Wisconsin Assembly approves gov't spending limits in all-night session

Members of the State Assembly battled each other into the wee hours of this morning to narrowly pass a constitutional amendment that would limit state spending. The measure, approved on a 50-48 vote was quickly drafted after earlier versions failed to go anywhere.

The approved measure limits state spending, but virtually removes caps on local government revenues. Still, many believe that it is the local governments which will ultimately feel the fallout from this measure.

The proposed amendment now goes to the state Senate, where its fate is uncertain. Any amendment to the state constitution must pass two consecutive legislative sessions and a statewide referendum before it can become law. It could not appear on a ballot for voters' consideration sooner than April 2007.

Read more about it at these links:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=419337
http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/index.php?ntid=81876&ntpid=1
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060428/OSH0101/60428007

Lennon denies Jelinski’s request for documents from Paulus investigation

Within days of E.J. Jelinski’s appearance on Eye on Oshkosh airing for the first time, Winnebago County District Attorney Bill Lennon has denied Jelinski’s open records request for files and other materials associated with the D.A.’s investigation into the activities of former D.A. Joe Paulus.

In issuing that denial, made public today, Lennon said he had conferred with the state Department of Justice, which is conducting its own investigation of Paulus. Lennon said the release of records assembled by his office while investigating Paulus would jeopardize the DOJ’s investigation. He also said that if Paulus or others were eventually charged, the records' release might also prevent those defendants from receiving a fair trial.

Jelinski tells Eye on Oshkosh he has been waiting for a denial so that he can proceed with his next step – filing a civil suit asking that a court order Lennon to release the records.

“I plan to seek a Writ of Mandamus, which is basically filing a civil suit in Circuit Court asking a judge to file an order, ordering an elected official to do what they’re supposed to do. My argument is Lennon is supposed to release these records according to law; he hasn’t done it, in violation of law; and I’m seeking an order forcing him to do it,” Jelinski said.

He is not swayed by Lennon’s citing two separate court cases which he claims support his denial of Jelinski’s request.

“The State ex rel Richards v. Faust case basically says that because district attorneys’ office files often have confidential information in them that they are an exception to the common law rule allowing for open records. I want to make the argument that State ex rel Richards v. Faust does not apply in this case because the district attorney’s office is essentially investigating itself, and because of that the public interest overrides any privacy concerns that State ex rel Richards v. Faust may have concerns about. So it should be an exception to the exception to the rule,” Jelinski continued.

Jelinski contends that the district attorney's office investigation and that of the attorney general's office are separate unto themselves, and because Lennon said his own office's investigation was concluded and closed, the records should be released.

Jelinski is not sure exactly when he will file suit, but said it will happen sometime within the next 30 days. Given the number of people in the Winnebago County Circuit Court system with conflicts of interest in this matter, Jelinski’s suit will likely be heard in another county.

Chamco board says it’s not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now

Last week the executive committee for Chamco – the city’s partner in industrial development – said it wanted to pass on soliciting commercial development for the City of Oshkosh. This morning, its board of directors basically said the same thing.

The consensus among board members is that Chamco is too busy with other projects right now and doesn’t have the appropriate time, or manpower, to take on commercial development, despite councilman Paul Esslinger’s continued push for Chamco to lead the charge in this area.

People have complained for years, including the hosts – both past and present of Eye on Oshkosh – that there has not been nearly enough done by the Oshkosh Commercial Development Corporation (OCDC), now known as the Oshkosh Area Economic Development Corp. (OAEDC). And it was Esslinger who sponsored a resolution on last Tuesday evening’s council meeting agenda for Chamco to be considered for that role. His resolution failed on a vote of 1-6, with other councilors suggesting a future workshop to hear from representatives from OAEDC on what they’re doing from a commercial development standpoint and what they might be capable of.

Certainly Chamco has done a marvelous job from an industrial standpoint and should get all of our praise, but if they are not in a position right now to take on new responsibilities, Oshkosh must have a back-up plan in place. That’s why a workshop makes sense, but it can’t stop there. We have had enough of past councils and individual council members talking about things, but no follow-through being done from where citizens sit. After the workshop, or perhaps as a part of it, the council needs to decide specifically what they want a commercial-seeking entity to accomplish – whether it be OAEDC, Chamco, or some other entity altogether – set forth some reasonable and attainable goals, and then subsequently put out a Request for Proposals. And when an organization is decided on, the council must insist on and require accountability.

As they approach these tasks, council members might want to talk to Future Neenah, Inc. This organization has been instrumental in not only helping keep business in Neenah, but bringing in new business and promoting the downtown at the same time. Many lessons could be learned from them. They have a proven track record and have helped put downtown Neenah and commercial Neenah on the map. That is what we need in Oshkosh – once and for all.
- Cheryl Hentz

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Chamco board says it’s not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now
Authored by: admin on Thursday, April 27 2006 @ 08:15 PM MDT
[NOTE: Administration has moved this comment to this section so the discussion can be continued in an area that is less "busy" and that is focused solely on this issue.]

Authored by: oshwi324 on Thursday, April 27 2006 @ 08:06 PM MDT Does the city's (OK, Esslinger's) resolution to recommend CHAMCO reek of the same "waive the bid" issues that plagued the city with the amphitheater bathrooms? If we're interested in choosing an agency to promote the retail and commercial growth within the city, shouldn't we do it more along the lines of an RFP than just asking a specific agency to do it? I don't know on this one...that's why I am asking your opinions. At first blush, tho, this seems odd that the city would just ask an agency to do it without giving others a fair kick at the cat. Opinions?

Chamco board says it's not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now
Authored by: admin on Friday, April 28 2006 @ 07:23 AM MDT
Oshwi324, I had not thought about this aspect with regard to Esslinger's proposal, but you raise a very interesting and, I think, valid point. The argument could be made that Chamco has a proven track record of working with the city and might be the only agency of its type around capable of handling this kind of task (commercial and retail development). Yet that same argument could have been, and if I recall correctly even WAS used as to why C.R. Meyer should be given the thumbs up on doing the the bathroom project when it was (e.g., they're already doing part of the amphitheater project; they know the terrain and the contamination problems; they've got a good reputation; they've done a lot for the city; etc.)But it is true that unless you get bids from people you don't know what, or who, you might find. And it sounds like the city is going to have to do that anyway since both Chamco's executive committee and board of directors as a whole have passed on Esslinger's concept, at least for the immediate future. Good call!
- Cheryl

Chamco board says it's not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now
Authored by: Beavis on Friday, April 28 2006 @ 11:37 AM MDT
Ultimately, it may be best to have an RFP for this service. But as a point of fact, legally, the city is not required to have RFP for this service because it is a specialization in our purchasing process. If you have any further questions regarding this issue, the City Attorney can answer your questions. His number is 236-5115
-Paul Esslinger

Chamco board says it's not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now
Authored by: mjs on Friday, April 28 2006 @ 02:07 PM MDT
Although I am disappointed at the initial stance taken by the CHAMCO board, I remain optimistic that we are now apparently getting traction on the horrible commercial development issue in Oshkosh.Many good points were made by Ms. Blochel, Mr. Peck and Mr. Pearson at the last council meeting. Mr. Peck again commented on the tired old excuse we all are fed that Oshkosh resides between Fond du Lac and Appleton, therefore large retailers will not locate here. That excuse is simply irrelevant. Mr. Peck and I agree we can and must do better!If large retailers can construct multiple stores in Appleton and the greater Appleton area, it just doesn’t wash that the distance factor is the issue. I firmly believe there are issues…but we are not hearing the truth as to exactly what they are. Let’s hope the council schedules a workshop and trouble shoots this problem in the very near future. The end result of that workshop should be to take the next step and construct a RFP and get it out there, in the hands of professionals who know what’s needed to attract retail. I have been a life long resident in Oshkosh, and it frustrates me to see our city looked upon as a second class city, because we are unable to attract and maintain a reasonable retail offering for a city of 65,000+ residents.Back in the 70’s, Oshkosh was presented with the opportunity to have a regional mall located at the intersection on highways 21 & 41. That opportunity was turned down, largely due to political pressure brought on by a large employer. That same opportunity was offered to Appleton and now the Town of Grand Chute has the Fox River Mall. The mall and all the retail and tax base growth that went with it should have been in Oshkosh. Let’s not let retail opportunities slip though our fingers again!

Chamco board says it's not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now
Authored by: admin on Friday, April 28 2006 @ 03:40 PM MDT
The city may not be required to put out an RFP for this service, but there certainly is no reason it can't anyway, nor shouldn't. To say "we don't have to" is not a very responsible answer - despite the outstanding job Chamco has done for our local industry. I'm not really sure what it means to say "it is a specialization in our purchasing process." Does that mean not that many agencies do this kind of work so we don't have to solicit bids? Or does it mean something else? Either way, Mr. Esslinger has argued against bid-waiving in the past and I would think, required or not, he would have been first in line to suggest RFPs, especially when Chamco's executive committee originally said it was not interested and now that has been reiterated by its board of directors.
- Cheryl

Chamco board says it's not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now
Authored by: chzhead on Friday, April 28 2006 @ 09:05 PM MDT
Cheryl, What needs to be understood here is that the city is not asking Chamco to take over the commercial development. The city is asking for them to prepare a proposal on how they would do it and what it would cost. Also as for the 'bid waiving', it has nothing to do with bids. The city is simply asking them to expand on the duties that they are currently performing. They are doing a job for the city that is directly related to the area that is being offered.

Chamco board says it's not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now
Authored by: mjs on Sunday, April 30 2006 @ 08:41 AM MDT
More positive news in the Sunday edition of the Northwestern. At an editorial board meeting held Friday, Doug Pearson again drove home the need to change the way Oshkosh is handling commercial development, recruitment and retention.It appears that Doug has the support of the CHAMCO Board Chairman, Jack Schloesser. Mr. Schloesser is an extremely successful businessman. Mr. Schloesser is President and CEO of OEC Graphics. OEC Graphics has a long rich history in Oshkosh (OEC=Oshkosh Engraving Company) and through the years has experienced extraordinary growth. OEC provides high quality jobs to hundreds of men and women at their multi-plant locations.Given the proper resources and support, CHAMCO's involvement in Oshkosh commercial development guided at a strategic level by Jack Schloesser and at a tactical level by Doug Pearson will be a force to be reckoned with...success will be achieved. Lets make this happen!

Chamco board says it's not interested in taking on commercial development, at least not now
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 10:41 PM MDT
Chzhead, I appreciate your comments, however, am a little confused by them at the same time. On the one hand you say the city is not asking CHAMCO to take over commercial development. But elsewhere in your comment you say the city is asking them to expand on the duties they’re currently performing. It doesn’t matter how it’s worded: the end result would be CHAMCO taking over commercial and retail development in the city. More specifically, the very first part of Mr. Esslinger’s resolution alone seemed to indicate CHAMCO taking over in these areas. It read: “Be it resolved by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the proper city officials are authorized and directed as follows: 1. To request that the CHAMCO, Inc., Board of Directors reviews the Council’s request to become the economic development agent of the City of Oshkosh for all forms of commercial development and retention; including but not limited to retail and professional office businesses.”

That part of the resolution is worded in such a way that most people would naturally take that to mean that Mr. Esslinger (since he sponsored this resolution) and the rest of the council (had they approved it) were asking CHAMCO to do exactly that: lead the charge in retail and commercial development. The fact that the words “become the economic development agent for…” are part of that resolution suggest that taking over such development is exactly what was intended and that they are NOT doing it now, though they are performing a like service, albeit in a different vein.

Granted, item number 2 in the resolution asked CHAMCO, if they were interested, to submit a proposal “regarding a list of services to be provided, and the staffing and funding needs, if any, that will be required of the City.” But if Mr. Esslinger’s intent was to solicit the same information from other agencies and/or organizations, it seems he would have had his resolution drafted in such a way that the city would have put out a Request for Proposals. But the resolution spoke only about CHAMCO and, in fact, Esslinger’s own words on this web site stated that the city is not required to use RFPs in this case. I don’t believe Mr. Esslinger was ever desirous of anyone else performing this service for the city. Nor do I believe the citizens who have spoken at city council meetings, on blog sites, or in letters to the editor of late believed that anyone other than CHAMCO was being considered for this position.

As to whether bids are required for this or not is not the real issue in my mind. I know someone else asked if this could be considered a type of illegal bid-waiving and I suggested it seemed plausible. But again, as far as I am concerned, while CHAMCO has done an outstanding job in industrial development and could probably be equally as successful with new challenges, it is unclear as to whether the organization wants to take on the additional challenges, or is even in a position to do so. The sentiment seems to change almost weekly, depending in large part on who at CHAMCO is being quoted. I have also been very outspoken about the former OCDC not being very productive or proactive in the areas of retail, commercial and economic development – a position I still maintain. But I do think the city should get proposals from several organizations and see where we can get the most bang for our buck. Perhaps a consortium of different organizations will be formed. Or maybe it will be one single entity doing the job. Maybe there will be a pool of ideas coming from several resources. We don’t know just yet exactly what the city expects from a development agency and we won’t know who is best suited for that unless we brainstorm how best to do this and/or ask the question of different organizations. Maybe the answer will be CHAMCO; maybe it will be someone else – only time will tell. But we can't afford to waste much more time. On that I think we can all agree.
- Cheryl

OASD Board Meeting

Thursday, April 27 2006 @ 12:12 PM MDT
Contributed by: Jim B.
I had a chance to watch my first board meeting last night. Although I try to keep informed, I never actually watched a meeting on cable. I couldn't help but think the mirror image of the OASD board to the Common Council. Different group, but very similar in many aspects. One aspect is the similarity between Mr. Schneider and Mr Esslinger. Although my first impression of Mr. Schneider was that he was far less informed and articulate than Mr Esslinger, I saw similarities. Mr. Schneider plays the same role as Mr. Esslinger.

Here is an example, the board was voting on the wellness program for 2007. Part of this includes the schools with soda machines to eliminate soda next year. Their are oodles and oodles of research out there proving how bad soda is for our kids for a myriad of reasons. This seemed to be lost on Mr. Schneider. He just couldn't grasp the concept and mentioned how student will or are selling soda out of their trunks. He went on to question if this would change the fact that some teachers who use food or sweets as a reward. He couldnt imagine that happening. I naively thought that most educated parents would know how bad it is to use food as a reward for anything.

Then as Merrill School was giving their presentation on their healthy living charter school he questioned the principal why nachos and hot dogs were so bad as that was what he grew up eating, and he turned out alright??? Obviously, anything in moderation is ok, but c'mon. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that hot dogs and nachos are not good for you(especially the frequency they are served to our children).

Come to think of it, I wouldn't want to insult Mr. Esslinger with the comparison!!!

Jim B.

Floating docks may not be allowed, says DNR

According to the Oshkosh Northwestern online this afternoon, the floating docks down by the Leach Amphitheater may not happen after all. It seems that the state Department of Natural Resources not only may deny the city's permit request for the docks, but encourage them to adopt an ordinance to ward off boat traffic in that area. Here is the link for the online piece. More details will be available in tomorrow's edition, they say.

You can read the story here: http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060425/OSH0101/60425052

Oshkosh Common Council needs to get a few answers

Graduates of Oshkosh’s first Citizens Academy have shared some interesting tidbits of information that I think some city councilors, if not all, would be surprised to hear.

First, citizens academy participants were apparently aware of certain things related to the budget about five to six weeks prior to when the city council was given the answers. As part of that, they were aware that a garbage fee might be coming down the pike before the city council was told about it. This begs the obvious question: Why can’t budget information be gotten out to the city council earlier than it is? Waiting until practically the last minute is not right and it ties the council’s hands to a certain degree.

The second thing the public and some council members, if not all, need to know is that our director of community development Jackson Kinney is responsible for turning away some business in downtown Oshkosh. On the one hand we hear him preaching about how we need development down there. On the other hand he seems to have summarily rejected at least one business from going there.

Two graduates from the citizens academy have told me that Mr. Kinney told the “class” that the city was approached by someone who wanted to put a grocery store downtown, but that the idea was rejected because it was an off-brand store and the city would like a more upscale or name-brand store downtown. First of all, we need a grocery store downtown for the people who live and work there. It is something people have talked about ever since Walgreens left, maybe even before. The city apparently feels we need a grocery store there too, unfortunately they’re holding out for something more golden. If something more upscale is the obvious ticket, why isn’t it happening? More importantly, why does it need to be more upscale? Aldi’s is an off-brand store, for example, but it has been successful. If it’s because the city is trying to attract a yuppie-type atmosphere downtown, forget it. Since being built and being unable to fill to capacity as an upscale property, the 100 N. Main apartments have given away at least a month of free rent and I believe even lowered the monthly rate in order to attract residents. So the “upscale” factor has lost some of its allure. A grocery store is a grocery store and while some may offer things others don’t, the bottom line is what needs to be looked at. We need a grocery store downtown and should not be picky whether it’s upscale or off-brand. And what we really don’t need is Jackson Kinney making decisions and nixing plans that some, maybe all, of the city council wasn’t aware of. And if a different council than the one that just ended was aware of this rejected concept, those members owe us an explanation of why they either rejected such an idea or were in favor of it being turned away by Mr. Kinney or his department.

It seems to me city council members need to question Jackson Kinney about this and I think it should be done during a regular televised city council meeting. After all, that is when the council does its business and that is where the taxpayers get to see business being done. We deserve to hear Mr. Kinney’s explanation as to why we don’t get to say what we want our money spent on but he gets to say what will and will not go in the downtown we’re helping pay for. I know some city council members prefer asking questions in private. That may be their preferred style of doing things, but that is NOT what is needed here. We have enough things being done in private. Ask the questions publicly so the public can see the way things really are. We deserve that much – from the city administration and you, as our elected representatives.

- Cheryl Hentz

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Oshkosh Common Council needs to get a few answers
Authored by: admin on Saturday, May 06 2006 @ 04:50 PM MDT
Councilwoman Meredith Scheuermann recently sent an email to Jackson Kinney inquiring about the grocery store that was discouraged from going in downtown, according to some graduates of the recent Citizens Academy. We thank Mrs. Scheuermann for forwarding his answers to us. Following is his response, verbatim:

"I can't recall the discussion. I very possibly said that we were were interested in seeing a grocery store locate in the downtown area, and I may have indicated that we had been approached previously by Sav-A-Lot (at least several years ago), who was interested in finding the right site somewhere in the downtown/central city area. The right site to them meant a site of about 2 acres somewhere north of the river in the central city area.

"Trying to find an appropriate location of the right size was not an easy task, especially given the size requirement and given the fact that in most locations we were looking at, it would take some significant investments in redevelopment and relocation, and given the relatively low value of their anticipated investment/improvement, the project would not be able to cover the costs from a TIF standpoint. I would have certainly not gone into this type of detail with the Citizens Academy, where any remarks I made was part of the bus tour.

"I certainly would have indicated, however, and very possibly did, that we would not recommend that Sav-A-Lot be located in the Marion Road Redevelopment Area, and that we would rather see in that particular area (essentially along Jackson St.) a more "upscale" grocery than a Sav-A-Lot (if you've seen a Sav-A-Lot, you'll understand why), especially given the investment that we've made in preparing that area for development, and what we should want to see in terms of the quality and level of investment)."

In a subsequent email Mr. Kinney added this:

"Someone forwarded me the blog story on Cheryl Hentz's web site. If I didn't make myself clear, let me expound a bit more. We spent time and effort working to find a site that made sense for the Save-A-Lot. In learning more about Save-A-Lot, I visited stores in several communities. That gave us a good understanding of the operation and the typical building improvement that is reflected in such a development. Even though we received no specific proposal from Save-A-Lot (so we never rejected any request), we've continued to keep an eye out for the right opportunity where we could make a store work somewhere in the downtown/central city area. We've even explored one site on N. Main Street, but the issue there is it is smaller than the site parameters we were initially given by their representative. What's important to note, that even though we never received a proposal from Save-A-Lot, we've kept the company's prior general interest in mind, with the hope that we could find the right fit for this business."

For anyone interested in seeing what Save-A-Lot is all about, they can visit the chain’s web site here. I guess I just don’t understand why we have to be so snobby as to require something “upscale.” Do people really care that much where they buy eggs, milk, butter and toilet paper? Perhaps we should think more about the people such a store would serve on a regular basis, rather than some of the more “upscale,” but temporary or transient people we’re apparently trying to create an image for. Again, if places like Pick ‘n Save were so interested in establishing a downtown location, why haven’t they? And why would Save-A-Lot bother to submit a formal proposal if our city planners made it clear early on their store was not up to the standards desired for that specific area?

- Cheryl

Oshkosh Common Council needs to get a few answers
Authored by: tthiel on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 12:05 AM MDT
I'd have to say Cheryl that I do think some people do care where they buy the essentials and other food etc. I personally go where ever the best price is but I know there are people that would never set food in an Aldi or Save A Lot store and certainly wouldn't buy anything in one. Snobby yes, reality, I would argue yes.

Admittedly I don't know a lot about this issue but from what is posted it didn't sound like the city is saying no Save A Lot downtown, just saying no Save A Lot in the Marion Road Development area (I also got the impression from the term "upscale" he was referring to something like a Sendicks not a Pick 'n Save)

Oshkosh Common Council needs to get a few answers
Authored by: admin on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 01:27 PM MDT
Teresa, I understand what you're saying about some people being very particular about where they shop. But the people being served by something in the downtown area had only a Walgreens before. I don't think they'd mind a Save-A-Lot. Plus, people would still have the option to go somewhere else if they wanted, just as people not living in the downtown area could go shop at the Save-A-Lot if they so chose.

I find it interesting though, that Jackson Kinney is worried about a business like Save-A-Lot being able to help the city recover the TIF costs. I wonder if the reps from Save-A-Lot even inquired about a TIF or if this was another case where Mr. Kinney just assumed that would be the only way this city could get development done in areas like downtown.

I also wish he was as concerned about the Five Rivers project being viable in that sense as he was about a Save-A-Lot. And I doubt any investment the city would make for a Save-A-Lot would be anywhere near the size of the investment being required of us for Five Rivers. Is he applying the same judicious criteria to Five Rivers as he did to Save-A-Lot, or have his eyes gone blind with the vision of dollar signs and bragging rights by having a complex like Five Rivers here in Oshkosh?

Though Mr. Kinney didn't say it in his email, one of the people from the Academy said he actually mentioned a Pick 'n Save, which is where I drew that from.

Bottom line, they have been messing around with this concept for several years, so why have they not been able to make any progress in getting a grocery store down there? If the "right stores" aren't stepping up to express interest, maybe it's time to look at someone who has, especially since the big discussion right now is retail and commercial development.

- Cheryl

Oshkosh Common Council needs to get a few answers
Authored by: tthiel on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 01:37 PM MDT
I wasn't really defending Mr. Kinney, frankly I don't know that much about him but if he really thinks Pick n' Save is upscale then I say you might as well go with a Sav a Lot store because while I shop at Pick n' Save I wouldn't call it "upscale". I do think they should be able to find a place for the Save a Lot and maybe they aren't looking too hard because they really don't want it downtown. If that is true it is not only snobbish it is foolish.

Oshkosh Common Council needs to get a few answers
Authored by: admin on Sunday, May 07 2006 @ 02:00 PM MDT
Oh, I didn't think you were defending him at all, but rather perhaps the concept. I don't really know what might be considered an upscale grocery store around here. In other parts of the country where I lived there were truly upscale stores: they were part of no chain at all; they were very specialized in what they offered; and you paid through the nose for items, no matter what they were. Pick 'n Save is a fine store, as are some of the others we have in Oshkosh. But common sense seems to dictate that if Mr. Kinney can't get them interested, he has to accept that and be more flexible in his thinking to get something downtown that is actually interested in being there.

- Cheryl

Oshkosh Common Council needs to get a few answers
Authored by: alibi2day on Monday, May 08 2006 @ 03:19 PM MDT
TOO snobbish and TOO foolish

Good words to best describe the whole Five Rivers
Project and the concept of the Downtown and Marion Road redevelopment projects.
A grocery store?? that would be giving citizens what is needed.
These projects are designed to fill WHATS not NEEDS.
The Council lacks leadership and Common Sense?

Official Minutes From School Board Election Recount

[We have received the following official MINUTES OF RECOUNT HELD BY THE BOARD
FOR THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, SPRING ELECTION HELD APRIL 4, 2006 and are pleased to present them here for our readers. We thank Teresa Thiel for graciously providing these minutes to us. The minutes are lengthy and, in some cases dry, but they will shed some light on exactly what happened during the weeklong recount, as well as clear up some of the discrepancies we all no doubt saw on various Web logs while the recount was going on. In transferring them to this site, the formatting may have slightly changed. If someone would like a copy in M/S Word format, please email the site administrator at hosts@eyeonoshkosh.com and you will be sent a separate copy.]

** Note: these are the official minutes, completely devoid of bias toward either side and containing no personal commentary from or editorializing by the recording secretary.

OSHKOSH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF CANVASSERS

MINUTES OF RECOUNT HELD BY THE BOARD
FOR THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER
SPRING ELECTION HELD APRIL 4, 2006

The meeting of the Board was called to order at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, April 7, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of recounting the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.

Board of Canvassers present: Teresa Collins, Claudette Elliott, Kim Ringler, Tony Renning, attorney for the Board of Canvassers

Candidates present were: Dan Becker, Amy Weinsheim, Michelle Monte

Also present were Paul Esslinger, Janie Robson, City Clerk Pam Ubrig

Dan Becker objected to Attorney Renning representing the Board of Canvassers because he also represents the Board of Education. Mr. Becker contended Attorney Renning has a conflict of interest. Mr. Renning indicated that no conflict of interest existed and that he would represent the Board of Canvasser.

Clerk Designee Teresa Collins (See Bowen letter) stated that the meeting was noticed on Thursday, April 6, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. (See Notice) It was determined that all election materials would be locked in a designated conference room at all times when the Board was not present. This conference room was re-keyed by a school district locksmith and Clerk Designee Collins has the only key to that room.

Clerk Designee Collins stated that Dan Becker submitted a petition (See Petition) for a recount at 6:10 p.m. on April 5, 2006. The petition along with a Notice of Recount Election was hand-delivered to each of the six candidates on Thursday, April 6, 2006, with a signed receipt obtained. (See Notices) A Certificate of Service was attached to a copy of each Notice for district files. (See Certificates of Service.)

Pam Ubrig read a statement into the record. (See Voting Statement)

Dan Becker submitted a list of people to act or speak on his behalf. (See Becker list) That list included the following: Amy Resop, Ann Rumbuc, Melanie Bloechl, Fred Boss, Anne Boss, Paul Esslinger, Michelle Monte, Andy Turner, Michelle Litjens, Tamara Mugerauer, Dennis McHugh, and Tom Sitter. There were no objections.

Becker asked City Clerk Pam Ubrig why out of all the clocks on the voting machines, two were not adjusted. Ubrig responded that she was training her assistant to do the testing. She watched her do the first 3 testings and the fourth one the assistant did on her own and she missed adjusting the clock. It was a simple error and she forgot to change the clock. When you view the 0 tape, it’s going to be an hour off.

Becker responded that there is no way to determine when the 0 tape was run. One could argue that it was run at 5:30. There is no way to prove when that tape was run.

Becker then questioned the ballot box at St. Andrews Church. Becker inquired as to whether, at any point, people standing in line would have perceived there was a problem and left. City Clerk Pam Ubrig responded that she could only speak to the time she was there and at the time she was there, there was never a long line and the voting never stopped. Ubrig further maintained that this is possible when the machine is working.

Becker asked City Clerk Pam Ubrig about the machine used at Franklin School. Memory cards were tested prior to the election so Becker inquired as to what actually happened to them between the test and the return to city hall. Ubrig responded that the memory cards are sealed in that machine’s compartment and stored in the vault until April 3. On April 3 they pick up supplies and tabulators and take them to the polls that morning. At the end of Election Day, an “ender card” is put through. At that time they break the seal and are instructed not to put the memory cards next to anything magnetic. We do a direct upload and modem over to the County. Becker asked if there was a reasonable explanation as to how the memory card wound up being blank. Ubrig responded that something as simple as an electric shock could clear out the memory card.

A test of the voting machine was run at 1:30 p.m. in front of the Board of Canvassers as well as Dan Becker and Amy Weinsheim. The result was verified. Mr. Becker asked if each voting machine is subjected to this test and City Clerk Pam Ubrig responded that yes, they were. There are 17 voting machines.

Janey Robson, a citizen speaking on her own behalf, asked if this recount was going to cost the district money. Mr. Renning responded that there will be a cost to the district and that will not be known until after the recount is concluded.

Paul Esslinger responded on his behalf that if there is a problem with voting machines, he thinks it is very important that we have this recount.

Amy Weinsheim stated that she has never been through this process and does not have anyone scheduled to speak on her behalf. She asked for the process in case she wouldn’t be available certain days. Mr. Renning asked her to provide a list of people who can speak/act on her behalf.

City Clerk Pam Ubrig asked if she could take the test materials back to her office since the test had been performed. It was noted that Winnebago County has all the same voting equipment so their memory cards will work in this machine. There were no objections.

Mr. Becker asked how this particular machine was selected to be here today. It was noted that the machine was #4, which was the same machine used at St. Andrew’s.

Mr. Becker asked for it to be noted that Helen Kind and Denise Butler are taking part and not being used as tabulators. That is not the function they are serving. Mr. Renning explained that they are not members of the Board of Canvassers but are being used by the Board of Canvassers as tabulators and for assistance.

City Clerk Pam Ubrig explained that poll workers have envelopes to put documentation into. Everything for the City is red, the County is blue, and the School District is green. From the City they will be pulling out the poll list. From the County, they will be pulling out the County poll list; absentee envelopes, which are stored in a vault until Election Day and opened at the polls; and any rejected absentee ballots. From the School District they will be pulling out the tape and any inspector statements. The other thing needed will be the memory card. Ms. Ubrig then explained the process of checking absentee envelopes and applications.

DISTRICT 1
Absentee Envelopes – Ward 1
DM – notified of address change to take effect in the future.

Mr. Becker objected that a signature was in pencil (Marked #1). The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to accept the signature.

Absentee Envelopes – Ward 2
PH missing application for absentee ballot. (Marked #2)
RH missing application for absentee ballot. (Marked #3)
Becker objected that there were apparently no applications ever made for the above-named absentee ballot envelopes. Both absentee envelopes (Marked #2 and #3 above) were laid aside. No applications were found after going through all 3 application binders.

Mr. Becker requested that he or one of his representatives be in the room whenever the ballots are in the room.


Ward 1
City Poll List Certification = 293
County Poll List Certification = 293
Canvass Tape = 294


Ward 2
City Poll List Certification = 313
County Poll List Certification = 313
Canvass Tape = 312


It was determined that a wrong color ballot was given to a voter. District 1 total, which includes Ward 1 and Ward 2, is correct. Mr. Becker objected that an elector received a wrong color ballot.

The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope and Recreated Ballot Envelope were both empty.

Mr. Becker objected to Denise Butler speaking with Paula Steger, Amy Weinsheim’s mom. Mr. Renning stated that he did not see anything inappropriate with this since Ms. Butler is a tabulator and will not be making any decisions as part of the Canvass Board.

Mr. Becker requested minutes on a daily basis and the Board will try to facilitate his request to the extent possible.

Becker objected to LB not being on the City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #4)
Becker objected to FC not being on the City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #5)
Becker objected to MM #6 not being on the City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #6)

It was noted that the City’s absentee ballot log is an internal tracking piece.

Becker objected to AA not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #7)

It was noted that the tape run for Ward 1 was an hour behind. (See Ms. Ubrig’s statement above.)

Ellen Binder interrupted at 3:58 p.m. with a message that the Ripon School District was requesting ballots from the Town of Utica for purposes of a recount.

Dan Becker objected that absentee ballots needing to be recreated were not identified as being recreated. It was subsequently determined that absentee ballots were, in fact, recreated and the duplicates identified.

Dan Becker objected to an alleged over-vote on a ballot. The Board of Canvassers voted 2-1 that voter intent could be determined and a duplicate ballot was created.

Dan Becker objected to an over-vote and questioned voter intent (#47). The Board unanimously agreed that voter intent could be determined and a duplicate ballot was created.

Amy Weinsheim provided a list of people (See Amy’s list) with permission to speak/act on her behalf in her absence. These included John Weinsheim, Paula Steger, Jerry Steger, Karen Bowen, and Teresa Thiel. Mr. Becker reserved his objection.

Attorney Renning noted for the record that Davis & Kuelthau had contacted the Ethics Board and the State Elections Board and neither expressed any concern with Mr. Renning serving as legal counsel for the Board of Canvassers.

The ballot bag for District 1 was opened at 3:10 p.m. by breaking Seal #0073584. There were signatures of the election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.

Ward 1
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 73
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 54
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 89 90
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 152 152
MICHELLE A. MONTE 84 85
DAN BECKER 142 142
AMY WEINSHEIM 116 117
WAYNE TRASKA 148 148

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 2
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 26
(2 were pulled – Previously marked #1 & #2)
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 23
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0


ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 128 128
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 161 161
MICHELLE A. MONTE 75 75
DAN BECKER 116 116
AMY WEINSHEIM 147 147
WAYNE TRASKA 125 125

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.


The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag with Seal #0073500 at 5:52 p.m. Claudette Elliott moved, Kim Ringler seconded to recess until Monday morning at 8:30 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. and all election materials were returned to Conference Room A.


APRIL 10, 2006

The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:37 p.m. on Monday, April 10, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of continuing to recount the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.

Board of Canvassers present: Teresa Collins, Claudette Elliott, Kim Ringler, Tony Renning, attorney for the Board of Canvassers.

Candidates present were: Dan Becker, Amy Weinsheim

Lois Linde and Margaret Gantner, both poll workers for the Town of Black Wolf, were introduced as tabulators to provide assistance to the Board of Canvassers should the need arise.

Dan Becker formally objected to the inclusion of Karen Bowen on Amy Weinsheim’s list of representatives to speak/act on her behalf being that Ms. Bowen is an active Board of Education member. Mr. Becker requested a copy of the Canvass Report completed at the end of Friday. A copy was provided.

There was discussion on Friday regarding a recount in the Ripon School District with regard to the Town of Utica. Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk, stated that she had received a request from the Ripon School District on Friday with regard to a recount of a referendum question. Ripon’s recount will start tomorrow (Tuesday, April 11, 2006). The Board of Canvassers stated that they would count the Town of Utica this morning to allow the ballots to be transferred to the Ripon School District. Once the Town of Utica has been completed, the Board will resume with the City of Oshkosh. There were no objections.

TOWN OF UTICA
Dan Becker objected that applications were missing for 2 absentee ballots; however, the ballots were counted. They were marked as follows: SF (#1) and LF (#2).
Noted: There was a defective ballot – Voter #120 did not vote.

The ballot bag was opened at 8:43 a.m. The ballot bag had the signatures of the election officials, had been sealed properly, and had not been tampered with. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.

Utica Poll List Certification = 190
County Poll List Certification = 191
Canvass Tape = 190

The Board was asked to recount the ballots by hand. There were 91 ballots counted.
Dan Becker objected to a discrepancy between the poll list and the ballots.

Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 35 35
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 54 56
MICHELLE A. MONTE 21 21
DAN BECKER 48 48
AMY WEINSHEIM 37 39
WAYNE TRASKA 32 33

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag and were released to Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk, at 10 a.m.


CITY OF OSHKOSH – DISTRICT 2
Seal #00733499 was broken from the bin holding the ballots at 10:07 a.m. Seal #0073579 was broken on the ballot bag for District 2 at 10:08 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.

Dan Becker objected to AB not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to DC not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to RF not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to GH not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to JL not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to MM not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to JM not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #7)
Dan Becker objected to MN not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #8)
Dan Becker objected to ER not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #9)
Dan Becker objected to PS not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #10)
Dan Becker objected to JS not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #11)
Dan Becker objected to JS not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #12)
Dan Becker objected to LS not being on City’s absentee ballot log. (Marked #13)

Amy Weinsheim noted that the application drives the absentee process, not the City’s absentee ballot log.

Dan Becker objected to a blank absentee ballot – voter intent. Amy Weinsheim responded that Mr. Becker is questioning the voter and it is inappropriate.

Dan Becker objected to voter intent. The Board unanimously determined that they could ascertain voter intent. Ballot was Recreated #9.

Dan Becker objected to voter intent. The Board determined that they could ascertain voter intent by a vote of 2-1. Ballot was Recreated #5.


Ward 3
City Poll List Certification = 248
County Poll List Certification = 248
Canvass Tape = 248

Ward 4
City Poll List Certification = 99
County Poll List Certification = 99
Canvass Tape = 99

Ward 3
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 17
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 17
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 109 109
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 146 147
MICHELLE A. MONTE 65 65
DAN BECKER 101 102
AMY WEINSHEIM 109 109
WAYNE TRASKA 108 108

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.


Ward 4
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 16
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0


ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 25 25
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 47 47
MICHELLE A. MONTE 26 26
DAN BECKER 56 55
AMY WEINSHEIM 37 37
WAYNE TRASKA 51 51

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag with Seal #0073436 at 11:29 a.m.

DISTRICT 3 – WARDS 5 & 6
Seal #0073042 was broken on ballot bag for District 3 at 11:37 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.

Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously determined that they could ascertain voter intent. The ballot was recreated #2


Ward 5
City Poll List Certification = 38
County Poll List Certification = 38
Canvass Tape = 38

Ward 6
City Poll List Certification = 32
County Poll List Certification = 32
Canvass Tape = 32

Ward 5
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 1
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 1
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 8 8
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13
MICHELLE A. MONTE 17 17
DAN BECKER 20 20
AMY WEINSHEIM 20 21
WAYNE TRASKA 16 16

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.


Ward 6
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 6
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 16 17
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13
MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7
DAN BECKER 6 6
AMY WEINSHEIM 16 16
WAYNE TRASKA 21 21

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

The ballots were placed back into the ballot bag with Seal #0073196 at 11:53 a.m. The ballot bin was secured at 11:54 a.m. with a black tie.

City Clerk Pam Ubrig reported that the two missing applications (Marked #1 & #2) in City District 1 for the absentee ballot envelopes were found. A secretary had put the applications in February election materials instead of transferring them to the April election materials. Ms. Ubrig also stated that voters residing in nursing homes are assisted there; therefore, a separate internal log exists that has those names as well as their voting status, (See Supplemental Log) which explains why there were names missing from the City’s absentee ballot log.

City Clerk Pam Ubrig explained that on Election Day at certain polling sites, she discovered that some “original” ballots were inadvertently put in a folder for empty envelopes instead of being put in the ballot bag along with the “recreated” and other ballots. The Districts where this occurred were District 5, District 8, District 11, and District 12. Ms. Ubrig noticed this when going through the envelopes on Election Night and immediately put the ballots in the City’s vault. Dan Becker objected to the chain of custody of ballots and that the ballots ended up in unsecured envelopes.


DISTRICT 4 – WARDS 7 & 8
Seal #0073575 was broken on ballot bag for District 4 at 1:10p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.

The Recreated Ballot Envelope was empty. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope contained one absentee envelope which was rejected for no elector’s signature. The envelope was never opened.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.

Dan Becker objected to Absentee Envelope bearing first initial and last name. The Board unanimously accepted it as a valid signature based on the witness signature attesting to V. S. (Marked #1)

Dan Becker objected to Absentee Envelope for PB not being entered corrected on the City poll list. The Board unanimously determined clerical error. (Marked #2)

Dan Becker objected to no voter number on absentee envelope – poll lists show #159. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to no voter number on absentee envelope – poll list showed #164 (Marked #4)

Dan Becker objected to voter intent on ballot. The Board unanimously determined it could ascertain voter intent. Marked as Original Recount #19

Dan Becker objected to ballot with no initials. It was pulled (not counted). (Marked #5)


Ward 7
City Poll List Certification = 276
County Poll List Certification = 276
Canvass Tape = 276

Ward 8
City Poll List Certification = 575
County Poll List Certification = 575
Canvass Tape = 575

Ward 7
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 32
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 32
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 100 100
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 136 136
MICHELLE A. MONTE 81 81
DAN BECKER 117 117
AMY WEINSHEIM 104 105
WAYNE TRASKA 137 137

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 8
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 42
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 42
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 279 278
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 280 281
MICHELLE A. MONTE 131 131
DAN BECKER 202 202
AMY WEINSHEIM 274 274
WAYNE TRASKA 289 289

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in ballot bag with Seal #0073480 at 3:08 p.m.

DISTRICT 5 – WARDS 9 & 10
The seal was broken on the ballot bin at 3:15 p.m. Seal #0073596 and Seal #0073077 were broken on ballot bags for District 5 at 3:16 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bags were sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.

The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained one ballot from Ward 9 and two ballots from Ward 10.

There were two original absentee ballots that did not have recreated ballots. Dan Becker objected that there were no recreated absentee ballots to match up to the two originals. The recreated ballots were found to be on the bottom of the pile as they were being fed through voting machine.

Dan Becker objected to an Absentee Envelope missing an application - PM (Marked #1).
Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk stated that the State Elections Board does not require that an absentee ballot be rejected because of a lack of application.

Dan Becker objected to an Absentee Envelope missing an application – RM (Marked #2).
Mr. Becker responded to an earlier explanation by City Clerk Pam Ubrig that voters return empty absentee envelopes to remain on the voter list. The back of the envelope specifically states “This envelope to be used by voter for return of marked ballot to officer from whom received.”

Dan Becker objected to a ballot with one set of inspector’s initials and one set of initials under “Absentee Ballot Issued”. The Board felt it was clerical error and accepted the ballot. The ballot was Recreated #3.
Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously declared that voter intent could be determined. The ballot was Recreated #6.


Ward 9
City Poll List Certification = 215
County Poll List Certification = 215
Canvass Tape = 215

Ward 10
City Poll List Certification = 265
County Poll List Certification = 265
Canvass Tape = 265

Ward 9
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 13
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 13
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 68 68
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 113 113
MICHELLE A. MONTE 76 76
DAN BECKER 91 91
AMY WEINSHEIM 95 96
WAYNE TRASKA 98 98

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 10
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 8
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 95 96
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 116 116
MICHELLE A. MONTE 84 84
DAN BECKER 109 109
AMY WEINSHEIM 125 125
WAYNE TRASKA 121 121

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073456 at 4:34 p.m.
Two ballot bins were sealed with black ties at 4:35 p.m.

Kim Ringler moved, Claudette Elliott seconded to recess to 8:30 Tuesday morning. The meeting recessed at 4:35 p.m.

APRIL 11, 2006
The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:36 a.m. on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of continuing to recount the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.

DISTRICT 6 – WARDS 11 & 12
The seal was broken on the ballot bin at 8:37 p.m. Seal #0073035 was broken on the ballot bags for District 6 at 8:38 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bags were sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope signature in pencil (ST). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the signature as valid. (Marked #1)

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope not found on the City’s absentee log (RD). (Marked #2)

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being marked incorrectly on the city poll list by one line. The number was recorded correctly on the county poll list. The Board unanimously determined that it was a clerical error. (Marked #3)

In the process of feeding ballots into the voting machine, a voting machine error message “Did not read ballot - See Official” was noted. The ballot was put through a second time with no error.

A ballot was pulled (not counted) due to only one set of inspector’s initials (Marked #4)

Dan Becker objected to a ballot having red pen marks underneath the black filled-in oval contending someone assisted a voter. The Board unanimously agreed that they could determine voter intent. The Ballot was recreated. (Marked #5).

Dan Becker objected to the validity of a ballot with one set of inspector initials on the line for inspector’s initials and one set of initials placed under “certification of elector assistance”. The Board unanimously agreed that initials were the same as on other ballots and determined that the initials were just inadvertently placed on the wrong line. The ballot was recreated. (Marked #6).


Ward 11
City Poll List Certification = 282
County Poll List Certification = 282
Canvass Tape = 282

Ward 12
City Poll List Certification = 158
County Poll List Certification = 158
Canvass Tape = 158

Ward 11
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 11
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 11
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 100 100
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 169 170
MICHELLE A. MONTE 85 85
DAN BECKER 109 109
AMY WEINSHEIM 122 122
WAYNE TRASKA 132 131

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 12
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 16
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 50 50
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 81 82
MICHELLE A. MONTE 39 39
DAN BECKER 66 67
AMY WEINSHEIM 77 78
WAYNE TRASKA 60 60

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073492 at 9:40 a.m.

DISTRICT 7 – WARDS 13 & 14
The seal was broken on the ballot bin at 9:40 a.m. Seal #0073531 was broken on the ballot bag for District 7 at 9:42 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bags were sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope and Recreated Ballot Envelope were both empty.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope and all absentee envelopes were identified on absentee voter log.



Ward 13
City Poll List Certification = 21
County Poll List Certification = 21
Canvass Tape = 21

Ward 14
City Poll List Certification = 39
County Poll List Certification = 39
Canvass Tape = 39

Ward 13
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 7 7
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13
MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7
DAN BECKER 3 3
AMY WEINSHEIM 8 8
WAYNE TRASKA 5 5

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.


Ward 14
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 19 19
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 26 26
MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7
DAN BECKER 5 5
AMY WEINSHEIM 19 19
WAYNE TRASKA 8 8

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073445 at 10:56 a.m.

DISTRICT 8 – WARDS 15 & 16
The Seal from the ballot bin containing the ballot bag for District 8 was broken at 10:05 a.m. Dan Becker objected to no signatures on the outside of the ballot bag for District 8.

Attorney Renning’s recommendation to the Board was to note Mr. Becker’s objection and to proceed to count the ballots, which was also the recommendation of the State Elections Board. City Clerk Pam Ubrig indicated that she would request the inspectors and the chairperson from District 8 appear before the Board to explain what had occurred. Ms. Ubrig stated that the lack of signatures appears to be an oversight. The Board decided to proceed with recounting District 9 and delay the recounting of District 8 until the District 8 chairperson and inspectors could explain. There were no objections to proceeding with the recount of District 9.

DISTRICT 9 – WARDS 17 & 18
Seal #0073523 was broken on the ballot bag for District 9 at 10:48 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 6 absentee envelopes from Ward 17 and 4 absentee envelopes from Ward 18. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope contained one absentee envelope.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.

Dan Becker renewed his objection to Karen Bowen representing Amy Weinsheim on the basis of conflict of interest.

An absentee envelope was initially rejected (not counted on Election Night) due to a missing address of the witness. The Board unanimously determined to validate the rejected absentee envelope based on the valid signatures. Dan Becker objected to the inclusion of the absentee envelope due to there being no address for the witness signature. The ballot was included in the count and Recreated #1. The absentee envelope was (Marked #1).

The Board unanimously agreed to pull (not count) the original ballot #5 as well as the recreated ballot #5 due to missing initials on the original.

Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature on an absentee envelope (BB). The Board unanimously determined the signature was valid and included the envelope. (Marked #2)

Dan Becker objected to absentee envelope (RG) due to possibility of a duplicate vote as well as an objection to a missing return date on the absentee log. (Marked #3)

Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature on absentee envelope (CH). The Board unanimously determined the signature was valid and included the envelope. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to rejected absentee envelope (noted above) due to no voter number issued. (Previously Marked #1)

The Board unanimously determined absentee envelope (DS), new registrant, was valid. (Marked #5)

Dan Becker objected to absentee envelope (RG) not having a corresponding absentee number in the poll list. The poll list indicates #76 next to (RG) and the absentee envelope indicates #89. The Board pulled the envelope and will determine whether to pull a ballot after an absentee ballot count has been performed. (This was previously marked #3.)

Dan Becker objected to Karen Bowen apparently touching the voter logs twice. Attorney Renning reminded the public that the Board of Canvassers are the only ones authorized to handle election materials.

Dan Becker objected to an address error on absentee envelope (DH). The Board unanimously determined it was an oversight (Marked #6)

Dan Becker objected to an address error on absentee envelope (RH). The Board unanimously determined it was an oversight (Marked #7)

A ballot was pulled from District 9 because the number of absentee ballots exceeded the number of absentee voters. (Marked #8)

A ballot was pulled from District 9 due to only one set of initials. (Marked #9)

Dan Becker objected to a ballot stating voter intent. The Board was able to unanimously determine voter intent and the ballot was Recreated #27.


Ward 17
City Poll List Certification = 463
County Poll List Certification = 463
Canvass Tape = 463

Ward 18
City Poll List Certification = 210
County Poll List Certification = 210
Canvass Tape = 210

Ward 17
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 24
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 23
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 183 183
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 245 245
MICHELLE A. MONTE 121 121
DAN BECKER 196 196
AMY WEINSHEIM 216 216
WAYNE TRASKA 199 199

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.


Ward 18
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 24
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 25
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 82 82
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 105 105
MICHELLE A. MONTE 63 66
DAN BECKER 84 84
AMY WEINSHEIM 107 107
WAYNE TRASKA 84 86

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073060 at 12:42 p.m.

DISTRICT 8 – WARDS 15 & 16
City Clerk Pam Ubrig as well as election inspectors William Gerth, Dorothy Gerth, and Dorothy Unger were present to attest to the ballot bag for District 8. Jim Martinez was present to attest that the ballot bag was delivered to him at City Hall and that he takes all ballot bags to the City’s vault. Ms. Ubrig stated that at chairperson training, it is explained how to secure the ballot bag and to make sure everything is signed. There is a camera located behind Collections that shows a clock. It is set up so ballot bags can be seen being deposited into the bins and the bins being sealed by Mr. Martinez. Mr. Gerth attested that he put District 8 ballots into the ballot bag and helped Mary Ann Offer with the bag. Dorothy Unger stated that she watched Ms. Offer thread the yellow seal through the holes so the ballot bag could not be opened. City Clerk Pam Ubrig attested to the writing on the bag being her own.

It was noted that the second ballot bag for District 8 had the Chairperson’s signature.

Elizabeth Hartman, attorney for Dan Becker, stated that there are procedures that must be followed on Election Day. Ballot bags need to be signed by the chief inspector and two other inspectors. It goes to ballot security and she asked that the ballots be set aside because procedures have not been substantially complied with.

Amy Weinsheim commented that clearly the overarching issue is that fraud is suspected and she does not believe there has been fraud. She objected to these ballots not being counted. She noted that in Mr. Renning's conversation with the State Elections Board, they recommended that the ballots be counted.

Dan Becker asked City Clerk Pam Ubrig what security procedures are in place for unused ballot bags and who has access to those bags. Ms. Ubrig responded that the ballot bags are kept in her vault and approximately 25 employees on the first floor of City Hall have access to that vault.

Mr. Renning asked Jim Martinez if he goes through the bins or is responsible for transporting the ballot bins. Mr. Martinez responded that he accepts the ballot bags at City Hall from the various districts’ chairpersons, puts the bags in the ballot bins, and marks the label on the handle of the bins identifying which Districts’ bags are contained within. The only list Mr. Martinez has is the label on the handles of the bins. He seals the bins when they reach ¾ or full capacity. The bins are sealed in the front and the back. Mr. Martinez indicated that he recalled receiving a bag of ballots from District 8. Mr. Renning asked Mr. Martinez if the punched “District 8” on the label located on the handle of the ballot bin, would indicate that he had received the ballots from District 8 and Mr. Martinez indicated that it would have.

Dan Becker stated that if the ballots were received from District 8, there is no assurance that those ballots came from St. John’s Church.

Pam Ubrig stated that she had spoken with Chairperson Mary Ann Offer on Election Night. She had went through forms with her. Ms. Ubrig did not see the ballot bags because they were sealed in the ballot bin. She was not aware that there were no signatures until today.

Mr. Renning asked Ms. Ubrig if the Chairperson or any individuals have access to another bag from the vault. Ms. Ubrig responded that there is a bag she completes and an extra bag without the Clerk’s writing. She again indicated that her writing is on District 8’s ballot bag.

Amy Weinsheim commented that it is frustrating as a voter that one of the allegations is voter suppression and this entire process has been about suppressing votes.

The Board unanimously decided to delay the recount until they could hear from the District 8 Chairperson.

At 2:40 p.m. the District 8 ballot bags were again brought to the Board table. Mary Ann Offer, District 8 Chairperson, was present. Attorney Renning asked Ms. Offer for an explanation of the missing signatures. Ms. Offer stated that it was an oversight. Mr. Renning asked Ms. Offer if it was her responsibility to take District 8 ballots from St. John's Church to City Hall and provide them to Jim Martinez. Ms. Offer indicated that it was. Mr. Renning asked Ms. Offer if she could identify the bag and she stated that it was definitely the ballot bag from District 8. Mr. Becker asked Ms. Offer what distinguishing marks were present for her to identify the bag. Ms. Offer responded that the writing on the bag is exactly the same handwriting that was on the bag she wrapped up and put the tag around. Attorney Hartman asked why there were two bags. City Clerk Pam Ubrig stated that on Election Night when she went through the County envelope, she noticed recreated envelopes containing original ballots. Ms. Ubrig secured the original ballots in the City’s vault. The recreated ballots were correctly put in the original ballot bag. She contacted Ms. Offer, who arrived at City Hall at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday to secure the ballots, which should have been sealed in the first bag with no signatures, in a second ballot bag. Ms. Ubrig stated that the Board will be able to put the ballots from the two bags together and show there were no discrepancies. Ms. Offer stated that she was relatively new to the procedures and she put the Recreated Ballot Envelope containing ballots in the County envelope instead of the ballot bag. She did not dispute the fact that the instructions on the outside of the envelope indicate the need for signatures.

Attorney Hartman asked Ms. Offer to walk through exactly what she did.

Chairperson Offer stated that she sorted out the ballots by the two wards, she made sure the absentee ballots were together with the recreated ballots on top. She put the ballots in the bag, took the tag out, and sealed the bag with the lock tag. She had a number of different things to sign. Attorney Hartman asked Chairperson Offer if she realized her error after she locked the bag. Ms. Offer indicated that Pam Ubrig discovered the error. Ms. Offer thought she was doing the right thing by putting the Recreated Ballot Envelope containing the ballots in the County bag. She later realized that the only time the Recreated Ballot Envelope goes into the County bag is when it is empty. She admitted that it was definitely her oversight. Ms. Ubrig stated that when going through the County envelopes on Election Night and felt the Recreated Ballot Envelope, there should have been nothing in there; however, it contained ballots. She put them in the vault and called Ms. Offer on Wednesday morning. She explained to Ms. Offer that there were ballots that needed to be sealed in a ballot bag. Ms. Offer arrived at City Hall and together with Ms. Ubrig, sealed the ballots in a second bag. The bag was then put into a ballot bin and the bin was sealed. Jim Martinez then took the bin to the County. There is a document showing the delivery and arrival times. On Friday, April 7, 2006, the ballot bins were brought here to the District. Ms. Ubrig refused to open the original ballot bins which is why there is a ballot bin with four ballot bags containing a minimal amount of ballots.

The Board of Canvassers asked to confer with Attorney Renning. Attorney Renning subsequently stated that based on the statements of the chairperson and poll inspectors and based upon his recommendation, which was substantiated by the State Elections Board, the Board of Canvassers will proceed noting Dan Becker’s objection. The board unanimously agreed to go forward with the recount and Mr. Becker again objected..

Amy Weinsheim commented the there should not be suppression of votes.

Seal #0073547 and Seal #0073464 were broken on the ballot bags for District 8 at 2:54 p.m.
There were no signatures of election officials. The bags were sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty and the Recreated Ballot Envelope contained one ballot.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.


Ward 15
City Poll List Certification = 141
County Poll List Certification = 141
Canvass Tape = 141

Ward 16
City Poll List Certification = 121
County Poll List Certification = 121
Canvass Tape = 121

Ward 15
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 4
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 4
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 48 48
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 63 63
MICHELLE A. MONTE 40 41
DAN BECKER 54 55
AMY WEINSHEIM 57 57
WAYNE TRASKA 57 57

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 16
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 3
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 3
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 49 49
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 68 69
MICHELLE A. MONTE 35 35
DAN BECKER 45 45
AMY WEINSHEIM 60 60
WAYNE TRASKA 40 40

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073458 at 3:28 p.m.

DISTRICT 10 – WARDS 19 & 20
Seal #0073522 was broken on the ballot bag for District 10 at 3:30 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 18 ballots and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.

Dan Becker objected to a ballot stating voter intent. The Board unanimously agreed that voter intent could be determined. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope not having an application (IH). (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature. The board unanimously determined that it was a valid signature. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope not having a valid witness signature. The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with a “printed” signature for Certification of Elector Assistance. The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature. (Marked #6)


Ward 19
City Poll List Certification = 282
County Poll List Certification = 282
Canvass Tape = 282

Ward 20
City Poll List Certification = 228
County Poll List Certification = 228
Canvass Tape = 228

Ward 19
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 20
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 20
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 83 83
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 165 165
MICHELLE A. MONTE 55 55
DAN BECKER 92 92
AMY WEINSHEIM 135 135
WAYNE TRASKA 138 138

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 20
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 14
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 79 79
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 123 124
MICHELLE A. MONTE 54 55
DAN BECKER 79 80
AMY WEINSHEIM 117 117
WAYNE TRASKA 80 81

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073432 at 4:36 p.m.
Three ballot bins were resealed at 4:38 p.m.

Moved by Kim Ringer, second by Claudette Elliott to recess and reconvene Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. The meeting recessed at 4:44 p.m.

APRIL 12, 2006
The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:36 a.m. on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of continuing to recount the results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member. Two ballot bins were opened at 8:37 a.m.

DISTRICT 11 – WARDS 21 & 22
Seal #0073005 and Seal #0073061 were broken from the ballot bags for District 11 at 8:38 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained three absentee ballots and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.

Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee ballot missing inspectors’ initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot (Marked #1) Mr. Becker commented on the inconsistency of the board – a ballot can be pulled without signatures but a ballot bag is acceptable without signatures.

Amy Weinsheim noted that when the Board went through District 8 ballots, all ballots that went through the voting machine had signatures.

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot missing one set of inspector’s initials. The Board pulled the ballot (Marked #2)
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot missing one set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot (Marked #3)

Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency.

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot missing one set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #4)

Dan Becker again renewed his objection regarding inconsistency.

Dan Becker objected to Ward 22 in its entirety regarding procedures.


Ward 21
City Poll List Certification = 184
County Poll List Certification = 184
Canvass Tape = 184

Ward 22
City Poll List Certification = 226
County Poll List Certification = 226
Canvass Tape = 226

Ward 21
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 10
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 9
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 1

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 64 63
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 94 94
MICHELLE A. MONTE 65 65
DAN BECKER 98 97
AMY WEINSHEIM 73 72
WAYNE TRASKA 87 88

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 22
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 6
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 77 77
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 99 97
MICHELLE A. MONTE 77 78
DAN BECKER 111 108
AMY WEINSHEIM 87 88
WAYNE TRASKA 92 91

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073062 at 9:26 a.m.

DISTRICT 12 – WARDS 23 & 24
The seal was broken from the bin holding the ballots at 9:27 a.m. Seal #0073599 and Seal #0073496 were broken on the ballot bags for District 12 at 9:29 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 9 ballots and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope contained 1 envelope.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.

The Board reviewed a rejected absentee envelope, which was missing a witness address. Everything else on the envelope was in order. The Board unanimously agreed to the validity of this absentee ballot. Dan Becker objected on the grounds that the poll worker had determined this envelope rejected and renewed his objection on the inconsistency of the board as to relevant information. The ballot was Recreated #1. The Absentee Envelope was (Marked #1)

The ballots for Ward 24 were counted by hand with a count of 426 ballots (425 + 1 rejected as noted above).

Dan Becker objected to a discrepancy between the number of ballots and the number of voters on the poll list. He requested that the poll list be counted; however, the board determined that there was one less ballot than voters; therefore, the results match for Ward 24.

Dan Becker objected to technical errors on an absentee envelope. The Board unanimously determined that the envelope was consistent with the application and, therefore, valid. (Marked #2)

Dan Becker objected that an absentee envelope contained the voter’s signature twice on the signature line. The board determined that the absentee envelope was valid. (Marked #3)

Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #238 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #239 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #240 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #223 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #7)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #224 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #8)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #225 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #9)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #226 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #10)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #227 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #11)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #228 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #12)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #229 was not listed in the poll list as ABS.
(Previously Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #230 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #13)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #231 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #14)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #232 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #15)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #233 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #16)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #234 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #17)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #235 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #18)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #236 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #19)
Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope #237 was not listed in the poll list as ABS. (Marked #20)

Dan Becker objected to a technical error on an absentee envelope that an address should not be accepted that does not exist. The address stated N. 16th Ave. and the correct address is W. 16th Ave. The Board unanimously agreed to accept the absentee envelope based on a matched name to 437 W. 16th Ave. (Marked #21)

Dan Becker noted an abnormality to an absentee envelope containing a clerical note on the back of the envelope. (Previously Marked #3.)

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being marked in the County poll list under the wrong name. The City poll list was correct. The Board unanimously determined it was a clerical error. (Marked #22)

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #23)

Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of a signature but not eliminating a ballot bag for lack of signatures.

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #24)

Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Dan Becker objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #25)

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #26)

Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #27)

Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Dan Becker objected to a signature at the bottom of a ballot (elector assistance) claiming it is initials. The board determined it was a valid signature. The ballot was not marked. Mr. Becker wanted it noted in the record.

Dan Becker objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board pulled the ballot. (Marked #28. )

Dan Becker objected to a ballot claiming voter intent. The board unanimously agreed that there were no votes for school board on this particular ballot and voter intent could be determined. (Marked #29)


Ward 23
City Poll List Certification = 294
County Poll List Certification = 294
Canvass Tape = 294

Ward 24
City Poll List Certification = 426
County Poll List Certification = 426
Canvass Tape = 425 + 1 rejected = 426




Ward 37
City Poll List Certification = 0
County Poll List Certification = 0
Canvass Tape = 0


Ward 23
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 18
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 18
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 110 110
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 145 145
MICHELLE A. MONTE 90 91
DAN BECKER 130 131
AMY WEINSHEIM 116 116
WAYNE TRASKA 115 115

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 24
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 21
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 21
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 144 142
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 187 188
MICHELLE A. MONTE 154 152
DAN BECKER 218 215
AMY WEINSHEIM 149 151
WAYNE TRASKA 188 183

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.


Ward 37
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 0 0
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0
MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0
DAN BECKER 0 0
AMY WEINSHEIM 0 0
WAYNE TRASKA 0 0

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073046 at 11:17 a.m.

DISTRICT 13 – WARDS 25 & 35
Seal #0073570 was broken on the ballot bag for District 13 at 11:25 a.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.


Ward 25
City Poll List Certification = 97
County Poll List Certification = 97
Canvass Tape = 97

Ward 35
City Poll List Certification = 3
County Poll List Certification = 3
Canvass Tape = 3

Ward 25
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 3
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 3
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 38 38
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 51 51
MICHELLE A. MONTE 24 24
DAN BECKER 36 36
AMY WEINSHEIM 45 45
WAYNE TRASKA 43 43

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.


Ward 35
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 1 1
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 2 2
MICHELLE A. MONTE 2 2
DAN BECKER 1 1
AMY WEINSHEIM 2 2
WAYNE TRASKA 1 1

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073497 at 11:38 a.m.

DISTRICT 14 – WARDS 26 & 27
Seal #0073059 and Seal #0073085 were broken on the ballot bags for District 14 at 12:51 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained 15 absentee ballots and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.

Dan Becker objected to absentee ballot original #15 for voter intent. The board unanimously agreed that voter intent could be determined.

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing a signature (RB). There appeared to be an X on the signature line; however, other absentee envelopes also contained X’s on signature lines in addition to a signature. The board was not able to ascertain whether it was a valid signature. The envelope was pulled. (Marked #1).

Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature of a witness on an absentee envelope (AF #386). The board unanimously determined that it was a valid signature. (Marked #2)

Dan Becker objected to pencil signatures for a voter and a witness on an absentee envelope (AK #336). The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature in both cases. (Marked #3)

Dan Becker objected to pencil signatures for a voter and a witness on an absentee envelope (KK #337) The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature in both cases. (Marked #4)

Dan Becker objected to a pencil signature for voter on an absentee envelope (AF #233). The Board unanimously determined it was a valid signature (Marked #5)

It was noted that the absentee envelope for (RS #241) had an incorrect voting number in the corner. The number was identified as 24; however, it should have been #241. The board unanimously determined it was a clerical error. (Marked #6)

It was noted that a witness on an absentee envelope does not have to be an Oshkosh Area School District resident. (Marked #7)

Dan Becker noted that an absentee envelope clearly states that a full address needs to be included on the witness signature. Amy Weinsheim noted that an absentee envelope cannot be discarded because the witness does not provide an address.

Due to the fact that there were 35 absentee envelopes and 36 absentee ballots, an absentee ballot was pulled at random and not counted. (Marked #8).

Dan Becker noted that a red tab with #273353 was found in the ballot bag. Pam Ubrig explained it was a tab she uses for the voting machine to ensure that the election card cannot be removed. The seal is broken when the card is pulled to be brought back to City Hall.

Dan Becker objected to a ballot with no inspectors initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #9) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Dan Becker noted that a voting machine message stated “unmarked ballot” and the voting machine did not accept the ballot even though the ballot was marked by a voter. The ballot was Recreated #2.

Dan Becker noted that a voting machine message stated “unmarked ballot” and the voting machine did not accept the ballot even though the ballot was marked by a voter. The ballot was Recreated #3.

Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #10) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #11) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously agreed that voter intent could be determined. The ballot was Recreated #9.


Ward 26
City Poll List Certification = 454
County Poll List Certification = 454
Canvass Tape = 454

Ward 27
City Poll List Certification = 326
County Poll List Certification = 326
Canvass Tape = 326

Ward 26
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 35
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 36
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 150 149
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 226 221
MICHELLE A. MONTE 133 133
DAN BECKER 251 251
AMY WEINSHEIM 171 170
WAYNE TRASKA 217 216

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.


Ward 27
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 13
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 13
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 109 109
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 159 159
MICHELLE A. MONTE 101 101
DAN BECKER 159 159
AMY WEINSHEIM 133 133
WAYNE TRASKA 152 152

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073495 at 2:27 p.m.
It was discovered that the red tag that Mr. Becker requested be put in the ballot bag was inadvertently left out. Seal #0073495 was broken at 2:29 p.m. and immediately resealed with Seal #0073047.


DISTRICT 15 – WARDS 28, 29, 34
Seal #0073586 was broken on the ballot bag for District 15 at 2:31 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope and Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.


Ward 28
City Poll List Certification = 470
County Poll List Certification = 470
Canvass Tape = 469

Ward 29
City Poll List Certification = 428
County Poll List Certification = 428
Canvass Tape = 427




Ward 34
City Poll List Certification = 2
County Poll List Certification = 2
Canvass Tape = 2


The District 15 total, which includes Wards 28, 29, and 34 is correct. It was determined that a wrong color ballot was given to a voter. Mr. Becker objected to an elector receiving a wrong color ballot.

Dan Becker objected that absentee envelope (RG) could have possibly voted in the wrong ward. The board unanimously agreed to pull the absentee envelope. Length of time at the noted address could not be determined. (Marked #1)

Amy Weinsheim noted that this has become an exercise in suppressing votes and is impeding voters’ rights.

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (MM #316). The Absentee Envelope was (Marked #2).

Dan Becker objected to a witness signature being on the wrong line on an absentee envelope. The witness signature and address are both present. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #3)

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (HW #307) not appearing on the City’s absentee log. (Marked #4)

The Board pulled an absentee ballot from Ward 29 due to a rejected absentee envelope to match envelopes and ballots. (Marked #5)

Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #7)
Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #8)

Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Dan Becker asked for an explanation of the distinction the board is making between ballots and the ballot bag. The Board is making the distinction based on yesterday’s testimony of the Chairperson from District 8 identifying the ballot bag.

A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #9)
A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #10)
A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #11)
A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #12)
A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #13)
A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #14)
A joint objection was made to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #15)

Both parties acknowledged the need to remain consistent as to the lack of inspectors’ initials and signatures. Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #16) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Amy Weinsheim objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #17) Dan Becker renewed his objection regarding inconsistency of the board eliminating ballots for lack of signature but not eliminating ballot bag for lack of signature.

Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #18)
Dan Becker objected to ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #19)
Dan Becker objected to ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #20)
Dan Becker wanted it noted that the voting machine jammed with a system message stating “ballot counted”. The jam was fixed and the recount proceeded.

Dan Becker noted a relationship between Board of Canvass members Teresa Collins and Kim Ringler.

Dan Becker objected to a ballot with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and pulled the ballot. (Marked #21)

Ward 28
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 27
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 27
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 213 208
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 243 237
MICHELLE A. MONTE 113 110
DAN BECKER 206 201
AMY WEINSHEIM 220 209
WAYNE TRASKA 218 210

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 29
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 18
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 1
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 19
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 181 181
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 198 197
MICHELLE A. MONTE 107 108
DAN BECKER 175 175
AMY WEINSHEIM 207 207
WAYNE TRASKA 197 196

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.

Ward 34
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0
Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0
Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0

ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT
LEE WILSON 0 0
DENNIS KAVANAUGH 1 1
MICHELLE A. MONTE 1 1
DAN BECKER 1 1
AMY WEINSHEIM 1 1
WAYNE TRASKA 1 1

The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back in the ballot bag with Seal #0073455 at 4:23 p.m.


DISTRICT 16 – WARDS 30 & 31
Seal #0073137 and Seal #0073011 were broken on the ballot bags for District 16 at 4:39 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Recreated Ballot Envelope contained one ballot from Ward 31 and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope contained 2 envelopes from Ward 30 and 2 envelopes from Ward 31.

There was an application request for each absentee envelope.

City Clerk Pam Ubrig stated that this district tape total has 2 more votes than on the poll list. She showed an example of a supply box, which is at each polling place. There are voter number tabs with the actual numbers that were used on Election Day. The number tabs which were on the spindle can be verified to the numbers on the poll list.

It was noted that both ballots (the original and recreated) were found in the Recreated Absentee Envelope.

Dan Becker objected to addresses missing on 3 rejected absentee envelopes. The board unanimously determined that addresses were not necessary. All other relevant information was provided. The 3 absentee ballots were counted.
Absentee envelope (FN) (Marked #1) Ballot was Recreated #1 – Ward 30
Absentee envelope (FRB) (Marked #2) Ballot was Recreated #2 – Ward 31
Absentee envelope (JB) (Marked #3) Ballot was Recreated #3 – Ward 31

Dan Becker objected to the poll list and the tape in Ward 30 not matching and having a difference of 2 votes. Pam Ubrig stated that in speaking with the Chairperson for District 16, it was a possibility that two ballots were put through the machine twice.

The ballots were counted by hand for a total of 230.

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to the signature of the elector as well as the witness signature being on the wrong line. The Board unanimously determined that the absentee envelope was valid. (Marked #4)

Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to no witness address. The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #5)

Dan Becker objected to 3 envelopes in Ward 30 being sorted into Ward 31.

Dan Becker noted that the poll number for MJ (#188) did not indicate ABS in the City’s poll list.

Dan Becker objected to ABS number being on the wrong line. The Board unanimously determined it was a clerical error and accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #6)

FRB was not on