In light of the Finger Lakes Times' coverage of Assistant Attorney General Joel Graber's visit to Geneva test the voting machine which had been taken out of service on Election Day, November 6, we offer the following addendum to our original post on the fiasco:
Graber's visit to test the machine which had been taken out of service was initiated by Graber, after the Attorney General's Office had judged there was enough credible evidence to launch an investigation into the election in doubt. All arrangements for his Canandaigua/Geneva visit were made by the Attorney General's Office and the Ontario County Board of Elections. Bottom line: It is a fact that Graber came to town to test the machine and did not do the test because he could not. That's because the machine had been altered by election employees prior to his arrival.
It is also a fact that Capraro had absolutely no say in those arrangements. Through his attorney, Sam Bonney, he was simply informed that Graber was coming to town and that he, Capraro, was invited to attend the test of the machine. In fact, Bonney had requested a re-scheduling of the test visit because Capraro's preferred lever ballot machine expert, Professor Doug Jones, Ph.D., of the University of Iowa, was not available on the date announced for the visit. For Jones to fly in from Iowa on a few day's notice would have been difficult under any circumstances. Because of the long weekend for Martin Luther King's Birthday, another ballot expert could not be located in time to replace Jones. Even the Attorney General's office did not bring the machine consultant they had planned to bring because he was not available on such short notice.
What Salotti and Northrup must account for is the timeline. We want to know: all their interactions with John Ruggieri, the machine technician who maintains the voting machines; all their interactions with the AG's office; all their interactions with Bonney pertaining to the testing of the machines; all their interations with the Attorney General's office, including exactly when they knew Graber would be coming and what steps they took to safeguard the machines after that. They have a responsibility to explain their actions to the public. 'No comment' or 'not available for comment' is not an acceptable response. They should also release all correspondence between them and the Attorney General's Office to let the public decide for themselves exactly what was going on.
Look at it this way, if the machines had already been reset when the AG contacted the commissioners' office, why didn't they say so? If the machines had not been reset, as the letter from the commissioners to Bonney indicates, why didn't they protect the integrity of the machines until it was determined if the AG was actually coming out. The letter to Bonney indicates that the AG had made "initial contact" but had not yet finalized the plans. Anyone would agree that the machine in question should not be touched until the last possible minute. The machine custodian told the Finger Lakes Times that he had reset the machine right before Bonney's response was faxed to the County, January 11. That was prior to the AG's office scheduling their visit, and 11 days prior to the actual visit. When the AG called the Board of Elections, why wasn't he told that the machine had been stripped?
And when the Finger Lakes Times covered this story why didn't they read and evaluate the correspondence provided for them, one click away from the main post on on www.nostringsgeneva.com, their principal source for the story? Then it wouldn't be another "he said, he said" story.
Listen up. The machine could not be tested because it was not set up as it had been during the election. The Finger Lakes Times should be looking into those questions, not simply repeating what any individual asserts. Then they might be part of the solution to good government and not part of the problem.
Monday, January 28
'He Said/He Said' Isn't News and It Doesn't Serve the Public Interest
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is not the first time that Finger Lakes Times reporters miss key points, don't follow through or sometimes even misrepresent the facts. I prefer to believe that this has more to do with their collective situations than it does with a natural inclination to not research or analyze more fully the information they gather and process to prepare their articles.
What is their collective situation? They work for a newspaper management that is not giving them the time or the freedom to more fully prepare their stories. The reasons could be varied... the FLT is experiencing hard times like all print media and does not have the money (and staff levels) to devote to good journalism even though the public is in desperate need of accurate and timely information about local/regional events and the political process. Tracking and watch-dogging the myriad examples of inappropriate behavior of entrenched special interests that control IDAs, political committees, councils, boards, and state legislators is very important and necessary.
May i proposed a possible small contribution to a solution to this dilemma... Why don't the publisher and managing editor of the FLT devote 2 hours of their time each, each week to helping reporters gather, research, and vet important stories that are critical to the concerns of the public especially in the areas i mention.
Ken,
We share your concern about accurate reporting and the need to use direct sources instead of relying on a second or third hand accounting of events. This happens too often in our local paper and is especially harmful when it relates to issues of open government--where facts are all we have to hang on to.
The editor could have insisted that the reporter click on the link to the documents we provided and cite them directly. For gosh sakes, they were right there on the blog. And someone at the county should have been able to offer some sort of documentation or fact set, after all, those employees work for the residents of this county!
To say that the newspaper is under pressure and lacks time, money, or the will to follow through is an interesting theory. Perhaps the publisher (Wayne Hemstreet) could address that. But we're less concerned with why it's happening and more concerned with its negative impact on public information and the people's right to know. Things do need to change, and your suggestion might be a good first step.
Post a Comment