To the PCs of LD 25 and any other interested parties:
A lot of rumors, half-truths and whispered accusations have
been swirling around the LD 25 officer/state committeemen elections since our
meeting on November 29th. As someone who
is directly affected by this controversy and as a participant in the ensuing
investigation I would like to clear the air on this issue. The facts that I will be stating here have
come from either my own firsthand observation/participation in the events
described, or by my conversation with individuals who have firsthand knowledge
of the events.
Before I launch into this, I would like to clarify a very
important point - The candidates who ran for offices in our election were divided
into two slates. The slate that I ran
with did substantially better than the opposing slate, winning all but two of
the officer races and winning roughly two-thirds of the State Committeemen
positions. I bring this up because the
allegations of fraud cast the longest shadow over me and the individuals who
ran on my slate. As you will see in the
rest of this letter, this is unwarranted and unfair to the good people who ran
with me. I also want to be clear that I
am not casting blame or suspicion on the good people on the other slate that
ran in the election. We simply do not
know who perpetrated the fraud that set this whole thing off. Any guesses about who did this are just that,
guesses.
Without further ado, my statement of the facts regarding the
LD 25 elections on November 29, 2012 (please see footnotes for additional clarifications):
·
An unknown person or persons
signed nominating questionnaires for five Precinct Committeemen in the Apache
Wells precinct to run as State Committeemen.
These individuals did not wish to be nominated. Their names were fraudulently submitted for
inclusion on the ballot.
·
This was brought to the attention of both the LD25
and MCRC Chairman by Barbara Parker, who had obtained sworn affidavits from the
five affected PCs stating they had not signed the five documents in question.
·
Before the vote on State Committeemen was taken,
the names of these five PCs were taken off of the State Committeemen ballot.
·
While we were waiting for the new ballots to
arrive at our meeting, Chairman Haney revealed what had happened and directed
that if anyone’s name appeared on the ballot without their authorization they
were to contact Chairman Haney immediately, as they may also be the victims of
some type of voter fraud.
·
Between 15 and 30 people (to my knowledge the
exact number has never been specified) approached Chairman Haney and claimed
that they had not asked to be included on the ballot.
·
A solution was proposed that anyone whose name
appeared on the ballot but who did not wish to run for the office have their
name written on the large whiteboard at the front of the room so that they
wouldn’t be voted for. A small handful
of people wrote their names on the board, and none of them were elected as
State Committeemen.
·
The results of the officer elections were
announced during the balloting for State Committeemen.[i] I was elected as the new Chairman of LD 25 by
a comfortable margin.
·
The Credentials and Tally reports and all proxy
forms, which should have immediately been turned over to me as the new
Chairman, were improperly taken home by the chairman of the C&T committee
for this election.
·
At the end of the night manual recounts were
done for both a third vice-chairman spot as well as the corresponding
secretary. A tie was discovered in each
race and cards were drawn to determine the winners. This was done with the affected parties being
present via phone call and with their consent to proceed.
·
Once this was concluded (around 1am) Tyler
Godfrey, the newly elected Treasurer and I, the newly elected Chairman, were
sworn in to office[ii]. All other newly elected officers had gone
home earlier that evening.
·
The state committee ballots were tallied and the
remaining officials present determined that 108 votes were the minimum number
of votes needed to be elected as a state committeeman. It was determined that 10 individuals had
tied for last place.
·
The ballots were turned over to me as the new
Chairman and the meeting was adjourned.
·
On Saturday, December 1st, at the
behest of MCRC Chairman Rob Haney, an email was sent to all LD 25 PCs by Ian
Murray stating that there was a possibility that the entire election would be
thrown out due to fraud.
·
Chairman Haney created an investigative team[iii] to review all of
the paperwork involved in the election to determine if there had been any
additional fraud. The team was convened
and met on Wednesday, December 5th, Thursday, December 6th and
Friday, December 7th at AZ GOP Headquarters in Phoenix .
·
On Monday, December 3rd, I formally
requested via email to Rob Haney, Ian Murray and Pat Oldroyd (as well as by
phone call to Chairman Haney) that, as the duly elected chairman of LD 25, I be
given custody of the C&T Reports, the nominating questionnaires and all
other materials regarding this election.
This request was denied by Chairman Haney who argued that he wanted as
few hands as possible on these materials between then and the time when they
could be turned over to him as part of the investigation. I did not push the issue any further.
·
On Tuesday, December 4th, Brent
Ellsworth, newly elected Recording Secretary of LD 25 submitted a formal
challenge to the State Committeeman
election on the basis that Chairman Haney’s comments before the SC voting on
November 29th had irreparably compromised the integrity of the
election.
·
On Wednesday, December 5th, Brent
Ellsworth came to AZ GOP Headquarters at my request, but without Chairman
Haney’s prior knowledge or consent, to observe the investigation. He was told by Chairman Haney he could not
stay and he promptly left[iv].
·
When the committee convened, the major points of
this issue were recounted for the benefit of those members of the committee who
were not from LD 25 and were not acquainted with the history involved. Chairman Haney then explained that, because
so many people came forward stating they had not requested to be on the ballot,
we needed to determine if the fraud was limited to the original 5 PCs already
mentioned or if the problem was more widespread. To determine this we set out to collect the
following data
o
Who was on the ballot?
o
How did they get on the ballot?
§
Were nominating questionnaires submitted, as
required by the Bylaws?
§
Were they signed, as required by the Bylaws?
§
Were they included on the Mandatory Precinct
Meeting report?
o
In the case of signed forms – did the signatures
on the documents match the signatures on file with the County Recorder
o
Were the proxy forms properly filled out?
o
Did the signatures on the proxy forms match the
signatures on file at the County
Recorder
o
Was there any way to determine who perpetrated
the original fraud involving the five nomination questionnaires from Apache
Wells precinct?
·
The committee was divided into two teams:
o
One team went to the Recorder’s Office to
compare all signatures received with the signatures on file with the County Recorder
o
The other team reviewed all the forms to capture
the pertinent data: Who had a form, had
they intended to run, were the forms signed, were they included on the Mandatory
Precinct Meeting form and where did they appear on the ballot (i.e. on the At-large
or the Precinct Nominated sections of the ballot).
·
During the course of our investigation we
uncovered the following:
§
The vast majority of the LD 25 PCs were on the
State Committeeman ballot. At least 40
(and probably more) of these looked like they were arbitrarily put on the
ballot without the submission of any form whatsoever. We could not come to any certain conclusion
as to why this happened. Our speculation
was that these names were added by those managing the election out of a sincere
desire that nobody be left off who wanted to run, even though such action was a
clear violation of the Bylaws. The
Bylaws state that to qualify to be on the ballot, a PC must submit a signed
nomination questionnaire by a certain date.
Many of those who appeared on the ballot did not submit the required
signed nomination questionnaires.
§
At least one individual asked to run as a State
Committeeman but was left off the ballot.
§
One individual who was on the ballot had moved
out of the district and was no longer eligible to serve.
§
Two entire precincts[v] and a large portion
of another[vi] submitted
non-standard nominating questionnaires that did not include a signature line,
as required by the Bylaws, for the individual to personally attest to their
intention to serve if elected. Based on
the handwriting it appeared that a single individual in two of the precincts
had filled out all of the nominating questionnaires.
§
Numerous individuals, including 9 prominent
members of LD 25 who were elected as State Committeemen[vii], had not filled
out or signed the Nomination Questionnaire as required by our Bylaws[viii]. For some of these individuals[ix] the only
documentation was the Precinct Meeting Report[x], which, according to
the Bylaws, is not enough to qualify to be on the ballot.
§
Five proxy forms should have been rejected by
the C&T Committee due to crossed out names, missing signatures, notary
omissions or other irregularities.[xi] The committee was highly critical of the
C&T procedures that did not prevent these types of errors but recognized that,
on election night, the C&T committee is the final judge on what is accepted
or rejected.
§
About 40 nominating questionnaires had
signatures that the first team deemed questionable. Upon review by the entire committee this
number was pared down to between 15 and 20 signatures that were deemed
different enough from the signatures on file with the Recorder as to bring
their authenticity into doubt. Of these
15-20 signatures there was only unanimous agreement on about 3 of the forms
that they were indeed questionable.
Every other signature had between two or three people who saw enough
similarities between the signatures to say that they were probably signed by
the same person.
·
At no time did the committee ever say that
this conclusively proved that fraud had occurred in the election. It was also said, several times during the course
of the investigation, that none of us were handwriting experts and that we were
thus not competent to state with ANY certainty whether or not fraud had
actually occurred.
§
It was agreed (upon the recommendation of
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery) that the five documents that were
known to be fraudulent (due to the sworn affidavits) as well as the few
nomination questionnaires with questionable signatures would be turned over to
Mesa PD for further investigation.
§
It was suggested that the controversy concerning
the questionable signatures could be resolved by calling the individuals and
asking them if they had signed the form.
During the course of this discussion several different ways of asking
the PC about the document were proposed in an effort to see if the PC could
remember what they signed, what they requested and who they had given the forms
to. It was pointed out that this line of
questioning would probably not resolve the doubt, because many of these people
were “paper PCs” and likely would not remember what they had signed or to whom
they had given their proxies. It was
also said that this might taint an investigation by Mesa PD and it would be
best to leave it alone.[xii]
·
The conclusions of the investigation were:
§
There were enough irregularities in the way that
PCs were placed on the State Committeemen ballot to clearly warrant a redo of
that election. The committee decided that
in the new election the nomination questionnaires from the November 29th
election should be disregarded and the ballot could include even PCs who did
not comply with the requirements of the Bylaws in the November 29th
election.
§
The five proxies that should have been rejected
by the C&T committee could have had a material impact on the two tied
elections for board positions. It was
decided, by consensus – not by an actual vote, that the board election should
also be vacated and redone.
§
A long discussion was held throughout the three
days we met on who should be allowed on the ballot of the new election if we
held one. One position was that only
those who had clearly complied with the Bylaws by previously submitting a
nominating questionnaire be allowed on the ballot[xiii]. Another position was that those who filled
out the nominating questionnaire as well as those whose names were listed on
the Precinct Meeting reports be allowed on the ballot, even though that would
permit individuals to appear on the ballot who had not complied with the
Bylaws. In the end it was to start over
again and have a new election and allow everyone to submit new nominating
questionnaires.
§
It was decided that the interim board resume
their positions to handle the dissemination of this information as well as to
call and make arrangements for the new election to take place.
All of the above was agreed to by
consensus without an actual vote taken on accepting these recommendations. The formal notice of this action was given
when Ian, at Chairman Haney’s direction, sent out his letter to the district
informing everyone of the outcome of the investigation.
The committee investigated the
officer election on its own initiative, as no formal challenge to that election
was filed. In my opinion, the
invalidation of the officer election is highly unusual, as that election was certified
on the night of the election and any irregularities in that election were
probably equivalent to irregularities that would appear in any election.
Once the formal announcement was
made I returned all passwords I had been given to Ian Murray and directed those
who had won the officer elections on November 29th to return any
materials and/or passwords to the previous board. Because I ostensibly have no official
position I have not communicated with the district in any official capacity.
Some final thoughts on the whole
affair – I was on the committee that decided to start over and redo the
election. At the time, I agreed with
this decision because I wanted to dispel the cloud of doubt surrounding the
election. I have now had some time to
think about this and feel that we are establishing a very dangerous precedent. A group that does not have clear authority to
do so has decided that the certified results of an official
election are null and void based on allegations of fraud THAT WERE NOT PROVED
IN THE INVESTIGATION. The only fraud
that was proved was the fraud that was caught and dealt with BEFORE THE
ELECTION. Since when do we just
arbitrarily throw out the results of an election? We do not know who perpetrated the original
fraud and anyone who claims that they know who did it is engaging in pure
speculation. Each faction in LD 25 is
absolutely sure that the other faction is responsible, but the only thing we
absolutely know is that WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHO DID THIS, any claims to
the contrary notwithstanding.
Regardless of who wins in the
upcoming redo of this election, there will always be some who will believe that
the entire election was stolen by one side or the other. If this was the intention of the person who
submitted the fraudulent nominating questionnaires then they have certainly
succeeded in their quest.
Sincerely,
E. Paul Whetten
[i] The results were
certified by George Teegarden, who was administering the ballot counting for
the MCRC, and announced to the group by outgoing Chairman Haydee Dawson. MCRC Chairman Rob Haney was still present at
the meeting when the results were announced.
[ii] This was
administered by LD 26 Chairman Raymond Jones, witnessed by several individuals
including Haydee Dawson and Ian Murray, outgoing Chairman and 1st
Vice Chairman, respectively, and partially videotaped by Colleen Wheeler.
[iii] The committee members were: Rob
Haney, Tom Husband, Lyle Tuttle, Ian Murray, Paul Whetten, Barbara Parker, Pat
Oldroyd, George Teegarden, Elaine Gangluff, Milt Wheat, Vera Anderson, Lynne
Breyer, James Alberts and
Ray Sweeney. Haydee
Dawson, the outgoing LD 25 Chairman, had requested of Chairman Haney that the
investigative team include Colleen Wheeler, Alan Soelberg and Tracy Langston,
all of whom were actively involved in collecting nomination questionnaires from
the PCs and would presumably have information that might be helpful in the
investigation. That request was denied
by Chairman Haney.
[iv] I believed that
Brent’s presence as an observer was reasonable since he had actually filed a
formal complaint against the State Committeemen election. Barbara Parker was serving on the team
because she was the one that brought the allegations of fraud to everyone’s attention. Mr. Haney was irritated at me for taking this
action without consulting him first.
[v] Tonto and Leisure
World precincts
[vi] Greenfield
Park Precinct
[vii] Justin Pierce,
Cortney Pierce, Pat Oldroyd, Gary Pierce, Sherry Pierce, Matt Salmon, Nancy
Salmon, Russell Pearce, Lester Pearce.
[viii] I am NOT
accusing these individuals of deliberately ignoring our Bylaws, merely calling
attention to an important fact. I don’t
know why these individuals didn’t have signed forms or if they even wanted to
run in the first place.
[ix] Pat Oldroyd,
Russell Pearce, Lester Pearce
[x] There were two
groups who were running slates, and I was recruited by one of these
groups. The group that recruited me also
recruited several people to run as State Committeemen. Of the people recruited as SC’s by that group
– NOT ONE was missing the appropriate documentation. The signatures on several of those forms were
later called into question by Chairman Haney’s committee.
[xi] This could have
materially affected the outcome of the officer races that were tied, but would
not have affected the outcome of the other officer elections. This was later the basis for the decision to
vacate the Board Elections, NOT because there was evidence of any voter fraud.
[xii]
I find it interesting that all it took to create an allegation of fraud was to state
that you did not ask to be on the state committeemen ballot; but if someone had a signed document stating that they wanted to run, simply asking that individual if that was their intention was not sufficient to remove the suspicion of fraud.
[xiii] This was the
position that I advocated. To be
consistent with our Bylaws I felt that only those who had substantially
complied with the requirements of the Bylaws should be on the ballot.
No comments:
Post a Comment