Charges Against Kevin Shelley upheld, detailed and explained.

[Stevepol]

VotersUnite.org provides an article about the charges against Shelley which caused his resignation. Sounds like mostly carelessness (accounting due to the pressure he was under) and over-exuberance in trying to fight the political power of the machines (using money for Dem purposes or seemingly Dem purposes). I wonder how much of a role politics played in the federal decision.

Here's the link:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/13458667.htm

[shance]

1. Who were the auditors from the EAC and what was their affiliation?

That might help provide better explanation.

Also a better break down of where the money went might give a more accurate portrayal of what transpired.

[Wilms]

2. Well, even McPherson goes to bat for Shelley.

McPherson is defending the no-bid contracts (something I was critical of :blush: )

Looks like they threw a dozen charges and got a couple to stick. Some more detail might reveal if he was "politicizing" the office as Cox claims, or if he was merely badly managing as most agree.


Wed, Dec. 21, 2005

Audit finds $3.8 million in election funds improperly spent

JENNIFER COLEMAN

Associated Press

SACRAMENTO - More than $3.8 million in federal election money was spent improperly or without required documentation by former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, federal auditors said in a report released Wednesday.

snip

Auditors said about $3 million in spending lacked documentation, such as paying salaries for people who didn't submit time sheets, or was improperly awarded to consultants through no-bid contracts.

The audit, conducted by the Department of the Interior's inspector general, also found another $777,502 was improperly spent on salaries, promotional memorabilia and other items that were unrelated to the Help America Vote Act.

snip

His successor, Republican Bruce McPherson, agreed with some of the audit's findings, but disputed the auditor's claim that about $2 million in no-bid consulting contracts were inappropriate.

Those contracts were cleared for no-bid awards by the state Department of General Services because of a tight deadline to bring California into compliance with the federal law, McPherson said in his response to the audit.

snip

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/13458667.htm

[Amaryllis]

3. Regarding the "campaign finance probe issue"

As far as this quote from the linked article "In the campaign finance probe surrounding Shelley, San Francisco real estate agent Julie Lee is facing eight felony charges that she laundered a state grant for a community center into Shelley's 2002 campaign. Lee has pleaded not guilty."

Interesting the way they report this, insinuating that Shelley may be guilty here, and they DON'T bother to mention that CA A.G. Lockyear found him "innocent of any wrongdoing" in this case. This really makes me wonder how much of the rest of the article presents "facts" in such a manner as to imply guilt when there is none.

See this:
http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=2952060

Subject: Attorney General Bill Lockyer's comments re: Kevin Shelley and the Julie Lee case that appeared on ABC's local affiliate in San Francisco KGO Channel 7, on April 8, 2005, when Ms. Lee made her first court appearance in the State case:

"State Attorney General Bill Lockyer says he's cleared Shelley of any wrongdoing in the Julie Lee matter. We caught up with Lockyer at a luncheon this afternoon in Berkeley.

Bill Lockyer, (D) California Attorney General: 'Kevin Shelley was not a participant in this crime. He is absolutely innocent of any personal involvement in the crimes that Julie Lee committed.'

Lockyer says even though Shelley's campaign got money from Julie Lee, he played no role in the crime."

[Wilms]

4. It's all how you read it.

After that "insinuating" graf comes this sentence, ending the article.

"Singer said Shelley remains "quite active in both business and politics" and has not been questioned in the Lee case."

:shrug:

[Wilms]

5. EAC piles on --- federal audit report of California HAVA expenses released

Election Updates

December 22, 2005

EAC piles on --- federal audit report of California HAVA expenses released

Yesterday the EAC released their report of California's HAVA expenditures. Here is the report's basic statement of their auditing of California's use of HAVA funds:

Of the $4,977,829 in reviewed expenditures, we classified $3,269,791 as questioned costs, consisting of $509,325 in cost exceptions and $2,760,466 in unsupported costs; and of the $3,755,723 in reviewed obligations, we classified $590,570 as questioned costs, consisting of $268,177 in cost exceptions and $322,393 in unsupported costs. In total, we questioned $3,860,361 in HAVA expenditures, consisting of $777,502 in cost exceptions and $3,082,859 in unsupported costs.

In broad terms, we took exception to those expenditures related to the purchase of capitalized general purpose equipment, promotional items and memorabilia, costs not related to HAVA, contract costs paid that were outside the terms of a contract, and costs that did not conform to federal cost principles. In addition, we classified as unsupported those expenditures lacking adequate support documentation, including expenditures related to personal service costs, procurement awards, indirect costs, and other costs.

Procurement award expenditures were generally classified as unsupported because competitive bidding requirements were not met ...

In the definition used by the auditors, a questioned cost was one that:

1. "resulted from a violation or possible violation of a provision of a law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement or document governing the use of federal funds;
2. at the time of the audit, was not supported by adequate documentation; or
3. appeared unreasonable and did not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in similar circumstances"

snip

Of the cost exceptions, one of the more distressing claims regarded $308,388 in questionable printing, postage and shipping costs. These questionable costs regarded:

* "$83,756 for promotional items and memorabilia (T-shirts, buttons, balloons and other souvenirs), which are not allowed ..."
* "$224,632 for postage to mail absentee ballot applications.

As for the $83,756 --- that is a lot of illegal t-shirts and balloons! But what were they doing using HAVA funds to buy balloons?

The absentee ballot questions regarded the mailing of absentee ballot applications to permanent absentee voters, without consulting county election officials who are in charge of mailing absentee ballot applications. The report noted: "After county registrars expressed concerns about applications sent to voters already registered as permanent absentee voters, the Office canceled mailing any remaining applications and received a credit of $502,868 from the U.S. Postmaster, leaving a cost of $224,632 for postage already expended. We found the $224,632 cost unreasonable and therefore not allowable ..." Question --- why were they mailing absentee ballot applications to permanent absentee voters?

snip

http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2005/12/eac-piles-on-federal-audit-report-of.html

[Einsteinia]

6. Deconstruction of a Propaganda Piece

Why must we wait for another 60 days until we know thumbs up or down on the EAC findings? Why is this reported now? Is this a politically motivated scheme to send a chill to uppity Secretaries of States across the nation who dare not comply with the HAVA deadlines or decertify partisan voting equipment? Paranoid? Look at the current political situation and ask yourself whether due diligence under these circumstances should include looking behind doors. So, let's look at the timing, and ask: Why now? Right now when Secretaries of States are at a critical decision-making juncture with the Diebold equipment proving easily corruptible and HAVA deadlines looming. Why did they wait this long for their decision and announce it now, with the fine print reading that they'll let us know the true thumbs-up or down on Shelley in 60 days. 60 days will be a date AFTER the HAVA deadlines. They've had all this time and have already conducted their investigations, but they can't tell us anything except to send innuendo that things for our former Secretary of State look baaaaaaad!

Please read the whole article at: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/13458667.htm

Deconstruction of Audit finds $3.8 million in election funds improperly spent

JENNIFER COLEMAN

Associated Press

SACRAMENTO -More than $3.8 million in federal election money was spent improperly or without required documentation by former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, federal auditors said in a report released Wednesday.

First, to gain some perspective: $3.8 million out of $180 million is 2 percent. Second, notice the “OR” clause above. Let’s just say all but $2,000 in question fell into the required better paperwork category, and you’ll get why this is a very misleading newsflash. I refer to it as a newsflash, because lacks any news of substance. It is primarily a rehash of old news and merely invokes a dark prediction about what may come -- it suggests a new audit hearing was held but bases its findings largely on the previous CA hearing, and then offers no verdict.

The audit, commissioned by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

The “EAC,” which is the arm of the “Help America Vendor’s Act” which is charged with coming up with protocols and guidelines. The EAC has itself been tardy or non-compliant with the majority of its edicts. It is a council of four political appointees: 2 are republican and 2 are DINOS. Earlier this year, the Chair resigned in disgust because it had no funding. See: http://www.whoscounting.net/EAC.htm

confirms an earlier state audit of Shelley's handling of money given to California under the Help America Vote Act. It examined spending through 2004.

The foundation of this newsflash is the findings of an earlier audit, which at most showed a minor appearance of impropriety, as confirmed by the auditor’s office upon my telephone call inquiry to follow up with questions I had after having attended the audit hearing and after carefully reading through the audit report.

Auditors said about $3 million in spending lacked documentation, such as paying salaries for people who didn't submit time sheets, or was improperly awarded to consultants through no-bid contracts.

Paperwork problem: Shelley has admitted that he was overwhelmed with the barrage of new HAVA requirements and tried to delegate it to others, which obviously backfired.

The audit, conducted by the Department of the Interior's inspector general, another US government entity purged of “dissenters” also found another $777,502 was improperly spent on salaries, promotional memorabilia and other items that were unrelated to the Help America Vote Act.

Hmmmm, voter education pamphlets informing voters that if they lacked confidence in their paperless voting systems that they could request a paper ballot or provisional ballot, which had a picture of Shelley on the back. Why don’t do something productive like investigate our President for hiring political shills?

Congress passed the act in 2002 after the problems with voting machines and access to polling places that surfaced during the 2000 presidential election.

But who wrote HAVA? 3 out of 4 are heavily implicated in the Abramoff scandal.

California has received about $180 million in federal money to upgrade voting equipment and procedures. Federal authorities froze another $170 million after questions arose about Shelley's spending, money that was released in June after Shelley had been replaced.

Yes, please note that above: It was the Feds who froze the money and caused the CA election officials a colossal headache--NOT Shelley. To date, our CA electon officials love to blame their problems on that darn Shelley. However, Shelley, too, had delayed money from being funneled directly into the gullets of partisan vendors when he finally realized that the activists were right--the machines were funky. Now, ironically, it is the CA election officials themselves who are begging Congress from the HAVA deadlines, because there are not yet any good options to purchase.

Shelley, a Democrat, denied wrongdoing but resigned in February after he was accused of mishandling the money, bending state hiring rules to reward political allies and accepting questionable campaign contributions.

Obviously Shelley was a fighter. But if you were in his shoes, could you continue the uphill battle with five government entities investigating you with no legal or financial assistance from the State? Be honest. Would you at some point feel despondent when your fellow democrats turn their backs on you --even when they were justified for fear they might get in the cross-hairs? Then, consider the personal toll on your family. Shelley resigned the day after his mother died. She had been quite healthy before this scandal, but succumbed to pneumonia in the midst of these stressful days. Here, Shelley, who had stood up on behalf of Californians against Diebold and boldly decertified much of their equipment, he who was the first Secty. of State with DRE equipment to mandate a paper trail, he who came up with 25 innovative safeguards until the paper trails could go into effect, and he who wanted to use some of the HAVA funds for poll worker college and voter education received no support, and in a bizarre moebius strip of logic, this is the No. 2 reason why people I speak to think he’s gulity: “If he weren’t gulity, people would have stood up for him.” And so what then, you might ask, is the No. 1 reason why people think he’s guility: Because if he weren’t, the papers would have written about it? Hmmmm, do you mean the same papers that have refused to cover the election integrity scandal from the very beginning? The same media that refused to even mention the GAO heavy indictment against electronic voting systems? Getting back to this point about the audit hearing, if you actually went to the Audit Hearing or read the audit report, you’d know that his big crime was NOT spending money on funky voting equipment. With that the feds froze his funds and caused a lot of grief for election officials who still have to meet the HAVA deadlines with their “use it or lose it” clause, as well as the fact that the DOJ promised a visit for the non-compliant

His successor, Republican Bruce McPherson, agreed with some of the audit's findings, but disputed the auditor's claim that about $2 million in no-bid consulting contracts were inappropriate.

McPherson obviously has some integrity.

Those contracts were cleared for no-bid awards by the state Department of General Services because of a tight deadline to bring California into compliance with the federal law, McPherson said in his response to the audit.

In addition, the office was facing unprecedented pressure from the combination of three elections - the first-ever recall election for a California governor in 2003, followed in 2004 by a presidential primary and a presidential general election, McPherson said.

The federal audit confirms the findings of the California Bureau of State Audits. A state audit in December 2004 found that federal money intended for voter outreach was used by Shelley to pay for consultants who attended partisan Democratic events and promoted Shelley's political achievements.

After an audit for an entire year there were six events, which came under scrutiny. These events were on the timeslips of outside consultants who sought to comply with the outreach component of HAVA. Two were for roundtables that were primarily attended by republicans and the others were for exclusively democrat events. The sum total of this was under $2,000 (and probably under $1,000).

That audit said Shelley poorly managed the money and failed to properly oversee his staff and consultants. It suggested 17 changes in how the secretary of state's office implements the Help America Vote Act.

This, too, is an over broad generalization that boils down to sloppy office management. On page 5 of the Audit report these are listed as the “Highlights” of all the errors. Please read the long, long list of six items and think about our republican party. If you're like me, you'll wonder, "Where's the meat?"

Office of the
Secretary of State
Help America Vote Act of 2002

Presentation by

Elaine M. Howle
California State Auditor

January 10, 2005

Audit Highlights -page 5

1The Office of the Secretary of State’s (office) insufficient planning and poor management practices hampered its efforts to implement the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) provisions promptly.

2 The office’s disregard for proper controls and its poor oversight of staff and consultants led to questionable uses of HAVA funds.

3 The office avoided competitive bidding for many HAVA purchases paid with HAVA funds by improperly using a Department of General Services exemption from competitive bidding and by not following the State’s procurement policies.

4 The office bypassed the Legislature's spending approval authority when it executed consultant contracts and then charged the associated costs to its HAVA administration accounts.

5 The office failed to disburse HAVA funds to counties for the replacement of outdated voting machines within the time frames outlined in its grant application package and county agreements.

6 The State’s chief elections office lacks a policy that strictly prohibits partisan activities.


McPherson told auditors his office has complied with most of those recommendations and is working to implement the rest.

A spokesman for Shelley said many of the changes recommended by the state auditor were started by Shelley.

"As the current administration points out, the office of Secretary of State Kevin Shelley was overburdened by a cyclone of unprecedented and historic forces," said Shelley's spokesman, Sam Singer. "This audit is reflective of the difficult circumstances the Shelley administration faced."

Too bad most people won’t have read down this far nor will they have any context to understand it.
State Sen. Dave Cox, who requested the state audit, said the federal report released Wednesday indicates that Shelley tried to politicize his office.

Let me guess, Sen. Dave Cox is partisan--from the opposing party?

"Todays audit by the EAC shows that while he was secretary of state, Mr. Shelley and his operatives ignored clear policies in order to hire political operatives," Cox, R-Fair Oaks, said in a statement. "They improperly used taxpayer dollars for questionable and improper purchases of self-promotional items and other materials."

Look who is telling us this--this political entity, which even the very conservative Doug Chapin of Electionline.org said was “ad hoc tribunal without real legal authority" to perform and trial of Shelley, Could they be just a bit more specific today as to what they deemed self-promotional items. Could it again be a picture of the Secretary of State on a voter education pamphlet? Is this partisan appointed committee trying to lecture democrats on political propaganda at the taxpayer’s expense?

The Election Assistance Commission will review the federal audit and issue a final report to the state within 60 days, commission spokeswoman Jeannie Layson said. She said it is premature to speculate about possible remedies or penalties.

Why the delay? Could it be because there are no findings, but it’s politically expedient to send this newsflash today to put a chill on any other uppity Secretaries of States who might be thinking of delaying their compliance with the end of the year HAVA deadlines. Or even more politically opportune to scare Secretaries of States who might be emboldened by the recent Diebold hack tests to try to spend their HAVA Jonas for anything other than their funky election equipment?

In the campaign finance probe surrounding Shelley, San Francisco real estate agent Julie Lee is facing eight felony charges that she laundered a state grant for a community center into Shelley's 2002 campaign. Lee has pleaded not guilty.

Very important in a propaganda piece to invoke unrelated stories to cast a suspicious pall over this man’s credibility. Never mind that Attorney General Lockyer exonerated Shelley from any wrongdoing in this case. And for heaven’s sakes, do NOT mention the fact that Shelley was the first in the Secretary of State with paperless voting equipment to mandate paper trails. Do not mention that he boldly decertified Diebold. To mention those facts might not seem “fair and balanced.”

Singer said Shelley remains "quite active in both business and politics" and has not been questioned in the Lee case.

Good limp statement to conclude with--IF you’ve decided you want to perpetuate the deliberate misinformation about Kevin Shelley. And in my opinion this propaganda tactic is the only scandal of described in this article.

[Amaryllis]

7. Excellent rebuttal, Einsteinia.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Oops, they forgot about the "sexual harassment complaint" that he "lost"

(--that was never filed!)

Look, what's going on here is that Shelley was the national leader of the campaign against Diebold and the LACK OF TRANSPARENCY in our election system in 2004. So, forces from the Dark Side got rid of him. Pure and simple. They were probably wiretapping him as a "terrorist," and maybe even had spies/operatives in his office and/or his campaign.

The EAC? These are the people who fucked up our election system so badly that our democracy may never recover. BUSH appointees. Give me a break.

The Democrats in California who cowered in fear (or corruption?) at this "black ops" campaign against an elected Democratic officeholder who DID NOTHING WRONG, and who had the courage to stand up to this goddamned junta and its election theft machinery, ought to be horsewhipped out of the Party.

They were a new and inexperienced leadership of the CA Senate/Assembly--all of the old guard having retired recently--but, with a 2 to 1 Dem edge in both houses, they damn well should not have let this happen.

But you only have to look at people like Connie McCormack, a supposed DEMOCRAT running elections in Los Angeles, who headed the foul county election officials' (the 17 deprived of Diebold) campaign against Shelley, and who is a Diebold and paperless voting advocate, and whose best friend Deborah Seiler was Diebold's chief salesperson in Calif, to realize just how much corruption this Bush/Delay/Dodd $4 billion HAVA boondoggle has caused.

As I said, our democracy may never recover from it. Shelley stood nearly alone against these Bush criminals--Diebold and its CEO and Ohio Bush/Cheney campaign chair, Wally O'Dell, spawn of the most corrupt Republican tyranny in the country--and they took him down. End of story.

[Amaryllis]

13. You are absolutely right, PP. I believe that Shelley is both an

election rights hero and martyr for the cause, although he probably had no idea when he took on Diebold what he was in for. But, if you read his address to the voting systems panel,
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5021
he clearly knew he was stepping into unchartered waters and was sticking his neck out big time.

Did you know he wouldn't attend the conferences for election officials that were sponsored by the vendors because he saw it so clearly as a conflict of interest? This did not win him friends with the likes of Conny McCormick or anyone else in bed with Diebold. How many election officials even had the awareness to realize vendors sponsoring conferences is a conflict of interest?

[furrball]

17. Beautiful.

n/t

[Einsteinia]

15. He didn't lose the harassment charges

They were never even filed, which shows how much merit they had.

[Helga Scow Stern]

11. Amen, Einsteinia.

It is like hacking through a jungle with a machete, getting through this propaganda surrounding the planned corruption of California's electional integrity.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

32. thank you for this post

and thank you for the great information.

My favorite phrase:

Helping American Vendor's Act

[Peace Patriot]

9. Stevepol, your subject title really alarmed me and is inaccurate and...

...misleading. I thought Lockyer had reversed his finding of Shelley's innocence.

I would be for re-posting this subject, with all current comments--especially Einsteinia's (or linked to this thread) but with a DIFFERENT SUBJECT HEAD:

How 'bout this?

"Bush's EAC says Shelley may be guilty--interesting timing."

If you re-post with a proper subject head, I will recommend.

The EAC did NOT "uphold" these findings. And that is the point. They've put them out there as a SMEAR and FEAR tactic to shut up people like Ion Sancho in Florida.

[Wilms]

10. I think the OP was referring to the STATE audit of Shelley/HAVA...

...not to the issue of Julie Lee/Campaign money.

It seems the EAC is upholding what the state audit says.

http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/presentations/2004-139.pdf

[Amaryllis]

12. except that if you read what the state audit says, it doens't say what

the EAC says it says. Read Einsteinia's post. She has followed this very carefully from the beginning.

[Wilms]

19. Thanks. I read it. And I read this, too.

snip

Of that total, they found more than $3.8 million in questionable spending: Just over $777,000 was spent inappropriately, and just over $3 million lacked supporting documentation.

"Generally, it's harder to resolve (inappropriate spending) versus unsupported costs, because rather than it just being a lack of documentation, there's some reason those costs shouldn't be incurred," said Chuck Wiebe, deputy regional audit manager for the Interior Department in Sacramento.

Auditors objected to $42,256 in legal fees to a law firm that exceeded the hours allowed under a contract. The firm also was hired to do $1,050 worth of speech writing that did not relate to voter education projects.

Auditors also said $308,388 was inappropriately spent on postage and promotional items like buttons and balloons for a 3.75 million-piece mailing of absentee voter applications Shelley wanted to conduct.

snip

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/22/BAGOHGBTQU1.DTL


And this one, which around here can be as sacreligious as posting a Faux News link.


snip

Specific examples of questionable spending included:

* $224,632 for postage to mail absentee ballot applications, some of which apparently were sent to voters already registered as permanent absentee voters.

* $83,756 for T-shirts, buttons, balloons and other promotional items, memorabilia or souvenirs, which are not allowed under HAVA. The audit does not say what the items were intended to promote.

* $68,824 that was intended for voter education or poll worker training but instead was used to buy equipment, such as an envelope printer and mail-processing system.

* Equipment purchases in Los Angeles County involving 100 laptop computers and carrying cases, personal computers, monitors, printers, more than 4,500 cellphones, and an array of other electronic and audio equipment, including a pressure washer.

* $1.4 million arising from 34 contracts that do not appear to meet competitive bidding requirements.

* $42,256 in legal services exceeding a contractual limit, and $1,050 for paid legal services involving speechwriting.

Of the $3.8 million in questionable spending identified, McPherson agrees with the findings regarding $1.7 million and disputes those involving $2.14 million, according to the audit. The principal area of disagreement involves $1.9 million in consultant contracts that auditors say did not meet competitive bidding requirements or lacked adequate supporting documents.

snip

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14006614p-14839573c.html


So it still looks to me as if a pile of stuff was pinned on Shelley, and some of it is sticking. (Like lots of investigations.)

When Shelley supporters post about him being railroaded, and I have to google to find out the rest of the story...I accept the poster is a Shelley supporter. That's fine.

I have little doubt there are those who salivated over Shelley demise, perhaps went out of their way to find some trouble and whip it up, perhaps, as I've wondered, even infiltrated his admin. to trip him up. But I'm merely speculating.

And if all that, apart from the infiltration theory, is true, AND Shelley screwed up, them he still screwed up. That the bad guys are lovin' it, or that Shelley opposed Diebold doesn't make it ok.

And if there's an argument that 2% is ok, I haven't heard it, but I'm open.

If anything, I'm sore at Shelley for leaving the position vulnerable.

:shrug:

[Amaryllis]

21. Read Einsteinia's post number six. She goes into all of this.

[Wilms]

22. Thanks A, I got that, too. n/t

[Amaryllis]

14. See post #3 for the Lockyear statement saying Shelley was innocent.

[Stevepol]

16. How do I re-post w/o losing the threads already there?

I can't edit since it's too late for that.

Sorry I didn't see your posting until just now Peace Patriot.

[nicknameless]

18. You could post a new thread

and add whichever replies you wish to post (with attribution to the DUer who posted it).

[philb]

20. Shelley was right and has been vindicated; politics is whats dogging him

His accounting problems are miniscule compared to the $2.6 trillion the Pentagon has lost
and nothing has been done about, or compared to other officials or agencies

[EFerrari]

23. Shelley smear continues in the SF Chronicle: 12/22

(This is a reworking of the OP's AP article)

SACRAMENTO
Shelley spending audit flags $3.8 million
State may have to return voting act funds that were misspent or poorly documented

Greg Lucas, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

[e-mail]

Sacramento -- More than $3.8 million in federal election money sent to California was either misspent by former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley or lacked proper documentation, according to a federal audit released Wednesday.

Shelley, who resigned in February after a series of scandals buffeted his administration, was criticized last December in a state audit for slipshod management -- a finding echoed by federal officials who questioned nearly half of the spending they reviewed.

The auditors said they found instances of legal costs that exceeded contracted amounts, employee salaries improperly paid with federal dollars, and the purchase of promotional items like buttons and balloons.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/22/BAGOHGBTQU1.DTL&hw=Kevin+Shelley&sn=003&sc=463

[nicknameless]

24. Insult to injury: Bradblog credited *McPherson* with decertifying Diebold

machines in California.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002193.htm

Holy cow...perhaps this explains why California Sec. of State Bruce McPherson suddenly started turning inexplicably back to Diebold some time around mid-November of this year after having decertified them already back in 2004, and then finding them to have failed massively in a recent mock election test over the summer.

... I sent a PM, I added a comment to the blog ... but it's still there.

I can think of few things more outrageous than McPherson being given credit for Shelley's honesty and courage.

The August test revealed a 30% failure rate of Diebold's TSx machines. So McPherson held a secret test and then sought to recertify that crap. He should be tossed out of office.

[EFerrari]

25. Letter to Chron reporter, (Cc'd to readers' rep Dick Rogers

and shamelessly cribbed from Einsteinia's deconstruction.

This may not be a winnable fight. On the other hand, SF is a small town so it's worth a try.)

From: "Elizabeth Ferrari" <sfexpat2000@
Subject: Latest Kevin Shelley "story" 12/22
To: [e-mail]

Greg:

I had asked Dick when the Chronicle would follow up on the Shelley story. After reading your story, I have some feedback for you and for your editor.

1. Of the HAVA monies that Shelley is alleged to have misspent, $3 million dollars represents about 2% of those funds.

2. Of those roughly $3 million dollars, Bruce McPherson himself disagrees that $2 million spent in no bid contracts were improper.

3. Of the remaining million or so, we are looking at expenses such as more hours to legal counsel than were contracted for, a picture of Shelley on a pamphlet notifying voters they could request a provisional ballot and other innocuous items.

4. FYI, of the 4 HAVA authors, 3 are implicated in the Abramoff scandal. HAVA's main function is to sell electronic voting machines. The EAC is the arm of HAVA that comes up with guidelines. The EAC is not an objective body who just happens to be reviewing the spending of the first Sec of State to decertify Diebold. If you believe that, I have a voting machine I'd like to sell you.

I see little new news here. And, few real questions. Why the 30 day delay from the EAC? As Secretaries of State all over the country are determining for their state the appropriateness of these hackable machines, one would think the EAC could make a more prompt determination. What effect will this delay have on those deliberations?

Lastly, as we watch Diebold failing hack tests and tanking all over the country -- including with its shareholders, we seem to have forgotten that Kevin Shelley was the first one who stood up to the thuggery that tried to shove these insecure voting machines down the throats of California voters. I see no mention of either of these facts.

What were the consequences for him? Allegations of terrible wrongdoing but: Shelley has not been questioned in the Lee case and will not be. There were no sexual harrassment charges filed against him. And now, even the EAC is having trouble finding any mishandling of funds that is substantial.

So, after months of screaming headlines, it appears that the Chronicle cannot produce anything of substance against Shelley.

What you have is Dave Cox (R) accusing a Democratic Secretary of State of "polliticizing his office" -- an accusation ridiculous on its face considering the fact of Blackwell's Ohio and other similar operations. Florida comes to mind.

If Califonians get their votes counted in 2006 and in 2008, I'm afraid it won't be due to the Chronicle's rigorous reporting on the politics of hackable voting systems. And, that's too bad because we could really, really use that kind of reporting.



Elizabeth Ferrari

San Francisco CA

[nicknameless]

26. An excellent letter. I wonder if it will affect their reporting at all.

It never appeared that the Chronicle had any interest in the truth.
Along with the Sacramento Bee, they were just part of the reich-wing-slanted smear machine.

[Einsteinia]

27. Touche!!! Excellent!!!

Gee, my New Year's dream is that someone might finally connect the dots here. Thanks for writing a great letter.

[EFerrari]

31. What if I took your deconstruction and shopped it as an OpEd?

You could put your name to it, too -- although I can't figure out if that would be good for you politically or not? I'd be happy to be the beard. :evilgrin:

With Diebold self combusting, we might have an op here.

What do you think? The Chronicle seems to know they 1)either messed up or 2)their business people are impinging on their journalists to a publicly noticeable degree. Maybe they'd print an OpEd as a sop,if nothing else.

[Amaryllis]

28. Way to go! Excellent. Let us know if you get a reply, please!

[EFerrari]

30. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=407507&mesg_id=407507

[Einsteinia]

33. I am surprised. Why doesn't this SF Chron writer

act on it? Oh yeah, those pesky corporate beholden bosses.

[Amaryllis]

34. Damn, are there no reporters with SPINE? They have Dem spineless disorder.

[EFerrari]

29. Do we have enough on the Chronicle to interest Media Matters?

Has anyone ever tipped MM to an item?

I know I can't do it or I can kiss my relationships there on other issues g'bye. But, it just seems outrageous to me that they continue to smear Shelley.

Thoughts?

[Steve A Play]

35. 'Kick' with Kevin Shelley's own words

Kevin Shelley in an address to the California Voting Systems & Procedures Panel and members of the public on 12/16/2003.

Members of the Voting Systems Panel and Ladies and Gentleman behind me, I understand, from staff, that I, as Secretary of State, am breaking precedent by appearing before this panel. I appreciate all of the sage advice that you give me and recommendations that you make, but I felt it appropriate to break precedent, given the circumstance of the item you are hearing and discussing at the moment. My concern is beyond the individual item that is being discussed as it applies to Diebold and the recommendations to be made in that regard. It's much larger than that.

The core of our American democracy, members, is the right to vote. And implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all that is being called into question – the privacy of the vote, the security of the vote, and the accuracy of the vote. It troubles me, and it should trouble you.

Now, initial presentation was just made on the findings of the report, and I want to thank you very much for conducting the study and for the important review you provided. I know the VSP will soon be asking questions and then making some recommendations, but there are a number of things that this report details that are very troubling. There were unqualified uses of software that had not been approved by the Federal government; there were uncertified uses of software that had not been certified by the State government; and the software was used in a number of instances. That is deeply troubling because it's a violation of the elections code. There were lax accounting procedures, whether it be by counties or whether it be by this very agency, where we have not had a sufficiently extensive mechanism to assess, on a regular basis, what systems were in use.

I think that, on the county level, the audit reinforces my comments on American democracy – that on the county level, the physical security of the voting is sound and the county registrars and their excellent staff are doing a very good job in ensuring that security, but that the technical security is less sound, and the procedures that should be and must be in place at the county level are not sufficiently in place now.

At the same time, we – the Secretary of State’s office, the entity the election code charges with the responsibility to certify systems – bear responsibility if we're not on a consistent and regular basis assessing what software systems are in place. I believe we have the finest elections staff of any Secretary of State operation in the country (no disrespect to the other forty nine). Having said that, for every state election program, it's a new era and we must adjust our procedures, our assessment mechanisms, our approaches towards assuring the privacy, accuracy, security, and integrity of those votes. Now I know a number of recommendations will be made today. I look forward to implementing the recommendations of this panel to provide, from this office’s perspective, stronger mechanisms to address them – be it bi-annual assessments, be it regular auditing, be it spot checks, be it a number of things that came out of the recommendations of the touch screen task force.

You know it's very interesting that, recently when I made the decision to require a paper audit trail, a number of county officials very respectfully denounced them and a number of vendors, many of whom are represented behind me, said it wasn't necessary, said their machinery was secure. At the same time, a number of those within the community, the voter advocacy community, have oft times alleged Armageddon if we don't make immediate changes. Well you know, I don't know who's right.

I'm like the average voter. I don't know. And because I don't know, I want the confidence that a paper trail provides. And like an average voter, I want the confidence that a stronger assessment mechanism at the state level will provide. And like the average voter, I want the confidence that stronger procedures at the county level will ensure the accuracy, integrity and privacy of those votes. Once again, the right to vote is the most precious demonstration of our democracy. We must take it seriously, we must cherish it, and all of us, at the county level, at this office, and in the election vendor community, must act accordingly.

Now the audit is not complete. We don't have all the findings as yet, and we don't know what's occurred comprehensively. I would hope that the end result sanction that we suggested we might make today, pursuant to this hearing taking place, won't be the suggestion of de-certification of Diebold systems. I would hope that won't be the case. I certainly hope that won't be the case with other vendors as well. But if we find that there are gross discrepancies and violations, I am prepared to go down that road, and so this needs to be taken very, very seriously. And with that, I thank you for your time and I'll let you continue with your hearing.

Thank you Kevin, you served us with honor. :kick:

Steven P.

[Amaryllis]

38. One has only to read this to understand why they took him down. He was on

to them, long before any other secretary of state (are there other SOS's who truly get it, even now?) and even long before many of us.

[Wilms]

39. Debra Bowen Targeted for Audit, Resigns. VVPAT Outlawed in CA

Just kidding. :evilgrin:

[Amaryllis]

40. Are you trying to give me a heart attack? ! And I don't even live in CA!

[Wilms]

41. Just my way of saying I'm really not sure why Shelley was targeted.

And unless it's all a show, McPherson would be a target for making Diebold and county BoE's miserable.

[EFerrari]

42. I wonder about McPherson -- is it a show? I'm coming up short

in the trusting department.

The deal with Shelley seems to be, fewer people were watching then. And Diebold wasn't visibly tanking everywhere as it is now. McPherson is working in a different environment -- or so it seems to me.

Look at what the Chronicle's editorial page published on Jan 1 in a compilation of top stories of 2005:

Shelley's final days

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley should resign.

The evidence of his inability to lead this critical state office has become overwhelming. In recent months, Shelley has all but retreated behind a shield of lawyers and banal prepared statements as allegations of malfeasance and incompetence continued to pile up.

Shelley is said to be wrestling with a decision on whether to appear at a legislative hearing next week to answer questions about a state audit that accused him of mismanaging federal voting act money. Shelley has told associates he is weighing his determination to defend his reputation against his reticence to put his family and the Democratic Party through the hell of a public ordeal.

Shelley has been acting as a politician who has plenty to hide. (Jan. 26)

* * *
On edit: So, the editorial pages comments that accusations of incompetence and malfeasance continue to pile up because the news side is piling them up. And by Jan 1, 2006, the Chronicle knew that was one steaming pile but they chose to polish up their Shelley story instead of coming clean.

[Wilms]

43. I agree, and have considered the different environment...

...notwithstanding Bowen's introduction and and the eventual passage of a VVPAT bill.


I've heard little from Shelley in his own defense, other than that the Office was overwhelmed.


On it's face, that he was "wrestling with a decision on whether to appear at a legislative hearing", and then didn't is hardly reassuring. That he was "not required", as has been asserted on this board, doesn't help, either.


On it's face, "a state audit that accused him of mismanaging federal voting act money" is factually correct. The accusation itself, by Shelley's own admission, in part but not whole, is valid. Unfortunately, someone else in the SoS Office screwing up means the SoS is responsible.


Was someone out to get him? Probably. Was it Diebold? Maybe. Sure it wasn't anyone else? Cox is rarely mentioned on DU. We seem unable to fathom that anyone else would want to target him, leaving Diebold merely satisfied, but uninvolved. They're the boogieman. Shelley is a big name. No one else resents that? When the OJ trial was going down, and those believing in his guilt would insist that the famous glove wasn't planted, I'd ask, "What if OJ did it, AND Fuhrman planted the glove?". Never found a one who wasn't stunned by that overlooked possibility. And that's sad.


I wish you added a link. There are a lot of linkless snips in the defend Shelley threads. Not saying it happened here, but I had a number of occasions googling to find the sources and realizing why the link may have been neglected. A lot of cherry-pickin' of arguments. No doubt what was done TO Shelley. But in either case, not my preference.


Right or wrong, Shelley is gone and there ain't a thing we can do about it, especially in that HE isn't. If we had Wally O'Dell saying he was committed to winning CA for Bush, that would be something (not that it did Kerry much good). Until we can show who improperly (or otherwise) was behind the attack on Shelley, we got nothing but tears.


Now, how about this McPherson guy? And how about Bowen? That's where it's at right now.

[EFerrari]

44. Sorry -- here is the link.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/10/BAGC5GKPR41.DTL

I posted the whole section that dealt with Shelley.

In pushing on the handling of the Shelley story, I'm at this point more interested in honest reporting than I am in defending Shelley. He probably doesn't need or want my help. :)

But, allowing the distortions to go unchallenged just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. That's the same kind of passivity that allowed this story to unfold as it did in the first place, unless I'm mistaken.

[Wilms]

45. I agree.

Allowing the distortions to go unchallenged just doesn't seem like a good idea to me, either. That's why I've been such a pain in the ass over this thing.

You've seen it, the "Shelley was exonerated" proclamations. A distortion based on one of a number of accusations having been dropped. It cheapens this forum.

Maybe the reporter at the Chron would give you some ammo. But the charges that even Shelley seems to acknowledge will have to be addressed. And I haven't seen that done around here.

[EFerrari]

46. Good point. The truth is seldom so neat.

The crux is, the Chronicle wanted to tag him for money laundering with a realtor here named Lee. It didn't pan out. Our AG did flatly say, Kevin Shelley was not involved in this. So, on that score, he has been exonerated. And that is highly embarrassing for the paper who thought they had him cold. It turns out, this woman was using his campaign to launder money.

He seems to have been a cranky boss. That didn't translate into criminal charges.

He seems to have not kept track of HAVA funds as well as he should have. And by being sloppy, he enabled the attack against him, he gave the Thugs a lever. Did he steal money or use it to promote himself as charged? No. But, in not tracking the money well enough, he created an opportunity for the Thuggery.

Now, according to the EAC, not throwing all the HAVA money directly into Diebold's lap may be "misspending." So, that charge against him is sort of shifty. And, he did have to deal with three elections in one chaotic year -- a context he himself has rightfully pointed out. (I worked all three elections. It was nuts.) But, bottom line, if he was a crook, he's the worst crook in the world.

And you wouldn't know that from reading that Chronicle snippet, would you? :)

[Wilms]

47. Very good.

Though, cranky boss was never going to be a criminal charge. They didn't repeat that charge, nor is it denied. So drop that one.

I don't see anyone saying he stole the money. And the one about him promoting himself is not clear to me. His pix was affixed to a HAVA related brochure? Should he have known better.

And what about that mailer for absentee ballots? Were you able to figure out what that was about?

Nor have I seen the Julie Lee relative's hiring either dispelled, or specifically mentioned of late. It's probably in the disputed contracts (which McPherson said were OK, but still feels a bit awkward).

Now SFEXPAT, did the EAC really say that "not throwing all the HAVA money directly into Diebold's lap may be "misspending."" Or is that you. :) They want to accuse a lot of states of not being in compliance so I know they have that bias. I'm not clear about the specifics of that charge, though, or if they're included in those McPherson said are BS.

The Chron ought to come out about the Julie Lee thing, though.

[Wilms]

48. PS. You oopsed. That wasn't the Shelley link. n/t

[EFerrari]

49. This should be it:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/01/EDG5TG19431.DTL&hw=Shelley&sn=005&sc=459

It's the second segment in the column.

[EFerrari]

36. I emailed Media Matters last week and didn't get an answer.

So, I called them this morning. Someone named Simon is supposed to call me back.

Doug may have to tell the Chronicle that he's divorced me before this is over. :silly:

[Amaryllis]

37. Self-delete; put reply under wrong post.