This has been a memorable summer for our family, busy from beginning to end. It has been full of visits from relatives and friends, and now we have wrapped up the main part of summer with the wonderful wedding of our daughter. We are so blessed!
In the midst of our activities, I’ve been tracking some of the goings-on about town, many of which I will address in newsletters after Labor Day. But this week there was an event I thought you should know about right away.
First, though, let me congratulate the KTEC folks for their successful levy vote. I’ve been a big supporter of this effort because it will be good for the students and a prepared work force will attract more businesses and better jobs.
There are legitimate questions about the complex administration of KTEC, which is a collaboration of three different school districts, and I’m confident the citizens will be allowed open access to full information. Most of all, I was happy to see this decision brought to the public for a vote! We, the voters, have been bypassed far too often lately. So thank you and congratulations to all who gave of their time, energy and money to make KTEC a reality.
Now, on to this week’s important event, which has everything to do with our right to vote, and to have confidence that all and only legitimate votes count.
The ongoing Election Challenge of last November’s CdA City Council vote is finally nearing trial, with the date set for September 13th. The trial will provide a full airing of the facts of the case; all the evidence will be presented, from both sides, and the judge will make a decision based on the information.
This past Tuesday there was a court hearing on the case because Scott Reed, attorney for Mike Kennedy, filed yet another motion to get the case thrown out before trial. He’s tried this kind of thing before, without success, and this one didn’t work either.
What is Team Kennedy worried about anyway? They obviously don’t want this challenge going to trial where all the information will come out. Why are they working so hard to get the facts of the last election hushed-up?
Last Tuesday in court, Starr Kelso, attorney for the Election Challenge, explained several important points:
1. Right after the original Election Challenge was filed last November, the County Prosecutor’s office called a meeting with County Clerk Dan English, the CdA City attorney AND Scott Reed and Peter Erbland, private attorneys for Mike Kennedy. They did not invite the Election Challenge attorney to this secret meeting. This appears to be the collusion of two public entities–the County and the City–obviously taking sides with Team Kennedy right from the start!
2. The County is required by state law (Idaho Code 34-1011) to keep a detailed record of the absentee ballots, before, during and after the election. They did not. The first record of the absentee ballot numbers was produced by the County on Nov. 6th, three days after the election. That number was 2,047. Of those, 5 were disqualified by the County and 1 was thrown out because the person voted twice, so the final tally was 2,041.
3. 2,041 is the number of qualified absentee ballots the County had on Nov. 6th, according to their own report.
4. Yet, some days later, when the County presented the official “canvass of votes” to the CdA City Council, and the Council rubber-stamped it without question, the number of absentee ballots was listed as 2051.
5. Where did those extra 10 votes come from?
Attorney Kelso stood up in court Tuesday and said that for months he resisted the idea of foul play in the election, but now he is convinced there was BALLOT STUFFING, FRAUD and CORRUPTION!
Again, why is Team Kennedy trying so hard to get this case thrown out on any technicality they can conjure up? They obviously do not care about the citizens of CdA; they are not trying to “get to the bottom” of this and to make sure the election was honest and fair. They look desperate to cover something.
And one last unbelievable move by the County: When County Elections Supervisor, Deedie Beard, retired, which was AFTER the Election Challenge lawsuit was filed last November, the County apparently ERASED all her emails! That’s what the County said when her emails were requested as part of the evidence for the trial: They ERASED that evidence. My opinion of this action by the County is not fit for a public newsletter… draw your own conclusions!
Stay tuned, dear readers, there’s much more to come. Hope you have a great Labor Day weekend. Give your kids & grand kids an extra hug, they grow up so fast. –Mary
PS: Donations to help the Election Challenge can be sent to Starr Kelso, 1621 N. 3rd Street # 600, CdA, ID 83814. The City and County have dragged this thing out as a method, I think, to bankrupt the effort. Any donation will help.
Thank you.
Mary, thanks for the update. If it is that impportant, I think forensic IT guys can recover all of Deedie’s emails provided the hard drive of her computer wasn’t physically pulverized. That’s why when you get rid of old computers and phones it is most desirable to physically destroy the hard drive, preferably with a hammer. This I was told by an IT expert. Just subpoena her machines. They’ve got to have a record of which ones she used
Comment by Ancientemplar — September 2, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
You don’t need forensic IT guys; you need a court order. The email still exists on the server and can be pulled from there. All email is legally discoverable, though I don’t know what the data retention law is in Idaho. (There is Federal data retention law pending.) While you may not get Beard’s inbox on her computer, there are still records on the county servers that can be subpoenaed.
In the absence of any policy regarding former employee’s computers, it certainly does seem suspicious that they would purge her computer data in the midst of a legal challenge regarding what she does. Suspicious indeed.
Comment by Dan — September 2, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
Glad you are back Mary!
It does appear that Team Kennedy is trying to hide the evidence. I took a look at ISTARS on this case. It states this:
Notice Of Hearing on Defendant Kennedy’s Motion in Limine – entry Sept 1. 2010
So I had to look up Limine. This is what I found:
(lim-in-nay) n. Latin for “threshold,” a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial
Comment by Stebbijo — September 2, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
One of the questionable voters is the same person who leased Kennedy an apartment in the city back in 2005. That was so he could qualify as an “elector” in Coeur d’Alene and run for City Council. At the same time, Kennedy’s wife and family lived in their home in Hayden.
Kennedy ran for election in 2005 having never previously lived in Coeur d’Alene, voted in Coeur d’Alene, or even paid taxes in Coeur d’Alene. He won with a plurality of the vote, less than 50%. And he spent more than $20,000 on his campaign, more than any other candidate in any city election.
Comment by Dan — September 2, 2010 @ 7:07 pm
I know, I know who that is and that is because I read!
It’s on page 2 of the Defendant’s Memorandum (public information) because it is noteworthy and important.
Due to the fact that the file is a PDF file and unless you capture an image it is difficult to quote exactly. I have attempted to transcribe some of it for easier reading. So pull up the file and read page 2. But it goes kinda of like this:
via Scott Reed: (attorney for the defendant)
Feb. 8. 2010 04:23
Starr: … I read in dave Oliveria’s column that Monica pacquin lives in Canada and that she had been contacted by one of your investigators and she was asked about her vote and she thought such an inquiry …. bla bla was ridiculous… i sensed from her comment that she did not want to be bothered anymore. I respect her wishs for privacy. Her vote is legal and that is all I have to say.
Comment by Stebbijo — September 2, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
Stebbijo, I’m not sure why you think someone living in Canada, long term, is a legal voter in CdA. Can you explain that to me? The law says they must be residents of CdA and that means CdA must be their place of PRIMARY abode. Does Monica P. have her primary abode in CdA?
We already know, as Dan stated in comment #4, that Monica is a close friend of Kennedy and they both have a history of twisting the intent of the law. Kennedy supposedly slept in Monica’s basement bedroom for a month before he ran for city council in ’05. Do we believe he did that when his wife and 5 or 6 kids, at the time, lived in a different house outside the city limits? So why not “bend” the rules again to get Monica’s vote from Canada?
Comment by mary — September 2, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
What about the woman who lives in California with her husband who is a military guy and he used to live in CdA. His vote I have no problem with, but she has NEVER EVER lived in CdA. Why is she voting in our local city council election?
Comment by mary — September 2, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
Oh no Mary – I am being facetious! Reed said that (via the email sent to Starr which is part of the case), not me! I think it rather entertaining – that is why I pointed that segment out because Dan appeared courteous by not putting out the ‘name.’ There is obviously more to it – probably part of the evidence Reed wants to kick out.
Comment by Stebbijo — September 3, 2010 @ 6:19 am
Thanks for the clarification, Stebbijo. Most times sarcasm doesn’t come through well with only the printed word, or maybe it’s just me, but I appreciate your explanation.
To the main point you made, Scott Reed has now filed his motion “in Limine” to EXCLUDE any possible testimony of three of the Canadians who voted in our local election, but not all the Canadians…that’s a bit weird, isn’t it? The motion asks to exclude any info from or about Monica Paquin (Kennedy’s close friend), Tammy Farkes (Rick Currie’s sister who has lived up there for many years) and Alan Friend (who no one can seem to find there or here).
Comment by mary — September 3, 2010 @ 7:56 am
It seems like the main point of the Brannon lawsuit against Kennedy etc.is about accountability and improving the voting process. So, whether he prevails in his lawsuit or not isn’t the point.The point is:
Will the state legislature revisit
some voting laws and requirements, esp.pertaining to absentee ballots? Will the county or city try to change some things to improve the voting process? Because,if nothing changes, but stays the same;it would
seem almost criminal to have learned nothing and done nothing, to improve
the voting process.
Comment by kageman — September 3, 2010 @ 9:23 am
The beautiful picture of the happy young couple beginning their lifes journey together is a welcome change from the depressing behavior of CDA malfeasance. How full your heart must have been Mary.
Comment by rochereau — September 3, 2010 @ 9:25 am
It still is, Rochereau, thanks. I smile everytime I think of it. There was a spirituality and grace present during the wedding that we all felt. It was a great gift.
Kageman, I think you’ve stated the real point very well and I agree completely. My only addition is that this case needs to get to a full trial of the facts, so the public, especially our lawmakers, can understand the gravity of the problems that must be fixed.
Comment by mary — September 3, 2010 @ 9:42 am
Whether Our State Legislature (average IQ = 80) understands and deals with this problem remains to be seen.
Comment by Dan — September 3, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
Another thanks to Dan for the laugh. Not even lukewarm the collective IQ. Another “I can’t believe what I’m reading”, was the letter this morning from Lou something or other. Head shaking stupid about covers it. When you wonder why this town is run as it is, just remember it is people like this who vote. Talk about not grasping the obvious….this guy is text book. And his catch line is about his taxes. Say what??? Louie, this lawsuit is all about legality. Perhaps council changes would change taxes….the education corridor comes to mind. He is moaning that the trial will cost the tax payer $120K (his figure) and not a word about the 10 million. Leaves my eyes totally crossed.
Comment by rochereau — September 3, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
Anyone ever total up what the City has spent on the Sanders Beach folly? Maybe Mr. Soumas should be sent copies of that bill.
Comment by Dan — September 3, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
I don’t think you can put a price tag on our right to a true vote; it’s a founding principle of our nation.
Comment by mary — September 3, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
Thank you, Mary.
Comment by Ancientemplar — September 5, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
Since Soumas is one of the people being groomed for legacy (s)election to the City Council, I think he’s probably already aware of how the city Maytags money into its favorite projects.
Comment by Bill — September 5, 2010 @ 4:37 pm