County Clerk

A couple new items at the Champaign County Clerk website. 

First, our various County Board and Legislative maps have been updated.  Take a look.  I think they look great. 

Second, in a somewhat ironic twist given my other blog post, we've added Google Translate to the site.  I'd be curious what others think of how well it works.  While I've managed to repress my xenophobic tendencies and sent some of my staff to training in Spanish it's not particularly practical to be in  a position to always be able to deal with everyone who comes to the counter in the various languages we see in Champaign County.  This gives anyone an increased ability to access our services.

Just like the headline says, Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden's office has developed new maps for County Board and state Legislative districts, and they're on his website here.  They're looking for feedback, so please give them some.

Your property tax bill is being sent out on May 2nd.  But you can see the damage now.

We've changed things up a bit at our website, www.champaigncountyclerk.com in an attempt to get people where they need to be quicker and easier.  Not much different in the way of content, but hopefully a few other changes are on the way.

Also, I noted on my County Clerk blog that we're now using the GIS consortium to help us produce maps.  Let me know if you'd like to volunteer to improve that area of our office.

Our webmaster and I are principally Firefox users so I'm especially interested in how the IE, Safari and other browser users are doing with the site.

County Clerk Mark Shelden has blogged about the new election law just signed by Gov. Blagojevich.

Allows first time voters to cast an absentee ballot by mail if they provide sufficient ID to the election authority.

Allows people who sign a petition for one political party to cross over and cast a ballot in the primary of a different political party.

There's more, but that second provision was a point of contention in the 2005 Democratic Primary for Urbana Mayor, when some Laurel Prussing supporters claimed that people who signed petitions for GOP candidates shouldn't be allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary.

Read the whole thing - he points out an interesting problem with undervotes.  (At least, it's interesting to me...)

Tonight, I spoke at the County Board.  The video will hopefully be on our website Friday.  After detailing the history of Denny Inman's incompetence regarding both the purchasing policy and the remodeling of my office, Tom Betz offered Denny Inman the chance to respond to my criticisms.  He elected to not speak at that time, I'm guessing because he had no response.  Twice during points in the meeting, Tom Betz asked some pointed questions and the stammering from Mr. Inman was entertaining.  Inman admitted that he received only one bid.   He claimed that he tried to make phone solicitations to two other people, one who backed out and the other one who they couldn't get a hold of.   They were still negotiating on this today with the one firm.  So we have no idea when this project will start.  Inman claimed that when he said the County had come to an agreement it was not really an agreement in the formal sense but rather an understanding.  Inman also had no explanation as to how he could inform me at a meeting one week that a project would start in my office on October 15 but never tell me later that the plans had changed.

Tom Betz asked:  Is there a list of prequalified vendors.  Denny Inman lied and said yes.    It's quite simple.  There is no list.  Inman's list is a compilation of a number of minority firms from various sources but he never did what was required by the purchasing policy which requires an application and a number of other items.  Among the names on the list for example is Lloyd Carter, a sitting County Board member. 

How silly is Inman's claim?  If what he is doing is legal now, it was legal five years ago prior to the County debating for years and passing a new purchasing policy.  Why did we go through all those hassles when all we had to do is tell Inman to hire minorities.  Back when Inman wasn't hiring minorities, he claimed it was because the purchasing policy impaired that ability.

I still haven't received a response on my FOIA, but I intend to find out when these solicitations were sent out.  This plan was approved by the County Board in June with a targeted construction completion date of November 1.  On October 18 we are still negotiating with someone to begin the project.  Why weren't bids solicited in July?

As many of you are aware, we've had some difficulties with our cable coverage of County Board meetings.  The cable company has been helpful, but we still haven't been able to get the meetings on each time.  The cable company is coming in to do a test this afternoon.  Hopefully we'll have no problems tonight. 

The meeting will be broadcast on Channel 21.

At the request of County Board members and others, we've changed our camera location to give viewers a little more to look at then Steve Beckett's five o'clock shadow.  Let us know what you think.

Remember, our coverage is done on the cheap.  Our digital camera I believe is under $2,000.  The city of Champaign I believe spent over $100,000 to set up their filming system, which of course is excellent.

Yes, I'm at work.

OK, it's only shocking if that's what you call County government.  We have just gone digital and the first video available is the July 26, 2007 County Board meeting. 

As I've mentioned before, our space on our web server is now unlimited so we're going to be able to put up audio and video files without incurring extra charges.  With our new digital camera, we also have the ability to record other meetings that can't be put on cablevision and make those available.  We'll be moving analog stuff over to digital in the coming months and years and you'll see lots more available.

We're also looking for some software ideas to put bookmarks in the audio and video files to help people easily navigate to the points in a meeting they want.  Send us any ideas you might have.

On a related note, we continue to have some difficulties getting things properly up on cablevision.  We'll hope to get this rectified so that every meeting will be broadcast in the future without the technical glitches we've experienced in the recent past.

There seems to be no end to Denny Inman's willingness to ignore the Freedom of Information Act.  Hopefully, someone will put a stop to it.  Here is the latest.

In June I requested to review correspondence regarding the final costs on the nursing home project which were due to the health facilities planning board in May.  Inman finally responded to that request, only after I filed an appeal with Board Chairman Pius Weibel.  In that response, Inman said that no such correspondence with our attorneys existed.

Now, I come to find out, by looking at the County Board agenda, that there are no fewer than six references within the billing from Duane Morris to correspondence with Inman.  This isn't the first time that Inman has broken the law by failing to honestly respond to a FOIA request, but I hope it's the last.  Most people have felt that Inman has withheld important information from the media, board members, and the public.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he's illegally withheld documents in discovery. 

It doesn't have to be this way.  First, the County Board can fire him.  I mean right now.  This is clearly a violation of his contract and because it's not the first time this has happened, it would be totally justified to let the guy go.  Second, Julia Rietz can prosecute him under the Official Misconduct Statute which says in part

A public officer or employee or special government agent commits misconduct when, in his official capacity or capacity as a special government agent, he commits any of the following acts:
(a) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law;

Is such a drastic step a good idea?  I wouldn't normally say so.  However, Inman's total disregard for this statute leads me to believe that no other avenue is available to get him to comply with the law.

Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden is featured on this week's WDWS podcast.

Some people are convinced that George Bush stole the last couple elections. These claims are largely based on wild suppositions, the wildest of the suppositions being the claims regarding Ohio in 2004. In response to people's concerns regarding Diebold and possible vote tampering, a number of people are suggesting that after the election, election officials should do a sampling of ballots in every precinct to determine whether the machines are rigged. The proposals vary, but no one suggests more than a 10% sample of ballots be counted.

Under the sampling theory, we can know whether an election is fraudulent by looking at a mere 10% of the ballots. It's a ridiculous proposal, and will serve to increase voter cynicism and uncertainty about our vote counting process.

The proposal by the Election Defense Alliance has gathered a lot of attention and was brought to my attention after I spoke to the NIU law school Election law symposium in March. A person who is working with the EDA approached me about doing a pilot project in Champaign County using the EDA sampling proposal. I turned him down and referred him to our own vote count integrity program.

I offered a few points to him for which he had no response. Perhaps others do.

First, after a 10% sample, the results will all but certainly be different than the actual results. How much different will vary, but the likelihood of them being different by .5% is high. So for example, take the Myers Frerichs Senate race last year. Frerichs won by just under 1% (Frerichs - 27,149, Myers - 26,607, Parnarauskis - 1,894). Suppose we sample 5,565 ballots (10%) and we get the following results: Myers - 2,690, Frerichs - 2,685, and Parnarauskis - 190. This result is statistically not improbable. From a public relations standpoint it's a disaster. Certainly, those who understand or generally accept probability theory will not have an issue, except for those who have a vested interest in fomenting public dissatisfaction with the election process. A large number of other people will also have a problem because they simply don't understand the math. What we have done is not increased certainty, but rather increased uncertainty.

Second, the Election Defense Alliance suggests that they have a 99% chance of being accurate. That means, if they run this sample on every Congressional District, we will have four districts where the sample will show inaccurate results. In those areas, there will once again be a crisis of confidence.

Third, the random sampling will allow someone to program fraud into a system with a limited chance of being caught. So while the proponents of sampling speak of the high probability of 1% vote fraud being detected, they don't speak of the improbability of .2% vote fraud being detected. A computer programmer who wanted to drop one vote per precinct could have altered the Presidential election results in Florida, Iowa, Oregon, and New Mexico in 2000 and Wisconsin and Iowa in 2004. Sampling probably would not have caught this fraud.

Fourth, crimes are generally deterred by the probability of being caught. The Election Defense Alliance suggests that 40% of vote fraud would not be caught under a 2% sampling scheme as proposed in the Holt Bill. What that means is that anyone who rigs an election has a 60% chance of getting caught. I doubt that any computer hacker who is skilled enough to do all the programming work to steal an election would be willing to take that kind of risk.  In fact, I'm not sure what criminal activity with a 60% chance of being caught is ever engaged in by reasonable people.

Fifth, the public has a right to know that their vote counting equipment is 100% accurate. Only a redundant recount in a sample of precincts can actually instill that confidence in people. When we conducted our redundant count, we were able to point to specific ballots that were likely the result of the vote discrepancies.

The Election Defense Alliance is sound in requesting some automatic triggers for redundant counts. I would fully support that. I was actually pleased when the election in the Village of Ivesdale went to a discovery recount. I wanted to know that indeed the votes were counted as they were cast. We found out that they were, and both the winners and losers in that contest can rest easy in the accuracy of the results.

Regaining the public's confidence in our election system is not beyond us. The most critical part of regaining that confidence is to provide facts instead of supposition and to engage in rational debate instead of lobbing wild accusations. Sampling is certainly not the answer.

By popular demand we have arranged for the Open Meetings FOIA seminar to be on cable access.  Schedule available on our website here.  We're going to get it on some better times later as well.

EDIT: Friday afternoon we were informed that there was a problem with the dubbing of the tape.  A new schedule will be released when the problem is fixed.

Tonight, at 6:00 pm, at the Urbana Civic Center, Terry Mutchler will be conducting a seminar on the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Acts.  It is open to the public and she'll be taking questions as well.  Hope to see you there.

I mentioned some weeks ago that my office was hosting a seminar on the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Acts.  The seminar is open to the public on May 22nd at 6:00 pm at the Urbana Civic Center.  If you've got questions you'd like addressed you can submit them to my office or post them on the County Clerk Blog.

This story made me laugh a little:

Sen. Barack Obama vows to bring a "new kind of politics" to Washington. But a copy of a 36-page fax from Obama's Senate office, obtained by NEWSWEEK, shows that the rookie presidential candidate, riding the biggest wave this side of his native Hawaii, needs to keep a sharp eye on the details of his own campaign. Senate ethics rules allow senators with active campaigns to "split" the work time and salary of official schedulers such as Obama's Molly Buford. According to Obama's campaign spokesman, Robert Gibbs, she in fact is paid by both entities. But Senate rules and federal law forbid the use of official equipment—such as faxes and phone lines—to conduct campaign business, which was what Buford was doing last Thursday when she faxed Obama's political "call list" to the senator's personal aide at a Columbia, S.C., hotel. "These are the call sheets for tomorrow's call time," she wrote on the official cover page, emblazoned with the seal of the U.S. Senate.

One, this is a minor, minor thing - a classic example of another campaign playing "gotcha" with a stupid unforced error by a staffer - not even by the candidate.

Two, Sen. Obama has set himself (and allowed the media to elevate him to a level) "above politics."  This is why Speaker Madigan called him "The Messiah."  But for every silly, stupid, nothing-to-it little mistep like this one, the metamorphosis into Just Another Politician™ continues.

Three, some Champaign County Democrats have a history of calling for investigations of officials who use government faxes for political purposes.  Which of our principled local Democrats will stand against such a blatant abuse of official resources?  Just kidding, just kidding - but I will be waiting for someone to demand a special prosecutor.  ;-)

I don't blog much on my County Clerk blog but I put one up today regarding the retabulation and hand count of ballots.

We've begun something new on our Champaign County Clerk website that should grow this year into an excellent research tool.  The idea began earlier this year when our webhosting company gave us unlimited storage space and some free domain names for the same price we had been paying.  We decided to start making the thousands of documents that we have digitally archived available at a new site called Champaign County Archives. We've got over 50GB of pdf's on our local server that will be copied into the archives. Instead of creating a typical web interface, we've opted to go with a low maintenance file system of sorts.  I'm interested in comments.

Right now, we've just gotten budgets and levies on the website, but you can expect to see much more in the coming months.  We'll also be working on our full text searches for resolutions and I expect that all minutes into the 1800's will be up in the coming months as well.

For what little it's worth, I'm planning on being at the Brookens Center this evening to live-blog the election results.  Unless I have major problems with my Treo, I should be able to get online out there.

Also for what little it's worth, I think it's completely unacceptable that the Brookens Center has wireless internet access, but doesn't allow the public access to it for County Board meetings and events like tonight.  Taxpayers are providing the revenue to pay for it, but somehow we can't be trusted to use it.

Making government more accessible is something which both Republicans and Democrats talk about during campaigns.  Allowing journalists, bloggers and citizens access to the internet in our publicly funded buildings would be a nice step to take.  The next time you run into your County Board member, please let them know how much you'd appreciate publicly accessible wireless internet in our County's main facilities (Brookens and the Courthouse).

I'll get off my soapbox now.  Thanks for listening.

I started out my week with an incredible e-mail from County Board Chairman Pius Weibel that included this.

In a letter of January 29, 2007 and an email of February 2, 2007, we had discussed your offer of scanning documents. My response:  Ms. Busey and Mr. Inman have on-going plans to scanmaterials from older, not-yet-scanned Board meetings, including committee meetings.  This action occurs when staff as available time, so it does not occur on a regular time schedule.  I am leery of having members of your department help with this task because it may cause problems with other departments who feel that they could use extra help from your staff.  I fully realize that the problems may just be petty jealousies, but such feelings unfortunately can be common and can result in inter-departmental rifts.  I do not want to contribute to such a scenario.  Therefore, I decline this kind offer to scan documents.

This is insulting and infuriating in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin.

First, note the timeliness.

Second, Mr. Weibel professes concern about how other offices will react to my staff "helping" them scan County Board documents.  This, quite frankly, is not his concern.  It's my concern.  It's one I am totally unconcered with because of ...

Third, there is not one single office in County government, except for the County Board/Administrative Services that would ever resent the collaboration of two other offices on County business.  It's an insult to all of them.  Mr. Weibel says that petty jealousies among county departments are "common".  Obviously unknown to Mr. Weibel is that cooperation and collaboration are what is common.  Outside of the County Board fiefdom, we're all doing pretty well together. 

The examples are raft but let me give you one.  Last year I received a call from the Circuit Court requesting use of the camera which our office uses to tape County Board meetings as well as a staff person from my office to tape Judge Ladd giving jury instructions.  Those instructions could then be played for future juries without having to worry about scheduling conflicts with Judge Ladd.  I agreed to this because it was a request that would not interfere with the operations of my office and it seemed like we could be of service to another part of county government .

I could have instead written this:

Dear Judge.  I am leery of having members of my staff help with this task because it may cause problems with other departments who feel that they could use extra help from us as well. 

Now that the dirty little secret is out, who knows, maybe I'll get a call from another department requesting this help.  Guess what, if we can accommodate them, we will.  Of course, one culprit in this devious little conspiracy of interdepartmental cooperation is the City of Urbana.  A staff person there came over and gave my staff some pointers on how to film.  Perhaps he's going to get his hand slapped now for intergovernmental cooperation.  Who knows.  Maybe someone else will want help, and then, hold on now, there could be a onslaught of people who want government to serve them.

If you wonder why government doesn't work well and is so expensive, witness this.  And if you thought that Pius Weibel would bring some fresh air to County government you were wrong.

Since this closes Sunshine week, I thought I'd give a plug for a seminar we are hosting and which the Illinois AG's office will conduct on the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act.