Voting Vendor Lacks Paper Trail
Submitted by gregflynn on Wed, 09/12/2007 - 6:07pm
[Edit notes moved to the bottom of this post, Greg]
When Diebold declined to share proprietary software with NC elections officials in 2005, Electronic Systems and Software (ES&S), through Printelect, became the only approved vendor of election equipment in North Carolina. Printelect is a North Carolina company with offices in New Bern and printing operations in Fayetteville. Printelect is the authorized dealer for ES&S in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia and the only ES&S certified printing vendor in these states. Printelect specializes in printed optical scan ballots which it supplies nationwide as well as providing other election related products.
Printelect is presented on company websites as "Printelect, Inc.," and as the "Owen G. Dunn Company" doing business as "Printelect". The NC Secretary of State's Office has no record of a corporate filing for "Printelect, Inc.," either as a new company, name change or merger. The last Annual Report filed by the Owen G. Dunn Company was for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2004. The company also operates "Dunn's Office Solutions" in New Bern.
Searches of the records of the Registers of Deeds in Cumberland County, Craven County and Wake County do not indicate the filing of any Assumed Name Forms for an entity named Printelect. The only related filing was in 1998 in Cumberland County for the "Owen G. Dunn Company" DBA "Fayetteville Printing and Office Supply Company".
Since 2006 there have been some concerns about the cost of printed optical ballots for ES&S machines due to very specific requirements mandated by ES&S which amount to a 20 cent premium per ballot.
In Wake County, N.C., which uses ES&S optical scan machines, Board of Elections Director Cherie Poucher said a local, non-ES&S certified vendor, Commercial Printing, charges no more than 13 cents per ballot. Printelect charges up to 33 cents per ballot.Poucher said her elections office felt it was wise to use Printelect for the 2006 primary and general elections because those were the first elections using new state-required voting equipment.
By all accounts Printelect is a responsible and reliable vendor and election observers are relieved that Diebold did not succeed in 2005. At a meeting of the Forsyth Board of Elections in 2006 Joyce McCloy of the NC Coalition for Verified Voters commended the Board for not choosing Diebold voting equipment. At the same meeting Elections Director Rob Mr. Coffman discussed the printing of the ballot:
He stated he got a quote from PrintElect, who was an ES&S recommended vendor, and the ballots would cost 28 cents each. He received a quote from another ES&S certified printer in Michigan and the ballots would be 14 cents each. He explained had talked with the State Board of Elections and they were fine with using the Michigan printer on the condition they get ballots to test and are able to confirm the quality of the ballots.
From Printelect.com and PrintelectStore.com
Printelect, Inc., located in Fayetteville, North Carolina, formerly Owen G. Dunn Company and Fayetteville Printing Company have been in business combined for over 176 years. We have printed optical scan ballots since their introduction in the Southeast in 1976.
:::::
Today, we are the largest printer of optical scan ballots on the east coast, and one of the largest in the United States. In most election years, we will produce over 10 million ballots. We currently furnish most optical scan ballots used in North Carolina, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, Missouri, Alaska, Virginia and New Mexico.
:::::
Originally trained and certified by Election Systems and Software (ES&S), we print ballots for the Optech III-P Eagle and Optech III-P machines. We work together with your ballot programmer in answering any technical questions which may arise concerning your ballots.
I am not a connoisseur of elections, election equipment or procedures. Others are much more knowledgeable (and opinionated) than me on the subject. From what I know optical scan technology is very reliable, ES&S is deemed superior to Diebold in North Carolina and Printelect has been dependable. I have always been troubled by the sole sourcing of equipment, supplies and service. For matters related to the integrity and security of voting I would however expect the credentials of vendors to be impeccable and verifiable. When voter registration criteria, including identity and location, are contentious I don't think it is too much to ask that Printelect formally register where it conducts business.
Q. How long has Printelect been in the elections business?
A. Formerly Owen G. Dunn Company, founded in 1902, in New Bern, North Carolina, Printelect has been in the election industry for over one hundred years. As the largest printer of optical scan ballots and one of the largest printers in the country, we currently furnish millions of ballots throughout the United States annually. As an authorized dealer for Election Systems and Software (ES&S) in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, we have extensive experience with optical scan and DRE technology. Printelect has installed and maintained the state-wide voting systems in both North Carolina and South Carolina and we are currently growing transactions throughout Virginia. Our corporate office is located in New Bern, North Carolina and our printing facility (formerly Fayetteville Printing and Office Supply) is located in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
[Edit notes moved to the bottom of this post and retained for the record. I believe the questions raised have been addressed. Greg]
NOTE: NC Voter has links to the Secretary of State filings, which suggest Greg may have missed a document in his research. I'm leaving this up on the front-page until he has a chance to weigh in. Don't you just love the interTubes? The truth will out.
Would the person who has inserted this edit please identify themselves and note my comments below. My information comes from the same document. I have not missed it. Greg
My mistake. A. Sorry for the confusion.
If they are not registered in the state
does that mean they are not contributing to our tax base?
Have you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name
Progressives are the true conservatives.
Tax
They are probably paying their taxes as one entity or another. For example Cumberland county Revenue lists them for business property as "OWEN G DUNN CO T/A PRINT ELECT".
You're amazing
Great work.
And you're right. It's not too much to ask.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
please see this, vendor is registered
Owen G Dunn is registered
my post
That's irrelevant
From Wake County RoD for example:
Assumed Name Registration Forms can be obtained from the NC Department of Commerce and filed with a county RoD if Owen G Dunn is DBA "Printelect"
If operating as "Printelect, Inc.," they need to register as a corporation with NC Secretary of State.
Or, if the "Owen G Dunn" name was changed to "Printelect, Inc.," the name change should be reported to the Sec. of State.
ID
Here's a company that produces 10 million ballots per year and no-one is checking their ID. Vendors can provide a back door for vote fraud. There ought to be more verification of vendors and their employees than of individual voters.
vendor's CEO had to sign sworn affadavit, Diebold fled instead
Has the author called the people at Print Elect? its possible that an answer may follow, an answer that can be verified.
The cost of paper did go up, and this is not news. This is a nationwide phenomenon. Now that the new voting machines have been used a few times, counties can safely use paper from other printer sources, testing them during low turnout elections. The cost will go back down. Meanwhile, the SBOE will be paying for the ballots and programming for the next general elections.
Three vendors were certified to do business in North Carolina:
Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia (conditionally).
I went to court several times - one to have Diebold't TRO revoked, so that they would have to obey all tenets of our law if they wanted to do business in NC,
and I sued the SBOE and the State's IT dept, charging that they hadn't properly certified the voting systems, and that all certifications should be revoked.
After several hearings a judge (we had a few) ruled in favor of the SBOE based on the SBOE using the "independent certification" labs' review to serve as their source code review. It was also getting close to the primary, and I doubt the judge wanted to be the one blamed for problems with the primary.
Here is the section of the Public Confidence in Elections law that holds vendors accountable:
Diebold didn't like our law, and left, although they have a touch-screen manufacturing plant about 30 miles from my house.
Right now our biggest problems in North Carolina are getting rid of the touch-screens, providing sufficient poll workers, dealing with electronic poll books which may or may not have a paper backup, the complexities of Same Day Registration (need more poll workers please), and making sure people get to vote.
We also have George Gilbert, anti paper election director in Guilford County who is trying hard to prove that paper doesn't work.
Did you miss this? Vendor registered since at least since 1941
Did you go to the Secretary of State's website and type in "owen g dunn"?
I went to the SOS site and found the paper trail:
Of course
That's how I was able to make this statement:
So, back to the original question
If Printelect is Owen G. Dunn and they have no annual reports in the last two years, why are any officials in the state doing business with them?
And why are corporations allowed to do business under different names but not be easily found at the Secretary of State's website? If they're doing business as Printelect, why doesn't the Secretary of State insist that they file under that name. I'm sick of trying to find records for organizations and having to get a degree in record-finding to locate information that is supposedly gathered by the state (or the feds) for my benefit.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
It's frustrating.
That last report for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2004 had a signature dated 5/5/06 and was recorded 5/22/06. There is one 2005 filed in '07 but it is listed as "not accepted". An '07 filing should be for 2006.
try this:
And again, this is nothing compared to Bev Harris of Black Box Voting fame messing up her orgs 990s about 4 times for the first year, and her 2004 990 wasnt available until mid 2006, and only made available after a person at Democratic Underground posted the request that had been ignored.
You can get contact info for SOS office, and call them tomorrow, and ask them if this is unusual and what the situation is.
You can contact the State Board of Elections and ask their General Counsel what the facts are too:
Let us know what they say.
Paperwork
I have no clue who Bev Harris is or why that is relevant. This is a company with a large role in the NC election process, which is responsible for the accuracy of some 10 million ballots per year. The dearth of recorded documents may somehow, by some stretch of the imagination, be explainable but it is hardly excusable given the responsibilities involved. Sloppy paperwork is not a good thing coming from a company based on proving accurate paperwork.
the relevance: you linked to her website and
It is relevent because you are linking to a website of a organization that claims to be pushing for election transparency - by has questionable IRS filings and sloppy sloppy paperwork.
An organization that did not file the proper paperwork with its home state of Washington as a Charity, while operating as a charity. This is ironic. It's in the post about the attorney evaluting the fiduciary duty of BBV.org and the nearly $1 million sitting uninvested. (what was being done with that money?).
I will wait to hear what the SOS has to say about this paperwork before I will jump to conclusions.
The vendor did have to post a large amount of bond in order to do business as a voting systems vendor in NC.
Harris
Thanks for the (previous) explanation (which you have since deleted). I still don't know who she is. I did link to a document which appears to be a fairly reasonable explanation from Printelect regarding the costs of certain printed ballots for certain machines. I deliberately linked to the PDF and not the web page with added commentary. The link is neither an endorsement nor a criticism of either BVV or Printelect. I also provided a link to a Florida story that mentioned humidity issues.
The bulk of this thread of comments might have been avoided if I had provided the link to SOS with my original reference to Owen G Dunn. Unfortunately such a link can not be provided for Printelect.
no I have not deleted anything
the link to article about Bev Harris's .org and its questionable handling of the paperwork is still here.
As for the link, that came from her website.
most creditable documents can be obtained elsewhere.
I thought it odd to see a County BOE report from 2006 with my name in it, and thats the only reason I bothered with this waste of time.
I await the actual word of the SOS and not the SOS website considering that this may be a mountain out of a molehill.
This vendor had to go through all sorts of gyrations to do business in this state, as did the other two which were certified. Considering the paperwork submitted and scrutinized, the lawyers involved, the scutiny, is is one thing that I don't believe portends doom and gloom. If they were sloppy with their paperwork (waiting for SOS to verify that) then I am anxious to hear the SOS opinion on what that means.
If the vendor is rigging elections, then our audits must not be working to detect them.
These paper ballots will just be useless if that is the case.
Missing
You deleted or edited the first sentence that you originally posted where you used the acronym "OP" in much shorter comment. I know this because I was responding directly to it. It is only of consequence to the extent that the change changed the meaning of my response and I quickly added to my comment to clarify that.
There are only a handful of BOEs that post some minutes online.
If you are anxious to hear what the SOS has to say I recommend doing so yourself as nothing I say would seem to convince you. It is unclear what you are expecting as you appear to be asking for positive proof of a negative. You need the "actual word of the SOS" not my version of it.
I have stated that the some things are missing. Some thing do not add up. I don't have to prove where the missing things are to observe that the fact they are missing is troublesome.
Bond
Assuming a bond or bonds wire posted I would be curious to find out the business names used. (Owen G Dunn, Printelect and/or ES&S)
The SOS paperwork you keep talking about relates to the entity known as "Owen G Dunn Company". If that is how they are doing business then the issue is one of late paperwork.
There are also separate corporate filings for ES&S as an out of state corporation at the SOS.
If they are doing business as "Printelect, Inc.," there is no paperwork yet at the SOS to ask about, but there should be.
If they are doing business as "Printelect" there would be no paperwork at the SOS but there should be at the Craven County Register of Deeds if not also the Cumberland County Register of Deeds.
Don't be curious, instead of talking, DO something
that would be admirable.
I am doing something
n/t
the rest of the story: Diebold filed a TRO to evade our law
this story leaves out why I commended my County BOE for not buying Diebold.
Diebold went behind closed doors and filed a TRO to protect them from a huge section of our voting law.
I had to go to court several times, first just to get standing, then back a few more to get the judges up to speed, and then got Diebold's TRO revoked.
Diebold gutted North Carolina's law. We fought and beat them.
The other vendors did not pull that type of stunt.
If they had, they would have been in court too.
I also sued to revoke certification of all vendors.
The judge ruled against me that time, it would have been a tough decision either way.
NCV
I sincerely appreciate your efforts on behalf of NC voters.
Printelect simply needs to cross their "t"s and dot their "i"s to reduce their vulnerability to legal challenge. Based on what I have found I have no reason to believe that a phone call or email from me would achieve that. I have chosen to get their attention and the attention of people, like yourself, who care about voting by writing this post.
Thank you for your spirited contribution.
we had trouble getting paper trail for Bev Harris' .org
You said the vendor had no paper trail, right? Now there is one, but its not up to date. Do you think this is abnormal? Do you have all of the details?
Why not ask the SOS if the vendor did not provide the info, or if the SOS is behind on filing?
What is customary for all vendors as far these filings?
Meanwhile, in the realm of up to date and or shocking documents of corporations:
The non profit "black box voting", which took in nearly $ 1 million its first year, and the orgs tax filings for 2004 (called 990s for non profits, since they don't pay tax) weren't available until around June of 2006
I don't know the customary time to file these things, check with the SOS.
Even non profits like Bev Harris, who preaches transparency - didn't provide her organization's 990s until publicly prodded on a public message board.
And one law professor wrote this about her orgs' tax returns:
This appearance of ethical lapse (2/3 of a $million "sitting" in a cash acct) can lead to questions. That is why I never have accepted any donations for all of the work I do in NC.
Many are surprised when they learn how profitable a "non profit" can be!
Non-profits
Or more accurately- Not For Profit corporations are so called because no profit can inure to a Director (as in Board of Directors). Any related party to a not for profit corp cannot legally make profit simply for signing their name on a paper, or being on a board. This is different from For-Profit corporations.
The 990 form would be filed a certain amount of time after the end of the corporation's fiscal year -which is often different from the calendar year. For example, many private not for profit corps that do business with the state of NC follow the state's fiscal year, which is July 1 through June 30. Others might follow the Federal fiscal year - which runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. Ergo, if fiscal 2006 ended on June 30, 2007, you might not see the official 990 filing until some time in 2008. Numbers like that by themselves would not be that unusual (I don't think) or inappropriate - especially if extensions had been filed. That, too, is not that unusual, since there are audit requirements for private, not-for-profit corps. in NC. The books for the fiscal year must be audited (or should be) audited before the tax return can completed.
I'm making these statements based on my experience as the Exec. Director of a private, not-for-profit corporation that follows the NC fiscal year. I could look up all the references and find links, etc. to back it up, but it's late and I'm tired. I'm sure if I've made a mistake, some one will be quick to correct me. I won't take it badly. Probably. :)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Harris' Non Profit had 2/3 $million in "non interest" bearing ac
Harris org is a 501 C 3 "non profit" and for somereason, about $ 2/3 of a million sat in an account that didn't earn interest.
The lawyer said that this was a breach of fiduciary duty, because that money should have been earning interest.
He said that it should be investigated to see where that money was for that year.
It could have been mis appropriated during that time.
And the BBV non profit skipped merrily along making big bucks while getting as many extensions as possible before finally filing and showing some transparency.
I have contract agreements that
forbid my agency from earning interest on the money that is granted to me. It does seem irresponsible to have any amount of money - even one much smaller than 2/3 of a million dollars - in a non-interest bearing account. It is often unreal the restrictions that is put on money by grantors and/or donors. It's not common, but it's not unheard of.
As for "merrily skipping along" - I don't doubt that it seems that way to you and the others who brought suit. Sometimes, it's just how it is. I don't know the details of the case -- and am still not sure what it has to do with Greg's original question about Print Elect -- but as the E. D. of a not-for-profit org. I'm not surprised that someone from the outside looking in can't figure it out. We need accountants and private auditors to help us figure ours out and meet all the requirements, and our annual budget is about 1.3 million. Restrictions on the funds only allow me to spend a certain percentage of funds on our independent financial consultants - so a lot of the routine stuff falls to staff or volunteers who are not experts. They're just trying to follow rules.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Clarification
As I stated in a post somewhere on this page, sometime this morning -- it is not common but not unheard of for not-for-profit organizations to have a sizeable amount of cash on hand at the end of the fiscal year. Nor is it unusual for funds granted or donated to such an organization to be restricted in the use, etc. Sometimes the stipulations put on interest earned make grantor imposed reporting requirements not worth the amount of money. Sometimes its stipulated that any interest earned be returned to the grantor. Often, the amount of interest earned could reduce the amount of the grant/donation originally agreed upon. It's convoluted, but it's really how things are. I just don't know how to say that more plainly. It's worth a question to the organization, certainly. I doubt it was worth the money it took to hire a lawyer and attempt to file a suit. It cost the organization money, too. Money that could have gone towards its mission, instead of defending a frivolous lawsuit brought by an over-zealous attorney.
I have to say this, too. Many not-for-profits are organized by people who are passionate about a cause, and not necessarily expert in business, law and taxes. It takes a lot to run one, even one that isn't that big. I empathize. I might have handled things differently, but I certainly can see a path to that situation that is not sinister.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
and why doesn't someone call the SOS tomorrow and find out?
that would be better than trying to second guess the data provided by the SOS website.
We go from "No Paper Trail" to "Not enough paper trail".
I like to do my research and confirm something before posting it to the internet.
Voting Vendor Lacks Paper Trail
At no point did I say "no paper trail". They have been operating openly as Printelect for
26 years but the simple act of registering has eluded them.Maybe I should send this one to Les Merritt.
are you a friend of Les Merritt's?
If you prefer to ask the republican auditor about what the Secretary of State says, by all means.
Meanwhile, the records are posted to the SOS site and they would be my first guess on who to contact.
You aren't by chance friends with Les Merritt, are you?
He got into some rather nasty trouble for interfering with our voter rolls, by the way.
NCVoter, you seem pretty angry
Are you connected to Printelect? If not, I can't understand why you think it's great to have a company that hasn't filed forms in two years.
My husband had a non-profit for 10 years and if his forms were late, he got lots of nasty letters.
If you don't file your public documents on time, companies and candidates open themselves up to questions like "What are you trying to hide?" And "How can we trust you with an election when you can't even file simple forms on time?"
Are you trying to say the forms being so out-of-order is normal or is some kind of problem at the Secretary of State's end of things?
Again, I'm having trouble understanding why you are so defensive of this company.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Exactly.
If you miss a filing - of anything - they are on you like white on rice. I have to admit to having been on the receiving end of some of those letters. It's really not a bad thing - because there is some measure of a public trust when you're operating as a not-for-profit. [The official IRS designation is 501(c)(3)].
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
no, go to the SOS website and READ
If people throw out accusations about e-voting issues, and they are inaccurate, it hurts the creditability of ALL activists.
See my other post, . Look - at - the - SOS - website.
Accusations should be vetted, IMHO. Once its out on the internet, you can't take it back.
NO, I dont have any affiliations with any voting machine vendors, nor with any election officials, or any industry.
By the way, Diebold has a factory in North Carolina, do you have ties to them?
I take care of my elderly parent while doing this activism around that.
Unlike some in the e-voting activism field, I make not one dime.
Some are getting rich at this, and are actually making our elections worse by sabotaging the efforts to get paper in each state.
Once its out on the internet, you can't take it back.
I did not undertake this post lightly. The Printelect website has this statement:
The have been operating as Printelect since at least April 21, 2001.
Plenty of time to leave a paper trail, (unless it's buried somewhere in Gaston County in a ballot box.) *snark
But they did file forms....
...as recently as 2007.
And yes there are backups at the SOS office.
Joyce isn't being so defensive about the company. She just wonders where Greg Flynn's sudden interest in this vendor came from?
It's isn't the typical water-cooler conversation.
We aren't trusting Printelect with the election - we are trusting the county and state BOEs with the election.
Greg - if you really want to get pissed off about voting in NC, let's get you involved in trying to get Rush Holt's HR811 passed at the Federal level. You know that our NC Public Confidence in Elections Act (passed in 2005) is the reason why the Brennan Center rated NC #1in the country for ensuring accurate elections. HR811 is a federalized version of our tough state law.
Some of the very same people who were trying to stop our law in NC are trying to do the same thing with the Holt bill. There are many reasons why - but many of the vendors don't want to see tough Federal regulations for anything, Can you imagine federal regs mandating open-source and voter owned software? Must give Bill Gates the hebbie-jebbies!
Greg - your other blogs indicate that you live in Raleigh and are on the Democratic Meet up groups. Are you a Democrat? Many good Democrats worked hard to get the 2005 law passed, and we worked hard to get if amended to call for random audits in 2006. We also worked hard to get 100% paper ballots in Wake County. We continue to work hard to make sure that every eligible voter can register, know how to vote, and have their votes cast and counted. Come join us!
Sudden interest?
When would be a good time? When I find out about it or the day after the next election?
I usually become interested in something while turning over some other rocks and some pattern, connection or inconsistency catches my attention.
In this case I happened to be investigating a tip about a software company that might be connected to vote fraud. New Bern was mentioned as a location of one of the people associated with this. Printelect is the only election related company located in New Bern I have identified thus far. There is NO connection to Printelect that I found or that I am looking for.
However, in trying to eliminate Printelect from suspicion I discovered that it is one of at least four business identities used by this company. I have researched all four to the best of my abilities.
I think you will find that I am one of the people here who is not "pissed off". despite becoming the object of a lot of passionate criticism I have tried to remain focussed and objective.
I didn't focus on Printelect. It emerged because I could not document its existence. It is presented as a corporate entity which it is not. To the best of my knowledge Printelect has never filed relevant forms.
Telling me about Owen G Dunn filing is a red herring especially as those filings are patently deficient.
Burning energy on a smackdown of a legitimate question is not a particularly productive use of progressive time.
You were investigating a tip
You were investigating a tip about a software company that might be connected to vote fraud. Where - In NC?
What specific vote fraud you are alleging? Who is alleging the vote fraud in NC? Who gave you the tip - Bev Harris? A ES&S competitor? Or some other enemy of verified voting with a paper trail?
First you mention a software company - then you mention a person who might be connected to the vote fraud. Who is this person you feel is connected to the vote fraud? Are you alleging that they are affiliated with Owen G. Andrews or Printelect? You say you are not doing that - so it is good that you are clarifying this.
So what is wrong with a company using different names to do business under? Is there a law against that?
You say you cannot document the existence of Printelect. How hard have you looked? Have you physically gone to that county to look for those documents? I can tell you from experience that not every document is availabie on the Internet. And I am not sure what the best of your abilities are. If you only do research on the net - perhaps you might want to raise the bar on your investigative techniques.
Last year, i was involved in a political campaign. I did some research on a political candidate who claimed to have lived and registered to vote in Wake County when he turned 18 - he was in his 30s at the time. The county BOE website had nothing on this guy going back more than 2 or 3 years. The SBOE website had nothing ealier than that either. However - a visit to the Wake BOE headquarters building turned up that he in fact did register to vote at age 18. So you can't always claim that a document doesn't exist - and that a business is not in compliance with the law - if all you have done is not be able to find a document on a website.
He might in fact be a DBA in that county. Have you gone to the ROD office to physically search the file? Have you called them up to ask them to look? Sometimes counties don't always have the latest, greatest or simplest way to search for documents.
Did you go down to the SOS office and do a physical search for documents?
It could also be something as simple as a typo or an honest mistake. Sometimes creative types like copyrighters make mistakes and they are not caught by the higher ups. if so, perhaps it was a bit rash to be alleging in print or on a blog that Printelect was doing something fraudulent or might be associated with fraud?
Burning energy on a smackdown of a legitimate question is not a particularly productive use of progressive time. Believe me - I have burned energy on very productive smackdowns.
However, there might be more productive sources of information for your question other than posting them to an internet blog - especially when A). your posting made it seem that the vendor was engaging in fraud even if you say it was not your original intenition to do so; B) all but a few of the people who commented on your posting admit they don't know enough about the topic to answer your question; C) you might want to be careful about going public invesitigating tips from sources when all you have done is search a couple of databases that you assume are up to date.
Did you call up or e-mail Owen Andrews at Owen G Dunn/Printelect and tell him you found a mistake on his website? Did you call or e-mail the SBOE and ask them to investigate?
In general before I go public with something that I know is a legitimate question, I try and turn over lots of rocks. I don't rely on the Internet for everything. When I am trying to find out info about someone, sometimes you actually have to visit a government office - or even visit a research department of a local library - to find out about them. A good source of information about businesses and individuals is the Polk City Directory. They are on line, but that is a fee-paid service. You can find their directories and use them for free in most public libraries - they are an excellant source of information. Even they are not infalible - someone could be listed as having lived at an address even if they weren't there that year. It will only tell you who lives there - not who owns the property. And if you don't want to give the Polk people your information - you don't have to.
So once again - just because you can't find something - it doesn't mean it's not there. It just might mean you haven't looked hard enough.
Is there a law against that?
Yes, there is.
I'm obviously not Greg - so I can't speak to the amount of research he's done, on or off-line about this issues. I do know that he doesn't post pieces like this on a whim
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Thank you, voice of reason
I'm finding all this hostility toward Greg extremely annoying and have bitten my tongue a dozen times over the past two days. I applaud both you and him for your remarkable restraint and generosity in dealing with the various commenters.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
The State Auditor's Office
even in control of Les Merritt, tends to be more up to date than the Secretary of State's. My organization has filed paperwork changes a number of times with the SOS office and the info is still incorrect at their office.
And for what it's worth - I somehow strongly doubt that gregflynn is a friend of Les Merritt's. Though anything is possible, I suppose. Suggesting it on this particular website seems very close to an ad hominem attack. It's not effective at all.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
SOS
Perhaps you have forgotten my post Merrittocracy: The New Red Tape where you yourself wrote:
My reference to Les Merritt was snark.
I'm fairly familiar with SOS. I have also searched UCC filings. I am also aware that Owen G Dunn has current registration at SOS for Owen Andrews and Ed Turlington as lobbyists. I maintain my original position, that the paper trail for the entity "Printelect" is lacking.
I went to the SOS site again, shows the records and due dates
I went to the site again where it lists "Previous Annual Report Submissions:"
The page has several columns, listing the date of the report and the date the report is due. It shows that reports due for "2008" have been "accepted".
This is what it shows reported for "Owen G Dunn: and the due dates:
Now I am not a corporate law attorney, or any sort of attorney, but my first trek in investigating this mystery would be to contact the organization responsible for keeping the records, which is the SOS site.
As far as going to Les Merritt, I would only contact him as a last resort. Merritt showed that he did not know what the hell he was doing when he tried to screw with our voter rolls. (See "Why doesn't Republican State Auditor Les Merritt want people to vote? )
The SOS website says that their Corporate Division is responsible for these records
And I was there before
The "due dates" on that particular table are incorrect. They are sequential like the initial rows in a spreadsheet. They date does not properly correlate to the actual report listed when intermediate documents have been filed, bumping the fields down.
The document filed in 2007 should have been for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2006. Examining the document, which is listed under the heading of "Accepted" as "No", we can see that it is actually for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2005 which should have been filed last year.
let us know what the SOS advises
Otherwise, this is a waste of time.
This is something that should be verified before stating it as fact.
Then, if a crime has been committed, then do something.
SOS advises
See below, they advise filing an annual report for a fiscal year by March 15th of the following year.
Most of your comments refer to a filings by the Owen G Dunn Company that Printelect claims to have superseded.
If Printelect is simply an assumed name and not a corporate entity there should be a filing with the county Register of Deeds.
All of this could be taken care of with a day's worth of paperwork. There is no assertion of any crime or any unsubstantiated fact on my part. I take this extremely seriously. The integrity of the voting process is extremely important.
Greg - have you checked with the county ROD?
Have you checked to see if there is a listing for Printelect with the county ROD?
if yes, what did you find out?
If no, please tell us know you haven't done so, and let us know what you do find out when you check
Have you read my post?
..or just what people say about it?
Cumberland, Craven, Wake: 0
so you are saying that the SOS site is wrong
more reason for you to call and find out what the deal is.
splitting hairs
Sorry, misunderstood what "lacks paper trail" meant.
I thought that "lack" meant there was no paper trail.
I.e has no paper trail.
So "lacks paper trail" means something else.
Due Dates
let us know what SOS says, beating a dead horse
because even the SOS site says this in the FAQ section:
and when you get done with that, investigate the site you source
next stop, you should use your investigating skills on BBV.org since you found their site worthy of your linking.
Ask them what they did with almost a million bucks in that non interest bearing account?
Did a BOD member borrow it? Did the Treasurer know what happened with the money? It could have earned interest or been spent on real estate even, while it wasnt earning interest for the Corporation.
NCVoter
No amount of brow beating will deter me from speaking as objectively and honestly as I can about things that appear to me to be be worth speaking up about.
I choose to write about things that catch my attention and especially those things that have not caught the attention of anyone else. Since you have brought it to my attention, there appear to be plenty of people on the BVV case, which is not located in NC, my primary focus in this forum.
I understand the implications of some of my statements and how they might challenge what you have fought for thus far. That may make me choose my words more carefully but it does not dissuade me from writing them.
Just curious Greg....
...how did this happen to attract your attention anyway?
How did you happen to look up the name of the state supplier for the sole voting machine/equipment/supply vendor in NC? What got your curiousity up?
Re: curious
I explain this in my other comment below: Sudden Interest?
Greg is naturally curious
He's not one of those people who likes to sit around and accept the "trust us" mantra that many in government like to spoon feed the electorate.
What, would you have us do sit around and just wait to see if an election gets stolen?
Are we not ever supposed to question anything?
One indication that a company isn't capable of operating as expected is its inability to file appropriate paperwork with the state. With only ONE voting machine/equipment/supplier vendor in the state we have no checks and balances. They have a monopoly. We can't compare how companies x, y and z conduct business. Isn't one of the concerns of these electronic machines that the software can be tampered with? How much confidence will the electorate have in machines/equipment/supplies used in our elections if the company providing it is sloppy in its own paperwork?
As far as I'm concerned, any company operating in this particular industry should be conducting itself in a way that provides not even a hint of impropriety or sloppiness in its business affairs. This will help instill public confidence inthe electoral process.
You might want to wait until something bad happens. Greg wants to keep something bad from happening.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
You obviously don't live outside of this blog, do you?
I don't sit around trusting many people or things I am told. But I have learned not to blurt things out too soon - it's called "telegraphing your moves"
NC was rated as #1 in the nation for accuracy in counting votes by the Brennan Center. Are you alleging that Printelect not being incorporated might result in elections getting stolen?
If you want to keep elections from getting stolen - please to to ncvoter.net and help get HR811 passed so that we get federal election standards as tough as we have them in NC.
We didn't want one company in NC. But our law was a tough one - and many companies objected to it, as well as election directors and county executives. Is it better to have a tough law, or lower the bar to allow for more competition? Our law is tough and it makes us number one in election acuracy. More than one vendor would not mean we have checks and balances - it would mean competition. Our law is tough and we do have checks and balances. That is why the big boys are fighting HR811 tooth and nail - they know there is less profit to be made with a tougher law.
Question things - but ask the right question. The wrong question, or the right question asked the wrong way or the wrong time can do more harm than good.
Good luck getting any business or government agency to opperate with no mistakes at all. That is why we have audit processes in elections. The vendor does nothing but sell equipment and supplies - they don't count the votes. The SBOE checks all the equipment, software, and printed ballots for compliance with the law. So your claim that we shouldn't trust Printelect should also hold true if you visit their headquarters and there is no toilet paper in the bathrooms, or they haven't been cleaned in a while?
How much confidence can I have in anyone who posts about things they know nothing about - and asks the wrong questions or engages in sloppy investigatory techniques?
Hey - from the way things look to me - I could say that this whole thread APPEARS to be an attack on our great law. or even some of the people who supported it in the past or who are trying to get verified voting nationwide. There are people out there who do stuff like that.
And sometimes people on the blogs pass themselves off as something they are not. So I take everything i read on the blogs with a grain of salt.
NCVoter got an award from the NC ACLU for her work for voting integrity. When you get an award from the ACLU, you let me know.
I got nominated to the Wake BOE - one of three people for two slots - by the Wake Democratic party for my work on voting integrity. My NC State House member told a meeting of the Wake Progressives that I probably know more about election integrity and verified voting than he does.
It doesn't mean you can't ask questions - I would hope that you would ask better questions in a public forum, or not jump down the throat of someone who know what they are talking about when they give you better and more correct information.
I ask embarassing questions of people all the time - but I always make sure that I know what the f*ck I am talking about before I ask that question. I wouldn't have asked the question about Printelect's busines status without asking and answering many questions of my own first. And when you raise issues of trust in elections because of sloppy paperwork on the part of a dealer, you open yourself up to a lot of questions.
Do you ever buy Mattel toys for your kids? There is lead paint in some of them. Does buying their toys mean that you are an un-carring parent - even if the toys you buy don't have lead in them? Or you had no way ot knowing?
So when you can do that, you can have the creds to ask me if I want to wait for something bad to happen.
Sometimes little tips drop out of the sky into the hands of people who the tipsters know will blurt it out without thinking - or doing a full investigation. Yes I know people work for a living and can't just get in their car and drive across the state to investigate something in person. But that is one of the biggest complaints I have against the blogs - the standards are too low. Standards for investigative print journalism are much higher. There is a trade off - there aren't enough investigative print journalists out there, and those that are there are employees of big media chains these days. So they don't do enough hard hitting stories anymore. We could hardly get the N&O in Raleigh to even cover verified voting - unless machines blew up or some Diebold employee was caught having sex on a lipe of ballots.
And sometimes tipsters have motives - like trying to raise a phantom issue in the hopes of creating the appearance of something not being right.
You come by your screen name honestly
But if you really want to nail it, consider changing it to "Condescending and Insulting Progressive Pain in the Ass."
You may have significant contributions under your belt, but you have no idea who you're talking to here. None. And to their credit, these folks aren't going to write back with a litany of their accomplishments and community involvement.
I'm grateful to all the work you've done, I sincerely am. But your manner of engagement leaves much to be desired.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Too Wordy A.
How about just "Ass"
Insulting Betsy Muse for not doing enough in the real world is like insulting you for not raising enough money for Democrats.
It's too bad, this guy probably has some redeeming personality traits and qualities in real life, but online he has chosen to leave his manners at the door and to be a jerk.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Greg was correct in probing this,
and I'll tell you why—any business entity who is awarded a government contract that is twice as high as their competition needs to be scrutinized, to make sure they didn't grease somebody's palms along the way.
Also, a company that's been in business for over a hundred years that decides to assume a new name makes me wonder why. Do they need a few degrees of separation to conceal a conflict of interest?
And more often than not, if something doesn't seem right it's because it isn't right.
Tipsters may or may not have motives
Everyone has motives. Your persistence in using ad hominem attacks against people who take even slightly different view points than you makes me quite suspicious of yours.
You have no idea what anyone's life is like unless you know them in person. This is the type of thing I'm talking about - why should anyone give any credence to what you say when you haven't given us sources for the claims you've made, and you've spent a lot of time making personal attacks.
You have a problem with Greg's investigative techniques. We've got that.Not everyone here shares your opinion - imagine that. I suspect that if you put 4 of us in a room together, we'd come out with 5 view points.
I'm challenging you to post a diary about your work, the positive effect it has had (in your opinion), and where you're going from there. Hell, I'll even front page it if it isn't full of personal vendetta.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
NCVoter
You really seem to be trying to deflect attention away from Printelect and to a non-related not-for-profit issue. No matter what the issues this 501(c)(3) has with its financials, it's got nothing to do with the company originally referenced by gregflynn. The issue at hand is this: Does the sole vendor of election products in the state of NC have its financial and legal house in order? I think it's a fair question. In fact, I think it's a very good question, since they are affecting all of us who count ourselves NC voters.
You seem to be the one with the ax to grind on BBV.org. Why don't you look into it? Go for it. Make sure you spend a lot of time reading up on the reporting requirements of both the Feds and Washington State before you point fingers.
I'm sure you can find out all of that information by contacting the Washington secretary of state's office or state auditor's office, since you are so concerned about it. Or, you know, by contacting blackboxvoting.org. directly. They're not even organized in NC, and have little to do with this discussion, other than the fact that Greg referenced them in his post, and you followed that hare all the way down the rabbit hole.
I sincerely doubt that a BOD member borrowed it. The Treasurer probably did know what happened with the money - the Treasurer generally must sign all kinds of reports. Since Sarbanes-Oxley, there's very little that can go on truly behind closed doors at a not-for-profit.
And again, for the record, the 501(c)(3) of which I am the Executive Director has most of its operating funds in a non-interest bearing account because this is a requirement of many of the donors and grants with whom we work. I don't care what a nameless attorney somewhere said - it's not that unusual in the world of not-for-profit. You must understand that the funds left as assets at the end of a fiscal year are not considered "profit", they are to be reinvested into the corporation, not divided among stockholders as would happen with a for-profit corporation. If you have any other questions about how not-for-profits operate, I refer you to the NC Center for Non-profits. Of course, that's only going to give you requirements for NC, not WA. They could be wildly different.
Now - tell me again what this has to do with Printelect?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Thank you, Ms. Cloud.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
:) You're welcome, Mr. Protzman
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Very nice catch, Greg
The last person you and I found hadn't filed proper forms with the SoS's office was Ted Sampley and we've seen how skanky his business dealings are.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Whew!
I got an email from NC Voter last night and didn't have time to look into it . . . so I simply posted my note at the top of this entry. In reading the entire thread this morning, it's seems to me that Greg's criticism of the company's paperwork filings is perfectly appropriate.
Companies cut corners on stuff like this all the time. Some get caught, most probably don't. But when that company has a giant role in the integrity of our voting system, I suggest the appropriate standard for compliance would be: impeccable. Which is clearly not the case with this corporation.
(I have no idea who NC Voter is . . . I was just doing what I thought was right given the subject matter. But I do know who Greg Flynn is - and I trust him without hesitation. I especially admire his restraint and civility in a discussion where I would certainly have gone ballistic 20 comments ago.)
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
NC Voter, your words and your tone are more aggressive
than the situation warrants.
As I said before, it seems like you are out-of-proportion angry about all of this. If you are just defending your activism, it doesn't make sense that you are so defensive of this company.
I can admire what the Red Cross does, for example. But when they misappropriate funds, I can go after them with all I've got. It doesn't negate that I want the work that they do to get done.
Greg's post still stands up as far as I can tell. And all along you have been so angry at him, it still seems to me that there's something you're not telling us about all of this.
Or you have a history with Greg?
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
PrintElect & NC Voter
I just had this topic sent to me and am concerned about the tone and direction it has taken.
Before I comment on this article and the subsequent remarks let me establish my bona fides:
My name is David Allen and I run a publishing company. I am also a computer systems engineer with 20+ experience. I got involved in the e-voting issue when I agree to publish Bev Harris' "Black Box Voting" and to act as her technical consultant (later as a contributor to the book). I was the person who first downloaded Diebold's internal e-mails from an insider at DES, sat in on a secret conference call between BBV vendors and blogged about it an hour after the meeting was over.
After Ms. Harris flipped out and began accusing everyone in sight (myself included) of being secretly in the pay of Diebold/ES&S/Sequoia and other skulduggery, I retired from the issue in disgust. I later rejoined the fight at the urging of Joyce McCloy (of NC Voter) and served on the NC Joint Select Committee on E-Voting, which drafted one of the toughest laws in the nation, a law which Diebold quit the state rather than comply with.
My involvement in this issue can be checked with a phone call to Sen. Ellie Kinnaird or Rep. Verla Insko, or Gary Bartlett at the NC Board of Elections.
That established, I would like to address the questions brought up about PrintElect. In the course of the committee hearings I met with Owen and spoke with him on several occasions. I found him to be a sincere and above board fellow. I have worked with PrintElect in Taylorsville during an election as a tech, so I could observe the operation of ES&S OpScan system "live" rather than as a demo (Disclosure: I was paid a fee for my day's service as a tech, and I donated the fee to the MS Society so to avoid any questions as to my objectivity).
I am aware of no underhanded actions by Owen or his company. And am VERY surprised that when you came up with the questions you state in your posting that you didn't simply call the man up and ask him about it. Even though bloggers are not journalists (I like to think we are better), I feel we are still compelled to take simple steps such as giving the other side an opportunity to explain themselves before posting accusations of impropriety. A simple phone call probably would have cleared the matter up.
Now, to address some of the remarks toward NC Voter, I would chide her for getting a tad heated in her repsonses, but ask your to forebear since she (and I, to be quite honest) can get a bit techy when we find ourselves being questioned as to our motives.
I have no love for BBV supporters and the companies that peddle their wares, but I don't like to see ANYONE'S integrity impugned without HARD evidence of wrong-doing. PrintElect is not ES&S, it is a rep for ES&S and sells their hardware. Since NC law now only permits VVPB and places considerable oversight on election equipment vendors, I am very confident that NC elections have been on the "up and up".
Am I defending PrintElect and Owen? Why, yes I am. I have seen NO evidence of any unethical behavior and am sure that if you address your concerns to him, he will answer your questions to your satisfaction.
Back to Joyce's (and my) irritation over questions of our own loyalties, you have to understand that it begins to grate on your nerves to have folks who don't know you, question your motives, especially when you have spent a not inconsiderable amount of time and money fighting the good fight on behalf of fair and honest elections.
There are elements to the whole question of e-voting that still needs to be addressed in NC and nationally, but PrintElect isn't one of them. Anyone looking for a villain in dire need of a good blistering need look no further than my own county of Guilford and champion of paperless voting, George Gilbert, who, almost two years later, is still trying to undo the law passed in 2005.
I hope this pours oil on these troubled waters and provides some needed context for the discussion.
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
Thanks for not pouring gasoline
I appreciate the comments.
I don't think the original post was really questioning motives at all . . . certainly not the motives of you or NC Voter, who none of us actually knows. It was questioning whether a company crossed its t's and dotted its i's . . . which it apparently didn't.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
I agree
The original post wasn't questioning my motives or NC Voter's just Owen and PrintElect.
Later down in the comments, things were starting to get heated. No one has questioned my motives here, I simply sought to explain why NC Voter was getting a bit snippy and explained that I have been in her shoes.
That said, it may be possible that PrintElect has neglected to file some form, or that the form has gone missing, or that the records are not up to date. I simply wished to state that it has not been my experience that PrintElect is, to use the British phrase, "bent".
The company in question is not a big souless corp, but an NC-based, family run business. As such, I can sympathize about all the forms that must be filled out and filed to comply with the myriad of laws involved.
The tone of the original post painted a dark picture with questions that could have been answered if the poster had called the company.
Just my two cents...
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
I certainly understand how things get heated
but I still don't understand why the focus suddenly switched from PrintElect to BBV.org. I've gone back and read the entire thread, and I still don't see why that was such a flash point for anyone. Perhaps that can be explained.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
In the original post
there was a link to BBV.org, which is what set off the discussion. The site in question is Bev Harris' and she has serious credibility problems these days.
Ms. Harris is especially criticized for her postings to FreeRepublic trashing other activists and her many outrageous claims. She was banned from DemocraticUnderground.com for making legal threats against posters and the site's admins, and has since curried favor from sites like FR.
Hope that explains the tussle.
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
Thanks!
Knowing the background helps me understand the reaction.
Damn right it will. :)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Thanks for coming by, Kosh
And for being candid and meticulous.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Read my post
Much of your criticism is a response to what others have claimed that I have said or implied.
My only purpose in linking to a document on the BVV site was to allow others to read Printelect's reasonable explanation which was not available anywhere else publicly.
I choose to have this conversation in public. There are so many ironies I don't know where to begin
Others have make their own implications
well asking a question that raises suspiscions and then claiming that Printelect's explanation was reasonable makes about as much sense as Les Merrit asking the State Senate to hold up the Same Day Registration law, then claiming in a public hearing that it's a good law that he has no problems with.
You did make a choice to have this conversation in public. Perhaps knowing that there are people here who have more expertise in the area - you could ask them first next time you get a tip. Or at least question the tipster's motives.
By the way
If you type "greg flynn raleigh nc" into the Google machine, you'll get the phone number you said you were having such a hard time finding.
Thanks for the call.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Which Greg Flynn would I find?
How could I be sure that the Greg Flynn listed on google is the same Greg Flynn who posts here?
Some people live no where else but the Internet. I thought that someone who was as prolific a blogger might have interfaced with people in real life as well as on the Internet.
I did look up Greg or Gregory for both first and middle names, and Flynn as the last name, on the Wake and the SBOE voter listings. There was no Greg first or middle Flynn last listed on the Wake or SBOE voter search listings. There was one Gregory first Flynn last on both the Wake and SBOE sites - but that person is listed as a Republican.
Wondering why such a prolific blogger is not listed as a voter in Wake County under that name, where he claims to live, I did not feel it would be prudent to just go around and google him and call every number that came up unless I had more information to go on.
I made two calls to people who I know in Raleigh and Wake County who had some sort of connection with Greg on their blogs, and no one had his phone number. I called Angelico - who had a very easy phone number to find, thank you - and even he (you) didn't have his phone number.
So - Greg is assumed by all to be a good Democrat living in Wake County, yet there is no listing for a Democratic voter named "Greg Flynn" or "Gregory Flynn" listed as living in Wake County. Could it be that more information than what was available on the Internet was needed to get a phone number for the OP?
Which is my point about Printelect entirely. I am not saying that Greg Flynn is a Republican - just that sometimes all the information isn't available on the Internet. I feel that more information was needed on the topic as was posted by the OP before asking the question which obviously sucked in so many passionate people into the debate.
Time that could be better spent doing other things - like actually getting voters registered, getting new laws passed, dealing with the enemies of verified voting. You know - living life in someplace other than the blogosphere. Taking care of real life and death problems, etc.
And who are you?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Off the bloggosphere....
...I lead an exciting life at times. I go out and meet friends for beer, go to political functions, stand outside my precinct and greet voters, canvass my precinct, etc.
If you wanted to reach out and ask anyone in the Wake Democratic party who the Progressive PitBull is, they can tell you who I am. They can even tell you what my favorite beer is. And Wake Progressive Democrats know who I am - I am the guy who buys the beer for our potluck meetings. Which are every 3rd Wednesday at Goodwin House (aka State Democratic Party HQ) in Raleigh.
If you ask the many people who have met me and worked with me in the political trenches, they will tell you I am for real and larger (and louder) than life. ;-)
If you are a Democrat, come on down and meet some real people and stuff some envelopes for the candidates.
Do you really think that we don't do that?
How fucking dare you.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
yeah, sincerely, fuck you.
There isn't a person on here who hasn't gone door to door for the party or a candidate, handled the phone lines, sat through precinct, county, district, and state meetings, and more.
You're a fuckin' twit, quit pissing in my house and go do something, like play in traffic at night wearing dark clothes..
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Intimidation doesn't work too well
You emailed me yesterday having gotten my email address from a mutual friend who does not know my phone number and is the only person I know who calls me a "prolific blogger". You coyly gave me your number and asked me to call you. You obviously knew who I was yesterday. I was unable to call last night (taking care of real life) and woke up to your vitriol.
You called me at my work around noon. I asked you to call me at home, then said I would call you at home as I had your number (there is no good time to call me at home). Yet you proceeded to post this nonsense a few hours later. You obviously knew who I was yesterday and again today. I am not responsible for the limitations of your research skills or your inability to read what I write or listen to what I have to say.
You could even have contacted me initially through the BlueNC contact form or the private message feature instead of constructing a conspiracy theory. At this point I have no interest in discussing anything with you by phone or by email as your purpose appears to be harassment rather than communication. There's a difference between winning over people and running over them.
Again, why all this venom?
Something is going on here. There is so much anger being spewed at this post and the author, Greg. Since when do people get so upset about such a straightforward argument? I've never seen such ugliness over such documented research. It reminds me of all the McHenry and Taylor supporters' lame attempts to discredit my work. Only, in this case, it makes no sense.
I think we need again to consider why there is so much of a mean spirit being directed at this post and Greg.
And, FYI, I've done my share of phone banking and door-to-door and grunt work as anyone else. And like, lcloud says, so have most of the people at this site. (AND donated more money and time than what most would consider reasonable.)
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Being the peacemaker
that I am (I really am one, you can look it up in the, um...Peacemaker's...Quarterly...Gazette :) ), I have a hunch that many of the folks who have been pushing for verifiable (paper trail) voting have spent quite some time researching and struggling to bring about change, and are especially sensitive to criticism and/or suspicion about a system they've come to accept as a good compromise between non-verifiable digital processing and old-fashioned hand-counted paper ballots.
If this is where the emotion comes from (and I think it is), I hope they can understand the need to verify that drove them is the same need to verify that drives people like Greg to not only investigate, but to inspire others here (at BlueNC) to help him ferret out the truth.
Such truths as: in 2005 (after supposedly becoming Printelect), Owen G. Dunn paid over $20,000 to lobbyists. It's probably nothing out of the ordinary, as there are some 650 entities that paid under $70,000 to N.C lobbyists that year, but I didn't see Printelect on the list:
http://www.democracy-nc.org/moneyresearch/2007/LobbyPrincipal.pdf
You know what? When people question something I believe in and have spent time working with, it pisses me off, too. But that's what Democrats do, right? We question things, and to hell with the establishment and having "faith" in the system. But even when we become the "establishment", and are all wrapped up in the system, we still need to embrace the questioners.
That is all. For now. :)
Thanks peacemaker dude
That makes me less suspicious and more patient with the whole thing. It still seems weird but I get passionate, too, so maybe it's not so weird.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Sadly
Once people get their knickers in a twist, it can get damned nasty.
If the parties involved would agree to meet at some neutral venue, have a burger and beverage, then simpy talk thinks out with the advantages of faces and body language, the matter would be resolved in short order (most of the time).
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
Just stopping in to see what all the fuss is about.
PPB, what gives? Other than this thread, your last post here under this name was more than 33 weeks ago. And now you're a frothing ranting mess over alleged aspersions on a voting tech company? There must be some subtext here I'm missing that explains this sudden interest.
I don't mean to comment on the quality of Greg's reporting here — I've stuck mainly to the comments — but he typically stands head and shoulder above the typical blogvillian in this regard. I will point out, though, that this is how stuff gets done: someone gets a lead, chases it a bit, shares what they know and gets community input. You yourself provided some input in this case, and bully for you. You also brought a lot of venom, though, and I'm kind of curious as to why.
surely you exagerate
you bloggospherians need to get a life off line. Surely you can't really call this a frothing mess.
You know, people live lives outside of the bloggosphere. They go down to the General Assembly, they attend meetings, they meet with politicians, they get laws passed.
They go to a law library, clerk of court, Register of Deeds, SOS office, etc - and they actually look at paper or microfilm to find things out - because they realize that there is more to life - and information - than what is on the Internet.
Now that is not to say that people who only do things on the bloggosphere are living under a rock. They do other things as well.
But based on what I do in real life, I saw this posting as possibly the beginning of an attack on our public confidence in elections law. There are people who don't like the state law and want to get rid of it. There are people who don't want to see us have tough federal standards either.
So when someone questions the integrity of the vendor and cites BBV as a source based on a "tip" I get concerned. BBV and many other bloggers who are attacking HR811 and the whole paper ballot/verified voting movement have many reasons for doing so. And I know how some of these enemies of verified voting do things - they don't do them directly - they get others to do it for them. Sort of like astroturf groups. The seeds of doubt get planted and a well-funded group can drive a wedge through what was once popular support for paper ballots.
I see it happening now - but I am not saying that it is actually happening here on this site. I just am wondering what is happening.
Oh No Shit Sherlock.
Do they drive cars and everything? Do they work for a living? Do you think maybe you might be rushing to judgment here?
The people on this interactive site do more than sit and post. Without even trying I can come up with regular bloggers here who are also County Party officers (myself included.) There are campaign workers, there are Young Democrat activists, precinct leaders, GOTV activists. The people who frequent this blog raise money for candidates, for progressive cause. Many of us are working hard to bring our communities into the 20th century, let alone the 21st when it comes to communication.
Astroturf? Is that what you think this is? And it sure as hell sounds like you think it's happening on this site.
You haven't spent enough time here to know. And as for well-funded - hah. That's not BlueNC. I don't think the site is perfect, and spirited discussion is really what this is created for.
You are no longer worth the time to read or respond to. Until you post your own story instead of tearing apart someone else on personal levels, I am so fucking done with you.
This is me, shaking the dust from my feet.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
No - I did not say this was astroturf
And people who didn't get involved with the passage of the bill, or who can't take the time to check out a few missing details shouldn't be posting supposedly "innocent" questions from anonymous tips.
And now you know why I don't spend much time on the blogs.....
No, for the record
This site is NOT an astroturf site, IMHO.
Nor do I view the anti-HR811 folks with a jaundiced eye. I do see many of them as misguided or ill-informed, but I have seen no evidence on anything more sinister.
That said, there is the occasional blogger-activist, who does not understand that getting laws passed and reforming politicians cannot be done simply from a keyboard. You actually have to go out and get in the mud with the rest of the public officials.
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
There are mud on the shoes on most of the folks here, David.
If any of you spent enough time here to know that, instead of coming in to attack, you would know that. Instead, comments continue to be made referring to other sites and how awful they are, "bloggers need to get a life outside of the bloggosphere (sic)", etc. Way to win friends and influence people.
I am so sick of the personal attacks made by Joyce McCloy and Progressive PItbull (who takes pride in not identifying himself but inviting us to meetings where he provides beer, big fucking deal), that I no longer care what they say or do. They could be the best thing to happen to the NCDP and voting laws since sliced bread and I wouldn't give a damn. If I get a chance; if they're ever actually at an event instead of hiding behind keyboards, I will tell them that to their faces.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Got it backwards
Actually, people get away with a lot of conduct on blogs that wouldn't fly in real life, and I think you've benefited from (and quite tested the limits of) that additional leeway on this thread.
A suggestion: take a few minutes to read back through this thread. Leaving aside the substantive content of the comments, consider how the reactions you're getting might indicate a violation of community standards. You may be one who simply likes getting a reaction, positive or negative, but if you have the kind of successful off-line life that you say you do, you've probably developed a more nuanced approach to interpersonal communication.
I think that if you are able to cut back on the personal attacks (explicit and implied) and focus on clearly presenting your concerns and ideas, you'll find a much warmer reception and possibly a few allies.
And don't call me Shirley.
I <3 Lance
And I am happy to consider your comment the final word in this sordid thread.
Except for this final word:
:)
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Dude
I know you, and you know me.
This is advocacy. So is knocking on doors. I've done tons of both. You have made some valid points here, as you usually do. But you have also managed to piss people off with your attitude - again, as you usually do.
Just aclm down. We're all supposed to be on the same side.
"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
Reading through Greg's posts
I would agree he does a fine and commendable job. In this post there has been a regrettable omission.
A simple phone call would have got his questions answered.
Just my observation.
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
You are certainly welcome to have such a conversation in public
But such conversation have responsibilities attached.
If you are going to raise questions which insinuate wrongdoing, then you have an ethical responsibility to contact the persons in question and put your questions to them first.
These are not elected officials, they are citizens who run a business, and as such libel and slander laws apply.
And no, that is not a threat, simply an observation. Since I am a publisher, I am VERY cognizant of such distinctions, which is why I mention it.
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
Greg Flynn is one of the the most reliable bloggers out there
For real, Greg Flynn is one of the the most reliable bloggers out there. I imagine the gadfly holds closer to journalistic standards than a lot of journalists.
- - - - -
Learn More about Mr. Leslie Merritt, Toady Extraordinaire
NCDP Photos
- - - - -
http://twitter.com/Jerimee
Now don't set the standards
that low.
I like to think that we bloggers set a higher standard than traditional reporters.
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
Tempest in a teapot
I know personally Joyce and David to be true blue and I respect you all on BlueNC as well. Sorry I've got a possible tornado bearing down, more later.
tHave you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name
Progressives are the true conservatives.
Stay safe.
n/t
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Thanks, A.
Danger has passed but there was a touchdown near Thomasville and a funnel cloud spotted in northern Guilford Co.
What I wanted to say is, the voting issues really seem to touch people in the sore spots. I remember the last post on voting issues did something similar. Such passion.
It makes me feel better knowing that there are individuals who care so deeply about these issues and isn't this one really about the people needing to take back their elections? Why do we need to outsource any of our ballot printing, our equipment, our election support staff. etc.? North Carolina could do the job. I know it!
Have you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name
Progressives are the true conservatives.
counties don't have to "outsource" ballot printing-see law
*We don't have to outsource any of our ballot printing.* Counties can purchase the ballots from the ES&S rep, or they can obtain their ballots from any printer that meets standards as set by the State Board of Elections. In fact, they could set up their own print shop, if they wanted to.
The language requiring ballots has been been updated this year:in SL 2007-0391
The ballots must be very precisely printed, if they are off just a little bit, they might not be counted by the machines.
Some election directors I have talked with prefer to use ES&S for their ballot printing because they don't have a vendor that can print the ballots up to standard. Other counties, especially large ones - often have local printers who have been printing ballots for years and can meet the standards.
It is likely that counties don't go into the printing business themselves because of the costs and the need for expertise. Similar to county govts using local vendors for some printing needs.
Computer scientists recommended using the vendor for at least one or two elections since the equipment was new, so that if there were any problems the vendor would have to accept the responsibility.
Some counties have qualified local printers. My county got a new election director when the other one quit (because our BOE wouldn't approve Diebold as a vendor). The new guy, Rob Coffman is from Michigan and had ES&S up there. He has contacts with a printer who produces ES&S ballots suitable for our M100s at a more affordable rate. Cherie Poucher in Wake County also has a local printer. The ballots we use now are "shade in the circle" and require more precise printing than the former "connect the arrows". There are advantages to shading in the circle - voters are familiar with that from taking multiple choice tests in junior high.
Now that we have run a few elections, counties will probably do what they did pre-2006. Some will buy from ES&S, some will use local printers.
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
Hope your day was uneventful and tornado free.
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
I agree that there is unexplained venom here
And I agree with Anglico's comment:
I don't think Greg needs my defense or to recite his biography. His tone on this thread and the tone of all of the other commenters speaks for all of them.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
why I commended my BOE for not choosing Diebold(hint my lawsuit)
I commended my BOE for not buying Diebold. This was a tough fight for them because the Elections Director wanted Diebold and also had lined up the County Commissioners on her side.
The Forsyth County Election Director - Kathy Cooper quit (or retired) because our BOE refused to buy Diebold.
SInce Diebold tried to gut our law, stating that they couldn't meet its requirements, we had a county by county effort to block them from getting any business. Diebold even extended an offer to our state to re-write our law on their way out!
We didn't like Diebold because: Diebold went to court to gut major sections of our Public Confidence in Elections Law, and I had court action against them with Electronic Frontier Foundation and local atty Donald Beskind representing me.
We had activists all over the state fighting to keep the conniving Diebold out of each county.
Even the Warren County NC GOP chair urged the local BOE against buying Diebold. Cited improper certification, questioned ties of SBOE members to Diebold. See "Dont Buy Diebold"
I'm glad you fought Diebold.
I don't think anyone here wants a potentially corrupt voting system. That's why we want to hold Printelect to high standards. Just because we don't want Diebold doesn't mean we should unquestioningly accept any other vendor.
An admin needs to close an italics tag.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
It seems simple doesn't it?
Italics fixed.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
and we should hold bloggers to high standards too
that means doing due dilligence before "holding" someone to high standards.
A good investigative journalist doesnt speculate they investigate. They call the parties involved and ask questions and give them a chance to answer.
Even bloggers should try to be responsible.
We have seen the damage that has been done to the e-voting movement by people who don't use due dilligence.
I would never have beat Diebold if I failed in my due dilligence.
Thanks for the ethics advice,
but it works both ways. Inciting followers to go to specific sites/blogs to forward your viewpoint is a form of spamming, and to then scold the targeted bloggers for irresponsibility is hubris and blatant hypocrisy:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4676
You know what? I tried to throw a little water on this fire in an earlier comment, but I'm getting really fucking tired of the sanctimonious and self-righteous attitude that you and some others have been exhibiting here. This blog is about a North Carolina company who is selling machines and the printed ballots to go along with them, and their target market is taxpayers.
We're trying to find out more about this company, because we know from experience that contracts are often awarded without due diligence being performed.
an action alert equal to the Blogger Brad Blog
It is not ethical to encourage people to rebut a major effort to kill federal legislation to require voter verified paper ballots for all 50 states.
Are you telling me that "for profit" Brad Blog has the right to encourge people to fax/emal/write their congressmen to kill paper ballots, but I don't have the right to encourage people to show that not everyone agrees with him by posting to his blog?
That isn't spam - Brad deleteds comments all the time if he doesn't like them or doesn't agree with them.
In fact, he tracks the IP addresses of any who visit his website.
Same as Bev Harris does.
Everything I said in my "action alert" which is what it was, is true, and was ethical.
After working for federal legislation for 4 years, knowing people in the paperless states, I consider it unethical for one blogger to have the bully pulpit.
BradBlog calls himself a journalist, so people should tell him that they are the opposing view and don't agree.
But that isnt the issue here, the issue is that bloggers should do due dilligence.
I disagree.
The issue is that PrintElect apparently doesn't have all of it's shit together. You don't think Greg did "due diligence". It appears to me that he did. So we disagree. Oh well - free country.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
No, the issue is Printelect.
Amid all the insinuations about blog ethics, being part of a plot to hurt voters, being too lazy to check facts, having connections with Diebold, blah blah blah, we still can't find Printelect on state-wide government filings. Found Owen G. Dunn listed, including a 2005 lobbyists report, but not Printelect. The company who is the exclusive supplier/representative of the (now) only remaining authorized voting machine in the state, who stands to bring in millions of taxpayer dollars.
And you and your pals have scolded people here for not turning over every little rock in each county to discover the missing paperwork. Thanks.
"Even though bloggers are not journalists.. A simple phone call"
My "pals'" hard work is why people in NC don't have to vote on paperless machines any more. It is also why, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, NC has one of the best election audits in the country as well. This work took them away from their jobs and family, and cost out of their own pocket.
Kosh, or David Allen advised:
A simple phone call. Its not too late to do that.
Audits
For the record, what the Brennan Center actually said was:
and
yes, and that puts us way ahead of the rest of the country
And because I linked to that source, you were able to read the entire article.
I helped get that audit language written, and I also have written about the audits.
And you can't audit the election until "post-election".
If the poster did not pose the question to the company first
then he didn't pass the due diligence test. Sorry, but that is the way it is.
It is easy to paint this as the little guy versus a soulless corporation, and wash our hands. But, I know the PERSON behind the company, and have found him to be honest. To paint him otherwise by innuendo based on an incorrect assumption is not fair.
I am willing to sit down with anyone face-to-face and discuss/debate this issue. Constant back and forth posting once folks have got their back up solves nothing.
We do have real issues to deal with in NC, but this is just not one of them. Focusing on purported wrong doing where none actually exists wastes our time and resources.
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
And the only point I a have suggested
Is that the questions should have be posed to Owen first. Then, if his answers were found lacking, one could have a discussion as to why.
Instead, the tone of the post was to cast suspicion on the company. Again, I have met the people who run the company and found them to be nice folks who take their responsibilities seriously. Just because they run a business that sells voting machines doesn't make them corrupt.
It seems to me that the gist of this post was that PrintElect wasn't registered with the SoS. Reasonable point, and one that could have been cleared up in 5 minutes. PrintElect is a DBA ("doing business as") name, and not the corporate name registered with the SoS. There is nothing dodgy about this, it is a common business many companies use.
That would seem to explain the discrepancy as "non-sinister".
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
Our law sets the standards for "accepting" the vendors
We never have been a fan of any vendor.
We wrote our law to set stiff requirements that vendors MUST meet, and consequences if they don't.
Many states do not have such requirements and civil and criminal penalties for vendors, and that is why they have so many problems.
No, its never been about accepting any vendor, its been about the LAW.
I don't know anyone who would "unquestioningly accept any other vendor. "
The vendors had to meet the requirements of the law in order to do business here in NC.
HAVE YOU READ THE LAW?
Have you provided a link to the law?
It is customary in this community that when we're referencing something with which most readers will not be intimately acquainted that at least one link should be provided so that folks can read it on their own, rather than taking your word for it. Speaking for myself, I have no reason to take your word for anything. Show me the link, quote the citations. Those are not higher standards than we ask of anyone else here.
I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm saying that you didn't (and don't) present your point of view in an effective manner.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
intro & links to NC election law
I did link to the law in a few of my comments, but maybe people missed them.
The point of my question was - have people read the law or are they just going by what they heard?
David Allen gave his bonafides, and I have mine too.
I have been interviewed by state and other media about the law and the battle to protect our law in NC.I have worked on this issue full time for 4 years and was the plaintiff in cases to defend our law. I launched the NC Coalition for Verified Voting in January 2004. I have the website www.ncvoter.net.
WIthout David Allen, the part of the law that drove Diebold out wouldn't have been written. Without Progressive Pitbull, Wake County would be voting on touch-screens. Without our law, many more of us would be voting on paperless machines.
NC Election Law:
The legal code regarding ballot printing says that counties can choose their own printers. ( I posted this in another comment but will do it again) is in S.L. 2007-391 under SECTION 24.(a)
The comment "our ballot printing is outsourced" Is something often said on in the blogosphere, and has been discussed as a national issue. Our law clarifies that counties have a choice. Open source code voting systems are a great future goal, but in the meanwhile, audits and having something to audit are key to election integrity.
There are over 600 pages of election law for North Carolina, so it takes awhile to absorb it.
probably the son
its funny that owen g dunn turned into owen dunn andrews but not that strange, probably their related.
for example owen dunn andrews could be the grandson of owen g dunn. his daughter maybe married someone named andrews an d named her son after her father.
owen dunn andrews is the president of the company on this report here http://printelect.com/downloads/Fall_2005_Newsletter.pdf
correction for "vendor lacks paper trail"
The OP says:
Its probably confusing for someone who wasn't closely involved in all of the work that went into getting our law introduced, passed and then defended after the fact.
On December 1, 2005 the State Board of Elections certified 3 vendors:
Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia(conditionally) even though Diebold said they couldn't meet the source code requirements.
This is even after Diebold got a TRO to gut our law, and after EFF represented me in Wake Superior Court and got the TRO revoked.
The SBOE argued that they had performed the required source code exam, as the law allowed them to designate an entity to do if for them. They claimed the independent testing lab's exam of the vendors to suffice as the review.
EFF represented me again when I filed suit against the SBOE and the State IT dept for approving the three vendors without source code review.
The court ruled in favor of the State Board of Elections.
Then,
We have our own idea as to why Diebold quit the bid in North Carolina, a state where they have a factory that makes the voting machines:
So Diebold withdrew rather than try to meet the standards of the law. Sequoia withdrew because they were having trouble getting their machines certified to the most current federal certification guidelines, and that was the major stumbling block for them. At that time, vendors were in a sort of "arms race" trying to get federally certified as many states require that.
A broader history of the Diebold/Vendor certification issue is posted here.
Source
From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
December 23, 2005
After EFF Litigation, Diebold Pulls Out of North Carolina
the source compared to your op
any text taken from the EFF article should be sourced where it is.
It is not clear what you cited directly or what is your opinion, since you didn't cite link and there are no quotation marks in your first paragraph.
That way when people read the OP, they can go to the source and read the context.
I came to this OP because MY name was in it, and I am the one whose name is on the court filing to revoke Diebold's temporary restraining order.
I very well know the facts of the story of NC. Since no organization would take up the e-voting issue in our state, I started NC Verified Voting.
Citing sources for your text is important, or else it should be stated that what you are telling the reader is your opinion.
This is a blog
It's not deposition or a doctoral paper, it's a discussion.
Now it appears you want to contradict the very people who represented you. With every word you write you undermine the credibility of your organization and the work you have done. I am utterly dismayed.
I have focused on an egregious inconsistency between the public declarations and the public records of Printelect, even as this discussion has wandered. I stand by what I have written.
You obviously hold me to a higher standard than Printelect.
When you wrote a post back in June about Les Merritt I personally edited it (for formatting and readability) and front-paged it. At the end was this text:
So much for "simple checks and balances" and good luck getting volunteers willing to tolerate hostility towards anyone who asks for them. I am done with this discussion.
yes I hold you to equal standards of those you write about
and how hard would it be for you to follow David Allen's advice and pick up the phone?
based on internet only, Gregory Flynn is a registered republican
if I based my entire belief on what an examination on the internet provided, I would be led to believe that Greg Flynn is a registered republican. That could be completely wrong!
Going to the State Board of Elections database of registered voters, I could not find a Greg Flynn in Wake County. I could find a Gregory Flynn, just one.
And this only Gregory Flynn has voted just twice since being registered in North Carolina or since being registered as a republican:
This is an example of how internet research does not provide the entire story. It could be that Greg Flynn is registered with a different first name, and that Greg is a middle name.
Instead of me assuming or stating : Greg Flynn is a registered republican who has only voted twice, I could do due dilligence and ASK if this Greg Flynn is registered under another name, or in another county or if this person is registered to vote at all.
Is there a reason not to pick up the phone and then there may be a story?
My work regarding Les Merritt was to provide a DOJ memo to David Ingram at the Charlotte Observer, and Ingram did due dilligence and discovered Merritt's involvement before breaking the story. The story started with the DOJ memo, and blossomed into the Merritt story. Due dilligence can lead to a much bigger story.
You have stepped over a line
You deserve no further response.
I think ncvoter has 'issues'
ncvoter tells Greg not to speculate and then ncvoter speculates about everyone.
and why is ncvoter putting anyones private address on the internet, first she speculates that the person is the same Greg then she puts an address online.
and why does ncvoter think calling someone and hearing words is more proof than getting official records from secretary of state
and why does ncvoter think just because their is a law that means everyone follows it
I am not sure I follow this, correct me if I am wrong.
the company is going by two different names, is there any legal document that makes this okay, and who is that other lobbyist and what does he and the owen andrews lobby for?
I think this could be important, I hope Greg keeps it up
You're being an ass.
And losing potential allies faster than a Diebold machine loses Democratic votes.
I'm with Greg. Bye.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
I recommend that you stop going after Greg
You'll piss people off and take all attention away from whatever point you are trying to make.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
I would be really happy
If someone could explain what on Earth is going on here ... I've only been able to drop in and out recently with everything that's going on, and once we get over 100 comments, I don't know where to begin.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
Recap
Greg found a discrepancy in public filings relating to an NC voting tech company and posted about it. A couple of folks ("Folks") took exception to Greg's existence while displaying a way-over-the-top level of defensiveness on the topic or maybe just a need to fill up their "people who think I'm an ass" scrapbook before the holiday guests started arriving. Greg's original point about problems with the company's filings stands, but the aforementioned Folks helped pass a law, so they are right and Greg is a Very Bad ManTM. Also, Greg is a Republican (much better than being a Republican't, if you ask me) and Linda Cloud's stamina in calling out the Folks despite their inability to stick to a single point suggests that she is, in fact, a member of the lost race of Titans. Oh, one more thing: you don't get out enough, and your shoes are too clean. And did the Folks mention that they passed the law? Well they passed that fucker, all right?
Good Job
I feel better now.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
I'm the person that was called an Ass here at Blue NC
Sam,
I am the person who is being called an Ass etc. My name is Joyce McCloy, and my name and comments have been mentioned in the OP/Blog. (I was not called or contacted by the blogger for a comment or for any input.)
I wouldn't have even noticed this blog - but my name and comments were in it.
I get quoted alot in the media, but some media will just use my website to extract a quote or comment from our organization or myself. Because of this, I have a google search set up to alert me so I can make sure that quotes and attributed comments are correct. The google alert that came to my "inbox" made me aware of this specific blog. There was no link backing up the comments referenced to me. There are other parts of the blog that would benefit to attributions and or links.
When my name is in a blog, I take a close look at it. Most people would if their name was in an OP. I probably do expect a lot from any article that quotes me or attributes comments to me. If a reporter had written this, they probably would have called me up for my comment.
I hope you will take a look at what Kosh has posted. See below quote box. Kosh is David Allen, and he served on the Joint Select Committee on Electronic Voting. He was able to steer an 11 member committee to the best legislation we could get. As well as being a publisher, he has done public presentations across the state regarding the e-voting issue. He is familiar with all aspects of this issue.
I am told that the point of the blog is a sort of investigation of the vendor. That's good. The blog infers that some improper activity may have been done by the vendor. But it is all based on internet research.
I never said that the blogger of the OP is a republican.
I said that, if I did an investigation of the blogger in the same manner as he did of this vendor, solely based on what I found on the internet, that I would find the one and only record of a voter by his name is someone registered as a republican. Based on the internet, that is all that I can find. It can be mis-leading. Not always are the records on the SBOE database complete or correct. The blogger may be using his middle name publicly, not uncommon.
In my opinion, the investigation is not complete without the investigator making a call to either the subject of his investigation, or the Secretary of State, or the State Board of Elections. At this point, the investigation is dependent solely upon what has been found on the internet.
A phone call, that's not that hard to do.
This is a tad unfair, don't you think?
I don't think she called him a Republican, she was making a point that by simply relying on Internet postings she could come to that conclusion. she could then make an accusation that a Republican was posting at BlueNC. But if she bothered to pick up the phone/email and actually CONTACT Greg, he could point out that the person she found online was not him, and such a post would never have been made.
She was ILLUSTRATING HER POINT WITH A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE.
Personally, I would not have used the example she did for precisely the reason demonstrated here. She is now branded as accusing Greg of being a Republican, and is being dismissed.
No one has said Greg is a Very Bad Man TM, just asked why he didn't contact Owen and ask his questions before this post.
Joyce and I mentioned our involvement in the NC law to establish that we do have some expertise in the matter and do know what the law says. For some reason you have chosen to interpret this as boasting.
Wonderful.
Folk actually take the time to get involved, to make a difference, to fight for what they believe in, and their reward is a snarky post belittling that effort.
*sigh*
I'll stipulate that Joyce could be a tad more diplomatic in her posts, but come on, she is not the person you are painting her to be. NO ONE here is acting in bad faith.
But could we PLEASE try to remember that this medium is prone to misinterpretation?
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
I don't do "fair"
Which will undoubtedly be a great source of disappointment for my daughter. Your sighs notwithstanding, you will find ad hominem attacks on Greg in this thread. And I'll thank you not to reply to my snark by pretending to take it literally; it demeans us both.
Ah,
I see.
As you have no interest in "fair" then, I bid you adieu, and wish you luck,
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
And have I mentioned
That I miss BlueNC terribly? It warms my heart to see my bluencer friends in action. And I need a "dust-up" alarm that goes off for threads like this to alert me to the opportunity to make caustic comments.
Joyce seems perfectly capable of making her own impressions
and her own points. If she's not willing to own those, she needs to stay off-line. I don't think anyone is acting in bad-faith, and yet instead of thanking Greg for pointing out a discrepancy in the paperwork for the only authorized vendor for this god-blessed ballots, advocates for verified voting have been attacking him for not going further in his "homework", and accusing him of not doing legwork (i.e., contacting Register of Deeds offices) that he had already done. They flew way off the handle because of any experience with some one mentioned in the original post (BBV.org) who has nothing to do with the meat of the story, and hysteria ensued.
If Joyce and her minions were truly as concerned about verifiable voting in NC as she claims, she could have made those phone calls she wanted made her self. "Progressive Pitbull" could have waited for Greg to respond to the email/phone calls he made instead of spilling ugly all over the page. But they didn't. They don't need you to say "They're really nice people and could have been more diplomatic." They're (assumedly) grownups and showed everyone reading this thread exactly who they are and how they operate.
As for misinterpretation - I think it was pretty clear what was going on. I appreciate the peacemaking you're trying to do, David. You seem like a very reasonable man, and I admire you for your level head. But you can't un-ring a bell. Speaking only for myself, I am grateful for the work done to get Diebold out of the state. However, that act, and the act of assisting in getting a law passed (which many of us have done as well) does not give anyone the right to throw their weight around BlueNC like some elephant with a bladder infection.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
While it impossible to "un-ring" the bell
I had hoped that folks would give reasoned discussion another try. This appears not to be the case, and it is futile for me to try and persuade folks otherwise.
I appreciate your civility in the matter and thank you for your kind words.
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
should the call have been made?
Do you do believe that the phone calls to either the vendor, the sos or the SBOE should be made?
Or do you think that everything has been done and you are satisified with the results?
I could make the phone calls that have not been made - but:
1. I strongly believe that the blogger of the OP is responsible for that, and
2. I have no reason to expect that anything else I say will be respected or listened to, or taken in good faith based on your comments and the name calling I have been the recipient of. It will be a waste of my time and the wrong person making the call.
If I didn't care about verified voting, I wouldn't have worked on this issue since September 2003 pro bono, nor would the many other people in our state who were there.
There are issues with e-voting that still needs to be addressed in NC and nationally, but the local vendor rep isn't one of them. I have seen no ethical issues with Printelect, which is Owen G Dunn Inc doing business as PrintElect.
PrrintElect is a DBA. "Doing Business As" is used when a company needs a brand name for a segment of business that it is addressing.
We face the constant threat to weaken or repeal our law. If our law was weakened, it would be a step backwards, and we might not ever regain our ground, much less move forward.
No, I don't think the phone calls should be made.
No, I don't think the phone calls should be made to the vendor; people can lie over the phone just as easily as not fle necessary paperwork. The Secretary of State's office is irrelevant, since Assumed Name paperwork should be filed with the Register of Deeds in the County(ies) where the company is doing business. In his original post, Greg said he checked with those counties RoD offices. I don't have the need to check on his work. No, I don't need to call the SBOE, because the paperwork in question would not be filed with them.
I think that Greg was responsible with the research he did in his original post. Satisfied with the results? I'm not sure which results you're talking about. Am I satisfied with what he found? No, I'm not. I'd like to see that all companies that do business with the state file the paperwork that needs to be filed. The results on this blog? I don't know. I think we've certainly seen the true nature of some posters, that's for sure.
1.We have established before that there is a bit of disagreement about what you think should be done by the original poster and I believe that the original poster did a fine job. Differences in opinion are what make democracy possible.
2. You're right, you've certainly lost your credibility, at least in my eyes. You may have worked on verifiable voting in NC, but your knee-jerk reaction and diversionary complaints about Greg referencing Blackboxvoting.org as a source showed a distinct lack of the professionalism and objective standards you demand of other bloggers. Not only that, you bring in reinforcements who have the balls to question the work that anyone here has done. On-line or off-line, bad move. The ad hominem attacks began with you, and the direction of the discussion lies clearly in your lap. Frankly you should see the names that were deleted.
Of course you care about it, other wise you wouldn't be so passionate about it. I get that. But you know, everyone else who shows up here is passionate about progressive politics in one way or another, and as I've posted before many of us are active off line as well as on. Just because we don't show up at Wake County meetings to drink beer doesn't mean we don't have mud on our shoes and raw knuckles from knocking on doors and dialing the phone. Thanks for the work you've done, but you're not unique. We all work for our causes, and we all work for free.
Really? Gee. Thanks. Didn't know that. Oh - wait. Yes I did. Even if I didn't know that before, I would have known that from reading Greg's original post. Companies who are "DBA's" must file paperwork with their county Register of Deeds. They apparently haven't. Hence the lack of paper trail of the original post. What a waste of bandwidth this has been.
No one here has advocated for a weakening or repeal of our law. In fact, everyone here, at one time or another, has advocated for the strict adherence to the law. That was the point of the original post - did you read it?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
why blog this at all if SBOE or SOS need not be contacted?
If you don't think the calls should be made, then how does this have anything to do
with North Carolina elections?
The blogger referred to info at the SOS website, but shouldn't check with the SOS to find out more?
THe blogger is concerned about our elections but shouldn't call the SBOE.
The blogger has written about the vendor, but shouldn't even contact the vendor to get a response, and then evaluate that response or any new information from that response.
So these entities should not be contacted about this issue.
So is this just for gossup sake, since none of the parties involved are to be contacted?
The parties that can respond, or the parties that can do something about this - need not be notified?
From where I sit
the company involved could clear this up in 2 minutes with a simple post. I'd even front-page it. Maybe you think the company shouldn't have to do that because a mean old blogger didn't jump through all the hoops you think he should have? Sorry. You bring the hoops, you do the jumping.
In the time you've spent ranting about this, the questions could have been addressed and flattened a dozen times over. You're obviously more interested in being right than solving the problem.
This is the last time I'm going to respond to you on this thread, so let me leave you with one thought:
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
You obviously didn't read my answer
or you are incapable of understanding it.
The paperwork that needs to be filed is called "Assumed Name" or "DBA". That paperwork gets filed with the County Register of Deeds, not the Secretary of State, or the State Board of Elections. Greg already checked with those county Register of Deeds. That's why I don't think the phone calls need to be made.
And no, it's not for gossup's (sic) sake. It's for information's sake. Jeebus.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
none who can resolve it, none who can affect it
If there is an issue with an elections vendor, than the SBOE would address it IF they were called, written to or other wise corresponded with. The vendor has to answer to the SBOE, but you do not believe that the OP writer should contact them regarding his information or investigation.
IF there is an issue over records that are posted to the SOS website, or if the records are insufficient, the SOS can investigate and advise. But you don't believe that should be done.
You don't believe the OP writer should contact the vendor and invite them to comment because the vendor might lie. (I like to ask for comments because I like to get someone on the record.)
None of the entities who might resolve this with certainty will be contacted.
Yes, its clear.
Why don't you call them?
You and others have spent more energy demanding that Greg call them.
Why don't you call them?
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Drama Queen, I answered that here
Drama Queen, I answered why I am not calling the vendor and the rest already here
I'm not big on reading comments full of bold remarks
Hard on my eyes.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Plus
it comes across as yelling, more that you probably intend.
:)
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Whatever.
Just whatever, Joyce.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
New Rules, Everybody!
Based on the comment above:
Lance, what makes you think I'm not already
following all those rules? Me and Pat talk daily. We're best buds. And I know his spokesman Aaron Latham will soon get back to me on my email from six weeks ago. The intern at his Capitol Hill office swore he would return my email so I know he will.
And the State Board of Elections loves being called to confirm every single statistic I quote. They have all the time in the world to talk to me. Especially now that I've moved out of state.
And, as we know, no one ever lies over the phone. And while most of us work regular hours, I'm sure that people want to be called on nights and weekends.
You're a genius, Lance.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
He is a genius.
I'm serious.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Put on your tinfoil hats,
because I've got a whopper of a conspiracy theory. It's not really mine, I've just tweaked it a little.
Okay, so I'm scouring the SoS Corporation filing thing, trying to find out the who's and what's, and something caught my eye. I saw the same last name appear on the list of officers for both Diebold and ES&S, the name being Urosevich:
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/imaging/Dime/IVTIFF_15886017.pdf
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/imaging/Dime/IVTIFF_16720449.pdf
Robert Urosevich being the President of Diebold and his brother Todd being a Vice President of ES&S. /:0
So then I checked the brothers out, and came across some other stuff about their business history:
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html
So, two brothers, each an officer of companies competing(?) with each other along with a third (barely qualified?) company to provide election machinery. When the smoke clears, one is left standing.
I'm going crosseyed here. I'll be back.
Hey Boss! This mirco-chip says approve by RNC?
Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS probably tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in the 1996 vote, although Nelson never drew attention to the connection. Hagel won again in 2002, by a far healthier margin. *sH
No big deal! If somebody told you to resign since it was in the bag! For what is worth! 4 campaigns in this state were affected by the Republican mirco-chip switch and bait scam in 06.
that isn't tinfoil, here's current info on voting vendors
The family tree of e-voting vendors has been a concern for e-voting activists for years. I hadn't heard that the Urosevich brothers were still execs in both companies. I have forwarded that information to a journalist to see if she knows differently.
Now:for an update:
ownership of these companies has changed several times over the years.
SEQUOIA
DIEBOLD
ES&S
It looks like Diebold and Sequoia are trying to keep a presence in NC in case something changes, like someone manages to repeal our law, or weaken it.
Also, Diebold has a factory in North Carolina, where they manufacture the touch-screens. Its about 30 miles from my home. Naturally they would want representation within our state.
Since our state has new voting machines, there isn't that much to sell right now, unless we go paperless again.
Diebold's previous lobbyist was a former democratic state senator, who resigned as their lobbyist in March of 2006. He was not supportive of Diebold's move to gut our law, and supported paper ballots as well.
If any vendor can meet the requirements of our law without it being weakened or gutted - then that combined with audits and voter verified paper ballots could only serve to encourage their best behavior. Audits and recounts would expose most problems or malfeasance on their part. In which case they would face civil and/or criminal penalties
SOME WISDOM:
And here's a business connection
between ES&S and Sequoia, where they purchased BRC Holdings' election stuff:
http://www.secinfo.com/d68Dc.76.htm
Also, it appears that Diebold and Sequoia share the same agent (lawyers) in Raleigh, which is a field office of C.T. Corporation System:
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Agent.aspx?AgentId=1356273
Once, when I was in an especially cranky mood, and a friend of mine was pontificating about how great Democracies were compared to other, more authoritarian regimes, I spat something like, "The only difference is, we actually believe we have choices."
There's another difference, sc.
At least for a while, we can still ask questions. Even if some people think it's rude or irresponsible to ask questions. In fact, that's what keeps us a functioning democracy, in my opinion. Keep on asking, keep on digging.
Interesting linkages, eh?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
While there doesn't appear
to be much choice re availability of voting machines (which sucks), I'm really surprised there aren't more people up in arms about ES&S being the exclusive supplier in N.C. And you may be able to choose who prints the ballot paper, but you must buy the paper itself from ES&S:
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/voterweb/votingequ.htm
I understand our need to move to verifiable (printed paper) ballots, but the more I search for information about ES&S, the less confident I am about our ability to make sure they conform to the new laws that appear to have been specifically written because of their prior behavior. It's almost like...tailored parole requirements for an ex-convict.
They are under investigation in several areas/states, most notably in California. A hearing is scheduled for next week:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ess_automark_public_heari...
where they are facing possible heavy fines and decertification.
And now they are our sole supplier.
here's what law says about ballot printing
Icloud, you are citing what was on the SBOE website, which they put up last year somewhere around April -May 2006. For the first times the new machines are used, it was recommended they use the vendor's paper.
Counties don't have to "outsource" ballot printing-see law
Joyce,
I think you're confused. I didn't cite anything from the SBOE website. I just told scharrison to keep digging.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
scharrison, please see link r/e ballot printing & law
Scharrison, please see comments addressing ballot printing.
Counties CAN use uncertified pritners to purchase their ballots, and more details provided here.
previous post addressed to icloud in error.
I saw that, Joyce
but (according to the SBOE website), these other printers still have to purchase the actual paper stock from ES&S. Which means, once the machine is purchased, ES&S is free to charge an exhorbitant price for their paper, thanks to their exclusivity. This is nothing "out of the ordinary" in the business world—they're merely recouping lost profits from the printing part by catching you on the paper supply (which by the way, there are numerous paper suppliers who can meet any specs required).
By the way, thanks for your advocacy. Also, can you come back next week after the hearing in California, so we can talk about whatever steps they took against ES&S? If they do lose their certification in California, it might be something that needs to be passed along to the N.C. municipalities contemplating purchasing equipment and (required) training from ES&S.
California story and how it impacts NC
Actually, the California decision won't impact NC. It is about California law and how that law was violated there.
At issue:
ES&S sold California a model of Automark - the Model A-200 - that had not been federally certified at the timeand represented the machines as if they were.
North Carolina purchased the Automark A-100, which WAS federally certified prior to the state approving the machines.
Here is an account of what is happening in California from Wired News, written by award winning journalist Kim Zetter - who I consider to be a very reliable source for e-voting news:
NC purchased a different model, the ES&S AutoMARK Software Version: 1.0 NASED/EAC # N-1-16-22-12-001 which was federally certified when NC purchased it in early 2005.
In early 2005, North Carolina received all of its voting machines through a central warehouse in North Carolina where the State Board of Elections and its IT staff oversaw testing of the equipment.
We had concerns back in 2004 about uncertified software, and asked that the Public Confidence in Elections Law address that issue. Voting machine vendors have shipped uncertified systems to various states. We cited examples of this very problem occuring in Indiana - as a reason for our lawmakers to provide requirements and penalties. Senator Ellie Kinnaird even read a specific account to the other lawmakers in one meeting when the vendors were demonstrating their machines to NC lawmakers. California has also had problems with this before, from Diebold as well. It appears to be a common problem in other states,
NC law has penalties for this type of thing, so if it comes up, then the SBOE will have to deal with it. The law addresses the issue.
The problem isn't as easily solved as we wished, and California has been through this before, most notably with former SOS Kevin Shelley.
Okay, look at it this way:
Let's say you're sitting on a county boe or some other (elected) body, and you're contemplating purchasing new voting machines. New law in place or not, wouldn't you like to be made aware that the vendor you're thinking of buying machines from has been decertified in another state, especially one as densely populated as California?
Of course the answer is: yes, you'd like to know. And you wouldn't be pleased to find out others had known, and didn't think it was relevant.
yes its very impt to know about voting probs anywhere
You said:
YES, most definitely!
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seven
Here is an excerpt from the section of law covering the Voting Machine Vendors responsibility to report problems:
State e-voting groups from around the country share information about problems immediately, and compare notes.
There are no perfect voting machines, no angelic vendors, and that is why we pushed for a law to put some accountability into the process.
But failing that there is this advice:
Okay, follow me a little farther...
If ES&S loses its certification as a company in California, that means all of their products, including the A-100, have also been decertified for sale in the state of California. At least that's my conclusion.
As far as the wording of that part of the law, I see two sections that may allow for some wiggling room on the part of ES&S:
Firstly, the term "promptly" is subjective and difficult to quantify into an actual timeframe.
Secondly, the extract "any county using its voting system" could theoretically exclude from required notification counties who have not yet purchased the machine(s), but are contemplating doing so.
CA SOS decision delayed, how does this affect NC?
The hearing on ES&S has been rescheduled to October 15, 2007. The SOS will be considering penalties and or decertification because ES&S deployed undertified versions of software, firmware or otherwise not properly approved systems:
Should we decertify our machines if California decertifies theirs?
.
CA has a good law, so how did they end up with uncertified machines?
The answer - California has not had consistent enforcement of their election laws.
On Jan 08, 2007 Debra Bowen was elected Secretary of State based on her platform to improve election integrity.
Bowen decertifies all DREs:
Alternet also reported uncertified software in other states.
How do we know that North Carolina doesn't have uncertified software on our machines?
Answer - we can't be 100% sure, but we can say if reasonable efforts have been made to prevent that:
January 26, 2006....The State Board of Elections performed "acceptance testing" at a central location before the counties received their equipment. All other systems were decertified.
What IS acceptance testing?
Has the current vendor obeyed the requirement to report problems with the voting systems?
Yes or at least I have seen evidence of them doing so. See correspondence below, between NC SBOE legal counsel and myself as to if the SBOE had been notified of potential problem with optical scan memory cards that turned up Ohio. That was back in March of 2006, when the first shipment of machines and memory cards came in.
In this email from Don Wright, general counsel for the SBOE, he advises that yes - the vendor had made proper notification - twice:
But it all boils down to this, even with good compliance and proper enforcement the following is true:
We can't legislate a perfect voting system, nor perfect elections. Its all about checks and balances and a recovery plan.
Do I trust everyone and everything completely?
No, I believe in ~ Trust Yet Verify ~
your ballot info is based on 3/25/06 info-before law addressed
The info at the SBOE website is is from March 25, 2006, and has not been updated to reflect current law, as ratified in August 2007. The SBOE website's old info also says that counties have to use a certified printer.
Here is the law as pertains to Ballots, it was ratified on August 16, 2007:
Here on March 25, 2006 is what the State Board of Elections last posted regarding ballots, this was right when counties were first getting their new machines:
The SBOE has other outdated info on their website, including the election law, which they last updated in September of 2006.
They probably will update their website as soon as all technical corrections are made to any laws passed/ratified this year. Election law has to be approved by the DOJ and that adds to the delay.
Thanks.
Good info.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
About CT
FWIW, a company's registered agent often isn't its legal representative, and lots of companies hire CT to be their registered agent (in part, so that they don't have to worry about filing whenever the name or address of an in-house agent changes).
Right, but generally
legal entities will avoid representing competing clients, due to potential conflicts of interest that could expose them to ethics concerns.
And whether or not the agent is also an "Attorney Of Record", if they are a legal entity (CT Corp. is), they're still bound by a lot of the same requirements.
It's probably nothing, but links are links, however tentative.
And this one.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Question..
Is this one of those internal/self-destruction thingies some say we're supposed to try to avoid here?
Probably.
But it's so shiny.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
And every new comment sets a world record
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Like this one.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
And this one.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
And this one.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
OK fine. I'll go make a donation at ActBlueNC
because I haven't been willing to yield the last word in this. But with this, I yield. Happy Sunday to all and to all a good night.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
G'night dear.
Me too. What a crazy weekend! I so happy to have you amongst us.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Final Word
Holy Mother of Jeebus.
Two points.
Any company charged with being the SOLE supplier of equipment/supplies for North Carolina elections had damn well better be able to cross their t's and dot their i's. They aren't capable of filing appropriate forms in a timely manner, then I say it's time for an audit. Sloppy personal or business paperwork is not going to instill voter confidence even if Greg called said vendor to get an explanation. There is no good explanation. I don't care what Joyce McCloy or David Allen say about this person and his personal honesty/integrity. Plenty of honest people have screwed up royally because they weren't willing or able to pay attention to detail. Trust me when I say there is absolutely NO excuse Dunn could have given that would be good enough in my book.
If this thread is an example of the stability of the people who are self-appointed elections saviors, then I say we are all screwed. David Allen/Kosh does sound reasonable, but NCVoter and Progressive Pitbull are so over the top that it makes me fear for the safety of NC elections instead of feeling more confident in them. We are supposed to trust Dunn's integrity based on Kosh's word and that of NCVoter, but look at her behavior on this thread. Jemininny! I read her attacks on Greg and you want me to trust her opinion? No thanks. There's a difference between passion and hysteria. She needs to learn it if she wants to earn our trust.
Oh, what the heck.....while I'm at it I'll make a few more points.
Greg's research is impeccable. Always. I might not always agree with him, but his research is impeccable. If he does make a mistake he will own it.
Lance is a genius.
'nuff said
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.