Category Archives: Hanson Bridgett LLP

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

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

San Mateo Daily Journal, Measure W Recount is not newsworthy.

 

5930cc0f6e151.image

Jon Mays and Jerry Lee have known since December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisor Meeting that San Mateo County Sherif Deputy Heinz Puschendorf was requesting a by hand recount of every ballot for Measure W which passed only in the last two days of reporting and by less than 500 votes.

Today’s article talks about Harvesting of ballots, no mention of Undervotes, Ballots Printed etc.

The San Mateo Daily Journal has 84,000 readers per day times 5 is 420,000 views not seen. Heinz Puschendorf is looking for 300 volunteers John and Jerry know that.

Yes on W SamTrans

SMDJ Harvesting Ballots article

Heinz Puschendorf 12/4/18 BOS Meeting Recount W

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Brent Turner, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, John Beiers, Jon Mays, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo Daily Journal, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate

Jim Sutton Yes on Measure W attorney objects.

 

jimsutton_bio

Who hired Attorney Jim Sutton? He showed up at 40 Tower Road and objected to a minuscule amount of ballots being audited. He wanted it to be official and go on the record that he objected to this action.

“It’s shocking that they had 4 Supervisors and 12 employees working 8 or 9 hours working on this all because the losing side kind of brow beat them into doing so.”

“Under the law the only way that one side has the right to ask for documents to be re-reviewed is through a recount that they pay for.” That is true, That is where San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf comes into play. He as a citizen resident and voter in SMC is doing just that. A recount by hand of every single ballot for Measure W.

Heinz Puschendorf BOS meeting 12/4/2018

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, John Beiers, Letters to Editors, Mark Church, Mark Simon, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Palo Alto Daily Post, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Elections Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Whistleblowers, Will Holsinger, Yes on Measure A 2012

Heinz Puschendorf requesting Supervisors pay for the Recount of Measure W.

December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisor Meeting, Heinz Puschendorf informed the Board of Supervisors that he will be requesting the recount of ballots for Measure W which passed by less than 500 votes out of 270,599. He asked the Supervisors to pay for the cost of the recount. He is also asking Mark Church how many ballots were printed? How many ballots were mailed? How many undervotes total? How many ballots were received at the absolute deadline on Friday Nov. 9, 2018?

If you would like to volunteer contact Heinz Puschendorf

heinzp_57@yahoo.com

3 Comments

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum

Measure W

published 12/3/2018 SMDJ

Editor,

I’m not sure when Election Day morphed into election season, but it stretches credulity to believe that San Mateo County, situated in the technological capital of the world, would need over three weeks to assure that the “right” outcome was achieved. Even Florida seems competent by comparison.

I was particularly fascinated that as each day’s count was updated, the tax measures slowly inched toward passage. Apparently, those voters who had ballots that couldn’t be read by machines voted for a tax increase at a much higher rate than than those who had no issues with their ballot. Seems strange to me, but then we all know just how important ever increasing taxes are to public agencies.

While Chief Elections Officer Mr. Mark Church gives a somewhat cavalier response about using “the best practice,” he should be embarrassed that issues like this arise on his watch.  Do I sound a little skeptical about these results? I certainly hope so. With issues like this all over the country every election cycle, it’s no wonder more and more people have become cynical about the whole process.

Richard Quadri

Burlingame

The seven advertising businesses aka Newspapers all know that San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschebdorf is requesting the recount by hand of Measure W. One issue was Mark Church never acknowledged how many ballots were printed in the first place. That is the most important number to Deputy Puschendorf, and should be to the residents of San Mateo County.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, Kevin Mullins, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, Richard Quadri, RICO, Robert Fourcrault, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate

Six4Three vs.FaceBook, Mark Zuckerberg

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.

 

30727422_1046328192172159_7715425602097905664_n

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.

Here is the court documents:

SIX4THREE v. Facebook, inc

By Michael G. Stogner

CNN Article

Note: I just went to post this on my personal FB page and for the first time in 10 years I was asked to sign in. That is pretty fast for a picture sharing social media platform.

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, Judges, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Mark Zuckerberg, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Steve Wagstaffe, Theodore Kramer, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

SamTrans is not waiting for the recount. Full steam ahead.

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
  *  Prioritize environmentally-sustainable transportation solutions
  *  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.

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, TBWB, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers

Recount Measure W Requirements.

Mr. Stogner,

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.

MARK CHURCH

Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder

& Chief Elections Officer

555 County Center

Redwood City, CA 94063

650.363.4988

650.363.1903 fax

http://www.smcacre.org

Everyone should support the recount no matter which way you voted, The Yes on W should support it after spending $1.5M and the No on W who raised $5,700.  Level Playing Field

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Locol Control, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Robert Fourcrault, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County News, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Will Holsinger

Recount Measure W, Simple questions go unanswered. There is a Deadline, they know it.

mc_portrait_squareArtboard 1

San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy

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.
Thank You in advance
Michael G. Stogner
Private Victim’s Advocate
Co-owner San Mateo County News.com

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Governor of California, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Mark Church, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, MTC, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Thomas Weissmiller, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Yes on Measure A 2012

SMCSO Deputy Heinz Puschendorf is filing for recount of Measure W.

 

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.

Next step recount

By Michael G. Stogner

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Brent Turner, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, Senator Jerry Hill, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum