Update: The idea that Hon. Judge Swope would order Theadore Kramer to surrender his laptop cellphone and Passwords to San Mateo County Authorities by 8PM today is Nuts. Just look at what the Authorities are doing to Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez in his criminal case. R.E.A.C.T. Task force.
Today 2:00 PM in San Mateo County Superior Court 8A Hon. Judge V. Raymond Swope.
ALL PARTIES MUST APPEAR no telephonic appearances. That means people flying in from around the world.
San Mateo County Superior Court Hon. Judge Raymond Swope.
Not really sure what is left to talk about at this time since it looks like the Sealed Documents that the Judge ordered three years ago are now in the public domain from Europe. This was a two tiered Non Discloser Protective Order, Why?
To protect a favorite San Mateo County Employer?
San Mateo County Judges, Secret and Illegal Search Warrants, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez and Jody L. Williams, Vungle x CEO Zain Jaffer criminal cases come to mind.
San Mateo County News.co will publish every elected official and public leaders comments on Mark Zuckerberg’s NO SHOW. Here are just a fews words said in that meeting, “Misleading, False or a Lie.” “Corporate Fraud” “RICO” “Break up FaceBook”
“The Problem is Facebook”
“The problem is Facebook,” said Canadian lawmaker Charlie Angus. “We’re talking about symptoms but the problem is the unprecedented economic control of every form of social discourse and communication.”
It’s been three days now and below are the public comments so far from The Board of Supervisors and all elected officials of San Mateo County.
San Mateo County Superior Court Hon. Judge Raymond Swope.
This is nothing new or shocking for the residents of San Mateo County, Iv’e been reporting about this for 19 years. Look no further than Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez, Jody L. Williams and x CEO Vungle Zain Jaffer criminal cases.
Mark Zuckerberg = NO SHOW
New Video Thread – Explosive day at the Commons committee rooms where Mark Zuckerberg was a no show and his stand in, Facebook employee, Lord Richard Allan, continued to treat @CommonsCMS with contempt. As ever Charlie Angus was up for the fight….1/6 pic.twitter.com/UmV0c59ez3
Not much coverage in San Mateo County by the 7 advertising businesses, Mark Simon Climate rwc, Jon Mays San Mateo Daily Journal, Dave Price Palo Alto Daily Post, Dave Boyce The Almanac, Clay Lampert Half Moon Bay Review, San Jose Mercury News, SFGATE, etc.
San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf is calling for a recount and they know it.They don’t mention the $650,000 of taxpayer money used against the taxpayers for Measure W. The measure only passed by about 500 votes. lets wait for the recount to be completed. That will give Mark Church time to explain where the additional 18,259 ballots came from. Mark Simon wrote a great piece in the Climate rwc and he stated that at the Absolute Deadline for receiving Ballots which was November 9, 2018, the ballots received by the elections office was 271,704.
November 27, 2018
Media Contact: Tasha Bartholomew, 650-508-7927
Measure W Passes, Will Provide $2.4 Billion for County Transportation Improvements
Today, the San Mateo County Elections Office released an updated report showing that San Mateo County voters have approved Measure W, which will create approximately $80 million per year in new investment to relieve traffic congestion and provide expanded mobility options for County residents. The results show that 66.87 percent of county voters supported the 30-year measure putting it above the required two-thirds threshold.
“We, with our partners, are grateful for this opportunity and we are prepared for the challenge of putting these funds to work to create transportation and traffic solutions for everyone who lives and works in San Mateo County,” said San Mateo County Transit District General Manager/CEO Jim Hartnett. “Getting to this point was a tremendous team effort, and we are incredibly thankful to everyone who helped make it happen. We were able to put Measure W on the ballot thanks to an extraordinary partnership with Assembly Member Kevin Mullin and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and it was successful thanks to tremendous efforts from the business community, transportation advocates, and residents, families, and workers throughout the County that committed such invaluable support.”
“Voters have spoken loud and clear a truth we’ve known for some time; that transportation and transit need substantial investment in order for us to solve our traffic problems,” said Transit District Board Chair Charles Stone. “There are projects and programs ready to go, from express buses to microtransit to reducing chokepoints at our highway interchanges. The funding provided by Measure W will help to make them a reality. My sincerest thanks go out to the people of San Mateo County for making their voices heard.”
The distribution of the funds will be shaped by the Congestion Relief Plan, which was a product of this community feedback and was developed to reflect how residents think transportation funding should be invested. The Plan includes five investment categories designed to focus on advancing these priorities, while also addressing other important transportation needs:
* 22.5 percent toward Countywide Highway Congestion Improvements to improve throughput and travel times on highway facilities in San Mateo County.
* 12.5 percent toward Local Safety, Pothole and Congestion Relief Improvements for investment in local transportation priorities including efforts to separate the rail corridor from local roads, improve bicycle and pedestrian connections, incentivize transit options, and improve traffic flow in key congested areas.
* 5 percent toward Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements that safely connect communities and neighborhoods with schools, transit and employment centers countywide.
* 10 percent toward Regional Transit Connections to better connect residents traveling from San Mateo County to neighboring counties with new and enhanced transit options.
* 50 percent toward County Public Transportation System Investments to maintain and enhance bus, paratransit, rail and other countywide mobility services.
Investments in these five categories will be guided by 11 Core Principles that were developed in consultation with a group of more than 100 local transportation experts, advocates and community stakeholders. The Core Principles include:
* Relieve traffic congestion countywide
* Invest in a financially sustainable public transportation system that increases ridership, provides quality transit options for everyone, and embraces innovation to create more transportation choices and improves travel experience
* Promote economic vitality and economic development
* Maximize opportunities to leverage investment and services from public and private partners
* Enhance safety and public health
* Invest in repair and maintenance of existing and future infrastructure
* Facilitate the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, travel times and greenhouse gas emissions
* Incorporate the inclusion and implementation of policies that encourage safe accommodation of all people using the roads, regardless of mode of travel
* Incentivize transit, bicycle, pedestrian, carpooling and other shared-ride options over driving alone
* Maximize traffic reduction potential associated with the creation of new housing opportunities in high-quality transit corridors
To ensure that the Plan is implemented in a way that reflects these Core Principles, the Plan also includes a new citizen oversight protocol. The protocol requires the appointment of a 15-member independent citizen oversight committee that would meet regularly to monitor decision-making, ensure accountability, and provide assurance that the plan is implemented in a way that stresses public transparency.
The tax is scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2019.
About the San Mateo County Transit District: The San Mateo County Transit District operates 70 SamTrans routes throughout San Mateo County. Funded in part by a half-cent sales tax, the San Mateo County Transit District also provides administrative support for Caltrain and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The San Mateo County Transit District has provided bus service to San Mateo County customers since 1976.
To trigger a recount, a written request must be filed with the Elections Division within the five calendar days following the completion of the canvass. The request must specify on behalf of which position on a measure (affirmative or negative) it is filed. The request may, but need not, specify the order in which the precincts shall be recounted.
The recount would be public, conducted by a recount board consisting of four county voters appointed by the Chief Elections Officer. All ballots and any other relevant materials may be examined upon request, and the requestor may challenge any ballot for defects (ambiguity, incompleteness, etc.), with a final determination to be made by the Chief Elections Officer.
The requestor must, before the recount starts and then before each day it continues, deposit with the Elections Division a sum determined by the Chief Elections Officer as necessary to cover the daily expenses of the recount. If upon completion of the recount the requestor’s position on the measure wins out contra the official canvass, the requestor receives a complete refund; otherwise they only receive back whatever was not consumed by actual expenses.
I estimate that daily cost would be approximately $1,160 for one manual recount board. Additional boards can be requested. A computer recount cost is $300 per hour. Depending on the scope of the recount and other requests, there may be additional costs above and beyond the personnel costs listed above. Any additional costs will be mutually agreed to by the requesting party and the county before the recount is commenced.
The requestor can bring the recount to an end at any time. The results of a recount are declared null and void unless every vote in which the contest appeared is recounted.
I hope this information helps. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Recount of Measure W. Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf to file.
Good Morning San Mateo County Leaders,
I’m requesting you to step in and supply the public with the following information. The reason I am asking you is simple Mark Church has failed to answer these questions.
How much will it cost for the recount of Measure W?
What is the deadline for filing? Where to file?
As the Supervisors know I have said many times they should use taxpayer money from the general fund to pay this expense, reason being they invested $350,000 of taxpayer money to be used against the taxpayers.
The Measure W recount is a perfect example of transparency and it will demonstrate how SMC’s current system works or doesn’t work. I think we all knew a recount was going to happen on Measure we just didn’t know which side was going to demand it, now we do.
I think we can all agree for Mr. Church to withhold this critical information from the public is a bad idea.
San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf will be filing for a RECOUNT of all the ballots for Measure W in the November 6, 2018 election.
San Carlos Councilman Mark Olbert was the first Elected official to call for a complete Audit of the Elections Office.
Mark Simon the self proclaimed “genesis” of Measure W and a personal friend of Kevin Mullin and now a contributor for the Climate RWC stated clearly 271,704 was the number of ballots received by the absolute deadline.
Tonight the number has grown to 286,247.
Did Measure W pass using the 271,704 ballots.
It looks like Heinz Puschendorf is going to find out, a recount was going to happen no matter who won, I think this will be a much more transparent process for the average taxpayer who might have just got obligated with the Supervisors and SamTrans using $650,000 of taxpayer money against the taxpayers to pass Measure W.
We’ve become people who stand in front of a microwave oven, muttering, “Hurry up.”
Not an ideal mindset for an electoral process that requires patience.
Patience. What a concept. It comes in handy when you’re waiting in traffic or standing in line at Disneyland or, say, counting ballots.
Such as counting ballots in San Mateo County’s November 6 election, which is taking much longer than some people seem to think it should.
In a world of instant gratification, elections often are neither instant nor gratifying, although often not for the same reasons.
And for the sake of the permanent record, I want to state unequivocally that they should take their time and make sure to count all the ballots, even if it means waiting for the final outcome.
Yes, we’re used to election results on election night, but it’s not like that. Not this time. Not anymore.
COUNTING THE REASONS: There are a number of reasons why the count for this election is taking a while, most of them valid, some of them worthy of further question.
First, a lot of people voted in this election. As of 10 p.m. last Friday, the absolute deadline, a total of 271,704 ballots had been received by the county Elections office.
That’s a voter turnout of nearly 68 percent, higher than the 65 percent projection from Elections officials. That’s more than 20 points higher than the turnout in 2014, the last gubernatorial election. That’s higher than the 65.3 percent turnout in 2010, when 226,000 voters cast ballots.
That’s also more than 20 points higher than the statewide turnout. When all the votes are counted, San Mateo County will be among the highest-turnout counties in the state, and among the top five highest in urban counties.
As of yesterday’s 4:30 p.m. update, Elections staff already had counted 144,000, nearly as many as the total number of votes cast in 2014 – and they still have another 127,000 ballots to count.
In other words, there was a huge turnout. The more ballots, the longer it takes to count them.
We are used to knowing the results right away. And why not? The run-up to the election took months of ads and mail pieces and all kinds of conversations. Why should we have to wait to know what happened?
And the answer is that this isn’t sports – we don’t always know the outcome the instant the clock runs out. To quote Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
And there’s another reason – it’s not just a huge turnout, but many of the local races are close.
Back in the days of all-machine voting, under the most normal of circumstances, some of these races were so close that we didn’t know the outcome until the end of November.
And these are hardly the most normal of circumstances.
AND BY THE WAY, WE DON’T DO THAT ANYMORE: The county has been shifting steadily away from voting by machine to voting by mail, or what used to be called absentee voting.
Then, we switched to this election’s all-mail balloting experiment.
Far from a great leap forward technologically, in reality, we went to a technology that more closely resembles voting in the 19th century, when voters made a mark on a paper ballot and stuffed it in a box.
In other words, we went from voting by machine to voting by hand.
When we voted at our local fire station, we slid our ballot into the machine and it was counted – right there, on the spot. We signed a book and no one checked the signature to make sure we were us. At the end of the evening, someone hit a button and the totals were instantly available.
Now, we vote by hand in our homes, sign and seal the envelope and deliver it, by mail or in person, to the Elections officials and we can mail it on Election Day.
Then, the mail has to be delivered, and someone has to open the envelope, cross-check the signature, and then manually slip the ballot into a machine that counts it.
It’s not quite that laborious – a lot of it is done by machines and scanners. But someone has to do the work we all used to do ourselves when we went to our precinct voting place.
It takes time to do it right.
THE BIG TRADE-OFF: The trade-off is more and better voting.
The evidence is plain, a huge number of voters turned out this year in the June and November elections. By any measure, that’s more voting and the assumption in elections is that more is better. Period.
Better voting comes in the form of a better-informed electorate.
Even with the shortened window of time during which the ballots were available in this election, voters had time to go over the ballot, research the often-confusing measures, find out a little more about the candidates and make deliberate, unhurried decisions.
If the cost is that it takes longer to tally all the ballots, it’s a trade-off worth making.
WE CAN DO BETTER: Still, there are some lingering questions about whether the San Mateo County Elections Department was prepared for the onslaught of ballots.
Interestingly, on the Peninsula TV election night show, Chief Elections Deputy Jim Irizarry brought some slides for his interview and one of them shows staffing levels in the Elections offices of the nine Bay Area counties.
San Mateo County is eighth, ahead only of Solano County.
There has been a lot of turnover in the Elections Department. Let’s be generous and assume it has been due to retirements.
I know from talking to people who have worked in the department that it takes two or three election cycles before a newcomer really has a handle on how it all works.
I don’t know if Elections Chief Mark Church failed to make a pitch to the Board of Supervisors, which includes his predecessor, Warren Slocum, for more funding for the Elections Department.
I don’t know if the Board failed to fund the department sufficiently, either at Church’s request or on its own initiative.
And I don’t care.
Moving forward, the department can do better and it needs to have adequate funds to hire the right number of people and to bring on board people with a level of experience that our elections system demands.
Contact Mark Simon at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Photo courtesy of San Mateo County Elections Division
*The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Climate Online.
Two local tax measure proposals continued clinging to a path toward narrow victory, as tallies still lingering from Election Day are inching toward the finish line.
According to Sunday, Nov. 25 results from the county Elections Office showing fewer than 10,000 ballots still need to be counted, Measure W, a half-cent sales tax for SamTrans and other transit initiatives, floats just incrementally above the supermajority required to pass with 66.75 percent support.
Similar results showed for Measure V, a $298 parcel tax floated to support the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District, as the tax collected 67.7 percent support, just ahead of the two-thirds majority required to pass.
Diana Reddy built her lead over Rick Hunter to 267 votes in the race for the Redwood City Council. The two are battling for a third seat, as Giselle Hale and Diane Howard already solidified victories.
Leads established by Richa Awasthi in her race for the second of two open seats on the Foster City Council and Flor Nicolas in her race for the third of three open seats on the South San Francisco City Council persisted, with South San Francisco Councilman Pradeep Gupta is still appearing to fall short of re-election.
In the Foster City Council contest, frontrunner Sanjay Gehani remains solidly the top vote getter with 26.61 percent and 5,110 total votes. Awasthi’s lead built marginally in the race for the second open seat with this most recent update. She currently has 19.41 percent of the vote and 3,728 total votes and is followed by Patrick Sullivan, who has 18.3 percent of the vote and 3,518 total votes.
In the South San Francisco City Council race, results largely held from the last update with frontrunner incumbent Mark Addiego remaining the top vote getter, followed by challengers Mark Nagales and Nicolas respectively. Incumbent Gupta remained in fourth place with 7,742 votes, behind Nicolas by 217 votes and Nagales by 514 votes.
Measure II, the bond proposed to help finance reconstruction of the Millbrae Community Center, continues to make incremental gains toward the supermajority required to pass but remains on pace to fail. The most recent tally showed 62.6 percent support, up marginally from a previous count of 62.4 support.
More than 260,000 ballots have been received so far. Of the ballots received, 250,682 have been counted. More results are scheduled to come out Monday, Nov. 26, and on subsequent days if needed.
Here is the reality ballots received = 286,247 of the ballots received 283,456 have been counted. That leaves 3,488 ballots to be counted.