(GA) 7/12 - ANOTHER CITY FIGHTS TO BL...

Author Message   Bev Harris Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 11720 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 9:06 am:        The city of Cumming, Georgia is litigating against public right to videotape open meetings. Videotaping in a freedom of information context is a crucial part of transparent elections because it lets citizens capture durable evidence in the election. Election processes are (or should be) subject to public observation, yet sometimes public officials try to block this. Thus, if the city of Cumming were to prevail in its anti-freedom of information lawsuit, it will set the stage for all municipalities in Georgia to refuse public videotaping of election processes like poll closing and vote counting. What triggered this lawsuit is this: The state of Georgia passed legislation this year explicitly upholding citizen right to videotape public meetings. When a Cumming citizen tried to videotape a meeting, the mayor and the police stopped her. The Georgia AG has stepped in to fight the city of Cumming. Now this is quite relevant to elections, not just throughout Georgia but across the USA, for this reason: I've been tracking freedom of information issues nationwide, and have noticed that municipalities are now taking the lead in fighting sunshine laws. The city of Aspen litigated against right to examine ballots (they lost), claiming that home rule exempted them from following state open records law. This is the same argument now being used in Cumming. Representatives from the association of Washington State municipalities testified against providing copies of public records in 2012 legislative hearings, claiming that it is unduly burdensome. IN THE HOW-IT-WORKS DEPARTMENT: Our tax monies are being expended by public officials not just to carry out day to day tasks, but for expensive junkets to high priced hotels to attend association meetings for a host of quasi-governmental organizations. One such organization is the national League of Municipalities. These quasi-governmental organizations -- I call them the quazies -- make their money in two ways: (1) They rake in our tax money, though they claim their business is private and in many states do not allow the public to attend any meetings or obtain any records; (2) They also receive money from private corporate vendors, who ply public officials with drink and persuasion in drink-up hospitality suites. Now add to the mix the paid policy-recommenders. One such high profile entity is ALEC; there are many more, and they offer their "services" to examine public policy issues and provide advice. They even draft suggested legislation, issue policy guidelines, and offer talking points. There's nothing wrong with public officials getting together for ongoing education and training, but they don't need to do it in resorts and they don't need to meet with vendors and lobbyists to further their professional training. These meetings provide a concentration of targets for off-the-record palm-to-palm procurement fraud with vendors, and also a target-rich environment for policy-steering entities and lobbyists. If you wonder why cookie-cutter messaging shows up in 20 states at once, or why the same legal argument is used to fight sunshine laws in state after state, it's time to take a closer look at what's happening with the quazies. Which vendors and policy steering groups attend League of Municipality conferences? I'm guessing that this municipality-led fight against sunshine law has some help in the wings. The Cumming fight over the mayor blocking a local citizen from videotaping a public meeting has implications, and I'm glad to see the state Attorney General has taken it up. If Cumming wins, it will not bode well for Georgia election transparency; and if Cumming wins, we can surely expect to see copycat anti-rights litigation in other locations around the USA. Daily Report - July 30, 2012, By Kathleen Baydala Joyner http://www.dailyreportonline.com/PubArticleDRO.jsp?id=1202564750940&Cumming_challenges_new_sunshine_laws&slreturn=20120630095055 Cumming challenges new sunshine laws The city of Cumming is challenging the constitutionality of the state's new sunshine laws in response to an open meetings suit by state Attorney General Sam Olens against its mayor. Olens' suit, the first under the state's new Open Meetings and Open Records acts, alleged that Cumming Mayor Ford Gravitt and police officials barred Nydia Tisdale from videotaping a city council meeting. House Bill 397, which went into effect April 17 — the day of the alleged incident — provides for visual and sound recordings of public meetings and authorizes the attorney general to bring civil suits against violators. The AG's complaint cites two counts and asks the court to impose the maximum civil penalties allowed under the new laws, $1,000 for the first violation and $2,500 for each subsequent one. (Tisdale filed a separate civil rights suit in federal court in mid-June The city responded to the AG's suit on July 19, arguing that Gravitt was presiding over the meeting in his official capacity and is protected under the Georgia Constitution's sovereign immunity doctrine. The city contemporaneously filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment. "With respect to the sovereign immunity of the city of Cumming, the Georgia Constitution provides, in pertinent part: '(t)he sovereign immunity of the state and its departments and agencies can only be waived by an act of the General Assembly which specifically provides that sovereign immunity is thereby waived and the extent of such waiver,'" the city's filing stated. "All of the enforcement provisions of House Bill 397 are silent with respect to the issue of sovereign immunity." Neither the city's attorney, Dana Miles with Miles Patterson Hansford Tallant, nor Olens would comment Friday on the suit. The public must be able to see and authenticate these four essential steps for an election to be public, democratic, and valid: (1) Who can vote (voter list); (2) Who did vote (3) The original count; (4) Chain of custody.   John Washburn Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Johnwashburn Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2011 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 11:05 am:        Municipal and county clerks (at the coordination of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board) here in Wisconsin are blocking at least 3 citizen inititives to hand count voted ballots via open records laws. You are right,Bev, of all the purposes for which Sunshine/Open Records/FOIA laws serve, monitoring elections and watching policy makers in action have got to top of the list. Litigation in Wisconsin has begun.   Tom Courbat Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Leftisbest Post Number: 129 Registered: 6-2006 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 11:12 pm:        This s&!+ just never stops, does it!! Back in 2006, then-Riverside County CA Registrar of Voters Barbara Dunmore posted signs stating NO TRIPODS during a PUBLIC 1% audit of ballots cast. That effectively stopped us from filming the process without it being jittery (hard to hold the camera VERY still for long periods of time). They also "huddled" in groups with their backs to us (the observers) so that we couldn't see or hear what was going on. And we were told we would have to stop videotaping if any of the staff conducting the audit had a question! I've attached a couple of photos to give readers an idea of what we were up against. Oh, and we had to remain in a very narrow cordoned-off area that allowed minimal opportunity to view and certainly impossible to verify the process. What they hell are they so damned afraid of? I guess it is becoming obvious as time goes on, isn't it? Blocking observers in Riverside County, CA RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2006 - BLOCKING OBSERVERS AT 1% AUDIT.docx (756.3 k)   Tom Courbat Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Leftisbest Post Number: 130 Registered: 6-2006 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 11:31 pm:        The document I attached was a Word 2010 (.docx) document. I am attaching it again, this time as a Word 1997-2003 document (.doc). It might be easier to download. Blocking observers in Riverside County, CA RIVERSIDE_COUNTY_2006_-_BLOCKING_OBSERVERS_AT_1__AUDIT-82206.doc (387.6 k)   Mike LaBonte Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Mike_labonte Post Number: 630 Registered: 12-2005 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 4:32 am:        The attitude is too common that all the public need to see is that the votes are being counted. I like the way they do it in Ireland, where counting tables are set against a rail. People can observe standing right next to the tables. I am surprised to see no one observing in this picture though: http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/irishvote.jpg To do it right I think a video camera should also point down at each table, displayed on a large screen.   Jakub Coltun Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Jakub5771 Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2012 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, October 1, 2012 - 2:31 pm:        This would be a great pilot project for a Change.org petition drive to publicly shame the officials into stooping their litigating against the publics right to videotape open meetings. Also the petition could have a positive demand that legislation be passed to inoculate by law bureaucrats from infringing on citizens Videotaping elections as observers as a freedom of information law to maintain transparent elections because it lets citizens capture durable evidence in the election. Election processes are (or should be) subject to public observation.This could be promoted on social media like facebook & twitter targeted in a positive way at Georgians & worded in a way that would appeal to them & not provide reasons for objection nor opportunities for those that are against this to politicize the issue in an out of context cynical way. I attached counting votes 2012 PDF perhaps another layer of Vote protection should be video taping of polling places as part of the process uploaded to internet connected servers the day after voting takes place and the vote counting has begun to make poll monitoring a federal yet non intimidating aspect of voting. Perhaps Judicial branch could have access on as as needed basis when official complaints are received. CountingVotes2012.pdf (3254.8 k)   Francois Choquette Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ronrules Post Number: 44 Registered: 3-2012 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, October 1, 2012 - 6:04 pm:        Here's a (Republican) guy getting kicked out of a Republican precinct meeting. He got kicked out for recording the meeting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LvUbvk85U8&list=HL1349139747&feature=mh_lolz

The public must be able to see and authenticate these four essential steps for an election to be public, democratic, and valid: (1) Who can vote (voter list); (2) Who did vote (3) The original count; (4) Chain of custody.