Angry letter to the editor on the Diebold scandal.........

[Joanne98]

Reporter Editor:

Solano County officials evidently went into a contract that says to a vendor that if their product is shoddy or not certifiable and we can't use it, they still get some money for it ("Solano, Diebold end pact," The Reporter, Aug. 26).

Gee, where can we get a contract like that?

We pay Michael Johnson, the county's top administration, $347,840 a year to watch the money and keep us fiscally sound. Is it fiscally prudent and sound to pay $400,000 to a company that gave the county a decertified voting machine?

To top it off, the county pays Dennis Bunting, county counsel $224,649, and he let the county sign this contract?

So, a company comes to the county with a "crackerjack" of a product or idea. They don't have to worry about taking a chance that they will come away empty handed, because if it can't be certified or doesn't meet the specifications, the county will throw some money at them anyway. Neat deal.

County officials keep asking the taxpayer for more. They never seem to have enough. It is deals like this, which probably number beyond comprehension, that causes shortfalls. There is no way taxes will ever be enough to cover this kind of spending attitude. Where is the accountability?

T.J. Lock, Vacaville


http://www.thereporter.com/Stories/0,1413,295~30192~2390220,00.html

Bev said Solano screwed up by not waiting for the state to join her lawsuit. Looks like the natives are pissed already. No wonder. paying 400,000 dollars to return a shoddy product. What an OUTRAGE. These election officals need to be FIRED.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Great letter!

[Joanne98]

3. Yes it is. Everybody should bookmark it in case we need to send one to..

Our own stupid officials. Or better yet send them one AHEAD of time so they will know what will happen if they buy shoddy e-voting machines. :)

[RedEagle]

7. Not a lone case

King County, in Washington State, just paid Diebold $93,000 for a program that will do what their old program was supposed to do- and King County knew back in 2000 that it wasn't what it was supposed to be.

Subsidizing non-performance with taxpayer money.

AND- this new program has never been nationally certified or tested and does not meet Washington State requirements for certification.

But Sam Reed declared an "emergency" and is giving provisional certification, not only to this Diebold program, but to ESS and Sequoia programs.

(FYI, the Diebold program handled a consolidated, preference primary in 2000 and is supposed to handle around 2,000 more PCO positions than King County claims it can't. Plus, ES&S has had programs around since at least 1999 that handle consolidated, preference ballots, so what gives?)

Oh, and all of this just before the primaries and November election. This software is not slated to be ever tested on a Federal level and I hear most of it will be removed in 2005.

Better yet, I understand that Reed has refused a public records request for the release notes. He's sent that back to Diebold to decide.

Release notes are not proprietary. They contain no code, they just indicate what the program does and how it differs from the previous one. In fact, I believe the counties have to have those notes to figure out what is going on.

Isn't it just coincidence that these changes are taking place in the counties that will constitute half of the votes in Washington State? (I've seen elsewhere that we are a "swing" state this year)

Forget state law- Sam Reed just trampled it.

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. Me thinks this

is just the beginning.

Great letter and thanks for posting it!

:thumbsup:

[Joanne98]

4. Your welcome Gawd_Bush_n_FU...........

Just kidding.. :)

[Andy_Stephenson]

6. heh heh heh

Yessss.....

[Joanne98]

5. I bet you anything Diebold threatened to sue thru the WTO........

where corporations NEVER lose. Somebody should ask the officials. i bet they did.