Seriously. Dean Logan has decided to spend more than $90,000 of the public's money in order to evade his responsibilities to make a full public disclosure of election records --
I recently sent a public records request to Dean Logan asking to inspect certain absentee ballot envelopes from last November. My objective is to try to shed light on what went wrong in the mail ballot operation that caused at least 96 valid ballot to go uncounted and another 875 ballots to be tabulated without being matched to a voter. But Logan refused my request, denying inspection of original envelopes, permitting only the inspection of envelope copies. His excuse that this is necessary to protect the envelopes from "damage and disorganization" is bogus. The public has been allowed to inspect other original documents, including poll books, under supervision and I'd be happy to agree to reasonable procedures and oversight in order to protect the envelopes. Copies are not an adequate substitute for the originals -- copying introduces the possibility that envelopes will be mistakenly left out of the production or placed in the wrong batch. It also conceals important information on the physical state of the envelope and whether there might be yet more unopened envelopes with untabulated ballots, etc. The biggest reason, I imagine, for insisting on copying the envelopes is that it slows down their release to the point of preventing me from inspecting all the ones that I want and completing my analysis before the 2005 election.
Indeed, because Dean Logan has refused my request to inspect in situ batches of original envelopes, he leaves me with no choice but to (a) sue him, and (b) demand copies of all of the nearly 600,000 absentee ballot envelopes that were returned in November. Given the standard copying charge of $0.15 per page, that comes to $90,000 in labor and supplies, to be paid out of public funds so Logan can continue to hide his department's mistakes from the public.
UPDATE: to answer a question in the comments. I don't wish to keep the copies, only inspect them, so the county has to bear the cost.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 20, 2005 05:12 PM | Email ThisIs the county really responsible for paying for the copies? If so, I wish I'd known that a long time ago.
I think they are required to only make them available for copying, but copied on the citizen's dime if more than some minimal amount are requested.
Posted by: Mike on July 20, 2005 05:24 PMLet us know if you need help looking at the enveleopes. I am in Hawaii from the 21st till the 29th, but am available after that.
Posted by: sgmmac on July 20, 2005 06:48 PMGo ahead, tell me what a great 'investment' it is in democracy and middle-eastern stability. And how us left-wing commie pinko fags just don't get it.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 20, 2005 07:28 PMthe sound of the dead horse Witz is beating
Posted by: Jim L on July 20, 2005 08:26 PM
The federal government is engaged in the War on Terror, or whatever you want to relabel it. (And I seriously don't care what you want to call it. A rose or dung hill by any other name...) Funding and direction of this effort occurs at the federal level. County and State levels of government have no authority in this area. You may recall from the Washington constitution that the State government is forbidden from maintaining a standing army in peacetime, and that nothing within the constitution authorizes any individual or corporation (such as towns, cities or counties) to maintain an armed body of men. As the governor has not called forth the militia as specified in Article X to suppress rebellion or repel invasion, there are no legal Washington State military units active. Only Federally controlled units are involved, and they are outside the control of the state of Washington.
What is being discussed here is failures at the County level, and the funds available at the County level, and how said funds may be misused to avoid the obligation of government at the County level.
The accountability of government and avoidance of fraud, waste and abuse must begin at home, yes? I have my own litany of wastes, frauds and abuses at the federal level to combat, but it would be useless for me to lay them at the feet of Ron Sims or Dean Logan, because they can't do anything about it. Waste and abuse in their neck of the woods, on the other hand, is squarely laid at their feet, and the pile is rapidly rising above their knees.
Try to stay on topic, would you?
Posted by: gmcraff on July 20, 2005 08:51 PMAs you said "Go ahead, tell me what a great 'investment' it is in democracy and middle-eastern stability. And how us left-wing commie pinko fags just don't get it"....
Saved me the typing, and boy am I glad you are coming around to see the truth!!! I was beginning to worry about you.
Posted by: Chris on July 20, 2005 08:51 PMI would go for (A) *AND* (B)!
And have the cost's deducted from Logan's pay.....
Unkl Witz you might be able to hold an intelligent conversation when you read Iraq Resolutions, the ISG Report.
Till then you sound like an ill-informed, one note ninny who could care less about facts, truth, and that all men regardless of color or where they live deserve a chance at self determination. Do a little reading, learn something and come back and tell me if the blood of 250 years of American patriots and the treasure expended since 1776 is not worth your freedom. The freedom you value so little you cannot spare a little treasure to extend the same thing we have to others. That by extending the blessing of liberty to others we insure our long term security.
Posted by: JCM on July 20, 2005 10:23 PMIf the topic is bashing King County Democrats (much akin to shooting fish in a barrel), then I guess I am "off topic."
If the topic is responsible spending of our tax dollars, I'd say my post was appropriate. Frankly, I can't tell the difference between a tax dollar wasted at the county level and one wasted at the federal level. They both come out of my income and go to things I can't abide.
But what I can see is the relative numbers: $90k on this topic and $300,000k on mine. Seems you fiscal conservatives would be mighty upset by the latter if you've got the time to bitch about the former.
And then again, dare I say it, the latter is being wasted by your own party and therefore not "on topic", while the former is not only an easy target, but spent by the hated opposition.
From where I sit, your complaints reek of hypocrisy. But I'm sure you will square me away with a cogent response.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 20, 2005 10:57 PMIf Congress reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) I will be joining you Unk in calling for Bush to bring home our troops, but for an entirely different reason than the peacenik do-nothing approach you advocate.
VAWA violates the most basic civil rights of our country's men and fathers. If it is reauthorized, I do not believe that we should send these same men to a foriegn country in order to protect the Constitutional rights of women only.
Cogent?
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on July 20, 2005 11:15 PMNormally, I find your posts somewhat thought provoking if not always well written. But I must confess, tonight's post above left me baffled. What are you trying to say?
Have you been drinking and posting again??
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 20, 2005 11:17 PM"Cogent"?
Only if you say so....
see my post to Jimmie.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 20, 2005 11:20 PMI think you need to turn off Sean Hannity and pay more attention to your children. You will learn far more from them than any talk radio program.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 20, 2005 11:23 PMThis story brings back funny memories from my time at King County Elections. It was sometime in July of 2004 when Hunnekens and Logan walked around with these plastic stands that held the Elections "Mission Statement."
They handed them out to the employees for their desks and posted the poster board versions in several locations throughout the office.
Dean and Bill seem so pleased that they had come up with this Mission Statement.
After they had been posted and distributed many of the long time full time employees gathered at one of the posted locations and laughed at some of the guiding principles. They thought it was joke! (I'll refrain from using names to protect the innocent!)
I didn't get the joke then, but I do now! The employee that pointed out that the mission statement was a total joke turned out to be right!
"We are public service professionals dedicated to the administration of accessible, open and impartial elections."
Did Dean forget he helped write this? Maybe he needs to be reminded that he included the words accessible and open!
Here is more fun with mission statements;
"We share timely and appropriate information with all."
Hahahaha another good one! We know this one is really bogus!
How about this gem;
"We create and foster an environment where it's safe to communicate with all levels.Supervisors proactively work with staff to address workplace issues."
That was the one that had all the veteran full time employees howling with laughter!
And finally;
"We encourage the public to participate in the election process through education, public notices and TRANSPARENT processes."
transparent processes???
What's the point of having a mission statement if one of it's authors is going to break it, and nearly all of it's guiding principles. I would urge you to email Dean Logan his own Mission Statement, and respectfully request he reconsider your request to review the absentee envelopes.
Maybe after reminding him of what he himself wrote he may be more willing to help!
Wizz, I think you forget "hippie type"...I consider the money we're spending in Iraq as an investment, not a waste...I consider the money Logan is spending here to be obscene.
Posted by: South County on July 21, 2005 07:04 AM2nd: To come up with a blanket of impossibly (imaginatively) "high" "ideals" over all the employees that can be used later selectively to punish anyone for any transgression - real or contrived -- obviously none of the items you point out were even remotely approached during the recent election and its aftermath - or ones proceding.
Posted by: Bill on July 21, 2005 07:17 AMHe is racist, people of other cultures and skin colors are not capable of self government.
He is elitist, if people don't agree with they are too stupid to run there own lives and need government to take their money so they don't misspend it.
He is at least a socialist if not an outright communist. The elitist know best and if you don't conform for his definition of the greater good you will be dealt with.
Both issues the spending in Iraq and Logan's use of funds are related in this way. Liberty. Liberty is a core value and there is no vice in its defense.
In Iraq we are spending blood and treasure to expand Liberty to a part of the world that has not seen it in a long time.
Logan is spending money to limit Liberty, he has affected an election, and is stonewalling and obstruction the peoples efforts to look into that issue. By corrupting an elections Logan et. al. then stonewalling the investigations Logan is damaging the right to vote, our ability to influence the laws that govern us, and fundamentally impinging on our Liberties and right of self determination.
Posted by: JCM on July 21, 2005 08:09 AMI'll give them some credit. If it was a bunch of dems making that request, I'd have some concern with their greasy hands touching those envelopes too.
It might be time to stop bitching... and think of more productive ways to spend your time.
Posted by: Joe Rao on July 21, 2005 09:23 AMI think the majority here disagree with your premise - the money spent on the war on terror is a waste. Given that I, for one, feel comparing money well spent to our local government spending our money to work against the local citizens is meaningless, no matter what the order of magnitude difference in the dollar amount.
So whether or not it is on topic, there is no reasonable response to be made to a false premise.
Good to see you back!
Posted by: fred on July 21, 2005 09:26 AMDrinking? No--I was using a cell phone, typing and having coffee simultaneously, like many idiots I see daily on the highway. Question is, are they industrious conservative working folk or liberals excercising their rights to multitask? Idiots all, endangering us while driving. See--I topic-diverted just like you did.
BTW--London #2 should wake you up, I hope--this is no game. This is the real deal. Stop defending terror and liberal blame-America types. Time to pick sides, pal. I choose MY survival over some ethnic group's feelings.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 21, 2005 10:07 AMThe Shark has the right quote of dollars if he makes the request for copies of all the documents.
I also think they are shenanigans associated with Logan or he would have released them. Though the case was lost by the Washington Supremes (political makeup of the Court), Bridges did nail King County and under oath, several people admitted cheating.
Time to moveon? Yes, it is about time to moveon from the court case, but not time to move away from trying to get fair elections.
Posted by: swatter on July 21, 2005 10:07 AMThat's his real charm. Otherwise while tedious, he is amusing.
Good to see you too. But just because you don't agree with my premise does not make it false.
I believe the false premise here is that our war in Iraq is having a positive effect on reducing terrorism. And you can't deny it's expensive, and deadly.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 21, 2005 12:50 PMUnkl Witz listens to Dick Durban, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry and he believes what they say.
Any questions?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 21, 2005 02:30 PMBy your reasoning WWII was an abject failure. The fighting was fiercest in '44 and '45. Okinawa the deadliest battle for the US occurred in April '45. The war was over by August with surrender of Japan in September. By your logical we should have pulled out a mere 6 months before complete victory. You should also stay away from the MSM which features only the problems in Iraq.
Like I have repeatedly suggested to you you might try a little reading other that dailykos, moveon, and horsesass. You might actually learn something.
Posted by: JCM on July 21, 2005 02:35 PMWhen are you gonna recognize that no one here pays you any attention (except to poke fun at your mawkish behavior).
Tell us another one - and put the Big Bad Rove in the next one 'K?
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 21, 2005 06:00 PMI read you your posts and challenge you on specific points and ask specific questions, none of which you bother to answer you just keep repeating the same old tired talking point of the day.
You brought up Iraq out of context on this post. I tied it to Ron Sims and crew limiting liberty by violating public disclosure laws, running a corrupt election vs. our spreading liberty in Iraq.
I'll agree on one point there is no certainty in the war on terror. There is no certainty any of will live through the day what are we to do stay in bed? So what if the enemy doesn't wear a uniform does that make them less of an enemy? Does that it is tough fight with out defined battle fields, enemy formations, and territorial gains to mark progress make it any less a war to fight and win?
On every other point your are simply wrong and multiple documents your won't bother to read support my point and you cannot provide support for you document.
You would deny the Iraq people liberty because it is too costly. You claim things that are patently false.
You support the violation of our own laws, and corruption in our government.
Hey Witzy, they are fun for you to tell, and fun for us to hear. Nice try stupid.
No sale. Try again.
It free and I can do it when every I have a chance.
Posted by: JCM on July 21, 2005 07:40 PMCalm down, take a few deep breaths... you are trying to type so fast you are leaving out words.
Now stop and take a look at what you are saying... the reason we went into Iraq is to liberate the Iraqi people!?!?!?! That wasn't what the Bushies told us, it was to protect us from the next 9/11.
But even a child could see then, and now, terrorism is a tactic, not a target. Invading Iraq didn't protect Madrid, nor the London Underground, and it doesn't protect you. It just wastes your tax dollars and kills our sons and daughters.
I heard they found Osama. He joined an organization that costs a lot to get in, but has no responsibilityies, and they don't keep track of you; the Texas Air National Guard.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 21, 2005 08:29 PMhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0721051gold1.jpg
Enjoy! (But don't get too close ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 21, 2005 08:52 PMGWB served 6 year ANG hitch, each year you are required to accumulate minimum of 50 service points, I'll go slow so you can follow the math. 6x50=300 the the number of required service points for GWB to fulfill his requirement to the ANG. How many points did GWB accumulate during his service. I know because I read his service record docs, so I would have facts when dealing with lefties who have talking points instead of facts. GWB had 952 service points in 6 years. 3 times the required number. 1972 the year in question he had 52 points, meeting the required service commitment for that year. The AF was RIFing pilots all over the place in '72 the F102 was being obsoleted so he no longer had a seat to sit in.
As to leaving out words, a two year old chose that moment to decide his little brother was a target for block throwing.
Terrorism is a tactic but it has breeding grounds, one of those breeding grounds was Iraq. It no longer is supporting the export of terrorist, the funding of them or the training of them.
For your other points here are a few key lines from the Joint Resolution on Iraq which Senators, Kerry, Clinton and others voted for and was based on Clinton policy.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
The congress following the law authorized the President to use force in Iraq because, Al-Qaeda had a presence there, and it was the policy of the United since Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act to liberate Iraq.
When the regimes that support terrorist no longer do so then we will see a reduction in terror.
That's what happens when you listen to the MSM and moveon, you get only part of the story then run around making a fool of yourself.
How long are you going to support Ron Sims' terror tactics against former employees?
Posted by: JCM on July 21, 2005 10:54 PMRight you are - but don't expect Witz to care. He takes pride in running around making a fool of himself.
Witz says, "[E]ven a child could see then, and now, terrorism is a tactic, not a target. Invading Iraq didn't protect Madrid, nor the London Underground, and it doesn't protect you. It just wastes your tax dollars and kills our sons and daughters."
While Witz is wrong about this, the only thing anyone needs to be concerned with here, is that it won't protect us from the likes of Unkl Witz either. That's a problem as difficult as terrorism that will have to be dealt with differently. God help us all if his ilk get back into power enough to have their way.
In the mean time Witz serves as a clear example of America's enemy within.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 22, 2005 12:36 AM
Still, the topic of discussion is the willingness of a public servant to waste the public funds allocated to his position in order to avoiding his obligations under law to a member of the public. I think the public servant in question should have to justify why these funds should not be spent finding his replacement. For $90,000, someone (two someones!) could be hired full time to personally maintain the integrity of KCRaE's envelope filing system while Stefan examines them.
When I was managing public funds as a program manager, that kind of wastage would have landed me in jail. My programs came in under expected cost and on schedule, and I have never seen the inside of a jail cell. Since I worked for the federal government, and I was expected by my superiors to expend my entire budget each year, I turned my cost savings into more valuable work.
For discussions of wastage in the War on Terror, I recommend discussing them here, here, and here. You might also want to discuss your concerns with the ones who authorized the expendatures, here and here. If you cannot discern where to best direct your comments, I recommend heading to the produce section of the nearest grovery store and ask for some introductory training in identifying "apples" and "oranges".
Even a volunteer treasurer of a small non-profit counts for and guards every penny of the organization's treasury as if one's own. Kudos for you for doing the same in government. It's simple honor and character. Why is that so difficult for some to understand?
Is it ignorance, no 'home training' or outright arrogance? I can live with the first 2--the 3rd is not acceptable.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 22, 2005 11:25 AMHowever, at an adult level, it becomes a nice career path and lucrative consulting game like being a shark's remora. Hey--SOMEONE'S go to clean the shark's parasites, right? (Stefan--no pun intended)
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 23, 2005 06:32 PM