More Salas Campaign Lit "Problems"

["Joe Pezzillo" <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wow, Linda Salas' campaign literature just gets funnier and funnier  
with every paragraph I read, listen to this one from her "Frequently  
Asked Questions" :

[For context, this is part of the answer where the piece explains how  
Linda has supposedly corrected all the problems she's caused, the  
section title is "Q: Have these problems been fixed?" and the first  
sentence answers "A: For the most part, yes" which is funny enough as  
is, but read on!]

"During the 2005 election the County requested specifications from  
Hart which it then submitted to the print vendor to ensure proper  
placement of items on the ballot."

Did you catch that one? I'm sure many folks didn't.

So what's the problem?

HART WAS THE PRINTING VENDOR! (for both the City of Boulder special  
election in March '05, and the November '05 mail ballot election)...  
and even with the specs in hand and using the sole source vendor who  
made the system to also print the ballots, ITEMS WERE STILL  
IMPROPERLY PLACED ON THE BALLOT (the fold through the "yes" option  
box on Ref C)...

The text clearly intends to make the reader think that the print  
vendor is different from the supplier of the specifications, and that  
some special effort was required on the Clerk's part to inform this  
"print vendor" of Hart's specifications.

This may be a minor detail, yes, but don't we want the person who  
counts our votes to pay attention to every detail?

Joe






----------

Longmont Times Call, 9/2/05:

"BOULDER — The manufacturer that built Boulder County’s maligned  
ballot-counting machines for the 2004 presidential election has won  
the contract to print the county’s November mail ballots, even though  
another company submitted a lower bid."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:EfUv5YceZmkJ:www.longmontfyi.com/ 
Local-Story.asp%3Fid%3D3451+hart+intercivic+boulder+county+ballot 
+printing