Deconstruction of a Propaganda PieceWhy must we wait for another 60 days until we know thumbs up or down on the EAC findings? Why is this reported now? Is this a politically motivated scheme to send a chill to uppity Secretaries of States across the nation who dare not comply with the HAVA deadlines or decertify partisan voting equipment? Paranoid? Look at the current political situation and ask yourself whether due diligence under these circumstances should include looking behind doors. So, let's look at the timing, and ask: Why now? Right now when Secretaries of States are at a critical decision-making juncture with the Diebold equipment proving easily corruptible and HAVA deadlines looming. Why did they wait this long for their decision and announce it now, with the fine print reading that they'll let us know the true thumbs-up or down on Shelley in 60 days. 60 days will be a date AFTER the HAVA deadlines. They've had all this time and have already conducted their investigations, but they can't tell us anything except to send innuendo that things for our former Secretary of State look baaaaaaad!
Please read the whole article at:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/13458667.htmDeconstruction of Audit finds $3.8 million in election funds improperly spent
JENNIFER COLEMAN
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO -More than $3.8 million in federal election money was spent improperly or without required documentation by former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, federal auditors said in a report released Wednesday.
First, to gain some perspective: $3.8 million out of $180 million is 2 percent. Second, notice the “OR” clause above. Let’s just say all but $2,000 in question fell into the required better paperwork category, and you’ll get why this is a very misleading newsflash. I refer to it as a newsflash, because lacks any news of substance. It is primarily a rehash of old news and merely invokes a dark prediction about what may come -- it suggests a new audit hearing was held but bases its findings largely on the previous CA hearing, and then offers no verdict.The audit, commissioned by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,
The “EAC,” which is the arm of the “Help America Vendor’s Act” which is charged with coming up with protocols and guidelines. The EAC has itself been tardy or non-compliant with the majority of its edicts. It is a council of four political appointees: 2 are republican and 2 are DINOS. Earlier this year, the Chair resigned in disgust because it had no funding. See: http://www.whoscounting.net/EAC.htmconfirms an earlier state audit of Shelley's handling of money given to California under the Help America Vote Act. It examined spending through 2004.
The foundation of this newsflash is the findings of an earlier audit, which at most showed a minor appearance of impropriety, as confirmed by the auditor’s office upon my telephone call inquiry to follow up with questions I had after having attended the audit hearing and after carefully reading through the audit report.Auditors said about $3 million in spending lacked documentation, such as paying salaries for people who didn't submit time sheets, or was improperly awarded to consultants through no-bid contracts.
Paperwork problem: Shelley has admitted that he was overwhelmed with the barrage of new HAVA requirements and tried to delegate it to others, which obviously backfired.The audit, conducted by the Department of the Interior's inspector general, another US government entity purged of “dissenters” also found another $777,502 was improperly spent on salaries, promotional memorabilia and other items that were unrelated to the Help America Vote Act.
Hmmmm, voter education pamphlets informing voters that if they lacked confidence in their paperless voting systems that they could request a paper ballot or provisional ballot, which had a picture of Shelley on the back. Why don’t do something productive like investigate our President for hiring political shills?Congress passed the act in 2002 after the problems with voting machines and access to polling places that surfaced during the 2000 presidential election.
But who wrote HAVA? 3 out of 4 are heavily implicated in the Abramoff scandal.California has received about $180 million in federal money to upgrade voting equipment and procedures. Federal authorities froze another $170 million after questions arose about Shelley's spending, money that was released in June after Shelley had been replaced.
Yes, please note that above: It was the Feds who froze the money and caused the CA election officials a colossal headache--NOT Shelley. To date, our CA election officials love to blame their problems on that darn Shelley. However, Shelley, too, had delayed money from being funneled directly into the gullets of partisan vendors when he finally realized that the activists were right--the machines were funky. Now, ironically, it is the CA election officials themselves who are begging Congress from the HAVA deadlines, because there are not yet any good options to purchase.Shelley, a Democrat, denied wrongdoing but resigned in February after he was accused of mishandling the money, bending state hiring rules to reward political allies and accepting questionable campaign contributions.
Obviously Shelley was a fighter. But if you were in his shoes, could you continue the uphill battle with five government entities investigating you with no legal or financial assistance from the State? Be honest. Would you at some point feel despondent when your fellow democrats turn their backs on you --even when they were justified for fear they might get in the cross-hairs? Then, consider the personal toll on your family. Shelley resigned the day after his mother died. She had been quite healthy before this scandal, but succumbed to pneumonia in the midst of these stressful days. Here, Shelley, who had stood up on behalf of Californians against Diebold and boldly decertified much of their equipment, he who was the first Secty. of State with DRE equipment to mandate a paper trail, he who came up with 25 innovative safeguards until the paper trails could go into effect, and he who wanted to use some of the HAVA funds for poll worker college and voter education received no support, and in a bizarre moebius strip of logic, this is the No. 2 reason why people I speak to think he’s guilty: “If he weren’t guilty, people would have stood up for him.” And so what then, you might ask, is the No. 1 reason why people think he’s guilty: Because if he weren’t, the papers would have written about it? Hmmmm, do you mean the same papers that have refused to cover the election integrity scandal from the very beginning? The same media that refused to even mention the GAO heavy indictment against electronic voting systems? Getting back to this point about the audit hearing, if you actually went to the Audit Hearing or read the audit report, you’d know that his big crime was NOT spending money on funky voting equipment. With that the feds froze his funds and caused a lot of grief for election officials who still have to meet the HAVA deadlines with their “use it or lose it” clause, as well as the fact that the DOJ promised a visit for the non compliantHis successor, Republican Bruce McPherson, agreed with some of the audit's findings, but disputed the auditor's claim that about $2 million in no-bid consulting contracts were inappropriate.
McPherson obviously has some integrity.Those contracts were cleared for no-bid awards by the state Department of General Services because of a tight deadline to bring California into compliance with the federal law, McPherson said in his response to the audit.
In addition, the office was facing unprecedented pressure from the combination of three elections - the first-ever recall election for a California governor in 2003, followed in 2004 by a presidential primary and a presidential general election, McPherson said.
The federal audit confirms the findings of the California Bureau of State Audits. A state audit in December 2004 found that federal money intended for voter outreach was used by Shelley to pay for consultants who attended partisan Democratic events and promoted Shelley's political achievements.
After an audit for an entire year there were six events, which came under scrutiny. These events were on the timeslips of outside consultants who sought to comply with the outreach component of HAVA. Two were for roundtables that were primarily attended by republicans and the others were for exclusively democrat events. The sum total of this was under $2,000 (and probably under $1,000).That audit said Shelley poorly managed the money and failed to properly oversee his staff and consultants. It suggested 17 changes in how the secretary of state's office implements the Help America Vote Act.
This, too, is an over broad generalization that boils down to sloppy office management. On page 5 of the Audit report these are listed as the “Highlights” of all the errors. Please read the long, long list of six items and think about our republican party. If you're like me, you'll wonder, "Where's the meat?"Office of the
Secretary of State
Help America Vote Act of 2002
Presentation by
Elaine M. Howle
California State Auditor
January 10, 2005
Audit Highlights -page 5
1 The Office of the Secretary of State’s (office) insufficient planning and poor management practices hampered its efforts to implement the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) provisions promptly.
2 The office’s disregard for proper controls and its poor oversight of staff and consultants led to questionable uses of HAVA funds.
3 The office avoided competitive bidding for many HAVA purchases paid with HAVA funds by improperly using a Department of General Services exemption from competitive bidding and by not following the State’s procurement policies.
4 The office bypassed the Legislature's spending approval authority when it executed consultant contracts and then charged the associated costs to its HAVA administration accounts.
5 The office failed to disburse HAVA funds to counties for the replacement of outdated voting machines within the time frames outlined in its grant application package and county agreements.
6 The State’s chief elections office lacks a policy that strictly prohibits partisan activities.
McPherson told auditors his office has complied with most of those recommendations and is working to implement the rest.
A spokesman for Shelley said many of the changes recommended by the state auditor were started by Shelley.
"As the current administration points out, the office of Secretary of State Kevin Shelley was overburdened by a cyclone of unprecedented and historic forces," said Shelley's spokesman, Sam Singer. "This audit is reflective of the difficult circumstances the Shelley administration faced."
Too bad most people won’t have read down this far nor will they have any context to understand it.State Sen. Dave Cox, who requested the state audit, said the federal report released Wednesday indicates that Shelley tried to politicize his office.
Let me guess, Sen. Dave Cox is partisan--from the opposing party?"Todays audit by the EAC shows that while he was secretary of state, Mr. Shelley and his operatives ignored clear policies in order to hire political operatives," Cox, R-Fair Oaks, said in a statement. "They improperly used taxpayer dollars for questionable and improper purchases of self-promotional items and other materials."
Look who is telling us this--this political entity, which even the very conservative Doug Chapin of Electionline.org said was “ad hoc tribunal without real legal authority" to perform and trial of Shelley, Could they be just a bit more specific today as to what they deemed self-promotional items. Could it again be a picture of the Secretary of State on a voter education pamphlet? Is this partisan appointed committee trying to lecture democrats on political propaganda at the taxpayer’s expense?The Election Assistance Commission will review the federal audit and issue a final report to the state within 60 days, commission spokeswoman Jeannie Layson said. She said it is premature to speculate about possible remedies or penalties.
Why the delay? Could it be because there are no findings, but it’s politically expedient to send this newsflash today to put a chill on any other uppity Secretaries of States who might be thinking of delaying their compliance with the end of the year HAVA deadlines. Or even more politically opportune to scare Secretaries of States who might be emboldened by the recent Diebold hack tests to try to spend their HAVA Jonas for anything other than their funky election equipment?In the campaign finance probe surrounding Shelley, San Francisco real estate agent Julie Lee is facing eight felony charges that she laundered a state grant for a community center into Shelley's 2002 campaign. Lee has pleaded not guilty.
Very important in a propaganda piece to invoke unrelated stories to cast a suspicious pall over this man’s credibility. Never mind that Attorney General Lockyer exonerated Shelley from any wrongdoing in this case. And for heaven’s sakes, do NOT mention the fact that Shelley was the first in the Secretary of State with paperless voting equipment to mandate paper trails. Do not mention that he boldly decertified Diebold. To mention those facts might not seem “fair and balanced.”Singer said Shelley remains "quite active in both business and politics" and has not been questioned in the Lee case.
Good limp statement to conclude with--IF you’ve decided you want to perpetuate the deliberate misinformation about Kevin Shelley. And in my opinion this propaganda tactic is the only scandal of described in this article. What little integrity McPherson showed at that time has obviously vanished.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
