Category Archives: Mark Olbert

Measure W Failing. Great news for the taxpayers of San Mateo County.

samtrans-1-1533683163-3178

Update 11/9/2018 Without knowing how many ballots were mailed it is impossible to have confidence in this election. As of 9:00AM there are at least 146, 378 ballots to be tallied.

The elections office has just posted it’s official update at 4:30PM today. Mark Church is still refusing to say how many ballots were mailed out. He is only saying that he has received 215,480 and counted/tallied only 111,637 that leaves 103,843 ballots remaining to be tallied.

Total Yes Votes 69,132 = 65.65%

Total No Votes 36,173 = 34.35%

The Yes on Measure W Campaign with total reported funding of $1,500,000 of that $650,000 of Taxpayer money used against the Taxpayers.

The No on Measure W Campaign with a reported total funding of $5,700

Thank You to Jack Hickey for warning the public.

More than $1,500,000 of taxpayer money was spent on a campaign run by TBWB Strategies. See: http://www.tbwb.com/approach. The campaign phase of their strategy was step 4 in their strategy. This is “electioneering” and should be a felony misappropriation of public money.

Vote NO on “W”

 

The Elections Office should be Audited.

SMC Grand Jury 2012 warned the residents about the elected officials misleading the voters.

 

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Adrienne Tissier, Angela Hernandez, Attorney Generals Office, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Locol Control, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, SamTrans, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Supervisors, Senator Jerry Hill, Silicon Valley, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Will Holsinger

San Mateo County Elections made the DOJ’s list of 35 Jurisdictions in 19 States.

Mark-Church

Mark Church should be proud his accomplishment, This should come as no surprise to any readers of San Mateo County News.com. I have said San Mateo County is the Most Corrupt County in the United States of America.

Mark Church refuses to tell the residents how many ballots were mailed out? How many ballots were received? How many ballots were tallied. How many duplicate ballots were mailed out and why/how did that happen? Santa Clara County updated the tallied ballots yesterday at 3:59 PM and this morning at 9:20AM. Not the case with San Mateo County No update yesterday at all, and today update is scheduled for 5PM.

You can’t possibly manage what you don’t measure. Mr. Church is doing this on purpose.

qHcZ9YQO_400x400

Brent Turner

Brent Turner has been warning the residents of San Mateo County for years. Ask the Board of Supervisors how many meetings he has attended/spoken during the Public Comment about voting fraud and software.

William Holsinger

Will Holsinger Former San Mateo County Harbor District Commissioner, and attorney received 2 ballots this election.

2 ballots to Former San Mateo County Harbor Commissioner, what are the odds?

images-2

Mark Olbert San Carlos City Councilman calls for Audit.

Letter to Editor, Audit Needed

21253_main

Juan P. Lopez

Last election San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez’s name was deleted. He was told his vote was cancelled after he received his sample ballot. Here are his comments:

Hello Michael,
This story brings to mind the last election. Mark Church and his cabal did cancel my ability to vote. This surprised me when I had not received my ballot in the mail. I did receive my sample ballot, but to my surprise my election ballot never arrived. After waiting a couple of days to see if it was delayed, I contacted the elections office. I was told that my name had been cancelled. Imagine that. One less vote for Carlos Bolanos not dealt with. Who cancelled my ability to vote? Was it the same corrupt county cabal that controls everything in this county? From working there for so many years, I saw many things and was told to just put in my time and retire when I could. This county management needs to be completely replaced from the Board of Supervisors all the way down. Those that are not corrupt, are just as guilty for knowing it occurs and continue to turn a blind eye to it. Innocent people get fired, disciplined and even prosecuted in order to tarnish their names to send a message for all the employee’s that are still there. Bring your lunch boys, I am not going away.

Department of Justice monitor November 5, 2018

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Citizens Access TV, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DDA Albert Serrato, Don Horsley, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Juan P. Lopez, Letters to Editors, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, San Mateo County Supervisors, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Will Holsinger

Time for an Audit. Mark Church always claims all is well at San Mateo County Elections Office.

Mark Churck

Mark Church SMC Elections Officer

I have received word that the SMC Elections office published election results a couple of days ago, which if true is a very bad thing.

Lets see what Mark Church says about this taken from his website several days ago.

thumbnail

County voter receives two election ballots

Apparent irregularity sparks concern, but top election official claims all is well

  • Updated
William Holsinger

Will Holslinger Former San Mateo County Harbor District Commissioner, and attorney received 2 ballots this election.

William Holsinger

William Holsinger received his official ballot in the mail and sent it back to cast his vote, per his usual process as a permanent absentee voter for about the last 10 years.

Then another official ballot arrived in the mail the next day. Caught off guard by the irregularity, Holsinger, who is registered in San Mateo, called county election officials who told him that he could discard the duplicate.

Seeking some peace of mind, Holsinger said his primary interest was receiving a guarantee that being issued a second ballot would not invalidate his initial one.

“I wasn’t planning on voting twice,” he said. “I just wanted to make sure that my first one counted.”

Officials in a phone conversation were initially unable to offer that certainty though, said Holsinger. For his part, Jim Irizarry, the county’s assistant chief elections officer, suggested the second ballot is likely due to the complex nature of operating a countywide election.

“Voters receiving two ballots is a common occurrence due to the complex and fluid nature of voter registration,” he said in an email, suggesting a second ballot can be issued when a voter changes their status with the county. Altering party affiliations, addresses or other details in the county’s record are examples of the type of action which would prompt issuance of a second ballot.

Holsinger though said he had not changed his status with the county recently, making his second ballot all the more perplexing.

“I was a little puzzled,” he said.

To get clarification on whether the ballot was counted, Irizarry said the county offers a service which requires voters to share information such as their name, address and birthday.

“With this information, we can determine the number of ballots issued, when they were issued, what types of ballots were issued, if any ballots were voted or returned,” he said.

He added changes to the county record may not be immediately apparent to voters, as activity at the DMV for example may result in prompting a second ballot.

“Voters may not associate a second ballot with a DMV interaction made weeks ago, plus the time for the ballot to reach them,” Irizarry said.

He took time to note though that issuance of a second ballot would not invalidate the first. He said the voting system is designed to flag ballots in the case of potential redundancies, which then requires staffers to check the voter’s record, rather than automatically render it uncountable.

But so long as Holsinger only sent his first ballot, Irizarry confirmed his vote counted.

“If the voter … sent in his first ballot, and only that ballot, it would be counted despite the issuance of a second ballot,” he said.

Irizarry also tamped down concerns raised by those who were alarmed to see mock election results posted on the county elections office website in late October. Some felt the outcomes shown were real and may affect the behavior of those yet to vote.

Irizarry though said the mock results were not actual outcomes, and instead only a standard system testing mechanism commonly used by officials in advance of an election.

“These results are labeled ‘test’ or ‘mock’ to distinguish them from the actual reports released on Election night. Every system tested worked correctly. Once the mock election testing is complete, the numbers on racetracker revert to zero in preparation for Election night reporting,” he said.

The issues raised follow a series of missteps county officials have endured during election season.

First, officials found the county Board of Education race was left off sample ballots, causing elections officials to postpone sending actual ballots one week from Oct. 9 to Oct. 15 while they addressed the error.

Elections officials incorrectly identified the race as a district election, resulting in only those living in District 1 along the coast receiving information about the candidates in their sample ballot. The Board of Education candidates are required to be residents of the district they represent, but members are elected by voters across the county.

Irizarry said the additional information originally intended for the sample material was included with the actual ballot in an addendum which required additional time to craft. Elections officials sent out ballots last month, and voters still received their material within the legal time requirements.

Later, officials found the sample material problems carried over to real ballots, and dozens of overseas voters were sent ballots also omitting the Board of Education race. Officials were forced to scramble and assure those voters were offered ballots including the race.

For Holsinger, he shared fears that his experience could be a byproduct of a potentially dysfunctional system.

“I believe that good process makes for appropriate results. Bad process never has good results. And the ends don’t justify the means,” he said.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105

This is a perfect example of why I support elected official Sabrina Brennan she cares. If you know of any other San Mateo County elected official who has publicly commented on this subject let me know.

 

San Mateo County election irregularities:

1.) Why were multiple ballots mailed to individual voters…?2.) On Tuesday, Oct 30, 2018, Race Tracker was published on the San Mateo County Elections website with “mock” results. Voters discovered the Race Tracker results online when they Google searched a candidates name. The word ”mock“ was in fine print giving voters the impression the results were from votes cast in the Nov 2018 election. The “mock” results did not appear to berandomized.
3.) The *countywide* Board of Education election was excluded from the Sample Ballot pamphlet everywhere except the Coastside. Delaying the arrival of ballots by a week or more.
4.) The sample ballot problem carried over to real ballots, and dozens of overseas voters were sent ballots also omitting the Board of Education race.

Third-party audit needed of Elections Office

November 8, 2018

Editor,

I just completed my official San Mateo County vote-by-mail ballot. In addition to a mistake involving a position on the County Board of Education (the correction of which I’ve been told necessitated delaying distribution of the ballots), the provided instructions are incorrect. Specifically, step 3 calls for the voter to “remove the strip to seal the envelope” … when in reality the envelope, or mine at least, is a traditional lick-to-seal one.

Granted, that’s not a big deal. But two mistakes involving a single ballot package? I can’t recall the last time there was any mistake on a ballot, and I’ve voted in every election for the more than 20 years I’ve lived here.

It may be unfair to give voice to this next concern. But it needs to be asked. What else went wrong? It’s the mistakes you don’t see which can cause the biggest problems.

The people of San Mateo County should insist on a thorough, top-to-bottom independent third-party audit of the Elections Office. Our hard-working county employees deserve not to work under a cloud, and county residents deserve a first-class election operation.

Mark Olbert

San Carlos

The letter writer is a member of the San Carlos City Council. The views and opinions expressed here are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the city of San Carlos or its City Council.

 

By Michael G. Stogner

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Brent Turner, David Burruto, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Sabrina Brennan, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Supervisors, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum