The official minutes from the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education election recount can be found here. I would like to thank Teresa Thiel for passing them on to Talk To Tony. Some parts of the minutes are in bold/italics. The bold/italics were placed there by ME and were not bolded/italicized in the original (I bolded/italicized those parts I found interesting and/or were parts of discussion on this and other blogs.).
Michelle Monte's minutes/notes from the recount can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
So all Michelle left out is "Dan Becker objected" [to a voter exercising his or her most fundamental right] dozens upon dozens of times.
Way to paint a clear picture, Michelle. Your objectivity is now completly undermined, in case anyone had any doubt.
Maybe I thought you were intelligent enough to figure it out since Mrs. Thiel was so adept at pointing it out repeatedly. I will reiterate, I did not take all the notes. Several different sources did, even while I was there. Sometimes I forgot to write it because I was rolling my eyes. I knew what Dan was trying to do and why, it was still excessive in my opinion. Besides, was there any doubt who was objecting? I do, grudgingly admit, Amy objected too. But that is neither here nor there. And since you clearly weren't smart enough to ascertain who was objecting, I don't think I need to address your assessmnet of my objectivity.
Way to turn things around Michelle by suggesting others are not as smart as you. If you wanted to present a clear and accurate picture, you should have included objections. After all, objections are a pretty important part of the process, wouldn't you say? If you weren't the one taking the notes you should have made certain the other notetakers included those objections. Obviously they are important enough to put in the official minutes. Thank goodness we can now see for ourselves how things REALLY were.
Her posts are virtually entirely made up of objections. So what is the problem? Their not verbatim?
When you look at the official minutes, it is line after line after line of "Dan Becker objected. Dan Becker objected. Dan Becker objected." It reads much in the manner of the Northwestern photo Jim Fitzhenry commented on last week: simply seeing that phrase, over and over, paints a meaningful picture of what was going on in that room. If you peruse Michelle's notes, all you see are a lot of objections. If you peruse the official minutes, you see a lot of Dan Becker objections.
You also see Dan Becker essentially accusing the other school board candidates of voter fraud (it logically follows that if you allege fraud, and say it was not you who acted fradulently, someone else, by your accusations, did). THAT is the kicker here. More than saying over and over "This procedure wasn't followed correctly," Dan said, "someone else did something illegal and unethical here."
Teresa Thiel also has the minutes posted in their entirety at www.eyeonoshkosh.com. She has made a request over there for people's input after they read them.
Mrs. Monte has said if people can not figure out from her own "notes" on the recount who is objecting, they are not smart. The only thing we may not be too smart about is by having wasted precious time trying to make heads and tails out of her and her merry band of stenographer wannabes notes. It sure isn't clear to me who was usually objecting and I think that's the same problem others have too. If this is good note-taking I am happy there are official minutes we can now review.
After you review the official minutes and see there are approximately 207 objections by Mr. Becker (I didn't count them but someone who was bored at the recount on Mon. did) to have votes invalidated and 15 objections by Mrs. Weinsheim who wanted all votes counted and who was trying to have as many thrown out as possible? Does that person share your values?
Teresa Thiel
He does not share mine.
The good news is that we know from her valiant defense over the past two weeks that Michelle Monte shares Dan Becker's values. As if we didn't get a clear enough portrait of her during the campaign, at least we have seen her true colors recently. Is this really a person we want to present to the public as someone we have entrusted with the future of our children? I'd vote Daggett over her anyday- the unfortunate thing is that you know they'll both run.
I'll take a Weinsheim any day of the week. At least there you know what you're getting. With someone like Monte you're getting a chameleon. Weird considering she says she likes dealing only with people who have one face. ('course she never said SHE only had one face)
Sticks and stones, children.
So, has anyone read the official minutes?
Yes, I did. Top to bottom. They were a bloodbath of objections by Mr. Becker. I have not encountered that many objections since the Army/McCarthy hearings in the fifties!
Maybe Mr. Becker felt he was entitled to object that much but it left him looking mean spirited and desperate. Not a good thing.
So, citizen, do you think that the recount was about making sure every vote was counted?
It was about winning at any cost, including voter suppression. That's my two cents worth. Hope it still counts and won't be objected to just because I'm anonymous.
No. It would appear that it was about finding reasons to delete votes. It seems to me the guardians of the vote were the officials who determined that nonsense should not be allowed to disqualify ballots.
If voter supression was all that was on Beckers mind, how did he end up losing ground to Weinsheim and both of them ended up with a higher vote count. Seems to me that the recount did it's job to ensure that EVERY vote was counted.
Looking at the minutes, I read that Becker objected repeatedly but it was whenever he saw an irregularity. The ballots that he objected to were recreated and counted. But they were ALL counted and it resulted in Amy gaining 7 votes and Dan gaining 4. It also increased Amy's margin by 3. So how do you get that he was supressing votes? I am pretty good at math and that doesn't lie.
I do not believe Mr. Becker expected the majority of the votes to which he objected to be counted but rather that they would be discarded.
Most of the irregularities to which Mr. Becker objected seemed to have been so minor that the objections were ludicrous.
I realize that others might see it in a different light. I make no claim to being on anything more than speaking terms with simple math but I do have the ability to size up distasteful situations. The atmosphere surrounding the recount seems to have been one of those.
Citizen has it exactly right, the reason the votes were higher was due to the BOARD of CANVASSERS NOT Mr. Becker, had the board agreed to ALL his objections you would have seen probably over 400 votes thrown out. As Citizen stated, the guardian of the votes were the board of canvassers (and also Mrs. Weinsheim because most of her comments related to COUNTING votes, NOT throwing them out!
Teresa Thiel
So Teresa, you are a mind reader now? How do you know Dan's intent when he objected to votes? I do.
When Dan saw anomalies with a ballot, he objected to them. This was to ensure that the ballot was readable and accurate. If he didn't object, there wouldn't have been any reason to be there in the first place. I can't and won't speak as to why Amy did or didn't object nor did I waste the time to take score on the objections. It was said earlier that the vote count was higher. How would that have been possible if the objected ballots (207 was reported earlier) had been excluded? You don't make any sense with your comments. I have talked with Dan about this and he was advised to object to things that looked out of the ordinary. If not, the canvassers would not have even looked at the ballots that were being counted. You said yourself that the canvassers ruled to count the votes (in most cases recreating the ballot) and that resulted in more votes for both candidates.
This recount was a learning experience for all and to continue to spin this in a negative way is simply childish. There was a lot of tension surrounding this event and with good reason. We have differing views about how this city/school board is run and that is a good thing. It raises the level of debate surrounding the issues. It can be done in a civil and productive manner and Oshkosh will become an even better place to live.
Again, there are many different conclusions to the notes, mine may not agree with yours but I took the time to call Dan to ensure accuracy before posting this. Please feel free to make the same call yourself. Or to Amy, she was standing there for the objections and will be able to tell you what was said each time.
K Monte
I don't think we need to check with Amy about thigns. She was unable to get the simplest of things conveyed in her notes.
Seriously Tony,
Why do you play host to this shit?
When I think about our conversations about Democracy - (with Ds of any size) - this was not it.
When I think about our conversations about giving voice to the marginalized - this was not it.
When I think about our conversations about community building and alternative power structures - this was not it.
This is a showcase of every negative stereotype the golf-club set has about the un-washed masses and why they deserve to be shut out of the process.
This is a bullying free-for-all that has got to be chasing people away as well as validating claims that gadflies and cobblestoners can't really model respectful discussions or collective democracy.
Democracy involves respect so that ideas can be shared and problems solved creatively. That is never going to happen in an emotional environment like this.
Get Pacino and his flame-thrower. It's time to re-examine what it means to be a "Baird Man".
The official minutes bear out everything Mrs. Thiel had been saying and put Mrs. Monte's so-called minutes to shame. Given this revelation it is hard to imagine someone paying her for her written word.
Many people get paid for all kinds of things, neither the payment nor the labor rendered legitimizes anything. Shall we examine you life's labors and compensations? Doubtful.
I agree with Jody, though am shocked by that notion. The point has been lost on ill-mannered playground games. I am starting to wonder if the less popular kids are just trying to get some attention to compensate for their own lacking personalities.
Democracy was questioned and validated, what difference does it make how it was worded? Toe-mato, tah-mato.
By the Way, shall we charge on Jef Hall for his "notes" of County Board Meetings? He was rumored to be less than literate at one point in time. Shall Mrs. Thiel lead the pack of anonymous hounds?
Simply put, Mrs. Monte has portrayed her "notes" as accurate and others commented that things being discussed on the blogs were not as they really happened. Now we see from the minutes that they were. That shows Mrs. Monte's material was less than accurate and her motives look questionable.
Kent,
When you object to a ballot and ask that it be invalidated because it was signed in pencil, it doesn't take a mind reader to see that the intent is to have the vote thrown out.
As I stated before, the reason there were more votes is due to the board of canvassers counting the votes despite Mr. Beckers objections. As for ballots being recreated that has NOTHING to do with the objections that were made... the candidates REQUESTED that a ballot be recreated (because the oval wasn't filled in completely or it was too light or in pen or pencil instead of the marker). The reason for the objections was to "invalidate" ballots meaning to have them THROWN out, not counted.
Maybe you weren't here for the Mattox/Tower recount but I watched it and it was VERY different than this one, that was about recreating ballots that might not have been counted, not about trying to have numerous ballots thrown out on technicalities (not legal grounds).
You can spin it any way you like but the objections were efforts to have votes tossed, NOT to have votes counted and anyone who reads the minutes will see that.
Anonymous 8:50pm said "I don't think we need to check with Amy about thigns. She was unable to get the simplest of things conveyed in her notes. "
What does that mean? Amy has not posted any notes...
And just what is it that Jody would prefer our conversations include? The Existential poets and Sartre's projection of his philosophical ideals onto the Algerian war?
Should we examine the thrust of democracy in the Reagan years? Should we dissect his policy toward Nicaragua? Should we approach the terminal provincialism of American understanding of the very nomenclature of democracy and/or freedom? Should we speak of the boy soldiers who fell along the Honduran border, cut down by OUR bullets, in our name, for our purposes. It is twenty years too late, but should we speak of them?
How is it Jody would have us communicate? How can we please him/her? How elevated is Jody willing to go?
Should we delve into REAL issues of freedom of speech, into how it is that SNOBS are always invoking their elevated standards...calling casual STABS at communication shit because it violates some image carried somewhere that speech is accomplished ONLY with the vocabulary of the academy and with the pinkie extended if possible.
Why does Jody care about the "golf club set" and what they think one way or the other? Does he/she think that is the potential audience for Talk to Tony? Does Jody think, as it appears, that that group's veneer of social order covers a greater potential for "meaningful exchange" than already appears here.If so, what in the world would encourage a person to think such a thing?
How does leaning on a golf club, so to speak, elevate the mind?
We could conduct a conversation on Bertell Ollman's concept of alienation in a capitalist society. That should spark a hearty series of comments. It is, indeed, a meaty subject and if any member of the golf club set should happen to run across it I am sure they would be impressed. Unnerved perhaps, but impressed none the less.
Would Jody then be at peace? Would we, then, have achieved a status that would meet Jody's standards and merit Jody's approval?
Perhaps we should try.
Teresa,
I was there and paying attention, every recreated ballot was considered an objection. You and others have referred to the more than 200 objections saying that they were ALL to get ballots excluded. You are wrong. You don't have to admit it, just quit arguing about it. Dan was NOT trying to exclude votes with every objection. BUT if he hadn't objected, there would have been no way to revisit an issue later when more information is available. That happened. His attorney found more information regarding some of the objections that forced them to go back and pull out ballots without applications. Without the objections, that couldn't happen. Quit trying to paint a picture of Dan crying wolf. He did what was necessary and you would have done the same thing with the information he had.
K Monte
K. Monte is forever defending those he must view as an underdog. They're hardly defenseless and could speak for themselves.
Yes, Monte was there but so was his wife and we've now seen how her own notes made things look. Now we're expected to accept K. Monte's interpretation as being accurate. I don't think so. Let Becker speak for himself. Better yet, the official minutes say it better than anyone could, even Dan Becker.
Kent Monte said "every recreated ballot was considered an objection."
That just isn't true...if it were true there would be over 500 objections since there were over 100 recreated ballots in District 16 and more than 200 recreated ballots in District 17 (due mainly to a ballpoint pen being left in the voter booth).
Readers out there, go through the official minutes and tell me if you see objections that simply ask for a ballot to be recreated. There were a few objections as to "voter intent" where a few ballots were recreated but from both my experience of being present at the recount and reading the minutes it is my impression that the vast majority of the objections were by Mr. Becker and were an attempt to have votes NOT counted. What do those of you who have read the minutes think?
Kent,
I voted for Dan, even though I disagree with him on many issues, because he made himself available to citizens and I believe that school administrators benefit from having a few "thorns in the side" on the board. For better or worse, you can always count on a guy like Becker to introduce some dissent into the proceedings. I think governing bodies need that, even when the dissent sometimes makes my stomach turn.
But having said all that, I have to say that the overall tone of the official minutes--and Michelle's too--lend support to Teresa's interpretation (for what it's worth, I voted for Teresa both times she ran also). The fact that Dan objected not only to certain ballots, but also objected to attorney Renning providing legal counsel, and objected to Karen Bowen being able to speak for Weinsheim, comes off as paranoid and petty. Then when it looked like he was ready to have an entire ward's votes thrown out due to a technicality I started to wonder if, as you had suggested in a previous post, he was over tired. That's the most charitable explanation! --Tony
While the witch hunt for Dan Becker continues, have all those literate souls spouting about accuracy read the objections made by Amy? I do believe several were to have ballots excluded for only one signature which was later determined to be innappropriate. That would seem to indicate that the tension and stress of the situation led both to err on the side of caution. Judging by the number of ballots reentered upon discovery of additional info later, it was a good thing. Without the objections, none of those ballots would have been counted, per procedures.
As for what those in the general populous who read the minutes think, I don't think they care one way or the other any more. I am not sure anyone but Teresa and her compadre anonymouses really care any more. The recount is over. Amy is in by votes not computer errors. Celebrate that Democracy has prevailed.
None of us know the motives of EITHER candidate. We can CHOOSE to read into the minutes anything we want, it will change nothing of the outcome. If this was such a travesty of Democracy and Mr. Becker was such a egomaniacal, power-monger, outrage would have led to letters to the editor, rampant news coverage by all media outlets, and possibly pick lines outside district offices. The fact is, no one even cared enough to press for video coverage of the proceedings as occurred in the city council recount.
We should be taking away lessons about what went right and the fact that several ballots were counted that hadn't been on Tuesday, April 4. We should be looking to the next election and ensuring the mistakes we can control like ballpoint pens, clocks set appropriately, etc do not happen again. Mostly we should be looking to correct a larger mistake we are all responsible for, not voting. Had more gone out, or absentee voted, margins may not have been so close in any race to necessitate a recount. We complain about 3% of votes potentially being tossed (they weren't), when that number amounts to 0.5% of total eligible voters in Oshkosh.
If we want to avoid this in the future, vote. Bitching and moaning after the fact is unproductive and the repetition of mediocre arguments over who said what and how does nothing to address what was discovered in the recount. It is time to move on toward making the next election better than this one.
So it is a witch hunt now.
(Actually a warlock hunt if it is Mr. Becker who is the object of the quest. But let's not get technical.)
I do concede that the horse appears to be moribund and we should soon be moving on. However from this discussion we have had the opportunity to see how we say what serves our purpose, how we spin and sometimes even twist, how we each have our favorites and want their motives not to be questioned and how, in the end, the official minutes stand to remind us that things happened in this recount and things did not happen and we are all prone to see even THAT through the prism of our own insight and prejudices.
That is all. It is the American way.
New Voice,
No one pressed for video coverage of the recount because the district would have to pay for it. It was already costing enough by Mr. Becker's continued objections and refusal to exercise sound reason, much less factoring in or 6 days of TV coverage.
I was not too sure about the recount and who was right and who was wrong until I read the minutes. That showed me what was going on and now there isn't a doubt in my mind Mr. Becker was trying to get votes disqualified.
After reading the veiled potshots in her letter to the editor, I am concerned I backed the wrong horse. It isn't enough to thank those who had to do the count. It isn't enough to be vindicated. Now it is necessary to criticize her opponent for doing what he thought was necessary. I noticed she left out the dozens of ballots she had pulled according to the official minutes (ironically most of Amy's and the joint objections never made it into Monte's notes, bias?). I guess it is okay because Becker's objections ultimately got those returned to the count. Amy didn't even thank anyone for supporting her through the election and the recount. I wish I had tossed that vote in the garbage.
New Voice,
You credit Mr. Becker's objections with having votes counted "Becker's objections ultimately got those returned to the count." If Mr. Becker had not begun to pull these ballots to begin with, there would be no need to have them "returned to the count" as they would have been counted from the beginning. If you had spent any time at the recount or spoken with Mrs. Weinsheim you would know the only reason she pulled ballots with only one poll worker's signature is because Mr. Becker started pulling ballots that had only one signature on them, then at one point he started to pull a ballot, noticed that the ballot had a vote for him and he dedided not to pull that ballot, so he was willing to let the technicality go as long as he got a vote out of it, at that point Amy decided if ballots with only one signature were not going to be counted it should be ALL the ballots with one signature NOT just the ballots that did NOT have a vote for Mr. Becker. Mrs. Weinsheim also stated that she was happy to have all the ballots with only one signature counted as long as it was done consistently and ALL the ballots were counted.
I really don't understand why you think it is acceptable for a candidate to spend 6 days trying to have hundreds of ballots thrown out so as to change the election results. How is that not wrong? Have you read the minutes, do you really think it is acceptable to throw out an absentee ballot because the voter signed his name in pencil, or on the wrong line or for any of the other reasons mentioned? I just don't see how any thinking person can justify that.
As for Amy thanking those that supported her during the recount, she did that in person, several times.
Mrs. Thiel,
She did it because he did it just shows the level of maturity of your friend Amy. Couldn't you at least lie and say it was because Amy believed it would be a disservice to the voters by allowing incorrectly signed ballots in. Oh, maybe because she was the one who said all ballots should be counted and pulling ballots because of a technicality (like only one set of initials) is wrong, yet stooped to a juvenile level and did it anyway.
I bow to you for your ability to know what was in the minds of both candidates at any given moment in the recount. She only said the ballots with one signature should be counted AFTER Becker's lawyer said it or didn't you read the official transcripts all the way through?
I don't think EITHER candidate should have had ANY ballots thrown out for ANY reason. They were both wrong.
As for thanks, there were thousands who voted for her, some in the recount room, that she could not and did not thank personally. While I respect your entitlement to your opinion, I think the soapbox has about had it. Good Day, Mrs. Thiel.
Post a Comment