Category Archives: Thomas Weissmiller

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

When it comes to elections – is San Francisco that much smarter than San Mateo County.. or is SMC simply corrupted ? 

 

qHcZ9YQO_400x400

Brent Turner

For many years election system security experts have been whistle-blowing on Microsoft based vendor sold voting systems that utilize proprietary “secret ” software rather than a publicly viewable ” open source ” code. Experts state plainly that to defend against outside ( or insider ) interference an open source environment is preferred.  NASA and the DOD utilize open source for mission critical operations.. and now New Hampshire has deployed the better systems. The systems are far less expensive and eliminate vulnerabilities to the point of being referenced as ” unhackable “
San Francisco County, just north of San Mateo County, CA has done extensive studies over a ten year period and now started the build-out of their open source / paper ballot voting system. The current voting machine vendors do not want SF County to accomplish this effort, and pioneering watchdog groups like California Association of Voting Officials ( www.cavo-us.org ) and CAVO is actively protecting the project against the derailing effects that have befallen other jurisdictions ( Travis County , TX and Los Angeles ) attempting to move away from the previously :”locked in”  price gauging vendors.
The scenario is historic Davey vs Goliath as Microsoft and those who” bob in their wake ” scurry to delay the public systems while setting up to sell another round ( at a price tag over eight BILLION dollars ) of the scientifically concluded insecure systems. Money in the form of political contributions continues to flow toward decision makers.. and activists accuse the blocking politicians of putting personal gain before country and the national security. Recently U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard worked with CAVO to put forth a federal bill advocating open source election systems
So what’s up with San Mateo County ? As the technology capitol of the world, it would be natural for SMC to lead the advancements .. or at least follow San Francisco’s lead as a next door county. Could it be San Francisco politicians are that much more intelligent than those in San Mateo County.. or is it rather  just corruption ?  Let’s look at the Supervisors and some  other elected folks..
Many years back Supervisor Warren Slocum was a major player bringing in the flawed voting systems that are now notorious as a national security threat. San Mateo County Supervisor ( and former registrar ) Slocum sweated profusely while presenting his case for purchasing the ” corporate / secret ” voting systems and prompted the League Of Women to join his advocacy. Upon direct questioning by this writer the LWV lead Jackie Jacobberger confessed ignorance regarding voting system security and promised to never advocate at Slocum;s urging again. It appeared “business as usual” occurred during that initial purchase, and the Texas based  Hart Company scored a windfall.
Slocum then went on to join the board at Verified Voting, a group notable for  destroying an open source voting project in Texas,and also for  absorbing millions of dollars ( with no results )  in  grant monies from federal voting projects.
Supervisor David Pine may not be  directly corrupted but is apparently suffering from the controlling “persuasion” of notorious  staff. Burruto is a controller of party politics and has been a staunch political opponent of open source voting  The other SMC Supervisors Groom and Horsley seem to blindly  follow behind Slocum and Pine apparently  oblivious to their duties  to country and democracy.
Relief is available to San Mateo County but it takes courage. Silicon donors that make or break politicians do not like the election system security solution as it involves a free software that out performs what they are selling. With the spotlight now on San Mateo County to join San Francisco’s efforts to set voting system security precedent, it will be interesting to see how the San Mateo Board of Supervisors deal with this circumstance.
_______________________________________-
Brent Turner is a  native of San Mateo County.Mr. Turner is recognized as a civil rights activist and a catalyst for sustainability

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Brent Turner, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Heinz Puschendorf, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Michael G. Stogner, Sabrina Brennan, San Mateo County Elections Office, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Warren Slocum

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

Mark Simon promoting patience.

I prefer simple math. 286,247 vs. 271,704

Did Measure W win in the 271,704 Ballots? Mr. Simon does not acknowledge he was the genesis  of Measure W. A sales tax producing $85M per year income for 30 years neg. impacting the poorest families.

He forgot this article

marksimon-e1517893488710

Mark says, “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.

Political Climate with Mark Simon: Why it takes so long to count election ballots

in Featured/Headline/PoliticalClimate by

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 mark.simon24@yahoo.com.

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Caltrain, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers