Category Archives: electioneering

San Mateo County’s Measure W should be audited. It passed by about 500 votes in the last 2 days of counting. DMV

By Michael G. Stogner

As a Private Victim’s Advocate I have personally filed a criminal complaint to both the State of California Attorney General Kamala Harris and San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe & John Warren, then publicly informed Board of Supervisors.

SMCBOS Meeting June 2, 2015 at 19:34 minute mark

The criminal complaint was simple, some person(s) Hacked the State of California’s DMV Data Base. They placed San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez’s confidential and protected drivers license number on another person’s ticket out of Los Angeles area causing him to have a suspended license and about $6,000 expense plus 3 months of no driving. You might have guessed it, neither law enforcement agency had any interest in Investigating the complaint. There lies the problem Oversight of Law Enforcement.

LATIMES today Jan. 6, 2019

DMV under scrutiny in voting glitch
State leaders will assess whether registration errors changed November election results.
By John Myers
SACRAMENTO — Faced with evidence that some voter registration forms weren’t properly filed by California’s Department of Motor Vehicles, state officials will now investigate whether any votes were wrongly rejected and whether the final results in any state or local races should be reconsidered.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla and leaders of the agency that oversees the DMV agreed on Monday to settle a federal lawsuit brought by advocacy groups including the League of Women Voters of California and the American Civil Liberties Union. The settlement, in part, states that Padilla’s office will “take steps to ensure that every vote is counted” if ballots were rejected and will provide “guidance to elections officials in the relevant jurisdiction(s) on how to count the affected ballots and, if appropriate, recertify election results.”
On Dec. 14, DMV officials revealed that staff members had not transmitted voter registration files for 589 people whose applications or updated applications were filled out before the close of registration for the Nov. 6 statewide election. At the time, state officials could not confirm whether any of those voters had been turned away on election day, or if any had cast last-minute provisional ballots that were rejected in the final tally.
Monday’s settlement raises the possibility that a full investigation of the delayed voter registration documents could reveal races in which the outcome might have changed had those voters been allowed to participate.
State officials now have 60 days to complete an investigation into the identity of those voters and why DMV staff members failed to transmit the files in a timely fashion.
The error was the latest in a series of mishaps revealed in the first six months of operation for California’s new automated “motor voter” program, under which DMV customers are registered to vote unless they decline.
“I am committed to working with new leadership at DMV and the new administration to ensure integrity of the motor voter program and accuracy of the data,” Padilla said in a statement Monday night. “This settlement continues to move those efforts forward.”
Padilla’s office said on Tuesday that a preliminary investigation had not found any instances in which voter registration delays would have changed the outcome of a race.
The deadline to register for November’s election was Oct. 22. The records in question either came in before that deadline, or included documents signed and dated before that date. A Dec. 14 letter to Padilla from Jean Shiomoto, who was then DMV director, said the registration records weren’t submitted “due to a misunderstanding on the part of the department, for which we take responsibility.”
Shiomoto retired from state government at the end of 2018. Gov. Gavin Newsom has yet to appoint a new permanent director.
“We continue to actively work with our stakeholders to ensure full transparency for the California motor voter program,” Melissa Figueroa, deputy secretary for communications at the California State Transportation Agency, said in a statement Monday. “As an agency, we are committed to getting this right.”
The settlement, filed Monday in a San Francisco federal court, said that DMV staffers failed to transmit voter registration documents in a timely fashion beginning Oct. 12 and that all documents were held back for the three weeks following election day.
Several other problems were reported just days after state officials launched the DMV’s automated voter registration system in late April.
Those included multiple registration forms sent to counties for the same voter , flawed registrations for 23,000 DMV customers and a limited number of non-U.S. citizens — permanent green-card residents — mistakenly added to the voter rolls.
The agreement to investigate why DMV officials didn’t promptly submit hundreds of voter registration forms “establishes concrete steps that California will take to investigate and improve the DMV voter registration system,” said Melissa Breach, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California.

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, Jody L. Williams, John Burris, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Kamela Harris, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Simon, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Ordinance 04430, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, SamTrans, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Uncategorized, Victim's Advocate

SMCSO DSA President D.J. Wozniak can’t say Chinedu V. Okobi’s name.

17862588_1618867384820560_4466109734454003179_n

Chinedu Valentine Okobi

EXCESSIVE & UNNECESSARY USE OF FORCE
Chinedu V. Okobi was murdered October 3, 2018 on El Camino Real in Millbrae by 5 San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies. One of them Sgt. David Weidner not represented DSA.
thumbnail-6
He is upset that 40 residents came and spoke at the December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisor meeting and used the M word Murder.
He is upset that the Supervisors formed a Committee on Tasers to meet Feb. 11, 2019 6-8PM in the Supervisors meeting room 1st floor of the 400 County Center Building. He is not the only one upset at the Supervisors, this Committee and subject matter is not at all important to the murder of Chinedu.
EXCESSIVE & UNNECESSARY USE OF FORCE is the only topic that is important. That is what Steve Wagstaffe, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Warren Slocum, David Canepa are all distracting the public with the Committee dog and pony show. If this “Committee on Tasers” Charade sounds familiar it should 2008 the BOS did a similar performance.

Ethics committee in works

Elected county officials suspected of wrongdoing or unbecoming conduct can be investigated by a five-member ethics committee with the authority to recommend their removal, according to an ordinance unanimously endorsed yesterday by the Board of Supervisors.

The board created the independent citizens review panel on Tuesday after revisiting an earlier proposal by supervisors Jerry Hill and Adrienne Tissier. At its July 22 meeting, the board cautiously backed the idea but asked for some fine-tuning of language to avoid the panel embarking on what Supervisor Mark Church characterized as a “witch hunt” against officials.

The approved proposal defines “serious official misconduct” based on an existing San Bernadino ordinance and allows the board to determine an allegation is unfounded before calling together the review panel. The passed ordinance also suspends the panel’s investigation when necessary as not to conflict with any criminal proceedings.

Although having such a review panel will help the county deal with questionable situations if needed, the goal is to never have them arise, Hill said.

The ordinance, which still requires a second reading to become official, also can’t retroactively address the matter which sparked its formation — the April 2007 detention of Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos in an undercover brothel sting in Las Vegas.

The pair were in town for a law enforcement race and told police they mistakenly went to the raided home because they thought it was a legitimate massage parlor.

Neither was charged with a crime and the supervisors said they had no discipline authority. Approximately a year later, Hill revisited the issue of official oversight for elected county officials.

Hill and Tissier suggested an independent ethics committee as an alternative to less viable oversight ideas such as letting the Board of Supervisors remove fellow elected officials. Not even a county charter amendment gives the board authority to remove an elected official and the state constitution doesn’t allow the board to discipline an official to any less degree.

While the committee itself can’t take action, its independent nature removes the politics from the process and can spark into action the grand jury, which does have the authority to recommend an official’s removal.

The citizen’s review panel of individuals will include either retired judges, former county or city administrators, former grand juror foreperson, or former county counsels, city attorneys or district attorneys. Selection would be random and Brown Act — California’s open meeting law — requirements enforced.

The San Bernadino County charter — the one most often referenced as a San Mateo County template — allows a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors to remove any other county officer for “flagrant or repeated neglect of duties,” “misappropriation of public property,” “violation of any law related to the performance of the official’s duties” or “willful falsification of a relevant official statement or document.”

While the ordinance has survived a legal challenge, it has never been used.

Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.
Here is D.J.’s recent email to the Union members.
As you all know, the District Attorney has not yet announced if he will or will not prosecute 4 of our members for the death in custody in Millbrae last October. While I’m disappointed his decision has taken so long, we are confident our members did nothing wrong  and are fully prepared to defend our members if any charges are filed. The DSA stands behind our members and the actions they took that day in Millbrae. I’m confident that if the DA’s office wanted to move forward with any charges, we would prevail in court.
NOTE: I think every San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy knows the above statement by D.J. Wozniak sounds really good, but in reality look what D.J. has done for Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez.
While the DA’s office weighs its options, the NAACP and the National Black Lives Matter movement have taken a particular interest in the Sheriff’s Office. They have activated their base via social media and have inundated the Board of Supervisors with thousands of calls and emails asking them to remove Tasers from San Mateo County Law Enforcement.
While I had hoped they would simply ignore these anti police activists, they have not.   Unfortunately,  Supervisor Pine and Groom have given these people an audience and formed a “taser committee” where they’ll will be looking into Tasers, policies surrounding them and researching deaths related to Tasers.
This is baffling because the decision to deploy Tasers is not made by the Board of Supervisors, it is the decision of the Sheriff.
The committee plans on holding a public meeting to “discuss Tasers”. The meeting is tenatively scheduled for February 11th at 1800 hours.
Once the meeting date/ time is confirmed, I will be asking all DSA members try to attend the meeting.   I’m not asking you to speak or participate in the conversation as  I find it unlikely that any of activists attending are open to listening to anything we have to say.   We simply don’t want the entire audience to be full of anti police activists and having normal rational people in the audience will be helpful.
Here is what I have one in response to these events:
  • I have had numerous conversations with Sheriff Bolanos on this issue and made it crystal clear that the DSA does not support removing Tasers from our members.   The Sheriff has has told me that he supports that decision and believes in Tasers have their place in the use of force policies of the Sheriff’s Office.
  • I have met with the board members individually.  I have explained how valuable Tasers are to public safety. I have explained how high in the use of force continuum Tasers are and how restrictive our policy and procedures are regarding their use.    I explained to them that the calls/emails they are receiving are not from people in San Mateo County. The people calling are part of the social media army of the Black Lives Matter organization and know nothing nothing about use of force issues and know nothing about Tasers and their use in law enforcement and most importantly, have no idea about the events in Millbrae resulting in the death in custody.
  • Sheriff Bolanos has authorized me to create a “use of force” day for the County Manager, County Council and Board of Supervisors.  Working with the training unit, we will give the BOS training on Tasers and run them through various scenarios, with and without Tasers so they can see their value in public safety.
I ask that any of you who happen to have a conversation with Sheriff Bolanos, convey your appreciation for his stance on this issue and supporting the DSA.
I will obviously keep you posted on any developments with this “Taser Committee”.
By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, #TimesUp, 911, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, DOJ, Don Horsley, electioneering, Errol Chang R.I.P., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Mark Olbert, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Regina Islas, RICO, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sergeant David Weidner, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P.

San Mateo County’s E-mail Deletion Policy, Put on Hold by Mike Callagy

mc_portrait_squareArtboard 1

San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy

San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy has stopped/paused/delayed this policy from going into effect Feb. 1, 2019. May 1, 2019 is the date it will go into effect unless it is rescinded.

I’ll give just a couple of examples of why this is a terrible policy. San Mateo County’s last election had a tax measure W pass in the last couple of days by about 500 votes with more than 270,000 ballots cast. Several elected officials made public statements including Audit/Recall the elections office and officer. That is pretty unusual, it will be important to go back years to find all communications between the elected officials, county counsel attorneys, Supervisors, Assemblymen, Wordcrafters who communicated about placing Measure W on the ballot in the first place, using public monies to promote it etc.

San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office used as a weapon, falsely charging people: Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez criminal case is a perfect example, you will recall Steve Wagstaffe told the world he smuggled a cellphone and drugs to a gang member in jail. That was a lie from day one,

I said falsely charging people: Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas should be considered. Her case is sealed why? 2007 she was in Las Vegas when Operation Dollhouse netted Carlos G. Bolanos at a single family home which had Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including a minor.

San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office Not charging people: Chinedu V. Okobi Murdered by 5 SMCSO Deputies October 3, 2018.

November 7, 2018 one day after the election Retention Policy par. J

This has felt like one of those runaway train movies. Simply to find out Who put this on the County’s Website, Why was it put on and more importantly How to stop/pause it.

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.

J. E-mail Retention

Email messages are temporary communications and the email system (with the exception of archived email subfolders as set forth below) is not intended to be used as a means of records storage. To the extent that email messages which are generated or received through the County’ s computer systems constitute business records to be retained pursuant to the County’ s (or a department’s) records retention policy, such email messages shall be retained as set forth below. Email messages that do not otherwise serve a business purpose (including, but not limited to, draft communications, administrative communications, etc.) shall be routinely discarded. For that reason, each workforce member who uses the County email system has the same responsibility for their email messages as they do for any document they obtain in the course of their official duties and must decide which communications should be retained for business o legal reasons and which should be discarded. If a workforce member has any questions regarding if an email should be retained as a business record, he or she should seek guidance from his/her supervisor and/or department head who may consult with legal counsel as necessary.

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.

Email messages that constitute records to be retained for business or legal reasons may be saved in excess of ninety (90) days in any of the following ways: (1) saved in Rich Text Format (RTF) or Portable Document Format (PDF) and then transferred to electronic filing systems or other media for long-term storage in accordance with the department’s regular filing and storage procedures; (2) affirmatively “dragged and dropped” or “cut and pasted” into email subfolders created by the user (the user must select the particular retention period that applies to any created subfolders (i.e. one year, two years, ten years, indefinitely, etc.)); or (3) printed in hard copy and filed or stored as appropriate. Any email subfolders created by the user within Microsoft Exchange will, along with the user’s in- box including any migrated mail, count toward the user’s 100GB mailbox space limitation as outlined in Section E of this policy.

Workforce members should seek guidance from their department heads to determine the specific time requirements applicable to records and electronic correspondence generated, received and/or maintained by their department in accordance with their department’s records retention policy. Workforce members are strongly encouraged to review the email content of subfolders on a regular basis and to delete any content for which retention is not required.

Regardless of countywide or departmental records retention requirements, email and other electronic correspondence pertaining to a threatened or actual legal action must be retained until the litigation is concluded. It is the responsibility of the department involved, or County Counsel, to notify ISO in writing, of the need for the hold on electronic communications.

The use or creation of local personal archive files (such as Outlook.pst files) is strictly prohibited and may not be configured on County equipment.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #OperationDollhouse, #OperationLooseEnds, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jody L. Williams, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Matt Grocott, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Zain Jaffer

Sheriff Deputy Mark Melville Retires

sjm-l-smcsheriff-0603

 

Tomorrow Saturday Jan 12, 2018 will be Deputy Mark Melville last day as a SMCSO Deputy. Now might be a great time to say Thank You to him if you see him on patrol.

Mark recently ran for Sheriff and told every single editor that Carlos Bolanos is a Liar. Had any of them published that statement he would be the Sheriff of San Mateo County today. Talk about influencing an election.

KQED Mark Melville calls boss Carlos G. Bolanos a Liar

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Jon Mays, Mark Church, Mark Melville, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

“Those Who Matter”against Quality of Life in San Mateo County.

Whenever I see these four people and a small group of their friends and supporters I can’t help but think of my father John Donald Stogner aka Tex. He was an average guy who worked 6 days a week 12 hours a day to support his wife and 4 children. He was in the grocery store business for 38 years. He had no time or interest in politics, he voted every election, my mother worked at the polls every year. Neither one of them suspected that elected officials would spend taxpayer money against them in order to promote or pass a tax measure that would harm them or the business my father earned his living from.

In this video you will see 4 people who were instrumental in the Yes on Measure W campaign, not shown is SamTrans CEO Jim Hartnett husband of Rosanne Faust who claims a victory in getting the message out and beating the opposition which there was none. The opposition would be people like my mother and father hard working people just trying to get by. Rosanne does not mention the $650,000 of taxpayer money her husband spent on Educational Outreach Programs involving 501-C organizations. When you add the $1,100,000 that she raised thats $1,750,000 vs. the $5,700 a few brave individuals put together for the No on W campaign. Note the Yes on W supporters are the people that receive the taxpayer money and the No on W are the people stuck with paying it.

San Mateo County Elected Officials have been misleading the residents for many years. The 2012 SMC Grad Jury warned the residents of it “Inconvenient Truth” They are spending taxpayer money hiring word-crafting consultants, and conspiring to place tax measures on the ballots again using taxpayer money to make sure it will pass if put on the ballots. You will notice the Yes on W Team can’t name one citizen that came before the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and asked Please place another 1/2 cent sales tax on the ballot to make SMC even more expensive to live in.

It will be interesting to see the communications e-mails, memos, letters, between the power players of San Mateo County that caused Measure W to be created in the first place, funded and passed by less than 500 votes in the last 2 days of a long count.

San Mateo County has a new e-mail destruction policy I have written about starting February 1, 2019. I wonder why?

SMCN.com Article County deleting e-mails

THE GAME

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Greg Conlon, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, SamTrans, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Elections Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Yes on Measure A 2012

Greg Conlon to Supervisors, Fund the recount of Measure W.

December 11, 2018 San Mateo County Board of Supervisor Meeting, Public comment.

 

December 4, 2018 Supervisor Meeting, Heinz Puschendorf, Fund the recount.

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Lennie Roberts, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Matt Grocott, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Ron Collins, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County Government E-mails should be preserved not deleted.

106709_San Mateo County

Why would government want to delete, destroy e-mails? E-mails should be preserved permanently. They show the public the behind the scenes communications between elected officials who have taken an oath, and high ranking appointed officials who are supposed to represent the public’s best interest.

Below is just one example of 4 top SMC Officials communicating their support of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves being used for their personal pleasure, and their distain for the media. All 5 Supervisors shared the same idea.  These e-mails are 11 years old and still current when you add what is happening to Jody L. Williams today in SMC by Steve Wagstaffe, and John Warren.

emails&literature

SMC E-mail Policy November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

Email messages are temporary communications and the email system (with the exception of archived email subfolders as set forth below) is not intended to be used as a means of records storage. To the extent that email messages which are generated or received through the County’ s computer systems constitute business records to be retained pursuant to the County’ s (or a department’s) records retention policy, such email messages shall be retained as set forth below. Email messages that do not otherwise serve a business purpose (including, but not limited to, draft communications, administrative communications, etc.) shall be routinely discarded. For that reason, each workforce member who uses the County email system has the same responsibility for their email messages as they do for any document they obtain in the course of their official duties and must decide which communications should be retained for business o legal reasons and which should be discarded. If a workforce member has any questions regarding if an email should be retained as a business record, he or she should seek guidance from his/her supervisor and/or department head who may consult with legal counsel as necessary.

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.

Email messages that constitute records to be retained for business or legal reasons may be saved in excess of ninety (90) days in any of the following ways: (1) saved in Rich Text Format (RTF) or Portable Document Format (PDF) and then transferred to electronic filing systems or other media for long-term storage in accordance with the department’s regular filing and storage procedures; (2) affirmatively “dragged and dropped” or “cut and pasted” into email subfolders created by the user (the user must select the particular retention period that applies to any created subfolders (i.e. one year, two years, ten years, indefinitely, etc.)); or (3) printed in hard copy and filed or stored as appropriate. Any email subfolders created by the user within Microsoft Exchange will, along with the user’s in- box including any migrated mail, count toward the user’s 100GB mailbox space limitation as outlined in Section E of this policy.

Workforce members should seek guidance from their department heads to determine the specific time requirements applicable to records and electronic correspondence generated, received and/or maintained by their department in accordance with their department’s records retention policy. Workforce members are strongly encouraged to review the email content of subfolders on a regular basis and to delete any content for which retention is not required.

Regardless of countywide or departmental records retention requirements, email and other electronic correspondence pertaining to a threatened or actual legal action must be retained until the litigation is concluded. It is the responsibility of the department involved, or County Counsel, to notify ISO in writing, of the need for the hold on electronic communications.

The use or creation of local personal archive files (such as Outlook.pst files) is strictly prohibited and may not be configured on County equipment.

From: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To: Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:24:13 AM PST
Subject: Re: Status on the e-mail deletion policy
That might be just fine, but as you can see very few people even know about this and you can stop this for a 6 month review period starting today until you decide the proper time period to hold e-mails like 20 years etc.
Michael
On Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:09:10 AM PST, Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org> wrote:

Michael,

As I understand it, the policy has been in place for years and that is the info I’m trying to obtain.  I think ISD realized we were not reaching our objective to get rid of the clutter of emails in the system, so this policy was brought back to address that.  I’m trying to find out exactly how this came back up, but it was in the works well before Nov. 2018.
Best regards,

Mike

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 26, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mike,
It looks like November 7, 2018 is when this 90 day old e-mails are to be deleted Policy was created by ISD, Who came up with this if Not You?

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

NUMBER: F-2

SUBJECT: E-Mail Policy

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Information Services Department (ISD)

DATE: November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.
As you and most County Officials and staff know I am a Private Victim’s Advocate and have worked on behalf of several San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies and employees. Just to mention a few, Female Deputy who reported Rape Video on County Computers being viewed and shared with upper management of the Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez being abused by San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers, David Silberman and others including Carlos G. Bolanos,Steve Wagstaffe, John Warren, Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf who has not been unable to get to his emails. Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas connected to Operation Dollhouse recently criminally charge in SMC. Measure A,K,W e-mails. Zain Jaffer criminal 8 felony case dismissed for lack of evidence, (sure) I can think of 60,000,000 reasons this case was dismissed. Yanira Serrano-Garcia murdered by Sheriff Deputy, Errol Chan Murdered by Swat, Chinedu V. Okobi Murdered by 5 SMCSO Deputies. SMCSO Lt. Kristina Bell DV Call to 911, James McGee 17.5 hour standoff two Swat teams after 911 call for DV no DV charges. Ramsey Saad R.I.P.
That is a short list. Please consider this a formal request to save all emails regarding any of the people and subjects mentioned above.
This subject should be discussed with the public before ANY e-mails are deleted. What is the cost to keep them?
I hope you will stop this today.
Michael G. Stogner
On Friday, January 25, 2019, 6:12:20 PM PST, Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org> wrote:

Michael, I’m still researching this as I want to be clear when this policy started.  The policy, as I understand it, has been around a long time. It is a matter of now enforcing it.  Im trying to determine how far back the policy goes.  We don’t have unlimited storage for emails so there has to be controls in place.  Employees are encouraged to save their emails and put them in files.  It is an easy process.  I will get you the history soon.  Have a nice weekend. Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 25, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> wrote:

Good morning Michael,
What is the status on the County wide policy to delete e-mails after they are 90 days old starting Feb 1, 2019?
By your response it looks like it was not your policy, Who’s policy is it?
Thank You
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Kristina Paszek <kpaszek@smcgov.org>
To:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com
Jan 16 at 4:28 PM

Dear Mr. Stogner,

Your correspondence of January 11 to Carole Groom was forwarded to our office for response.  I also understand that you recently sent a follow-up e-mail today to Supervisor Groom.  This e-mail will respond to both of your e-mails.

The County’s e-mail policy is set forth in the attached Administrative Memo F-2, which was developed (and is revised from time to time) by the County’s Information Services Department, subject to approval by the County Manager.  The provisions concerning the deletion of e-mail were adopted in April 2015 around the time that the County switched from Groupwise to Outlook for its e-mail.

The County’s e-mail policy is distinct from the County and department-specific records retention policies that are approved by the Board of Supervisors.  With respect to what appear to be your concerns, although the e-mail policy reiterates that the County’s e-mail system is not intended to be a means of records storage, it recognizes that some e-mail messages that are generated or received through the County’s computer systems constitute records that must be retained pursuant to the County’s or a department’s records retention policy (or due to threatened or actual litigation), and it details how those e-mail messages are to be retained.  The e-mail policy does not impact each department’s responsibility to retain records in accordance with state law.  As explained in the policy, all e-mails that are determined to be records to be retained for business or legal reasons are to be saved.  There are a number of ways to retain such e-mails, as detailed in the policy, but we expect that in most cases, a user will simply place the e-mail in an e-mail subfolder.  A user can create e-mail subfolders and set a 1-year, 2-year, 10-year retention or mark the folder(s) to be kept permanently.  In addition, a mailbox that is being held for litigation will not be subjected to any automatic deletion until after the litigation is resolved.

Regards,

Kristina Paszek

Deputy County Counsel

San Mateo County Counsel’s Office

400 County Center, 6th Floor

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel:  650-363-4989

Fax:  650-363-4034

 

Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Kristina Paszek
Cc:Carole Groom,Don Horsley,Warren Slocum,Dave Pine,Dave Canepaand 3 more…
Jan 17 at 5:57 PM
Dear Kristina,
Thank You for your response on behalf of Board of Supervisor President Carole Groom, I’m still not sure why she couldn’t have just answered my questions directly. I now have more questions regarding the policy to delete e-mails after 90 days.  How many of San Mateo County employees have received the memo and how did they get it and when did they get it. How many managers have taken a training course on how to preserve e-mails? How many employees have taken a training course in this policy? What method was used to notify and prepare the employees for this policy?
It might be best for everyone involved to hit the stop/pause button on this policy.
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Carole Groom,Dave Canepa,Dave Pine,Don Horsley,Warren Slocumand 3 more…
Jan 16 at 10:03 AM

Dear San Mateo County Supervisors,

5 days ago I asked President of Board of Supervisors to tell me if the BOS approved this policy. To this day Carole Groom has refused to answer that simple question.

Again I’m asking who is responsible for this idea and policy? What is the status as of today. There are only 15 days left before this terrible/unlawful policy takes effect.

The Public has a right to know this information.

my previous e-mail 1/11/2019

Hello Carole,

Could you please tell me if the Board of Supervisors approved this and if so what date and agenda item was it. I’m doing a follow up story on this subject and wanted to know who is responsible for this policy.

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

Co-owner of San Mateo County News

Looking forward to getting a response from any of you today.

Sincerely.

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

1 Comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #Humantraffickedsexslaves, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Adrienne Tissier, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, Jody L. Williams, John Beiers, Juan P. Lopez, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, MTC, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer