Reply #19: Thanks. I read it. And I read this, too. [View All]

snip

Of that total, they found more than $3.8 million in questionable spending: Just over $777,000 was spent inappropriately, and just over $3 million lacked supporting documentation.

"Generally, it's harder to resolve (inappropriate spending) versus unsupported costs, because rather than it just being a lack of documentation, there's some reason those costs shouldn't be incurred," said Chuck Wiebe, deputy regional audit manager for the Interior Department in Sacramento.

Auditors objected to $42,256 in legal fees to a law firm that exceeded the hours allowed under a contract. The firm also was hired to do $1,050 worth of speech writing that did not relate to voter education projects.

Auditors also said $308,388 was inappropriately spent on postage and promotional items like buttons and balloons for a 3.75 million-piece mailing of absentee voter applications Shelley wanted to conduct.

snip

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/22/BAGOHGBTQU1.DTL


And this one, which around here can be as sacreligious as posting a Faux News link.


snip

Specific examples of questionable spending included:

* $224,632 for postage to mail absentee ballot applications, some of which apparently were sent to voters already registered as permanent absentee voters.

* $83,756 for T-shirts, buttons, balloons and other promotional items, memorabilia or souvenirs, which are not allowed under HAVA. The audit does not say what the items were intended to promote.

* $68,824 that was intended for voter education or poll worker training but instead was used to buy equipment, such as an envelope printer and mail-processing system.

* Equipment purchases in Los Angeles County involving 100 laptop computers and carrying cases, personal computers, monitors, printers, more than 4,500 cellphones, and an array of other electronic and audio equipment, including a pressure washer.

* $1.4 million arising from 34 contracts that do not appear to meet competitive bidding requirements.

* $42,256 in legal services exceeding a contractual limit, and $1,050 for paid legal services involving speechwriting.

Of the $3.8 million in questionable spending identified, McPherson agrees with the findings regarding $1.7 million and disputes those involving $2.14 million, according to the audit. The principal area of disagreement involves $1.9 million in consultant contracts that auditors say did not meet competitive bidding requirements or lacked adequate supporting documents.

snip

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14006614p-14839573c.html


So it still looks to me as if a pile of stuff was pinned on Shelley, and some of it is sticking. (Like lots of investigations.)

When Shelley supporters post about him being railroaded, and I have to google to find out the rest of the story...I accept the poster is a Shelley supporter. That's fine.

I have little doubt there are those who salivated over Shelley demise, perhaps went out of their way to find some trouble and whip it up, perhaps, as I've wondered, even infiltrated his admin. to trip him up. But I'm merely speculating.

And if all that, apart from the infiltration theory, is true, AND Shelley screwed up, them he still screwed up. That the bad guys are lovin' it, or that Shelley opposed Diebold doesn't make it ok.

And if there's an argument that 2% is ok, I haven't heard it, but I'm open.

If anything, I'm sore at Shelley for leaving the position vulnerable.

:shrug: