the group, especially when your membership on the list consists primarily of attacks on other members or trying to bait other participants into 
flame wars with you. Besides, in your own words, you withdrew from
CVV on or before 4/26/2004.

"This is why *I* for one have backed off this CVV group"

http://coloradovoter.net/bcv-archive/msg01041.html

Which makes you even claiming to be a member somewhat deceptive in
and of itself, but despite your repeated attempts to start arguments, 
you're still always welcome here, even if, as you've noted, you're
always in the minority opinion, and CVV never seems to agree with you 
(as your e-mails regularly point out).

Funny, given all that, tell me again how CVV chose you to represent
it on the RFPET? Can I see that invitation for CVV to participate?
The one like all the other named participants got (LWV, ACLU, Ds, Rs, 
Ls...)?

Who signed the non-disclosure agreement on behalf of CVV?

And this is what passes for "integrity" at the clerk's office, and
you defend it? And you trust people who would act like that to count 
your votes?

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little
children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3
(NIV)

Joe



On Apr 6, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Delta wrote:


For Cat's sake, Joe....stop acting like a petulant child.
CVV was specifically invited on the second and third RFPET meetings 
to give
public testimony, because a representative was there and asked.
It's in the minutes....
CVV *gave* testimony.....that's in the minutes, too.
And as far as *my* membership in CVV goes (which Mr. Shnelvar didn't 
question, but did complain that I wasn't mainstream CVV) I was
there when
the group started....I have as much right as anyone to claim to be
a part of
it. I have different ideas than some of you....so do some others.
That
doesn't mean that any of us could not be a representative of the
group...informal as that membership/representation is.

Everyone who wanted to, said their piece....during the RFPET
hearings.
It's not very democratic of you to denounce the entire process
because
everybody didn't listen to your version and do everything *you*
wanted.
Your voice was heard and then the Team moved on.
Feel free to continue to push your particular agenda, but realize
how you
belittle it by being petty.

Bo


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:54 PM
To: Linda Salas; Joshua B. Liss; CVV Voting
Cc: Shelley Bailey; Boulder County Commissioners
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