CTVotersCount.org

An instructive story – Suppression, Conspiracy, Intrigue, Incredible, unfortunately True

This is a tale of three individuals focusing on the less known of the three, and her struggles with a country bent on suppressing information required of its citizens to participate in, direct, and obtain democracy. It would be quite a movie trailer or book sample text, yet perhaps too unbelievable.

Editor’s Note: The three most basic issues upon which all others depend are media reform, the rule of law, and election integrity. If I could waive a wand and magically choose just one, it would be media reform – with media reform election integrity and the rule of law would be possible and likely, without it election integrity is of little consequence. I spend my time on election integrity because the problems and workable solutions come naturally to me based on my knowledge, education, and experience.” Today, I would add a third basic issue upon which all others depend, the rule of law and not of people [or corporations. Two previous book reviews focus on the rule of law and media reform/freedom.

Highly recommended reading. New York Times magazine, yesterday: How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets <read>

This is a tale of three individuals Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, and Edward Snowdon focusing on the less known of the three, Poitras, and her struggles with a country bent on suppressing information required of its citizens to participate in, direct, and obtain democracy. It would be quite a movie trailer or book sample text, yet perhaps too unbelievable. As reality it is deeply disturbing, a profound call to action. Well written and engaging we recommend reading the entire article.

Once again we are in agreement with a Hartford Icon:

“It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.” – Mark Twain

*******Update #1.The intimidation spreads to family and to the UK, Glenn Greenwald writes: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation <read>

This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It’s bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It’s worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.

If the UK and US governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further. Beyond that, every time the US and UK governments show their true character to the world – when they prevent the Bolivian President’s plane from flying safely home, when they threaten journalists with prosecution, when they engage in behavior like what they did today – all they do is helpfully underscore why it’s so dangerous to allow them to exercise vast, unchecked spying power in the dark.

******** Update #2. Meanwhile a “journalist” by everyone’s definition but the media’s dishes it out but cannot take it: Assassination TIME: Sr. journalist ‘can’t wait’ to justify drone strike that will kill Assange <read>

Connecticut Deserves a Fully Transparent and Deliberative Legislature

Last week, Fresh Talk from the Courant provides a partial case for a full-time Legislature.We agree with the basic reasons presented in the argument, yet there is more that should be required of a full-time, close to adequately compensated legislature.

Last week, Fresh Talk from the Courant provides a partial case for a full-time Legislature: Connecticut Deserves A Full-Time Legislature <read>

However, we have seen too many talented people decline to run for the state legislature, instead campaigning for more prestigious federal or statewide positions.

According to the National Conference of State Legislators, 10 states have legislatures tha t operate full time or nearly full time. It is time for the Connecticut General Assembly to join its exceptional brothers and sisters in New York and Massachusetts and move to operating full time.

Of course a full – time legislature would come with a salary increase for its members. For taxpayers, this would be an investment worth making…

Additionally, the higher salary would increase the prestige of the position and attract high – caliber people who have otherwise declined to run for office. Corporate America knows that to attract high – quality workers, you must pay high – quality wages…

There is currently little incentive for a Connecticut resident making the median $65,400 a year to run against a state representative and take a $37,000 pay cut if the challenger wins…

Finally, by paying lawmakers more, the legislature could free itself from the artificial deadlines that have hamstrung its ability to tackle the state’s largest problems. A full-time legislature could go through the full procedure without leaving questions about the propriety of its process. Controversies about emergency certification and the mysterious materialization of keno in state law would become things of the past. Having extra days and months to get these right, along with giving the legislature time to face challenges that have been neglected, would be a worthwhile investment for taxpayers.

We agree with the basic reasons presented in the argument, yet there is more that should be required of a full-time, close to adequately compensated legislature. The days of the idealistic part-time citizen legislature, with farmers and shop-keepers taking a few days off for annual or biannual sessions is long gone. It takes three to five months in session, and most of the year in part-time constituent service and campaigning. There is some time for other things, like family and making an adequate living.

Currently the Legislature is over-weighted with those that can adjust their workload to fit the legislative calendar: lawyers and contractors; those with lower income requirements: singles, retired individuals, and those who are independently wealthy; and some whose employers wink at the time away from work, seemingly in anticipation of sympathetic lawmaking. I note, like the U.S. Congress, a lack of scientists and technical experts – perhaps full-time doew not turn a variety of individuals into successful politicians.

Beyond more time, we should demand more transparency, public notice, and public hearings. We are not satisfied with the ‘could’ in “A full-time legislature could go through the full procedure without leaving questions about the propriety of its process.” We are not so certain “Controversies about emergency certification and the mysterious materialization of keno in state law would become things of the past.”

Too often we have seen that extra section, known as a ‘rat’, stuck way down in a bill, voted on without public awareness and little time for most legislators to know about it. Too often bills are changed dramatically by harried legislators based on public testimony or private conversations, without a chance for public airing of those changes, before they are passed by committee, or before the final vote in the House or Senate. No system is perfect, yet there needs to be more time from text to vote for the public and legislators, more public hearings when there are significant changes. That requires and deserves the time and attention of a full-time legislature.

PS: Unlike some we are against a smaller legislature, which would place more work on fewer individuals, provide for less points of view, and leave citizens with less influence on their representatives. We also have reservations on term limits which could deprive us of the most experienced legislators, while increasing the power of staff and the influence of lobbyists.

We can fix this and improve election integrity

Verified Voting Recommendations to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration

Verified Voting Recommendations to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration <read>

Way back when, President Obama, observing the long lines on election night said, We need to fix this those problems. Resulting in two letters to the President from voting integrity advocates. Now his commission is meeting and it is time they considered appropriate, reasonable remedies. We emphasize several points in the Verified Voting recommendations:

Optical scan systems provide superior performance to DRE (Touch Screen) systems when it comes to capacity. We had long lines in Connecticut with optical scanners, yet the problem was not scanners it was insufficient check-in lines, resulting from inadequate planning by election officials, compounded by squabbling, coupled with a lack of action when the problem became apparent.
A call for more and better pollworker training. Here in Connecticut that should include more and better training of supervisors and registrars. It was not the pollworkers that caused the major problems here.
Outlining the risks of Internet voting. Sadly, next year, Connecticut will be added to the list of states allowing return of ballots over the Internet.
Optical scan and paper ballots need to be accompanied with adequate audits and recounts to achieve their promised value, provide integrity, provide confidence, and protect the democracy under “We the People”.

We can fix this and improve election integrity. Will we?

They know what you think and how your vote will be recorded

NY Review of Books has a article by James Bamford, a true expert on the NSA: They Know Much More Than You Think which ends with an insightful quote from the late Senator Frank Church, which we paraphrase for the coming of Internet voting to Connecticut.

NY Review of Books has a article by James Bamford, a true expert on the NSA: They Know Much More Than You Think <read> which ends with an insightful quote from the late Senator Frank Church, which we paraphrase for the coming of Internet voting to Connecticut:

That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, [how you voted, what you think, what you said in your you youth, who you “paled around with”,] it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, [elect their chosen candidates, pass/defeat initiatives, make you look bad, unpatriotic, untrustworthy,] or defeat the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology…. I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, [while avoiding reliance on technology that the government and others could use to compromise elections,] so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.

We add “first they came for the Military’s vote, then they came for my vote, but then there was no empowerment left to restore democracy”.

We recommend reading Bamford’s entire piece to understand what they can know about you, now or when they choose in the future, should you do something they would like to prevent by discrediting you or someone you know.

Well intended misstep on Connecticut’s horizon?

The Hartford Courant editorial board celebrates a step towards a mistake for which they have long advocated

There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat,
plausible, and wrong.- H.L. Mencken

There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat, plausible, and wrong.
– H.L. Mencken

The Hartford Courant editorial board celebrates a step towards a mistake for which they have long advocated: Registrar Reduction On Hartford Horizon, Hartford Charter Commission wisely proposes end to five-year fiasco <read>

Hartford has wasted more than $1 million in the last five years on a top-heavy registrars of voters’ office. The city has three registrars, while every other municipality in the state has two.
Under a law that apparently dates back to when the Socialist Party had a strong presence in the state, the candidates for registrar who garner the highest and second-highest number of votes win the posts. But if a major-party candidate — Democrat or Republican — is not among the top two finishers, that candidate must also be named a registrar.
In 2008, the Working Families Party candidate outpolled the Republican candidate, so both, along with the Democrat, became registrars. The cost of each party registrar, with staff, benefits, etc., approaches $250,000 a year…

Two more things must happen. The change must be approved by voters in November, and the General Assembly must make a small change in state law.

While the Editorial Board may have their heart in the right place, they may be oblivious to the demanding job of registrar and the record of human nature. They have regularly been fighting this battle since before the third party registrar was elected. We have been arguing for better solutions then and now.

There is a reason for two registrars and three. The idea is to have checks and balances. Since the Working Families Party is the real challenger in Hartford, they need a registrar to watch out for their interests and the interests of their voters. Yet, as the one of the major parties in statewide elections, the Republicans need someone watching out for their interests in Hartford as well. Not so long ago we saw that a single registrar was insufficient to protect the interests of one party. Does the Editorial Board remember or read the news in the Courant?
Replacing three uncertified registrars with one uncertified registrar, without oversight is a formula for disaster.We have argued for replacing all registrars with civil service professionals, yet not the simplistic way apparently recommend by the Editorial Board: We have recommended: Doing for election what we have done for probate: Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize. But changing one city or only a simple change allowing for a single professional to run a city’s elections is false economy. We have professional iown clerks, yet the ycan be certified and supervised. To do the job right there needs to be training and qualifications; there needs to be standards for town councils to judge potential candidates; there needs to be a career path from deputy to registrar, from smaller districts to larger ones; there must be oversight in place to see that registrars do the job as intended and are even-handed to all parties, candidates and voters. Here is the bill we proposed last year <read> for a blue ribbon commission.
There is more than one way to save money, in spite of the city and Courant’s lack creativity. As we have said before there is no state law mandating that a third registrar cost $250,000. There are plenty of registrars across the state that work part time, so can three Hartford registrars work 2/3 time and be supported by three deputies with fewer assistants in total.

We appreciate that the Editorial Board understands the value of auditing.

Another change would expand the powers and scope of the city’s internal audit commission. The commission has been remarkably busy this year rooting out waste and should have the tools it needs. The revision also enables the creation of a public campaign financing mechanism, a nice idea when the city can afford it.

If only we had effective, comprehensive, independent election audits.

Electronic voting as safe as electricity and nuclear power?

In a recent Hartford Courant Op-Ed, Arthur House, chair of the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority and previous Director of Communications of the Director of National Intelligence addressed cyber threats to public utilities. We cannot help but compare the concern of Mr. House for our utilities ability to protect the infrastructure, with the sure confidence of our Governor and Legislature in the ability of the Secretary of the State and local election officials to develop systems, at no cost, to make the Internet safe for online voting. Democracy is at least as important as the infrastructure.

Cyber offense and defense are rapidly evolving forms of warfare. Our public utilities are among the target s foreign powers have penetrated. Our vital public services are vulnerable. U.S. national security leadership has seen the exercise of cyber probes and weaponry, some in overt military action and others, including foreign actions in the United States, more exploratory — “battlefield preparation,” in military terms.

For public utilities and the states that regulate them, cyber threats risk denial of electricity, water, natural gas and telecommunications. Our state emergency managers include cyber threats in their portfolio of hurricanes, ice storms, other natural disasters and physical sabotage. Cyber threats present a new dimension to emergency management with potentially devastating consequences and without the certainty of adequate defenses…

.Connecticut is intensifying its work with its public utilities, which long ago started their cyber defense programs and initiated planni ng for dealing with disruption. Several strengthening steps are possible, such as requiring utilities annually publish a statement from a reputable security company affirming (or not) that the company takes reasonable steps to ensure cyber security.

The most difficult adjustment lies with all of us — understanding and accepting the reality of cyber vulnerability and its unpredictable consequences. In the past, Americans have been able to take action, find reasonable solutions and do what makes sense without giving up the essential. We can do it with cyber, but it’s time to kick into gear.. The threat is real, and the work will be demanding.

We cannot help but compare the concern of Mr. House for our utilities ability to protect the infrastructure, with the sure confidence of our Governor and Legislature in the ability of the Secretary of the State and local election officials to develop systems, at no cost, to make the Internet safe for online voting. Democracy is at least as important as the infrastructure.

Student hijacks election, case highlights internet voting vulnerability

Another challenge for Secretary of the State Denise Merrill and the state Military Department in creating a safe online voting system for Connecticut. We would add that one of the key (pun intended) vulnerabilities in online voting is in the user id’s and passwords required for voting.

A former Cal State student was sentenced to one year in jail for hacking a student election, to gain positions which pay much better than most town council positions in Connecticut. Two excellent articles by Doug Chapin: Cautionary Tale: Student Gets Jail Time for Stealing Online School Election <read> and a follow-up by David Jefferson: <read>

The gist of the story from Chapin:

Technically, this isn’t the kind of election news I usually blog about (because it doesn’t involve a public election) but I thought it was worth sharing … From UTSanDiego:

A former Cal State San Marcos student who rigged a campus election by stealing nearly 750 student passwords to cast votes for himself and friends was sentenced Monday in federal court to a year in prison …Weaver, 22, of Huntington Beach was a third-year business student when he carried out the elaborate plan to win election as president of the school’s student council in March 2012. He pleaded guilty this year to three federal charges, including wire fraud and unauthorized access to a computer …

The plan to steal the election was months in the making.

On Weaver’s computer, authorities found a PowerPoint presentation from early 2012, proposing that he run for campus president and that four of his fraternity brothers run for the four vice president spots in the student government. The presentation noted that the president’s job came with an $8,000 stipend and the vice presidents each got a $7,000 stipend.

Weaver also had done a bit of research, with computer queries such as “how to rig an election” and “jail time for keylogger.”

A month before the election, Weaver purchased three keyloggers — small electronic devices that secretly record a computer user’s keystrokes [pictured above – ed.].

Authorities said Weaver installed keyloggers on 19 school computers, stole passwords from 745 students and cast ballots from the accounts of more than 630 of those victims.

The plot was discovered, however, when technicians spotted unusual activity on the last day of the election period:

Using remote access, technicians watched the computer user cast vote after vote. They also watched as the user logged into the account of a university official and read an email from a student complaining that the system would not let her vote.Weaver had already cast a ballot from the student’s account, which was why she couldn’t vote.

The techs called campus police, who found Weaver at the school computer. He had keyloggers with him and was arrested.

The student didn’t help himself when he engaged in an elaborate cover-up afterwards

Jefferson adds several cautionary concerns that the hacker could have been a bit smarter and been less likely to be caught or the hack discovered, and that a similar public election hack would have been more difficult to discover, concluding:

In the many debates on the subject of Internet voting it is important not to allow anyone to use this Cal State San Marcos student election experience to argue that online public elections can be made safe because those who would cast phony votes will be caught. Mr. Weaver’s actions were detected because he was voting from computers controlled by the university IT staff, and he was identified and caught because he was not even minimally technically skilled in the techniques that could have distanced him from the crime. In a high stakes public election we will not be so lucky.

What would we add?

We would add that one of the key (pun intended) vulnerabilities in online voting is in the user id’s and passwords required for voting.

What if Matthew Weaver had spent his time getting a job in the computer lab and obtained the list of passwords from a central server and then made some timely changes to alter logs of the ip addresses used for voting?

The now famous D.C. Hack among other things demonstrated that even outsiders have the possibility of gaining a list of voters and their passwords.

One of those pesky details that would confront Connecticut Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill and the Sswtate Military Department when they design a safe online voting system for Connecticut. If they choose web based voting, how in the age of Bradley Manning access can they insure that military computers and individuals’ computers are safe for internet voting? How can they assure that passwords sent through the mail arrive in time, to the intended recipient, and uncompromised?

1117=620 and other inaccuracies of NationalPopularVote.org

Although Every Vote Equal is touted as a 630 page book, a detail apparently unchanged from the original version, the fourth edition is now an increasingly redundant 1117 pages. Unfortunately, no matter to what lengths the authors go, it can never be enough to successfully defy logic and informed common sense. On the other hand I have to appreciate their work to use a small portion of that space in an effort to discredit yours truly.

This spring marked the fourth edition of Every Vote Equal, a large and expanding essay apparently aimed at convincing readers and book-lifters that the weight of evidence is on the side of passing the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact.

I have yet to read the forth version, as reading every page of the third version was a tough enough slog. I will stick with the movie going forward. But one of the authors had promised that my myths about the Compact would be refuted in this version. So I hunted and found only one reference, taking a half a page or so, starting on page 582. It claimed to refute a statement in an old blog post:

In an article entitled “Lawmakers Seek to Change Presidential Elections to Make Them More Risky, Reduce Confidence,” Luther Weeks of Connecticut says:

“There is no official national popular vote number complied and certified nationally that can be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any reasonably close election.” [Emphasis added(by Every Vote Equal)]
Of course, the vote counts recorded on the states’ Certificates of Ascertainment are used under the current system to award electoral votes. Moreover, these vote counts are considered “official” enough and “accurate” enough to elect the President of the United States under the current system.

In particular, the 537-vote lead (out of 5,963,110 votes) recorded on Florida’s Certificate of Ascertainment in 2000 was considered “official” enough and “accurate” enough to elect a President. One wonders why Weeks thinks that these state-produced Certificates of Ascertainment (and the legal process behind the “final determinations” reported in these certificates) would suddenly become “more risky” if used to elect a President under the National Popular Vote compact. Why would they suddenly “reduce confidence?”

Superficially, it sounds like they have done the job. But they have not. Let me point out a couple of things they missed or overlooked.

I was not saying that their was not a “popular vote number complied and certified nationally”. I am of course, aware of the Certificates of Ascertainment.
I was implying it is not true that the Certificates “can be used to officially and accurately determine the winner”. I am sticking by that.
I also did not say that “Certificates of Ascertainment are used under the current system to award electoral votes.” I said they could not be used under the Compact to determine the winner.

Several times after my original statement was made, I refuted their contention in blog debates. I also changed what I was saying to make by contention clearer by adding two words, “in time”. For instance, here is my testimony to the Connecticut Legislature in 2011 and again in this year in 2013. I said pretty much the same thing both times:

Fact or Myth?

There is no official national popular vote number compiled in time, such that it could be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any close election.

According to NationalPopularVote.org:

20.1 MYTH: There is no official count of the national popular vote.

It is sometimes asserted that there is no official national vote count for President and, therefore, the National Popular Vote bill would be impossible to implement. Contrary to this assertion, existing federal law (section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code) requires that an official count of the popular vote from each state be certified and sent to various federal officials in the form of a “certificate of ascertainment…

Reality:

Yes: There is an official, unaudited, national popular vote number which can be determined by examining data posted by the federal government at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college

Reality: The number is not compiled and available in time, such that states could use the number to determine, under the Compact, how to allocate their electoral votes. Looking at the details for 2008,
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote2
We find:

States must prepare a Certificate of Ascertainment listing electors and the votes that they received: “The original Certificate and two certified copies (or duplicate originals) should be sent to the Archivist as soon as possible after the November 4 election results are finalized. At the very latest, they must be received by the electors on the statutory deadline of December 15, 2008 and submitted to the Archivist no later than December 16, 2008.”

“On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008), the electors meet in their respective States. Federal law does not permit the States to choose an alternate date for the meeting of electors – it must be held on December 15, 2008… At this meeting, the electors cast their votes for President and Vice President.”

Since states are not required to submit electors and their official unaudited vote totals to the Archivist until December 16^th, the national popular vote number obviouisly could not be guaranteed to be available on December 15^th. And since the Certificate cannot be created until after the electors of a state have voted, the final official unaudited national popular number could not be official until all states electors have already voted. But wait…

“Any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors must be decided under State law at least six days prior to the meeting of the electors.”

So, each state must actually appoint its electors six (6) days before they must meet and vote which is seven (7) days before each state is required to send the state’s official unaudited popular vote numbers to Washington. But wait…

“The statutory deadline for the designated Federal and State officials to receive the electoral votes is December 24, 2008. Because of the very short time between the meetings of the electors in the States on December 15 and the December 24 statutory deadline, followed closely by the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6, 2009, it is imperative that the Certificates be mailed as soon as possible.”

So, the real deadline for each state’s popular vote number arriving in Washington, would be nine (9) days after the vote for electors, and fifteen (15) days after electors have to be deterimed. Presumably some time is also needed to accurately post that information so that the official, unaudited numbers would be available for state officials to review.

Let me suggest reading the other myths and arguments in the 2013 testimony for more of what Every Vote Equal chose not to even attempt to discredit.

Common Sense: Why should audits be Independent?

Why do we need independent audits for elections just as we have for other business and government functions?

Note: This is the seventh post in an occasional series on Common Sense Election Integrity, summarizing, updating, and expanding on many previous posts covering election integrity, focused on Connecticut. <previous> <next>

In the last few weeks, since the revelations of Edward Snowdon, we have seen the limits of Congressional “Oversight”, when a small number of legislators have access to the “facts” of the implementation of the Patriot Act, FISA, and NSA. But these facts seem to be “we assure you we are not doing anything wrong”, “our warrants are reviewed by a Court (with the facts of the warrants being secret, and the Court apparently rubber stamping every proposed warrant)” etc.

This situation is not much different from audits that lack independence. One of the requirements of the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits is Independent Audits.

The authority and regulation of post-election audits should be independent of officials who conduct the elections. The actual work of post-election audits may be best performed by the officials who conduct the elections and their designees.

a. The independence of authority and regulation may be satisfied from resources inside or outside state government.

b. The actual work of post-election audits—i.e. the handling and counting of ballots and reporting the results—may be best performed by the officials who conduct the elections.

We do not find that Connecticut’s Post-Election Audits meet that criteria, since the authority and regulation of our audits are under the control of the Secretary of the State who is also the Chief Elections Official and responsible for selection and approval of election equipment in the State. What we have seen from Official Post-Elecction Audit reports is the dismissal of all differences between audit counts and machine counts as “human error”, largely without investigation. An independent audit should be expected to provide a thorough investigation of questionable results, rather than providing excuses.

We do not audit our own taxes and send the results in to the IRS. They audit our taxes and expect us to be able to justify random items. The IRS does not attribute differences in their information or calculations to their own counting errors! Similarly businesses often have internal independent auditors and external independent auditors to protect the interests of the shareholders. It does not always work but it often does. Given human nature, we could hardly expect non-independent auditors to approach being equally effective.

Other areas of government conduct independent audits often uncovering serious problems, like recent internal audits in the City of Hartford: <read>

The audit, by Chief Auditor H. Patrick Campbell for the city’s Internal Audit Commission, focused on the revenue management unit of the city finance department, which is responsible for the oversight of general fund revenue due the city, about $550 million this year. The auditors found a number of problems, including:

• Poor control of lease agreements, rental properties and other revenue-producing arrangements. For example, one city parking lease had not been renegotiated since 2000, for reasons that are unclear, the auditors report.

Lease issues are troubling because they were identified in an earlier audit, which supposedly spurred corrective action. The position of asset manager was created to oversee and manage leases, and a lease, licensing and contract database was to be created.

In this review, the auditors discovered that the asset manager position was eliminated and the database was never completed. Eliminating positions that bring in revenue is eating the seed corn.

• 151 bounced checks totaling more than $392,000. More than half of these checks had not been followed up and resolved. Nor was it clear whether late or insufficient-fund fees were being charged. Many fees and charges are handled by individual departments; the auditors recommend they be centralized. You can’t have people bouncing checks at city hall and getting away with it.

• Missing documentation. The department is supposed to keep track of actual vs. budgeted revenues, to determine what might be causing any discrepancies. The finance department did reviews, apparently, but “documentation to support the reviews and follow-up performed is not maintained on file,” the auditors wrote.

Another example comes form the Connecticut Office of State Ethics audit of Statements of Financial Interests filed by state legislators and other officials.<read> It serves as an example of a positive report, yet finds exceptions, and areas for improvement.

Would we really expect a report as critical as the one in Hartford if it was done by the managers and staff of the department making these significant errors? Would we expect legislators and employees to correctly evaluate and report on the accuracy of their own disclosure statements? Would we trust the results of a positive report written by the individuals involved? Would we expect them to find the suggestions for improvement?

That is why we need independent audits for elections just as we have for other business and government functions.

But when it comes to elections, are independent audits sufficient? Not really. We need public transparency and verifiability as well. The subject of a future post.

4th of July Reading

“The right to vote… is the primary right by which other rights are protected” – Thomas Paine

This weekend is a great time to [re-]read the Declaration of Independence. We find it very inspiring to read it sometime around the 4th of July each year. As we have discussed before, some believe that the right to vote is more fundamental than the Constitution. Here is a link to a copy for your reading <Declaration of Independence>

The Declaration of Independence asserts our rights to determine and change our form of government – without voting integrity we lose that most fundamental of rights.

“The right to vote… is the primary right by which other rights are protected” – Thomas Paine