I was able to speak to Mrs. Vickman after the School Board meeting tonight to find out what DPI's requirements were for the Charter Grant to be pursued. She told me DPI required that the charter school contain grades 4K through 5th grade because that is the current configuration of elementary schools in Oshkosh.
So to "create" a school that serves 4K - 5th grade, even if you only had one class per grade would cost $392,000 in staffing alone ($56,000 per teacher x 7 classes) the grant was for $150,000. NONE of the $150,000 could be used for staffing and presumably the 4K students would be "new" students for school funding purposes so the student count for the 4K students would cover one teacher which leaves the district to find $336000 to staff the other positions. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that the district would lose a lot of dollars with this scenario. Not to mention how is a school that serves grades 4K - 5th grade a 4K charter anymore, which is what the board had approved. Why the board needs a workshop to understand this is beyond me.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
4K Charter School -- The Real Story
The following is a post that was posted on another thread, the author asked me to start a new thread on this subject so here it is, I will comment on this post at the end of the post...
Note: I did some minor editing of statements I felt were not relevant to the subject.
Anonymous said...
Teresa, would you please start a thread on the Ready 4 Learning Charter School grant money not being pursued by OASD? I understand M. Monte has posted Dr. Heilmann's letter to the charter school grant consultant for DPI on her blog, followed by a bunch of questions that she says she hopes will be answered by him in a future report. Unfortunately, this is more typical Monte hypocrisy. Throw out a fact or two, followed by questions designed to stir the pot of gossip, innuendo, rumor, and speculation. Why is this hypocritical of her? Because she always tells others to go directly to the source, but refuses to do so herself AS LONG AS SHE CAN GET PEOPLE RILED UP BY NOT DOING SO. I AM SO SICKENED BY PEOPLE LIKE HER ALWAYS VIEWING THINGS AS IF THERE'S SOME CLOAK AND DAGGER MYSTERY GOING ON. EVERYTHING IN THEIR MINDS IS CLOUDED IN SUSPICION, AND YET M. MONTEHAS TALKED ABOUT BEING A POSITIVE PERSON ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT. I hope we hear answers from Dr. Heilmann too because they'll put this hypocrite in her place. He's done it to her before and I'm sure will do it again. Between now and then, might you be able to get some real answers on this from administration? If Monte knew how to work with people she could, but that isn't possible, given her reputation. Thank you for your help. You can transfer my comment to the new thread.
Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:04:00 PM CST
Teresa's Post:
First I will explain what I know in general about the Charter School Grants process this time around, then I will address specifically what I know about the Oshkosh 4K grant. Most of the information I have comes as a result of working for the CESA 6 Grant Office, our office writes grants for school districts, including some of the grants Oshkosh has submitted in the past.
Sometime in April the US. Dept. of Education notified DPI about issues they had with WI Charter School Grant funding namely; schools needed to encompass more than one grade, schools with-in a school were problematic, there needed to be much more autonomy in governance of the charter school from the school district (there were other issues I can't recall at the moment but these were the main issues).
During this year's DPI review of the Charter School Applications DPI funded only ONE Charter Planning Application and TEN Charter Implementation Applications (last year DPI funded around 35 planning grants and 13 Initial Implementation grants). In the past, if schools were successful in their planning year they were almost always funded for the Initial Implementation so we should have seen at least 30 Initial Implementation grants NOT 10.
This year DPI's review of the charter grants came back with the following: Fund, pending revisions, do not fund.
It is my understanding that the Franklin, Shapiro and Merrill applications were all "pending revisions" and the 4K was "do not fund" --- though they did have the option of resubmitting the proposal by Oct. 15 with the required revisions and a CHANCE for funding --- the resubmit was NOT a guarantee of funding. The main reason the 4K charter was not funded was the 4K was a single grade charter --- which was fine when the planning grant was funded but then the Fed's said -- NO more single grade charters so the 4K Charter as described in the planning grant was not fundable. My understanding is to be funded the school would have to encompass more than just 4K -- just how many more grades, no one seems to know. From everyone I've spoken to this is a case of the Feds. changing the rules in the middle of the game with nothing for the district to do but adapt where possible.
Now, I will address those questions from M. Monte's blog (her questions are in italics) that I have answers for (my answers are in blue) :
From M. Monte's blog:
Does anyone remember just a couple of years ago when Brad Caufmann sat before the BOE touting the revenue we could be expecting from four-year-old kindergarten?
See, these are the kind of comments that frustrate anonymous (Nov. 17) and me. The fact is Mr. Cauffman wasn't "touting" the revenue he was simply explaining that after conferences with DPI and the design of the 4K plan (mind you this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter School) namely it being community based with parent involvement as a component, the district could count the 4K students as .6 instead of the usual .4 which would result in a small (I don't recall the figure now) positive balance in the budget, rather than the initial reports of a cost to the district (again I'm not sure of the exact figure but I believe it was in the $30,000 range). See, first when 4K was proposed those opposed to it (or just opposed to the district?) said 4K was nice but the district just couldn't afford it. Then, when it is discovered that in fact, with the additional .2, 4K wouldn't cost the district anything and would bring in a small amount the first year -- suddenly those same naysayers we saying the district was making 4 year olds go to school just to raise money. Such a distortion of the facts, but they keep on saying it hoping people will believe them.
How about the argument that we have no choice but to go to universal 4K to get state funding or lose the 4K ESL program. Anyone remember when I questioned such a claim or other parents asking when children will be allowed to be children?
The first part of the question is still true, DPI told the district that if they didn't implement a universal 4K program, they would no longer get ANY funding for the 4K ESL program. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter as that was NOT universal 4K that was a Charter School with a special focus for 4K students in the charter. The district has already begun implementing 4K and is expanding the available sites as they can. As to the second part of the question: NO ONE I repeat NO ONE is required to send their child to 4K (or 5K for that matter) compulsory education in WI starts at age SIX!
Were the conditions DPI placed on the grant so difficult that we would throw away money for a program we have already implemented?
Right now I don't know specifically what conditions DPI placed on the 4K grant (but I will get that information) but I do know that ALL charters were told they cannot have a charter with only ONE grade so one of the conditions would have been to expand the 4K charter to more grades --- which as Dr. Heilmann wrote in his letter, would expand the charter beyond its original intent --- I also wonder just how loud M. Monte would be screaming if the district decided to do this JUST to get the money???? Not to mention, resubmitting the application was NOT a guarantee of funding.
How are we going to pay for 4K for this year and in years to come? Are we going to cut the program? What about all the children desperate for the leg up before regular kindergarten?
Um, I thought M. Monte said 4 K was implemented for the money ---so if she is right about that, what is the problem? Sorry, I guess I need to repeat, the Charter School was a separate program from the district's universal 4K, it was a CHARTER SCHOOL --- it will have no affect on the universal 4K program and the district's ability to fund that. The only affect it will have on those who were to attend the charter school, but I'm guessing the school is operating this year anyway so it will just be a matter of running the program without the added dollars, since Charter School funding NEVER covers teachers' salaries, the staff is still there, it is things like bringing in experts for intensive staff development (and subs for staff to attend such workshops), furniture, supplies etc. that either will not be funded or the funding will come from elsewhere (knowing Patti Vickman this is probably already in the works ---but that is JUST ME speculating) the lack of charter funding may result in the charter school not existing next year --- that is something else I will check on and report back on.
Can we now let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be?
Again, a repeat but I guess it bears repeating--- NO CHILD in The OASD has EVER been required to attend 4K, that is a parent's choice. (Remember in WI you don't have to start school till you are SIX!!). (SIDE NOTE: when parents of 3 year olds were surveyed before 4K was implemented the VAST MAJORITY were in favor of the district instituting 4K). So if you believe keeping your 4 year old home to "let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be" you have EVERY right to do so, where M. Monte got the idea you couldn't is beyond me.
What about 4-year-old ESL?
What about it? The district has implemented UNIVERSAL 4K therefore they are in compliance with DPI requirements and can continue the 4K ESL program with funding (in terms of fte) from the state.
Anonymous (Nov. 17) and anyone else who cares about what the facts are, I hope this helps... as Anonymous (Nov. 17) wrote, a simple phone call or e-mail to either Mrs. Vickman or Dr. Heilmann would have given M. Monte all the answers she needed. And those of you who are going to post about me attacking M. Monte don't bother --- I am NOT attacking her, I'm simply pointing out where her facts or her understanding or BOTH are in error.
Note: I did some minor editing of statements I felt were not relevant to the subject.
Anonymous said...
Teresa, would you please start a thread on the Ready 4 Learning Charter School grant money not being pursued by OASD? I understand M. Monte has posted Dr. Heilmann's letter to the charter school grant consultant for DPI on her blog, followed by a bunch of questions that she says she hopes will be answered by him in a future report. Unfortunately, this is more typical Monte hypocrisy. Throw out a fact or two, followed by questions designed to stir the pot of gossip, innuendo, rumor, and speculation. Why is this hypocritical of her? Because she always tells others to go directly to the source, but refuses to do so herself AS LONG AS SHE CAN GET PEOPLE RILED UP BY NOT DOING SO. I AM SO SICKENED BY PEOPLE LIKE HER ALWAYS VIEWING THINGS AS IF THERE'S SOME CLOAK AND DAGGER MYSTERY GOING ON. EVERYTHING IN THEIR MINDS IS CLOUDED IN SUSPICION, AND YET M. MONTEHAS TALKED ABOUT BEING A POSITIVE PERSON ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT. I hope we hear answers from Dr. Heilmann too because they'll put this hypocrite in her place. He's done it to her before and I'm sure will do it again. Between now and then, might you be able to get some real answers on this from administration? If Monte knew how to work with people she could, but that isn't possible, given her reputation. Thank you for your help. You can transfer my comment to the new thread.
Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:04:00 PM CST
Teresa's Post:
First I will explain what I know in general about the Charter School Grants process this time around, then I will address specifically what I know about the Oshkosh 4K grant. Most of the information I have comes as a result of working for the CESA 6 Grant Office, our office writes grants for school districts, including some of the grants Oshkosh has submitted in the past.
Sometime in April the US. Dept. of Education notified DPI about issues they had with WI Charter School Grant funding namely; schools needed to encompass more than one grade, schools with-in a school were problematic, there needed to be much more autonomy in governance of the charter school from the school district (there were other issues I can't recall at the moment but these were the main issues).
During this year's DPI review of the Charter School Applications DPI funded only ONE Charter Planning Application and TEN Charter Implementation Applications (last year DPI funded around 35 planning grants and 13 Initial Implementation grants). In the past, if schools were successful in their planning year they were almost always funded for the Initial Implementation so we should have seen at least 30 Initial Implementation grants NOT 10.
This year DPI's review of the charter grants came back with the following: Fund, pending revisions, do not fund.
It is my understanding that the Franklin, Shapiro and Merrill applications were all "pending revisions" and the 4K was "do not fund" --- though they did have the option of resubmitting the proposal by Oct. 15 with the required revisions and a CHANCE for funding --- the resubmit was NOT a guarantee of funding. The main reason the 4K charter was not funded was the 4K was a single grade charter --- which was fine when the planning grant was funded but then the Fed's said -- NO more single grade charters so the 4K Charter as described in the planning grant was not fundable. My understanding is to be funded the school would have to encompass more than just 4K -- just how many more grades, no one seems to know. From everyone I've spoken to this is a case of the Feds. changing the rules in the middle of the game with nothing for the district to do but adapt where possible.
Now, I will address those questions from M. Monte's blog (her questions are in italics) that I have answers for (my answers are in blue) :
From M. Monte's blog:
Does anyone remember just a couple of years ago when Brad Caufmann sat before the BOE touting the revenue we could be expecting from four-year-old kindergarten?
See, these are the kind of comments that frustrate anonymous (Nov. 17) and me. The fact is Mr. Cauffman wasn't "touting" the revenue he was simply explaining that after conferences with DPI and the design of the 4K plan (mind you this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter School) namely it being community based with parent involvement as a component, the district could count the 4K students as .6 instead of the usual .4 which would result in a small (I don't recall the figure now) positive balance in the budget, rather than the initial reports of a cost to the district (again I'm not sure of the exact figure but I believe it was in the $30,000 range). See, first when 4K was proposed those opposed to it (or just opposed to the district?) said 4K was nice but the district just couldn't afford it. Then, when it is discovered that in fact, with the additional .2, 4K wouldn't cost the district anything and would bring in a small amount the first year -- suddenly those same naysayers we saying the district was making 4 year olds go to school just to raise money. Such a distortion of the facts, but they keep on saying it hoping people will believe them.
How about the argument that we have no choice but to go to universal 4K to get state funding or lose the 4K ESL program. Anyone remember when I questioned such a claim or other parents asking when children will be allowed to be children?
The first part of the question is still true, DPI told the district that if they didn't implement a universal 4K program, they would no longer get ANY funding for the 4K ESL program. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter as that was NOT universal 4K that was a Charter School with a special focus for 4K students in the charter. The district has already begun implementing 4K and is expanding the available sites as they can. As to the second part of the question: NO ONE I repeat NO ONE is required to send their child to 4K (or 5K for that matter) compulsory education in WI starts at age SIX!
Were the conditions DPI placed on the grant so difficult that we would throw away money for a program we have already implemented?
Right now I don't know specifically what conditions DPI placed on the 4K grant (but I will get that information) but I do know that ALL charters were told they cannot have a charter with only ONE grade so one of the conditions would have been to expand the 4K charter to more grades --- which as Dr. Heilmann wrote in his letter, would expand the charter beyond its original intent --- I also wonder just how loud M. Monte would be screaming if the district decided to do this JUST to get the money???? Not to mention, resubmitting the application was NOT a guarantee of funding.
How are we going to pay for 4K for this year and in years to come? Are we going to cut the program? What about all the children desperate for the leg up before regular kindergarten?
Um, I thought M. Monte said 4 K was implemented for the money ---so if she is right about that, what is the problem? Sorry, I guess I need to repeat, the Charter School was a separate program from the district's universal 4K, it was a CHARTER SCHOOL --- it will have no affect on the universal 4K program and the district's ability to fund that. The only affect it will have on those who were to attend the charter school, but I'm guessing the school is operating this year anyway so it will just be a matter of running the program without the added dollars, since Charter School funding NEVER covers teachers' salaries, the staff is still there, it is things like bringing in experts for intensive staff development (and subs for staff to attend such workshops), furniture, supplies etc. that either will not be funded or the funding will come from elsewhere (knowing Patti Vickman this is probably already in the works ---but that is JUST ME speculating) the lack of charter funding may result in the charter school not existing next year --- that is something else I will check on and report back on.
Can we now let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be?
Again, a repeat but I guess it bears repeating--- NO CHILD in The OASD has EVER been required to attend 4K, that is a parent's choice. (Remember in WI you don't have to start school till you are SIX!!). (SIDE NOTE: when parents of 3 year olds were surveyed before 4K was implemented the VAST MAJORITY were in favor of the district instituting 4K). So if you believe keeping your 4 year old home to "let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be" you have EVERY right to do so, where M. Monte got the idea you couldn't is beyond me.
What about 4-year-old ESL?
What about it? The district has implemented UNIVERSAL 4K therefore they are in compliance with DPI requirements and can continue the 4K ESL program with funding (in terms of fte) from the state.
Anonymous (Nov. 17) and anyone else who cares about what the facts are, I hope this helps... as Anonymous (Nov. 17) wrote, a simple phone call or e-mail to either Mrs. Vickman or Dr. Heilmann would have given M. Monte all the answers she needed. And those of you who are going to post about me attacking M. Monte don't bother --- I am NOT attacking her, I'm simply pointing out where her facts or her understanding or BOTH are in error.
Friday, November 9, 2007
SO MUCH FOR COMPROMISE
Well, after what was it, a workshop and a retreat to try and find compromise that all 7 board members could support, in the end the boundary decision was a 4-3 vote, with not one of the 3 who voted no back in (July?) voting for the latest plan. It is clear Mr. Rylance was correct when he told Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Weinsheim on Eye on Oshkosh that one of the 4 (Bowen, Kavanaugh, McDermott or Weinsheim) would have to compromise as the other 3 were not going to. What is AMAZING to me is that the plan voted on Wed. night was essentially the plan that Schneider and Becker crafted at the retreat. I spoke to district officials who drafted the resolution and they spoke to both those board members telling them what was in the resolution and even working with Mr. Becker to revise the resolution prior to the board meeting(which is why they were referring to Mr. McDermott's amendment as the SECOND amendment to the resolution). Neither member gave district officials any indication they did not support their own plan. Someone on OshKonversation said they didn't support it because it was changed from their original proposal (hence the title of this post --- if I can't have it exactly my way I'm not voting for it --- that is NOT compromise) and I didn't hear either of them actually offer an amendment to be voted on to bring it back to the plan they developed. Schneider did offer a suggestion to just deal with the high school issue (which of course would have unraveled the rest of the plan and was not the plan developed at the "retreat") but never actually verbalized an amendment the board could vote on. So what you were left with is those who voted for Option E back in the summer in the really interesting position of compromising by choosing the Roosevelt Option, thinking it would be a unanimous, or nearly unanimous vote and in the end they were in the very odd position of compromising with themselves.
Why this community wants people on the school board who work against the very interests of children is beyond me. Some board members seem determined to make sure the referendum fails, this referendum is needed to bring equity to our children, that is who will benefit the most --- not our staff, certainly not our administration, but our children.
One thing I found very interesting Wed. night was that Mr. Schneider --- staunch defender of respectful behavior at board meetings (he had a great deal of difficulty with me rolling my eyes at his comments) had NOTHING to say to the very disrespectful display put on by some of the citizens in the audience after the vote on the boundary resolution --- I just don't see how rolling eyes is MORE disrespectful than citizens shouting to board members things like "I hope you are proud of yourself", "nice work", "just wait till election time" and the most mature thing of all that occurred was the "citizen" who kicked a chair on his way out the door all because a resolution didn't go their way--- where was the "defender of respect" when all that occurred? Of course it really isn't respect for the board members or the board meeting he cares about, for some reason, he is just overly concerned with my thoughts about his comments and I guess he thinks he deserves respect over and above everyone else.
Why this community wants people on the school board who work against the very interests of children is beyond me. Some board members seem determined to make sure the referendum fails, this referendum is needed to bring equity to our children, that is who will benefit the most --- not our staff, certainly not our administration, but our children.
One thing I found very interesting Wed. night was that Mr. Schneider --- staunch defender of respectful behavior at board meetings (he had a great deal of difficulty with me rolling my eyes at his comments) had NOTHING to say to the very disrespectful display put on by some of the citizens in the audience after the vote on the boundary resolution --- I just don't see how rolling eyes is MORE disrespectful than citizens shouting to board members things like "I hope you are proud of yourself", "nice work", "just wait till election time" and the most mature thing of all that occurred was the "citizen" who kicked a chair on his way out the door all because a resolution didn't go their way--- where was the "defender of respect" when all that occurred? Of course it really isn't respect for the board members or the board meeting he cares about, for some reason, he is just overly concerned with my thoughts about his comments and I guess he thinks he deserves respect over and above everyone else.
I am glad we are finally moving on to the rest of the facilities plan though I don't expect the 3 to compromise on anything left to come. And does anyone know why Becker and Schneider voted against hiring the architect? That is one of my pet peeves explain your NO vote!
Well I must pick up my children from school --- remember, keep comments on topic or they aren't going to be published.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Making Class Sizes Smaller May Be More Cost-Effective Than Most Medical Interventions
Well hopefully in the next month the board will have moved on from the never-ending boundary issue and I think the SAGE committee report is up next. I recently read a very timely article regarding smaller class sizes, you can read it here or here .
Here are some interesting comments from the articles:
"The study indicates that class-size reductions would generate more quality-adjusted life-year gains per dollar invested than the majority of medical interventions. "
"Project STAR is considered the highest quality long-term experiment to date in the field of education. "
Project STAR is what the Wisconsin SAGE program is based on. Project STAR randomly assigned teachers and students to classes with either 22 to 25 students or 13 to 17 students. SAGE went much further than that, first there is no "random assignment" and SAGE requires a rigorous curriculum, professional development for teachers, and family involvement.
"The researchers acknowledged “some uncertainty” about whether the results of the Tennessee study could be reproduced nationwide or could “produce substantive health benefits,” but said their analysis suggests that reductions in class sizes would save money from the societal perspective."
"The researchers estimate that reducing class sizes would mean an additional 72,000 to 140,000 students would graduate high school each year, producing net savings of $14 billion to $24 billion."
During the whole boundary mess you have people saying "just direct the resources to where the need is". Yet, many of the same people are opposed to SAGE because they say it is too costly or it is unfair or unproven. Those comments would be laughable if they weren't so ill informed yet widely believed.
Just remember the researchers that came up with this latest study were not from a school of education but rather from the medical field, a school of Public Health. Not that it will matter to many of the naysayers, I don't post this information for those who care nothing about the facts and just want to criticize with no data of their own, I post it for those who really want to learn more and understand the issues... I hope there are a few out there.
Here are some interesting comments from the articles:
"The study indicates that class-size reductions would generate more quality-adjusted life-year gains per dollar invested than the majority of medical interventions. "
"Project STAR is considered the highest quality long-term experiment to date in the field of education. "
Project STAR is what the Wisconsin SAGE program is based on. Project STAR randomly assigned teachers and students to classes with either 22 to 25 students or 13 to 17 students. SAGE went much further than that, first there is no "random assignment" and SAGE requires a rigorous curriculum, professional development for teachers, and family involvement.
"The researchers acknowledged “some uncertainty” about whether the results of the Tennessee study could be reproduced nationwide or could “produce substantive health benefits,” but said their analysis suggests that reductions in class sizes would save money from the societal perspective."
"The researchers estimate that reducing class sizes would mean an additional 72,000 to 140,000 students would graduate high school each year, producing net savings of $14 billion to $24 billion."
During the whole boundary mess you have people saying "just direct the resources to where the need is". Yet, many of the same people are opposed to SAGE because they say it is too costly or it is unfair or unproven. Those comments would be laughable if they weren't so ill informed yet widely believed.
Just remember the researchers that came up with this latest study were not from a school of education but rather from the medical field, a school of Public Health. Not that it will matter to many of the naysayers, I don't post this information for those who care nothing about the facts and just want to criticize with no data of their own, I post it for those who really want to learn more and understand the issues... I hope there are a few out there.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Latest Boundary Plan
Well it was clear to me at the ASC/CRT meeting tonight that the Lakeside Plan is not coming back. The strangest thing about the meeting is, it seemed the authors of the "Roosevelt Plan" (for lack of a better name) appeared to be backing away from the plan. Mr. Becker still wants everything to ride on "volunteers" and not get into areas to move.
In looking at the maps and capacity numbers for K-3 and 4-8 schools, my opinion is that the better option than the one the board seems to be looking at (check out the map here ) is to move sections 1, 5, 6 and 8 (rather than 1-4). I think section 1 should go Merrill/North because even though that area is currently not bussed, those children do and would have to cross Oshkosh Ave. without a crossing guard to get to Tipler/West, it would be safer to put them on a bus to Merrill/North and the difference in distance doesn't appear to be that much. The rest of the sections 5, 6, and 8 are already on a bus whereas those in sections 2, 3 & 4 can and do walk to Tipler and West. The other benefits to moving 5, 6 and 8 is it will free up space at Traeger 4-8 which would be near capacity for the foreseeable future if those sections continue to go to Traeger. Taking 1, 5, 6 & 8 is a geographic chunk, it gives children in section 1 a safer way to school and allows for some room at Traeger 4-8.
A few people have said they like Mrs. Monte's idea of moving East into North... I've already expressed my opinion --- but I wonder if anyone has asked the students at East how they would feel about that? It is my understanding that they chose East because it is NOT a traditional High School and many students do not want to be in a traditional high school environment. Perhaps if Mrs. Monte talked to East students she would understand why this is not a good solution.
Hopefully, come November, the board will move on to discuss other parts of this plan, leaving the boundary issue behind them. There are a number of issues with what is to come. Some of the numbers I heard tonight, further convince me that building a South school doesn't make any sense at this time. There are only about 150-175 students that would attend. It is ridiculous to build a school or add on to a school that would only have 175 students. The standard for any rebuilds or additions should be 4 classes per grade. That is the only way to get efficient staffing.
I am eagerly awaiting the new architect's (Mr. Bray) report on our facilities and what buildings are worth keeping and which are worth adding on to and which should be gone... hopefully the board will listen to this expert, especially if it is confirmation of what previous experts have said. I really think architects know a little more about this than parents do.
This facilities plan should be about efficiencies (especially staffing) and equity. NOT about appeasement and politics. I can only hope...
In looking at the maps and capacity numbers for K-3 and 4-8 schools, my opinion is that the better option than the one the board seems to be looking at (check out the map here ) is to move sections 1, 5, 6 and 8 (rather than 1-4). I think section 1 should go Merrill/North because even though that area is currently not bussed, those children do and would have to cross Oshkosh Ave. without a crossing guard to get to Tipler/West, it would be safer to put them on a bus to Merrill/North and the difference in distance doesn't appear to be that much. The rest of the sections 5, 6, and 8 are already on a bus whereas those in sections 2, 3 & 4 can and do walk to Tipler and West. The other benefits to moving 5, 6 and 8 is it will free up space at Traeger 4-8 which would be near capacity for the foreseeable future if those sections continue to go to Traeger. Taking 1, 5, 6 & 8 is a geographic chunk, it gives children in section 1 a safer way to school and allows for some room at Traeger 4-8.
A few people have said they like Mrs. Monte's idea of moving East into North... I've already expressed my opinion --- but I wonder if anyone has asked the students at East how they would feel about that? It is my understanding that they chose East because it is NOT a traditional High School and many students do not want to be in a traditional high school environment. Perhaps if Mrs. Monte talked to East students she would understand why this is not a good solution.
Hopefully, come November, the board will move on to discuss other parts of this plan, leaving the boundary issue behind them. There are a number of issues with what is to come. Some of the numbers I heard tonight, further convince me that building a South school doesn't make any sense at this time. There are only about 150-175 students that would attend. It is ridiculous to build a school or add on to a school that would only have 175 students. The standard for any rebuilds or additions should be 4 classes per grade. That is the only way to get efficient staffing.
I am eagerly awaiting the new architect's (Mr. Bray) report on our facilities and what buildings are worth keeping and which are worth adding on to and which should be gone... hopefully the board will listen to this expert, especially if it is confirmation of what previous experts have said. I really think architects know a little more about this than parents do.
This facilities plan should be about efficiencies (especially staffing) and equity. NOT about appeasement and politics. I can only hope...
Monday, October 8, 2007
The "Lakeside" Plan
A poster on another thread said I should address the "Lakeside" Plan:
That is easy, it makes no sense to me, how Mr. Traska thinks this makes sense geographically since that was one of his major complaints about Option E. I just can't get away from seeing this as nothing more than a way to keep the Option E people happy.
I was surprised to find (when I drove the routes) that it is only .5 difference from Lone Elm to North and Lone Elm to West but when students already live more than 10 miles from a school, why add any more miles?
I do not see the Lakeside plan as superior to Option E or an even acceptable plan. The board should go back to Option E, adopt it, with only 4 votes if necessary and MOVE ON to finishing this plan ---then take the ENTIRE plan to the public and see what people think of the whole thing.
While consensus is nice, this board is so unlikely to come together as evidenced by a workshop and retreat which doesn't appear to have resulted in consensus, though I guess we will see Wed. just where everyone is on this. I truly hope the Lakeside plan is NOT what the board ends up supporting. This one just doesn't seem to make sense to anyone, even those who are not at all affected.
That is easy, it makes no sense to me, how Mr. Traska thinks this makes sense geographically since that was one of his major complaints about Option E. I just can't get away from seeing this as nothing more than a way to keep the Option E people happy.
I was surprised to find (when I drove the routes) that it is only .5 difference from Lone Elm to North and Lone Elm to West but when students already live more than 10 miles from a school, why add any more miles?
I do not see the Lakeside plan as superior to Option E or an even acceptable plan. The board should go back to Option E, adopt it, with only 4 votes if necessary and MOVE ON to finishing this plan ---then take the ENTIRE plan to the public and see what people think of the whole thing.
While consensus is nice, this board is so unlikely to come together as evidenced by a workshop and retreat which doesn't appear to have resulted in consensus, though I guess we will see Wed. just where everyone is on this. I truly hope the Lakeside plan is NOT what the board ends up supporting. This one just doesn't seem to make sense to anyone, even those who are not at all affected.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Latest "Solution" to the High School Disparity Issue
WOW, Just when I thought I've read it all... I read Mrs. Monte's "solution" to North's declining enrollment as being "send Oshkosh East to North -- as a separate school." Shows such a COMPLETE LACK of understanding of so many issues I don't even know where to begin.
First of all the concern is not with underutilized classrooms, which is ALL sending East High to North as a separate school would do.
Her so-called "solution" shows a lack of understanding how some "At-Risk" students need to be in an ENTIRELY different enviroment than a traditional High School --- and yes Ms. Monte, there are students who live withing walking distance of East.
The suggestion shows a complete lack of understanding of the concerns administrators, staff and parents have of North dropping below current numbers, as the student population decreases the number of single sections of classes increases. North is trying to "ward off" a scenario where students find themselves having to decide between Honors English, Physics 2, AP Psychology and Orchestra where by all 4 classes are scheduled the same hour, resulting in students being unable to take 3 of 4 classes they wanted. If you've never created a "Master Schedule" for a niddle or high school perhaps you should talk to someone who has... the fewer the students, the more difficult it becomes!
The concerns relating to the projected growing disparity between North and West are not about North getting 100 students to fill up some classrooms, it is about maintaining the current equity of opportunity that currently exists at our high schools. After all it is called a "long range facilities plan" that means it is looking to the future. I have not heard any board member say we currently do not have equity, what I have heard is concern that if the gap between the two high schools gets too large and the number of students at North drops too low, it will have an effect on the equity of opportunity for North students.
Finally, all the talk about "social engineering" it seems to me plain common sense that if you have one high school with a 35% poverty rate and one with a 14% poverty rate, the best solution when moving 100 students to the higher poverty school is not to move the students who live in an attendance area that has a 77% poverty rate (the highest rate by far on the West side). You can bury your head in the sand all you want, or call world reknowned Ruby Payne's work "tripe" but after 7 years at Jefferson (not to mention having a mother who volunteered at Head Start for years) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, poverty has a negative effect on learning.
Here is another take on Ruby Payne:
This link has a very interesting article... the following excerpt begins to explain to me the comments from some that there is no correlation between poverty and learning and the schools should just ignore it:
"The problem here, of course, is that Kipp isn’t unusual. We don’t just ignore the effects of class, we deny them. We bury them, blind ourselves to them, and then act as if they don’t exist. Kipp’s is the kind of experience Payne reports having constantly. It’s the reason schools want her to come. And it explains why her seminars are so dumbed-down: so’s her audience. We are woefully ignorant of class distinctions and the effects of class on education, and we are ignorant despite years of our school systems trying not to be. "
First of all the concern is not with underutilized classrooms, which is ALL sending East High to North as a separate school would do.
Her so-called "solution" shows a lack of understanding how some "At-Risk" students need to be in an ENTIRELY different enviroment than a traditional High School --- and yes Ms. Monte, there are students who live withing walking distance of East.
The suggestion shows a complete lack of understanding of the concerns administrators, staff and parents have of North dropping below current numbers, as the student population decreases the number of single sections of classes increases. North is trying to "ward off" a scenario where students find themselves having to decide between Honors English, Physics 2, AP Psychology and Orchestra where by all 4 classes are scheduled the same hour, resulting in students being unable to take 3 of 4 classes they wanted. If you've never created a "Master Schedule" for a niddle or high school perhaps you should talk to someone who has... the fewer the students, the more difficult it becomes!
The concerns relating to the projected growing disparity between North and West are not about North getting 100 students to fill up some classrooms, it is about maintaining the current equity of opportunity that currently exists at our high schools. After all it is called a "long range facilities plan" that means it is looking to the future. I have not heard any board member say we currently do not have equity, what I have heard is concern that if the gap between the two high schools gets too large and the number of students at North drops too low, it will have an effect on the equity of opportunity for North students.
Finally, all the talk about "social engineering" it seems to me plain common sense that if you have one high school with a 35% poverty rate and one with a 14% poverty rate, the best solution when moving 100 students to the higher poverty school is not to move the students who live in an attendance area that has a 77% poverty rate (the highest rate by far on the West side). You can bury your head in the sand all you want, or call world reknowned Ruby Payne's work "tripe" but after 7 years at Jefferson (not to mention having a mother who volunteered at Head Start for years) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, poverty has a negative effect on learning.
Here is another take on Ruby Payne:
This link has a very interesting article... the following excerpt begins to explain to me the comments from some that there is no correlation between poverty and learning and the schools should just ignore it:
"The problem here, of course, is that Kipp isn’t unusual. We don’t just ignore the effects of class, we deny them. We bury them, blind ourselves to them, and then act as if they don’t exist. Kipp’s is the kind of experience Payne reports having constantly. It’s the reason schools want her to come. And it explains why her seminars are so dumbed-down: so’s her audience. We are woefully ignorant of class distinctions and the effects of class on education, and we are ignorant despite years of our school systems trying not to be. "
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Discussion on Taxpayer support of Athletics
I'd like to start a discussion on district funding of Athletics. This school year the district will have a co-op Hockey team that is fully supported by donations, scholarships and fees, there are no taxpayer dollars going to fund this team.
Is this fair? Is this something we should look at for all our teams? If our sports teams had to be privately funded, would the teams disappear? Should the district at least have a minium number of participants to continue a team? Currently the district does not want to run academic classes if there are less than 15 participants, should the same standard hold for athletics?
I completely believe that athletics plays an important part in an adolescent's life but the question is, when educational institutions continually are cutting their budgets by millions, is the investment in athletics more valuable than the othe programs being cut?
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the issue.
Is this fair? Is this something we should look at for all our teams? If our sports teams had to be privately funded, would the teams disappear? Should the district at least have a minium number of participants to continue a team? Currently the district does not want to run academic classes if there are less than 15 participants, should the same standard hold for athletics?
I completely believe that athletics plays an important part in an adolescent's life but the question is, when educational institutions continually are cutting their budgets by millions, is the investment in athletics more valuable than the othe programs being cut?
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the issue.
More on High School Boundaries
There was an interesting "Commentary" in the Northwestern from a former Oshkosh student who attended both West and North high you can read it here. She makes some good points and maybe it is worth a second look. I think it is better than the "lottery" idea I read somewhere. I still think the "High School Attendance by Mother's Birthday is better mostly just based on opportunities for students. Unless you have two of every club at the "split" schools, you will decrease students' opportunities. I also wonder what will happen to 8th graders from the North side who need to take Freshman level courses... will it be feasible to bus them to West High? The split high school raises some issues but should it have been dismissed as quickly as it was?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
High School Boundaries
So what do people think about high school boundaries by mother's birthdate? As someone wrote on OshKonversation... it isn't likely to happen given the sacred nature of athletics in this district and what such a scenario would mean for our athletic teams.
I would like to see what this would cost in bussing and administrative time and if it was less than what we pay now, I think it is the right thing to do for Oshkosh. It would almost guarantee balanced high schools and it just wouldn't matter where one lived anymore and you wouldn't have to adjust boundaries and have angry parents fill up board rooms. Everyone would know the day their child was born (well even before that) which school they would go to. Could make things interesting in the dating world. Oh, your birthday is an odd date, can't marry you, I want my children to go to ....
I think it is an idea worth considering but I'm 99% sure that won't happen.
I would like to see what this would cost in bussing and administrative time and if it was less than what we pay now, I think it is the right thing to do for Oshkosh. It would almost guarantee balanced high schools and it just wouldn't matter where one lived anymore and you wouldn't have to adjust boundaries and have angry parents fill up board rooms. Everyone would know the day their child was born (well even before that) which school they would go to. Could make things interesting in the dating world. Oh, your birthday is an odd date, can't marry you, I want my children to go to ....
I think it is an idea worth considering but I'm 99% sure that won't happen.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Poverty and Education
I have read and listened to comments from people who seem to believe that poverty plays no role in a child's learning. That poor, middle class and rich kids all have the same opportunities etc. Is that what most people believe or just a few bloggers? I have to ask a few questions for those who actually do believe that poverty makes no difference.
1. Why does the Federal Government give Title I funds to schools with high poverty rates?
2. Why does NCLB look at the gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged?
3. Why was SAGE created?
4. Why do schools with high poverty rates almost always have low test scores?
5. Why was Head Start created?
6. Why have a "War on Poverty" if poverty has NO effect on children?
Why do people want to deny that poverty does affect children and their learning? I am not saying that every child in poverty will be affected the same way or that if you are poor you will not succeed. But to deny that teaching and learning is more difficult in high poverty schools just has no basis in reality.
It was asked on OshKonversation, "Is it fair that only some of our children benefit from SAGE classes and not others; what happened to equitable?"
The poster is confusing EQUAL with EQUITABLE.. SAGE is the very definition of equitable... equal means everyone gets the same thing, equitable means giving everyone an equal opportunity, which is what SAGE does.
It just baffles me that some continue to argue that poverty has no effect... or like the speaker at the last board meeting... those whose children qualify for free or reduced lunch aren't poor --- they just need someone to show them how to spend their money more wisely. Yeah, you go on believing that the families who make $6 and hour don't have it any harder than those that make $20. I guess it makes one feel better to believe poverty really doesn't matter, because then we are not required to address a problem that doesn't exist.
1. Why does the Federal Government give Title I funds to schools with high poverty rates?
2. Why does NCLB look at the gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged?
3. Why was SAGE created?
4. Why do schools with high poverty rates almost always have low test scores?
5. Why was Head Start created?
6. Why have a "War on Poverty" if poverty has NO effect on children?
Why do people want to deny that poverty does affect children and their learning? I am not saying that every child in poverty will be affected the same way or that if you are poor you will not succeed. But to deny that teaching and learning is more difficult in high poverty schools just has no basis in reality.
It was asked on OshKonversation, "Is it fair that only some of our children benefit from SAGE classes and not others; what happened to equitable?"
The poster is confusing EQUAL with EQUITABLE.. SAGE is the very definition of equitable... equal means everyone gets the same thing, equitable means giving everyone an equal opportunity, which is what SAGE does.
It just baffles me that some continue to argue that poverty has no effect... or like the speaker at the last board meeting... those whose children qualify for free or reduced lunch aren't poor --- they just need someone to show them how to spend their money more wisely. Yeah, you go on believing that the families who make $6 and hour don't have it any harder than those that make $20. I guess it makes one feel better to believe poverty really doesn't matter, because then we are not required to address a problem that doesn't exist.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Just wondering
I've put off posting for awhile because I've been so frustrated, I've refrained from posting on the OshKonversation for awhile but couldn't stay away for long. I just can't really figure out why I keep bothering. I can't seem to stop operating under the misguided notion that people want the facts --- they don't! A poster says Smith's enrollment is increasing because a family with children moved in down the street. Well the WINNS data from DPI shows that the only significant increase in enrollment at Smith is due to Pre-K programs being put there. In the 2000-2001 school year there were 265 K-5 students last year (2006-2007) there were 181 K-5 students... how is that increasing enrollment? The response on OshKonversation? I was asked why I didn't send my children to Traeger when Jefferson was in disrepair? I had several reasons the primary one being Traeger did not/ does not have the diversity in its student body that Jefferson does, that diversity was very important to me as a mother. It is important to me that my children experience children of other cultures and economic situations so they understand that "everyone is not like them" which is not just OK but a good thing! Not that the posters really care about the answers to any of the questions they post, they just use it as another reason to bash someone. The question I keep coming back to is WHY do I keep posting???? Anyone out there have an answer???
One more irritation today --- I was perusing the blog of a former school board candidate and she had posted some questions on the state budget stalemate, the first one just had me shaking my head... it asked the governor (who has ties to education - she posts) why the education funds are being held up? Budgeting/State Government 101 --- The governor can only provide a budget to the legislature (which he did many months ago ---probably in April) then he must WAIT for a budget to be passed by BOTH houses (Senate and Assembly) this has NOT happened and the governor has no power to make it happen so why ask the governor why the hold up when HE is NOT the one holding it up!! I know I'm sure I misunderstood something ... just drives me crazy that people don't even get the basic functioning of our government.
I'm waiting for the Sept. 12th Board meeting to see if there is more delaying, yet another boundary option or if they will actually make a decison. I predict either more delays or they move the poor kids whose parents won't complain. Hope I'm wrong on both counts.
One more irritation today --- I was perusing the blog of a former school board candidate and she had posted some questions on the state budget stalemate, the first one just had me shaking my head... it asked the governor (who has ties to education - she posts) why the education funds are being held up? Budgeting/State Government 101 --- The governor can only provide a budget to the legislature (which he did many months ago ---probably in April) then he must WAIT for a budget to be passed by BOTH houses (Senate and Assembly) this has NOT happened and the governor has no power to make it happen so why ask the governor why the hold up when HE is NOT the one holding it up!! I know I'm sure I misunderstood something ... just drives me crazy that people don't even get the basic functioning of our government.
I'm waiting for the Sept. 12th Board meeting to see if there is more delaying, yet another boundary option or if they will actually make a decison. I predict either more delays or they move the poor kids whose parents won't complain. Hope I'm wrong on both counts.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Will the Oshkosh BOE Cave or Stand Firm?
Well as those affected by Option E put on the pressure, will the school board cave to the pressure and find yet another area to move, one this time that doesn't have such active parents? I sure hope not, but I certainly can't predict which way it will go.
I'm so tired of hearing about "driving clear across town". Let's look at what Mapquest has to say:
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Oakwood it is .35 miles and est. 1 min
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Roosevelt it is 2.02 miles and est. 7 min.
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Traeger Middle it is 3.12 miles and est. 9 min.
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Merrill Middle it is 3.10 miles and est 10 min .02 miles closer than Traeger and a whopping MINUTE longer to drive to Merrill vs. Traeger
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to West High it is 2.27 miles and an est. 7 min. drive
from 1220 Sheboygan St. to North High it is 3.05 miles and 10 min.
Yes, Oakwood is closer than Roosevelt BUT, Roosevelt is closer than Traeger and Merrill is closer than Traeger too (though by a mere .02 mi.). The difference in the distance to the high schools is less than a mile.
Are you still going to argue that North is "clear across town and West is right in our neighborhood? Less than a mile difference and THREE minutes difference in drive times, sorry the facts just don't bear out the rhetoric.
With the K-3 configuration many families will live farther than 1/3 of a mile (as many do already). This is NOT sending kids clear across town.
Then there is the whole "friend" issue. First of all what does being in a school with your friend have to do with educational quality? In my childrens schools often the teachers have to decide that "friends" can't be in the same class together because it is too disruptive for others. Are these same people going to make sure their children go to college with their "friends" too, we wouldn't want them to be damaged by being separated from their friends.
I can't even believe people live so far under rocks they "had NO idea this was going on". Please we are going on 2 years since PMP was hired, and for 10 years the district has been looking at balancing enrollments. School newsletters discussed it, it is on the HOME page of the website, right in the middle of the page, the Northwestern, WOSH, Eye on Oshkosh, the Oshkosh Common Council have ALL discussed the facilities issues. If people choose not to pay attention that is their choice but don't turn around and say it was under the radar, being sneaked through in the summer or not communicated to people. What do you want? A door to door campaign? It is NOT that people didn't know facilities were being discussed, they just didn't pay attention, didn't really care what was being discussed because they were not being affected. Once they are involved everyone is all interested and NOW the process is moving too fast. I've been paying attention all along because I'm interested in what happens. Then there are the "perfect plans" put forth that have no numbers, no bussing costs, no construction costs just a lot of "I'm sure" it will cost less than Scenario 7. It all hinges on a NEW K-8 for Oakwood (apparently refurbishing isn't good enough for that school) and sending half that school to North (which of course would require an addition to North) and then build a new school for Green Meadow (I'm sure the costs will be low to build a school for 500+ on a septic system) and then just leave all the rest of the schools in the disrepair they are in. Just LOVE that idea. I guess if you are wealthy enough to build a new house your kids need to go to a brand new school, if you can't afford to, or choose not to live in a "new" house well then, your children don't deserve their school refurbished. You think I'm making this up... Check out OshKonversation
I really see no point in trying to educate people on the blogs about why the choices being made are necessary. Most posting don't "listen" to what is said... as they so quickly criticize others of not listening... yet I know and can repeat for you the "arguments" they give. I just happen to know that many posters miss the whole point of efficiencies of staffing and why some schools must close.
Back to my original question. I think this is the closest we have come to a board with a majority that understands action must be taken. Whether there is a majority to do so or not, we will have to wait and see. Clearly it has become impossible to continue to have all the schools we have and one of the lowest tax rates and per pupil spending amount of the 25 largest school districts in the state. In the end what will the tradeoffs be?
I really wish those who WANT the board to take action and those who do support the plan would come out and speak in favor of it but I understand the audience is rather hostile and it is an effort to come and speak. I just don't want to hear anyone tell me (as they have in the past) "the board needs to; close Green Meadow, get rid of all those little schools, stop putting this off etc... If the board caves once again, those who chose not to speak in favor will be partly to blame.
I'm so tired of hearing about "driving clear across town". Let's look at what Mapquest has to say:
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Oakwood it is .35 miles and est. 1 min
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Roosevelt it is 2.02 miles and est. 7 min.
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Traeger Middle it is 3.12 miles and est. 9 min.
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Merrill Middle it is 3.10 miles and est 10 min .02 miles closer than Traeger and a whopping MINUTE longer to drive to Merrill vs. Traeger
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to West High it is 2.27 miles and an est. 7 min. drive
from 1220 Sheboygan St. to North High it is 3.05 miles and 10 min.
Yes, Oakwood is closer than Roosevelt BUT, Roosevelt is closer than Traeger and Merrill is closer than Traeger too (though by a mere .02 mi.). The difference in the distance to the high schools is less than a mile.
Are you still going to argue that North is "clear across town and West is right in our neighborhood? Less than a mile difference and THREE minutes difference in drive times, sorry the facts just don't bear out the rhetoric.
With the K-3 configuration many families will live farther than 1/3 of a mile (as many do already). This is NOT sending kids clear across town.
Then there is the whole "friend" issue. First of all what does being in a school with your friend have to do with educational quality? In my childrens schools often the teachers have to decide that "friends" can't be in the same class together because it is too disruptive for others. Are these same people going to make sure their children go to college with their "friends" too, we wouldn't want them to be damaged by being separated from their friends.
I can't even believe people live so far under rocks they "had NO idea this was going on". Please we are going on 2 years since PMP was hired, and for 10 years the district has been looking at balancing enrollments. School newsletters discussed it, it is on the HOME page of the website, right in the middle of the page, the Northwestern, WOSH, Eye on Oshkosh, the Oshkosh Common Council have ALL discussed the facilities issues. If people choose not to pay attention that is their choice but don't turn around and say it was under the radar, being sneaked through in the summer or not communicated to people. What do you want? A door to door campaign? It is NOT that people didn't know facilities were being discussed, they just didn't pay attention, didn't really care what was being discussed because they were not being affected. Once they are involved everyone is all interested and NOW the process is moving too fast. I've been paying attention all along because I'm interested in what happens. Then there are the "perfect plans" put forth that have no numbers, no bussing costs, no construction costs just a lot of "I'm sure" it will cost less than Scenario 7. It all hinges on a NEW K-8 for Oakwood (apparently refurbishing isn't good enough for that school) and sending half that school to North (which of course would require an addition to North) and then build a new school for Green Meadow (I'm sure the costs will be low to build a school for 500+ on a septic system) and then just leave all the rest of the schools in the disrepair they are in. Just LOVE that idea. I guess if you are wealthy enough to build a new house your kids need to go to a brand new school, if you can't afford to, or choose not to live in a "new" house well then, your children don't deserve their school refurbished. You think I'm making this up... Check out OshKonversation
I really see no point in trying to educate people on the blogs about why the choices being made are necessary. Most posting don't "listen" to what is said... as they so quickly criticize others of not listening... yet I know and can repeat for you the "arguments" they give. I just happen to know that many posters miss the whole point of efficiencies of staffing and why some schools must close.
Back to my original question. I think this is the closest we have come to a board with a majority that understands action must be taken. Whether there is a majority to do so or not, we will have to wait and see. Clearly it has become impossible to continue to have all the schools we have and one of the lowest tax rates and per pupil spending amount of the 25 largest school districts in the state. In the end what will the tradeoffs be?
I really wish those who WANT the board to take action and those who do support the plan would come out and speak in favor of it but I understand the audience is rather hostile and it is an effort to come and speak. I just don't want to hear anyone tell me (as they have in the past) "the board needs to; close Green Meadow, get rid of all those little schools, stop putting this off etc... If the board caves once again, those who chose not to speak in favor will be partly to blame.
Monday, July 30, 2007
New Idea for the District Facilities Plan
Today at the ASC/CRT meeting someone suggested that to save money, perhaps East High should be put into Emmeline Cook Elementary and that school could become a smaller Elementary school than it currently is and the left-over classrooms could be used for East High.
I wonder what people's thoughts are on that suggestion?
I wonder what people's thoughts are on that suggestion?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Let's Play Ostrich, Shall We?
Do you subscribe to the "if we don't say it, it must not be true"? Do you think that pretending something isn't real makes it go away? OK, enough of the mystery.
Oshkosh is a divided community; certainly the school district community is divided by sides of town.
One poster on OshKonversation posted this:
"...particularly those who clearly choose to use the west-side/north-side language in describing our community and clearly favor certain schools or sides of town. I also question having administrators who act in the same manor (sic)."
So if we don't "talk about it" it makes it go away, I don't know if that is naïveté, ignorance, or politics, but I just don't think that if you sweep the dirt under the rug it means the dirt is gone.
For me, this post, from a different poster, also from OshKonversation proves my point:
...Perhaps we just need to hire a spot-on marketing team to promote Merrill and North? The question is what can you do to persuade people on the west side who seem to be afraid to send their children there. and from the same poster- ... When you look at the proximity of all the child sexual offenders living in the area around Merrill it's incredibly concerning. The test scores at Merrill are of course disappointing but the district won't even consider that as a problem since each school is supposed to provide the same quality of education.
I would tell parents who are worried about test scores, rest assured, your children's test scores will follow them to Merrill. My children went to Jefferson, not a school with the highest of test scores but my children got a WONDERFUL education and their personal test scores would rival those of any Oakwood student. I say this not to brag about my children but to point out that the major predictor of a student's standardized test score is their parent's education level and income. My children have two college educated parents and a middle class home. That is not the case with many Jefferson families and unfortunately that is reflected in test scores, it is NOT a reflection of the quality of education children receive. Does anyone really believe that if the entire staff at a Jefferson or Merrill were switched with the entire staff at Oakwood that the test scores at Oakwood would go down and those at Jefferson or Merrill would be the top in the district?
I would say there are definitely "sides of town" namely the West and the North, it is sad, it is divisive and it is not to any one's benefit to support a divided town. However, to criticize people for stating what is obvious and instead pretending no such divisions exist does absolutely nothing to fix a serious issue. Burying one's head in the sand like the ostrich does not bring people together. The first step to fixing a problem is ADMITTING there is one.
I have lived in this town for about 16 years and what struck me right away when I moved here was the constant talk about the "West Side" and the "North Side". I grew up in Milwaukee and there, there were 4 sides of town --- just like the 4 compass points East Side, North Side, West Side and South Side. I think a big part of there being only 2 sides is the fact that we have 2 high school --- is it really coincidence they are called North and West? (Note: I do know we now have 3 high schools but since East is an Alternative High School it doesn't really factor in the same way).
I remember the year Oshkosh North High was on their way to the state tournament for football and some West students were actually cheering for North's opponent to win the game so North would be eliminated, as West had already been. If that is not divisiveness I don't know what you'd call it. I have heard North students and their parents say West students are snobs with silver spoons in their mouth and West students and parents say North students are losers, etc. It is sad, it is wrong and it is time it stops. But I also believe it is wrong to criticize those who have brought it out in the open and spoken about it whether they be board members, administrators or average citizens. Let's admit the problem, face it and take steps to correct it. Perhaps the first step is to implement the selected boundary changes and give people a chance to see that the world goes on and life isn't so bad, even if you go to school with someone from the "other" side of town.
Oshkosh is a divided community; certainly the school district community is divided by sides of town.
One poster on OshKonversation posted this:
"...particularly those who clearly choose to use the west-side/north-side language in describing our community and clearly favor certain schools or sides of town. I also question having administrators who act in the same manor (sic)."
So if we don't "talk about it" it makes it go away, I don't know if that is naïveté, ignorance, or politics, but I just don't think that if you sweep the dirt under the rug it means the dirt is gone.
For me, this post, from a different poster, also from OshKonversation proves my point:
...Perhaps we just need to hire a spot-on marketing team to promote Merrill and North? The question is what can you do to persuade people on the west side who seem to be afraid to send their children there. and from the same poster- ... When you look at the proximity of all the child sexual offenders living in the area around Merrill it's incredibly concerning. The test scores at Merrill are of course disappointing but the district won't even consider that as a problem since each school is supposed to provide the same quality of education.
I would tell parents who are worried about test scores, rest assured, your children's test scores will follow them to Merrill. My children went to Jefferson, not a school with the highest of test scores but my children got a WONDERFUL education and their personal test scores would rival those of any Oakwood student. I say this not to brag about my children but to point out that the major predictor of a student's standardized test score is their parent's education level and income. My children have two college educated parents and a middle class home. That is not the case with many Jefferson families and unfortunately that is reflected in test scores, it is NOT a reflection of the quality of education children receive. Does anyone really believe that if the entire staff at a Jefferson or Merrill were switched with the entire staff at Oakwood that the test scores at Oakwood would go down and those at Jefferson or Merrill would be the top in the district?
I would say there are definitely "sides of town" namely the West and the North, it is sad, it is divisive and it is not to any one's benefit to support a divided town. However, to criticize people for stating what is obvious and instead pretending no such divisions exist does absolutely nothing to fix a serious issue. Burying one's head in the sand like the ostrich does not bring people together. The first step to fixing a problem is ADMITTING there is one.
I have lived in this town for about 16 years and what struck me right away when I moved here was the constant talk about the "West Side" and the "North Side". I grew up in Milwaukee and there, there were 4 sides of town --- just like the 4 compass points East Side, North Side, West Side and South Side. I think a big part of there being only 2 sides is the fact that we have 2 high school --- is it really coincidence they are called North and West? (Note: I do know we now have 3 high schools but since East is an Alternative High School it doesn't really factor in the same way).
I remember the year Oshkosh North High was on their way to the state tournament for football and some West students were actually cheering for North's opponent to win the game so North would be eliminated, as West had already been. If that is not divisiveness I don't know what you'd call it. I have heard North students and their parents say West students are snobs with silver spoons in their mouth and West students and parents say North students are losers, etc. It is sad, it is wrong and it is time it stops. But I also believe it is wrong to criticize those who have brought it out in the open and spoken about it whether they be board members, administrators or average citizens. Let's admit the problem, face it and take steps to correct it. Perhaps the first step is to implement the selected boundary changes and give people a chance to see that the world goes on and life isn't so bad, even if you go to school with someone from the "other" side of town.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Is it appropriate for school board members to deny children an education?
I was talking to someone about the last school board meeting and this person made a comment that really got me thinking. The comment "Why would you want to be on the school board if you are going to deny children an education?" The person was referencing the "no" vote by 2 board members to provide 4K education to Oshkosh children. For almost 10 years the Oshkosh district has had a 4K program for English Language Learners (ELL) students and the state informed Oshkosh that in order to receive state aide for that program the district needed to have a "universal access" 4K program. Meaning that 4K had to be available for all district children, not just targeted to certain groups. If the district did not move to universal access 4K they would not be able to have a 4K ELL program either because there is no money in the budget to fully fund such a program. I hadn't really thought about the fact that voting against 4K was denying children an education but that is what would have happened. Those same board members then voted against providing summer school programs for students because they believe that the pay for summer school teachers is too high, but that is something that is bargained with the union and cannot be changed unilaterally. It does seem strange that school board members would vote against providing programs that are not only needed by students but, in the case of 4K ,wanted by 85% of parents surveyed.
There is a multitude of research by not just educators but also economists that show that 4K is not only beneficial for children (with univeral 4K considered more beneficial for children in need than targeted programs) it has a huge return on investment for governmental units. Yet these board members still voted against 4K basically denying children an education. I just don't see how it can be justified that the best interest of the children were served by those "NO" votes.
There is a multitude of research by not just educators but also economists that show that 4K is not only beneficial for children (with univeral 4K considered more beneficial for children in need than targeted programs) it has a huge return on investment for governmental units. Yet these board members still voted against 4K basically denying children an education. I just don't see how it can be justified that the best interest of the children were served by those "NO" votes.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Oshkosh School District and the Council
Well I just finished watching the Common Council workshop on the School District's facilities plan. Some thoughts.
Could McHugh be any more rude (well of course he could and has been but nonetheless I don't think that is how you treat people who have come to provide you with information).
As a parent I'm a little insulted to think that people actually believe the only consideration a parent would have about a school is how close it is to my home... really if that were the only consideration shouldn't we have a school located within a mile of every home? What about the condition of the building... you really think people looking to buy homes in our city check out some of these schools and say oh, yeah, I'll buy there because the school is close, mind you the school floods when it rains, they have plastic gutters screwed to the walls to hold books because there is no storage but that is exactly what I'm looking for in a school for my child.
Some of the schools that will be closed are less than a mile from the school students will be sent to. I don't think you can use the "we are losing our neighborhood school" argument when, say, Smith school is a mere .6 of a mile from Jefferson. If you look at all the schools that are slated to be closed, for schools in the city limits, the school that students would be sent to is located no more than 1.9 miles away and as close as .6 miles. People looking to move into our community have no "ties" to a school so are unlikely to care if their child goes to Smith or Jefferson though I would imagine if a prospective family toured each building and made a decision on the building alone, they would choose the newest school.
The fact is, what is referred to as "growth on the West side" it was pointed out tonight is really just a shifting of people from other parts of the city to the West side. Is that in the best interest of our city. Will keeping substandard school buildings in the "central city" really encourage people to buy homes there, or would closing a substandard school and upgrading the school those children would go to be more appealing to prospective home buyers?
Pretty sad that some council members failed to understand the economics of keeping "failing" buildings open so "everyone" is happy. Doing that off the top throws out the $1.5M per year saved in operating costs... it also means spending dollars on buildings that an architect said he wouldn't recommend spending more money on. If you take out completely the $29M in functional issues and just address deferred maintenance you are looking at $10M in a referendum and all you've done is put a bandage on a gaping wound that needs surgery.
Let's go back to the $29M on functional issues, supposedly the community won't spend the money on this, how sad that supposedly the community doesn't believe our children all deserve to have similar experiences in school that it is OK for some to learn with constant distractions from other classes due to an open concept, or that some students never get to do a "clay" unit in Art because there is no kiln in the gym where Art class is held, or students wear coats in class because it is too cold without them, and I could go on about more inequities but I won't.
Everyone wants to know about Plan B --- while there is no specific Plan, I can tell you whatever it might be it will be ugly. Given the declining enrollment and the unlikelihood that the state will change the school funding formula, the cuts will be deep and they will affect students. Keeping all our schools and spending money to maintain them, will mean cutting millions each year. I predict class sizes will rise and the non-core subjects like Art, Music and Phy-Ed will be scaled back and cut in some instances. If things go on long enough, probably even the "sacred cow" athletics will be affected.
I just don't see any "Plan B" being something that will attract a lot of families to Oshkosh... why is it only Oshkosh and Neenah are declining enrollment districts in the Fox Valley? Perhaps in Oshkosh's case simply having an abundance of elementary schools isn't enough to draw families in. Let's face it, they weren't coming to the district in the 5 years prior to discussions of these scenarios. Our enrollment has been declining for a number of years. Could it be because other districts have more to offer people? Maybe it is because those districts don't operate on the "we're getting by" philosophy. Maybe the other Fox Valley school districts believe in providing quality facilities. My daughter played high school basketball this year and I attended games in every high school in our conference and every one of the facilities was superior to West's main gym. I'd be willing to bet none of those schools had bleachers built in 1960.
As time goes by I fear that once again this district will do little to nothing to address the inequities that exist. Sadly, the only place I find solace is in the fact that in 5 years I will no longer have children in the district.
Could McHugh be any more rude (well of course he could and has been but nonetheless I don't think that is how you treat people who have come to provide you with information).
As a parent I'm a little insulted to think that people actually believe the only consideration a parent would have about a school is how close it is to my home... really if that were the only consideration shouldn't we have a school located within a mile of every home? What about the condition of the building... you really think people looking to buy homes in our city check out some of these schools and say oh, yeah, I'll buy there because the school is close, mind you the school floods when it rains, they have plastic gutters screwed to the walls to hold books because there is no storage but that is exactly what I'm looking for in a school for my child.
Some of the schools that will be closed are less than a mile from the school students will be sent to. I don't think you can use the "we are losing our neighborhood school" argument when, say, Smith school is a mere .6 of a mile from Jefferson. If you look at all the schools that are slated to be closed, for schools in the city limits, the school that students would be sent to is located no more than 1.9 miles away and as close as .6 miles. People looking to move into our community have no "ties" to a school so are unlikely to care if their child goes to Smith or Jefferson though I would imagine if a prospective family toured each building and made a decision on the building alone, they would choose the newest school.
The fact is, what is referred to as "growth on the West side" it was pointed out tonight is really just a shifting of people from other parts of the city to the West side. Is that in the best interest of our city. Will keeping substandard school buildings in the "central city" really encourage people to buy homes there, or would closing a substandard school and upgrading the school those children would go to be more appealing to prospective home buyers?
Pretty sad that some council members failed to understand the economics of keeping "failing" buildings open so "everyone" is happy. Doing that off the top throws out the $1.5M per year saved in operating costs... it also means spending dollars on buildings that an architect said he wouldn't recommend spending more money on. If you take out completely the $29M in functional issues and just address deferred maintenance you are looking at $10M in a referendum and all you've done is put a bandage on a gaping wound that needs surgery.
Let's go back to the $29M on functional issues, supposedly the community won't spend the money on this, how sad that supposedly the community doesn't believe our children all deserve to have similar experiences in school that it is OK for some to learn with constant distractions from other classes due to an open concept, or that some students never get to do a "clay" unit in Art because there is no kiln in the gym where Art class is held, or students wear coats in class because it is too cold without them, and I could go on about more inequities but I won't.
Everyone wants to know about Plan B --- while there is no specific Plan, I can tell you whatever it might be it will be ugly. Given the declining enrollment and the unlikelihood that the state will change the school funding formula, the cuts will be deep and they will affect students. Keeping all our schools and spending money to maintain them, will mean cutting millions each year. I predict class sizes will rise and the non-core subjects like Art, Music and Phy-Ed will be scaled back and cut in some instances. If things go on long enough, probably even the "sacred cow" athletics will be affected.
I just don't see any "Plan B" being something that will attract a lot of families to Oshkosh... why is it only Oshkosh and Neenah are declining enrollment districts in the Fox Valley? Perhaps in Oshkosh's case simply having an abundance of elementary schools isn't enough to draw families in. Let's face it, they weren't coming to the district in the 5 years prior to discussions of these scenarios. Our enrollment has been declining for a number of years. Could it be because other districts have more to offer people? Maybe it is because those districts don't operate on the "we're getting by" philosophy. Maybe the other Fox Valley school districts believe in providing quality facilities. My daughter played high school basketball this year and I attended games in every high school in our conference and every one of the facilities was superior to West's main gym. I'd be willing to bet none of those schools had bleachers built in 1960.
As time goes by I fear that once again this district will do little to nothing to address the inequities that exist. Sadly, the only place I find solace is in the fact that in 5 years I will no longer have children in the district.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Cost Benefit of Quality Pre-School Programs
As I was doing some research for work I came across this report by an economist. I haven't had time to read the entire report, but a brief summary states:
"Research is increasingly demonstrating that the policy of investing in early child-hood development, particularly high-quality prekindergarten, provides a wide array of significant benefits to children, families, and society as a whole. Empirical research shows that all children, regardless of whether they are from poor, middle-, or upper-income families, benefit from prekindergarten programs. In addition, higher quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs."
And this: {"We can build on what we have," she said. "What's new about this study is that it is based on a sizeable, long-standing program funded and operating effectively in the real world."Lynch based his state-by-state analysis on a 40-year Chicago program helping low-income families with preschool and other services.} From an article in the Arizona Republic.
I'm sure there are some who will dismiss this research and analysis, but it is compelling to me, and some is just common sense -- is anyone really surprised that "higer quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs"?
"Research is increasingly demonstrating that the policy of investing in early child-hood development, particularly high-quality prekindergarten, provides a wide array of significant benefits to children, families, and society as a whole. Empirical research shows that all children, regardless of whether they are from poor, middle-, or upper-income families, benefit from prekindergarten programs. In addition, higher quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs."
And this: {"We can build on what we have," she said. "What's new about this study is that it is based on a sizeable, long-standing program funded and operating effectively in the real world."Lynch based his state-by-state analysis on a 40-year Chicago program helping low-income families with preschool and other services.} From an article in the Arizona Republic.
I'm sure there are some who will dismiss this research and analysis, but it is compelling to me, and some is just common sense -- is anyone really surprised that "higer quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs"?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Require students to fill out college application?
I just read an interesting article, which you can find here about the state of Maine considering a bill that would require all high school seniors to apply to college. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue but I would love to hear your thoughts, is this something Wisconsin or Oshkosh should consider?
Sunday, April 22, 2007
The City and the School District and the Facilities Plan
I have started a new thread I have copied and pasted a post from a previous thread to begin the discussion because I think this topic deserves its own thread (I have also copied and pasted the two responses to the original post - the first date is the original post the second is when I posted them here):
I would ask the you keep to the topic of the impact of the facilities plan on the city.
Original Post by Anonymous
Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:25:00 AM CST
Check out this open letter from Kent Monte to the mayor and members of the city council.
"To Mayor Tower and Oshkosh Common Council Members,I would like to address an issue that is evolving within our school district that will have a great influence on city assessments for many years to come. As most of you already know, the school board has approved an open ended scenario 7 to be addressed by the administration. If this scenario is allowed to be brought to completion, it will mean a drastic reduction in property values in many areas throughout the city while stagnating growth on the south/west section of the city. This scenario is NOT a viable option for Oshkosh and should NOT be considered acceptable by this council. I plea with you step in and protect the cities interest in this matter. It will have a lasting negative effect on this city and should not be allowed to be completed. Further scenario discussions should include City Administration to represent the council and homeowners/taxpayers.Thank you for your time and consideration.Kent Monte"
Where does one even begin to comment about his ridiculous ramblings? First, he has absolutely no idea what the board is going to ask for in a referendum, so to suggest it will have such long-term, devastating effects is asinine and irresponsible. We should be able to expect more from someone who wanted to be a city leader. Second, we have to take care of ALL sections of Oshkosh, not just the side he lives on. And in case he hasn't noticed, the city is landlocked so any growth we have -- and there will always be growth despite his prediction of stagnation under scenario 7 -- will be to the west.I'm sure there are others who can more appropriately address his complaints about scenario 7. But the one thing to remember about the Montes is they've never seen a scenario they liked; and probably never will. They will find reasons to bitch about anything the district comes up with because they are naysayers who want no change whatsoever.Last, but certainly not least, I realize Kent is not a product of the Oshkosh school system, but I question what he learned in whatever school system he did come from. Take a look at his sentence structure and grammar in the sentence that starts with the words "I plea." Wow, is this guy for real? So much for quality control in his letter. He might want to think about having English major wife Michelle check out his ramblings in the future. Oh, that's right, she's about as bad and makes the same mistakes as he.
Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:25:00 AM CST
I would ask the you keep to the topic of the impact of the facilities plan on the city.
Original Post by Anonymous
Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:25:00 AM CST
Check out this open letter from Kent Monte to the mayor and members of the city council.
"To Mayor Tower and Oshkosh Common Council Members,I would like to address an issue that is evolving within our school district that will have a great influence on city assessments for many years to come. As most of you already know, the school board has approved an open ended scenario 7 to be addressed by the administration. If this scenario is allowed to be brought to completion, it will mean a drastic reduction in property values in many areas throughout the city while stagnating growth on the south/west section of the city. This scenario is NOT a viable option for Oshkosh and should NOT be considered acceptable by this council. I plea with you step in and protect the cities interest in this matter. It will have a lasting negative effect on this city and should not be allowed to be completed. Further scenario discussions should include City Administration to represent the council and homeowners/taxpayers.Thank you for your time and consideration.Kent Monte"
Where does one even begin to comment about his ridiculous ramblings? First, he has absolutely no idea what the board is going to ask for in a referendum, so to suggest it will have such long-term, devastating effects is asinine and irresponsible. We should be able to expect more from someone who wanted to be a city leader. Second, we have to take care of ALL sections of Oshkosh, not just the side he lives on. And in case he hasn't noticed, the city is landlocked so any growth we have -- and there will always be growth despite his prediction of stagnation under scenario 7 -- will be to the west.I'm sure there are others who can more appropriately address his complaints about scenario 7. But the one thing to remember about the Montes is they've never seen a scenario they liked; and probably never will. They will find reasons to bitch about anything the district comes up with because they are naysayers who want no change whatsoever.Last, but certainly not least, I realize Kent is not a product of the Oshkosh school system, but I question what he learned in whatever school system he did come from. Take a look at his sentence structure and grammar in the sentence that starts with the words "I plea." Wow, is this guy for real? So much for quality control in his letter. He might want to think about having English major wife Michelle check out his ramblings in the future. Oh, that's right, she's about as bad and makes the same mistakes as he.
Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:25:00 AM CST
Monday, April 16, 2007
OASD Facilities Plan and some misinformation
I was reading some other local blogs and I'm just amazed at how one particular blogger continues to perpetuate misinformation. Mrs. Monte responded to a poster who had expressed her feelings about keeping 9th graders in the middle school and Mrs. Monte said that was being looked at "The possibility is that with declining enrollment, if the trend holds true, a switch to 10-12 could be temporary as a way to avoid building classrooms that would not be needed in the future."
I just find it amazing that Mrs. Monte, especially as a member of the CRT, does not understand that moving 9th graders into our middle schools would require the building of classrooms. The district would be approximately 575 seats SHORT if they added 9th graders to our middle schools. Aslo, she claims that moving 9th graders into our middle schools would address the Freshman failure rate --- really? How would having 9th graders in middle school "address" the Freshman failure rate? Does she not know how that rate has been dramatically reduced by what the high schools have done to address this? This is not to say this is not still an issue but much has improved already. How would this bring equity to our elementary buildings? What would the operational savings be by doing this, or would it increase? To jump on any idea out there just because someone suggested it doesn't make sense to me.
I just wonder how many people out there really want the facts and how many will just believe anything they hear or read?
I just find it amazing that Mrs. Monte, especially as a member of the CRT, does not understand that moving 9th graders into our middle schools would require the building of classrooms. The district would be approximately 575 seats SHORT if they added 9th graders to our middle schools. Aslo, she claims that moving 9th graders into our middle schools would address the Freshman failure rate --- really? How would having 9th graders in middle school "address" the Freshman failure rate? Does she not know how that rate has been dramatically reduced by what the high schools have done to address this? This is not to say this is not still an issue but much has improved already. How would this bring equity to our elementary buildings? What would the operational savings be by doing this, or would it increase? To jump on any idea out there just because someone suggested it doesn't make sense to me.
I just wonder how many people out there really want the facts and how many will just believe anything they hear or read?
Monday, April 9, 2007
The Governor and Schools:
The following is a press release from the Governor's office that was shared with me courtesy of Cheryl Hentz:
Monday, April 9, 2007
Contact: Carla Vigue, Office of the Governor, 608-261-2162
Governor Doyle Details Rural Schools Initiative
Budget Proposals Would Address Declining Enrollment, Provide Additional Resources for Transportation, Special Education, and Smaller Classes
SUPERIOR, MERRILL - Governor Jim Doyle today detailed a Rural Schools initiative aimed at ensuring that kids in rural communities have an equal chance at a great education. The initiative, part of Governor Doyle's budget for the next two years, represents significant reforms in Wisconsin's school financing system, including measures to address declining enrollment, support school transportation needs, provide additional special education funding, and other measures to strengthen rural education. The Governor made the announcements at Cooper Elementary School in Superior and Washington Elementary School in Merrill."Rural schools play a vital role in our state, yet they face unique challenges," Governor Doyle said. "I believe that every kid, whether they come from a rural area, the city, or the suburbs, deserves the same chance to get a great education. These reforms will ensure that rural schools are treated fairly, and can prepare our kids for the jobs of the future." Addressing Declining EnrollmentDeclining enrollment is one of the biggest problems facing school districts across Wisconsin. The state currently has limits on the total amount that schools can spend based on a per pupil amount. When a school's enrollment goes down, its allowable spending goes down. Under the Governor's plan, schools will be able to receive more revenue to offset a one year decline in enrollment. For a district that saw steady declines year after year, as many districts do, this will help soften the blow and give them added flexibility, so that they never face a devastating loss in any one year. Reforming the School Transportation FormulaTo provide more support for students living in rural areas who have to travel more than 12 miles to get to school, Governor Doyle is increasing school transportation reimbursement rates by $900,000 a year. This reform will help give rural schools more flexibility in their spending limits, allowing them to focus more of their spending on classroom resources. Lifting Low Revenue DistrictsAs another step to give rural school districts more flexibility in their spending, Governor Doyle is raising the revenue ceiling by $600 per student over the next two years, and making sure schools have the resources they need for their students.
Increasing Special Education FundingTo provide more support for students in special education programs, Governor Doyle is increasing special education funding by more than $50 million - the largest increase in support for special education in nearly 15 years. Increasing SAGE Funding Smaller class sizes during a student's earliest years in school are critical for a good start to their education. That's why Governor Doyle launched the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) initiative - his plan to reduce class sizes from kindergarten through third grade. Today, Governor Doyle proposed increasing SAGE funding to $2,250 per student, to help raise student achievement, and create more opportunities for a good education.
NOTE the last point, I don't think SAGE is in danger of being discontinued this budget cycle...
I found some of these items had some interesting information in them... students who travel more than 12 MILES to school --- and we have people making 5 miles seem like the end of the world... I guess it just proves everything is relative...
So what do you think of the Governor's school funding proposals?
Monday, April 9, 2007
Contact: Carla Vigue, Office of the Governor, 608-261-2162
Governor Doyle Details Rural Schools Initiative
Budget Proposals Would Address Declining Enrollment, Provide Additional Resources for Transportation, Special Education, and Smaller Classes
SUPERIOR, MERRILL - Governor Jim Doyle today detailed a Rural Schools initiative aimed at ensuring that kids in rural communities have an equal chance at a great education. The initiative, part of Governor Doyle's budget for the next two years, represents significant reforms in Wisconsin's school financing system, including measures to address declining enrollment, support school transportation needs, provide additional special education funding, and other measures to strengthen rural education. The Governor made the announcements at Cooper Elementary School in Superior and Washington Elementary School in Merrill."Rural schools play a vital role in our state, yet they face unique challenges," Governor Doyle said. "I believe that every kid, whether they come from a rural area, the city, or the suburbs, deserves the same chance to get a great education. These reforms will ensure that rural schools are treated fairly, and can prepare our kids for the jobs of the future." Addressing Declining EnrollmentDeclining enrollment is one of the biggest problems facing school districts across Wisconsin. The state currently has limits on the total amount that schools can spend based on a per pupil amount. When a school's enrollment goes down, its allowable spending goes down. Under the Governor's plan, schools will be able to receive more revenue to offset a one year decline in enrollment. For a district that saw steady declines year after year, as many districts do, this will help soften the blow and give them added flexibility, so that they never face a devastating loss in any one year. Reforming the School Transportation FormulaTo provide more support for students living in rural areas who have to travel more than 12 miles to get to school, Governor Doyle is increasing school transportation reimbursement rates by $900,000 a year. This reform will help give rural schools more flexibility in their spending limits, allowing them to focus more of their spending on classroom resources. Lifting Low Revenue DistrictsAs another step to give rural school districts more flexibility in their spending, Governor Doyle is raising the revenue ceiling by $600 per student over the next two years, and making sure schools have the resources they need for their students.
Increasing Special Education FundingTo provide more support for students in special education programs, Governor Doyle is increasing special education funding by more than $50 million - the largest increase in support for special education in nearly 15 years. Increasing SAGE Funding Smaller class sizes during a student's earliest years in school are critical for a good start to their education. That's why Governor Doyle launched the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) initiative - his plan to reduce class sizes from kindergarten through third grade. Today, Governor Doyle proposed increasing SAGE funding to $2,250 per student, to help raise student achievement, and create more opportunities for a good education.
NOTE the last point, I don't think SAGE is in danger of being discontinued this budget cycle...
I found some of these items had some interesting information in them... students who travel more than 12 MILES to school --- and we have people making 5 miles seem like the end of the world... I guess it just proves everything is relative...
So what do you think of the Governor's school funding proposals?
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Thank you
I would like to thank everyone who voted for me and especially those who expressed their support and encouragement. I gave it all I had but it was not to be. I will remain passionate about education, just in a less visible way.
Thank you all!
Thank you all!
Friday, March 30, 2007
SAGE and a candidate who just doesn't understand
I was reading the Oshkosh Northwestern Candidate Site and the answer to a question about SAGE that was posted by Mrs. Monte. I truly don't understand how she could have been following the whole SAGE discussion as well as the facilities discussions and come up with what she did for an answer:
Mrs. Monte's post from the Northwestern site is here:
Here is my response:
I would like to correct a few mistakes in Mrs. Monte's post ...
First of all there is NO requirement by the state that a school has a certain percentage of students on free/reduced lunch. That was only required during the first two years.
Second; the "pivot point" Mrs. Vickman was referring to was the point at which SAGE pays for the additonal teachers and professional development without the district needing to supplement, that point is between 40%-45%. We would NOT lose SAGE if a school dropped below that point the district just might have to supplement the SAGE funding. It appears that under Scenario 7 SAGE funding would cover the cost of the additional teachers.
Third: There is no current SAGE school in our district that has just ONE student in a classroom that qualifies for free/reduced lunch. That would be a ridiculous way to assign students. If a school has 40% of its students qualify for free/reduced lunch approximatley 40% of students in a classroom will also qualify. SAGE no longer pays for classroom building.
Finally, the last paragraph is just not accurate. The district cannot afford to keep most of our elementary schools and "spread the students over all of the schools and have smaller class sizes" --- without the SAGE funds from the state where would the district get the millions it would cost to reduce class sizes and pay for all the additional teachers? There are no "educational savings" by spreading kids out. SAGE does not cause "liabilities to a district" and how would transportation costs be reduced from what they are today by reducing class sizes?
End of Post on Northwestern site
I believe a board candidate should have at least a passing understanding of SAGE and its funding and what exactly staffing efficiencies are...I am truly astonished by the comments made -- that somehow spreading our students out among 15 school buildings will create "educational savings" whatever that means. All it does is assure that you will have class sizes of 8 or 9 in some places... in larger schools you will have more classes of the same grade and thus more likely to have each room filled close to the 15 student limit (which can go to a maximum of 17 though 15 is optimal). The more schools you have the less efficient your staffing becomes.
Mrs. Monte's post from the Northwestern site is here:
Here is my response:
I would like to correct a few mistakes in Mrs. Monte's post ...
First of all there is NO requirement by the state that a school has a certain percentage of students on free/reduced lunch. That was only required during the first two years.
Second; the "pivot point" Mrs. Vickman was referring to was the point at which SAGE pays for the additonal teachers and professional development without the district needing to supplement, that point is between 40%-45%. We would NOT lose SAGE if a school dropped below that point the district just might have to supplement the SAGE funding. It appears that under Scenario 7 SAGE funding would cover the cost of the additional teachers.
Third: There is no current SAGE school in our district that has just ONE student in a classroom that qualifies for free/reduced lunch. That would be a ridiculous way to assign students. If a school has 40% of its students qualify for free/reduced lunch approximatley 40% of students in a classroom will also qualify. SAGE no longer pays for classroom building.
Finally, the last paragraph is just not accurate. The district cannot afford to keep most of our elementary schools and "spread the students over all of the schools and have smaller class sizes" --- without the SAGE funds from the state where would the district get the millions it would cost to reduce class sizes and pay for all the additional teachers? There are no "educational savings" by spreading kids out. SAGE does not cause "liabilities to a district" and how would transportation costs be reduced from what they are today by reducing class sizes?
End of Post on Northwestern site
I believe a board candidate should have at least a passing understanding of SAGE and its funding and what exactly staffing efficiencies are...I am truly astonished by the comments made -- that somehow spreading our students out among 15 school buildings will create "educational savings" whatever that means. All it does is assure that you will have class sizes of 8 or 9 in some places... in larger schools you will have more classes of the same grade and thus more likely to have each room filled close to the 15 student limit (which can go to a maximum of 17 though 15 is optimal). The more schools you have the less efficient your staffing becomes.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
The Final Weeks of the Campaign
Well this might be an exercise in futility, as no one really has posted on this blog in some time and I'm not savy enough to figure out how many (if any) have viewed this but...
I really feel that this election is critical for our district. I think this election will either move this district forward or stall it and perhaps even begin a downward spiral. Two of my fellow candidates have made it pretty clear that they support the status quo as far as buildings go, both have stated, in writing that they would only close Lincoln for sure. Without a doubt that will mean deeper budget cuts that will affect our students negatively. If we keep all our buildings but one, we will have millions in repairs that we cannot afford and will be hard pressed to ever have the dollars for catch up and continuing maintenance. It is vital to the future of our district that Mrs. Bowen and I get elected.
Last year during his campaign, Mr. Becker started his opening statements with "Do you want a board member who..." Well I ask, "Why would anyone want a board member who spent 6 days trying to have as many votes thrown out as he possibly could?" The official minutes from last year's recount are at the end of this post. Mr. Becker had 200+ objections to Mrs. Weinsheim's approximately 15. I ask that you think about how much you feel an elected official is "representing you" when his mantra is "vote yes for me so I can vote no for you". Voting no certainly doesn't move things forward.
I have been very straight-forward in telling voters what I belive, even if it isn't popular. I do hope people respect that but even if it costs me the election, I will never regret being honest and making decisions based on what I believe is best for our students, instead of saying what special interest groups want to hear so I can get their vote.
Most of all, I would ask those of you who support me to go out and vote and tell everyone you know to do the same. Remember this election could be decided by ONE vote... yours does count so please vote Thiel and Bowen on April 3rd.
Thank you.
Now some bedtime reading, guaranteed sleep aid ;-)
Here are the official minutes from last year's recount.
OSHKOSH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF CANVASSERS
MINUTES OF RECOUNT HELD BY THE BOARDFOR THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERSPRING ELECTION HELD APRIL 4, 2006
April 7, 2006
April 10, 2006
April 11, 2006
April 12, 2006
April 13, 2006
April 17, 2006
APRIL 7, 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 1Absentee Envelopes – Ward 1DM – 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 2PH 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 1City Poll List Certification = 293County Poll List Certification = 293Canvass Tape = 294
Ward 2City Poll List Certification = 313County Poll List Certification = 313Canvass 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 1Number of Absentee Envelopes: 73Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 54Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 89 90 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 152 152 MICHELLE A. MONTE 84 85DAN 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 2Number of Absentee Envelopes: 26(2 were pulled – Previously marked #1 & #2)Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 23Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 128 128 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 161 161 MICHELLE A. MONTE 75 75DAN 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 UTICADan 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 = 190County Poll List Certification = 191Canvass 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: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 35 35 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 54 56 MICHELLE A. MONTE 21 21DAN 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 2Seal #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 3City Poll List Certification = 248County Poll List Certification = 248Canvass Tape = 248
Ward 4City Poll List Certification = 99County Poll List Certification = 99Canvass Tape = 99Ward 3Number of Absentee Envelopes: 17Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 17Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 109 109 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 146 147 MICHELLE A. MONTE 65 65DAN 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 4Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 16Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 25 25 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 47 47 MICHELLE A. MONTE 26 26DAN 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 & 6Seal #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 5City Poll List Certification = 38County Poll List Certification = 38Canvass Tape = 38
Ward 6City Poll List Certification = 32County Poll List Certification = 32Canvass Tape = 32Ward 5Number of Absentee Envelopes: 1Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 8 8 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 17 17DAN 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 6Number of Absentee Envelopes: 6Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 16 17 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN 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 & 8Seal #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 7City Poll List Certification = 276County Poll List Certification = 276Canvass Tape = 276
Ward 8City Poll List Certification = 575County Poll List Certification = 575Canvass Tape = 575Ward 7Number of Absentee Envelopes: 32Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 32Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 100 100 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 136 136 MICHELLE A. MONTE 81 81DAN 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 8Number of Absentee Envelopes: 42Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 42Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 279 278 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 280 281 MICHELLE A. MONTE 131 131DAN 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 & 10The 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 9City Poll List Certification = 215County Poll List Certification = 215Canvass Tape = 215
Ward 10City Poll List Certification = 265County Poll List Certification = 265Canvass Tape = 265Ward 9Number of Absentee Envelopes: 13Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 13Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 68 68 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 113 113 MICHELLE A. MONTE 76 76DAN 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 10Number of Absentee Envelopes: 8Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 95 96 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 116 116 MICHELLE A. MONTE 84 84DAN 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, 2006The 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 & 12The 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 11City Poll List Certification = 282County Poll List Certification = 282Canvass Tape = 282
Ward 12City Poll List Certification = 158County Poll List Certification = 158Canvass Tape = 158Ward 11Number of Absentee Envelopes: 11Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 11Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 100 100 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 169 170 MICHELLE A. MONTE 85 85DAN 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 12Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 16Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 50 50 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 81 82 MICHELLE A. MONTE 39 39DAN 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 & 14The 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 13City Poll List Certification = 21County Poll List Certification = 21Canvass Tape = 21
Ward 14City Poll List Certification = 39County Poll List Certification = 39Canvass Tape = 39Ward 13Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 7 7 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN 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 14Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 19 19 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 26 26 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN 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 & 16The 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 & 18Seal #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 17City Poll List Certification = 463County Poll List Certification = 463Canvass Tape = 463
Ward 18City Poll List Certification = 210County Poll List Certification = 210Canvass Tape = 210Ward 17Number of Absentee Envelopes: 24Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 23Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 183 183 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 245 245 MICHELLE A. MONTE 121 121DAN 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 18Number of Absentee Envelopes: 24Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 25Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 82 82 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 105 105 MICHELLE A. MONTE 63 66DAN 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 & 16City 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 15City Poll List Certification = 141County Poll List Certification = 141Canvass Tape = 141
Ward 16City Poll List Certification = 121County Poll List Certification = 121Canvass Tape = 121Ward 15Number of Absentee Envelopes: 4Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 4Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 48 48 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 63 63 MICHELLE A. MONTE 40 41DAN 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 16Number of Absentee Envelopes: 3Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 3Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 49 49 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 68 69 MICHELLE A. MONTE 35 35DAN 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 & 20Seal #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 19City Poll List Certification = 282County Poll List Certification = 282Canvass Tape = 282
Ward 20City Poll List Certification = 228County Poll List Certification = 228Canvass Tape = 228Ward 19Number of Absentee Envelopes: 20Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 20Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 83 83 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 165 165 MICHELLE A. MONTE 55 55DAN 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 20Number of Absentee Envelopes: 14Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 79 79 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 123 124 MICHELLE A. MONTE 54 55DAN 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, 2006The 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 & 22Seal #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 21City Poll List Certification = 184County Poll List Certification = 184Canvass Tape = 184
Ward 22City Poll List Certification = 226County Poll List Certification = 226Canvass Tape = 226Ward 21Number of Absentee Envelopes: 10Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 9Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 1
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 64 63 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 94 94 MICHELLE A. MONTE 65 65DAN 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 22Number of Absentee Envelopes: 6Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 77 77 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 99 97 MICHELLE A. MONTE 77 78DAN 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 & 24The 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 23City Poll List Certification = 294County Poll List Certification = 294Canvass Tape = 294
Ward 24City Poll List Certification = 426County Poll List Certification = 426Canvass Tape = 425 + 1 rejected = 426
Ward 37City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 23Number of Absentee Envelopes: 18Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 18Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 110 110 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 145 145 MICHELLE A. MONTE 90 91DAN 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 24Number of Absentee Envelopes: 21Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 21Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 144 142 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 187 188 MICHELLE A. MONTE 154 152DAN 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 37Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN 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 & 35Seal #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 25City Poll List Certification = 97County Poll List Certification = 97Canvass Tape = 97
Ward 35City Poll List Certification = 3County Poll List Certification = 3Canvass Tape = 3Ward 25Number of Absentee Envelopes: 3Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 3Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 38 38 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 51 51 MICHELLE A. MONTE 24 24DAN 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 35Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 1 1 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 2 2 MICHELLE A. MONTE 2 2DAN 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 & 27Seal #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 26City Poll List Certification = 454County Poll List Certification = 454Canvass Tape = 454
Ward 27City Poll List Certification = 326County Poll List Certification = 326Canvass Tape = 326Ward 26Number of Absentee Envelopes: 35Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 36Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 150 149 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 226 221 MICHELLE A. MONTE 133 133DAN 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 27Number of Absentee Envelopes: 13Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 13Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 109 109 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 159 159 MICHELLE A. MONTE 101 101DAN 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, 34Seal #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 28City Poll List Certification = 470County Poll List Certification = 470Canvass Tape = 469
Ward 29City Poll List Certification = 428County Poll List Certification = 428Canvass Tape = 427
Ward 34City Poll List Certification = 2County Poll List Certification = 2Canvass Tape = 2The 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 28Number of Absentee Envelopes: 27Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 27Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 213 208 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 243 237 MICHELLE A. MONTE 113 110DAN 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 29Number of Absentee Envelopes: 18Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 19Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 181 181 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 198 197 MICHELLE A. MONTE 107 108DAN 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 34Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 1 1 MICHELLE A. MONTE 1 1DAN 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 & 31Seal #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 30Absentee envelope (FRB) (Marked #2) Ballot was Recreated #2 – Ward 31Absentee 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 poll list for either city or county. The ballot could be identified as Recreated #2 and was pulled. Dan Becker objected to the pulling of the matching ballot. Attorney Renning recommended that the identifiable ballot be pulled and put back into the envelope along with the original. The Board concurred and both ballots were returned to the respective envelope.
Dan Becker objected to ABS ballots and envelopes not matching. There were more envelopes than ballots in both wards.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board unanimously agreed and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #7)
Ward 30City Poll List Certification = 230County Poll List Certification = 230Canvass Tape = 232
Ward 31City Poll List Certification = 417County Poll List Certification = 417Canvass Tape = 417Ward 30Number of Absentee Envelopes: 22Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 79 79 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 111 111 MICHELLE A. MONTE 79 79DAN BECKER 121 121 AMY WEINSHEIM 101 101 WAYNE TRASKA 96 96
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 31Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 140 139 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 208 209 MICHELLE A. MONTE 102 102DAN BECKER 193 194 AMY WEINSHEIM 181 182 WAYNE TRASKA 194 195
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the two ballot bags with Seal #0073454 and Seal #0073033 at 6:52 p.m.
Kim Ringer made a motion to recess and reconvene on April 13, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.. Claudette Elliott seconded. The meeting recessed at 6:59 p.m.
APRIL 13, 2006The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:39 p.m. on Thursday, April 13, 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. Dan Becker objected to ballot security regarding the County ballot bin not being sealed.
DISTRICT 17 – WARDS 32, 33, 36, 38The seal was broken on ballot bin at 8:41 a.m. Seal #0073001 was broken on the ballot bag for District 17 at 8:43 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 20 ballots from Ward 32 and 9 ballots from Ward 33. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to absentee ballot (original #22) being recreated in the wrong ward and District 11, Ward 21 being found in District 17, Ward 32 election materials. He challenged the validity of the ballot. A note was attached to the absentee envelope from the City directing poll workers to recreate as best they could. The board unanimously accepted the ballot as valid. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (PA) having no voter elector signature. The Board concurred and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #2) 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 an absentee voter application (SG #356) not being updated in the absentee log. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope bearing elector’s signature in pencil. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to no date voted or returned recorded in the internal log for absentee envelope (RO). The board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to no date voted or returned recorded in internal log for absentee envelope (ER). The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (BS) bearing witness signature in pencil. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #7)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (AS) contending that the elector’s signature was partially missing. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #8)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope on technical inconsistencies. A typed address was crossed out and an address was handwritten above it. Both signatures were present. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #9)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope bearing a pencil signature of elector. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #10)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #11)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #12)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #13)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope (LC) due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #14)
Amy Weinsheim noted that the absentee ballot log is not a requirement but an internal tracking piece.
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope (VH) due to elector’s penciled signature. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #15)
Dan Becker objected to the County poll list not having ABS after #270 RR. (Marked #16)
Dan Becker objected to MG (274) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #17)Dan Becker objected to RG (275) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #18)Dan Becker objected to JL (258) having an illegible number in the county poll list in 33SD. It is marked correctly in the City poll list as 258ABS, which matches the envelope. Dan Becker contended it is an incomplete number on the County poll list. (Marked #19)Dan Becker objected to DP(276) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #20)Dan Becker objected to RP (278) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD (Marked #21)Dan Becker objected to KK (274) not being noted as ABS on county poll list. (Marked #22)
Dan Becker noted that there is 1 less absentee ballot than absentee envelope for Ward 32.
Dan Becker noted that there are extra ballots stored with initials PRU representing the city clerk being used as duplicate recounts. He noted ballot security as a concern.
Dan Becker objected to the validity of a ballot bearing PRU in inspector’s initials as well as ballot security. The Board unanimously determined the ballot was valid. (Marked #23)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. (Marked #24)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. (Marked #25)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. Voting Machine error stated over vote when trying to feed the ballot through. The ballot was Recreated #9. (Marked 26)
Dan Becker objected to two ballot jams. Amy Weinsheim commented that ballots are curled and as Pam Ubrig stated, it could affect the machine reading them.
Dan Becker noted prior objections of voting machine rejecting absentee ballots during recount when apparently it did not reject them on Election Night.
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. The voting machine error stated “blank voted”. The ballot was marked in ink. Recreated #16
Dan Becker noted his serious concerns with the voting machine. He requested that proceedings stop at this point until a new machine can arrive from City Hall. Amy Weinsheim objected to that. The Board unanimously agreed to proceed.
Dan Becker renewed his objection as stated above. Amy Weinsheim restated that City Clerk Pam Ubrig did tell us by virtue of the ballots being moved, folded, bent, etc., because it is a light reader that there may be some issues with ability to read.
Dan Becker noted an objection that the machine jammed when feeding a ballot. Suggested that it would be more expedient to request a new voting machine.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot containing only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and the ballot was pulled. (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.
Attorney Renning spoke with City Clerk Pam Ubrig, who was not aware of a ballpoint pen in a voting box. Attorney Renning gave the option of continuing to recreate ballots or hand count the ballots. It was determined to continue to recreate.
Pam Ubrig stated that in 2001 the City went through redistricting and 2 new machines were purchased which allows pen marks. Dan Becker asked if there is documentation that this machine was located at Alberta Kimball. Ms. Ubrig stated that each machine has a label identifying its polling location and proceeded to show the label on the machine. She also stated that everyone is encouraged to use black markers. She has no control over what people take into the voting booth. She attempted to contact the District 17 chairperson to find out if a pen was left in a voting booth but has been unable to make contact. Poll workers are also encouraged to view the booths periodically.
Because of the amount of ballots recreated by the recount, Pam Ubrig furnished the Board of Canvassers with a blank ballot bag. She recommended that the Board indicate the Wards, District, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, April 4, 2006, and indicate this was from the recount, give a brief explanation, and sign and date it today.
Dan Becker noted that there were 238 ballots recreated for District 17.
Dan Becker objected to the fact that the Board was going to proceed with the recount without his legal counsel. Attorney Renning informed him that when his legal counsel arrived, we would stop for whatever statements she needs to make.
The City ballot bin was sealed at 2:14 p.m.
Ward 32City Poll List Certification = 426County Poll List Certification = 426Canvass Tape = 426
Ward 33City Poll List Certification = 380County Poll List Certification = 380Canvass Tape = 380
Ward 36City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 38City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 32Number of Absentee Envelopes: 82Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 82Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 144 143 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 213 213 MICHELLE A. MONTE 134 133DAN BECKER 208 208 AMY WEINSHEIM 179 176 WAYNE TRASKA 181 178
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 33Number of Absentee Envelopes: 29Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 29Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 138 138 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 195 195 MICHELLE A. MONTE 108 108DAN BECKER 161 162 AMY WEINSHEIM 160 160 WAYNE TRASKA 212 213
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 36Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN 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.
Ward 38Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN 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 #0073071 at 1:07 p.m. A replacement bag was brought from the city because the Seal hole in the original bag was too big to reseal the bag and ensure security. Seal #0073426 was used and the replacement ballot bag was sealed at 2:10 p.m.
TOWN OF ALGOMATown of Algoma Clerk Sue Miller was present. It was also noted that the County ballot bin did not have a cover. Clerk Designee Teresa Collins was informed by Winnebago County Clerk Sue Ertmer that the County’s ballot bins do not have covers. Ms. Collins also stated that prior to this morning, the County’s bin has been held in Conference Room A.
Attorney Elizabeth Hartman brought to the attention of the Board of Canvassers recount practices that she feels are incorrect. One of the issues is counting absentee ballots that do not have applications associated with them. Those ballots should not be counted if there are no applications associated with them. The other practice is excluding ballots that have one inspector’s initials rather than two. Attorney Hartman concedes that Mr. Becker objected to the ballots but doing so was incorrect under the statute as well as case law. The ballots should be counted. Another issue is that Dan Becker was contacted by a voter in Vinland, which contains both Winneconne and Oshkosh school districts. This individual went to the polls to vote and asked for a Winneconne ballot but was given an Oshkosh ballot under his objection. There is no affidavit; however, Mr. Becker has the name of the individual. Attorney Renning responded that Vinland has not been counted yet so it will be noted. The second thing is the Board of Canvassers has a lot of work ahead of them to certify the results and go through the minutes. Attorney Renning’s recommendation was that the Board continue as they have been for consistency. The hope is that Monday we can reconvene to tie up any loose ends. In the event we agree, we can go back and rectify any concerns at that time.
Amy Weinsheim noted for the record that both parties objected to ballots with only one signature. However, Ms. Weinsheim contends the decision to pull ballots with only one signature is discretionary – permissive as opposed to mandatory.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Algoma at 2:18 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 the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing application (CB #362). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #1)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application as well as a missing address from the absentee envelope (#363). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #2)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RG #366). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (MM #376) as well as a signature from a legal guardian with no power of attorney attached to the envelope. The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #4)
Amy Weinsheim commented on absentee envelopes missing applications. Once a voter has sent in an application, it is not incumbent on the voter to periodically check on the application status. She is concerned with keeping votes out of the process. Missing applications are a matter of town personnel and what they have done with records vs. voter error.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (DR #382). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #5)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (AP #381). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #6)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (MN #379). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #7)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (LN #380). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #8)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RK #373). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #9)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application as well as incorrectly identified in one poll list and not the other (LK #374). The Board unanimously agreed to clerical error and accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #10)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (BI #372). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #11)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing application (DG #365). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #12)
Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously agreed that they could determine voter intent. The ballot was Recreated #4
A ballot was identified with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #13)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #14)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #15)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #16)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #17)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #18)
Algoma Poll List Certification = 1010County Poll List Certification = 1010Canvass Tape = 1010
Town of AlgomaNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 30Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 25Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 5
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 370 370 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 481 478 MICHELLE A. MONTE 218 214DAN BECKER 405 405 AMY WEINSHEIM 409 407 WAYNE TRASKA 512 506
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073431 and Seal #0073446 at 5:46 p.m.
TOWN OF BLACK WOLFTown of Black Wolf Clerk Ellen Chmielewski was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Black Wolf at 5:47 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to a Town of Clayton recreated ballot being included with the Town of Black Wolf ballots.
Dan Becker objected to the Board recreating a Town of Black Wolf SD (pink ballot) on a Town of Black Wolf (white ballot). There were no extra pink ballots to accommodate Mr. Becker’s request. Recreated #1
Dan Becker noted a ballot with only 1 set of initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #1)
Black Wolf Poll List Certification = 407County Poll List Certification = 407Canvass Tape = 407
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 138 137 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 202 202 MICHELLE A. MONTE 134 134DAN BECKER 175 175 AMY WEINSHEIM 176 175 WAYNE TRASKA 195 195
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 sealed with Seal #0073427 at 6:28 p.m.
TOWN OF OSHKOSHJeanette Merten, Town of Oshkosh clerk, was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for Town of Oshkosh at 6:34 p.m. The black tie was broken on the second ballot bag at 6:51 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 and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector and witness. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector and witness. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled witness signature. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (DO #391). The Board unanimously determined it was valid based on appropriate signatures. The Town Clerk explained that the application was on file previously but lost with a change of clerk. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RW #401). The Board determined it was valid based on the signature. The Town Clerk stated that she had the application and would supply such application before certification of the recount. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to a completely blank ballot apparently being accepted on Election Night but rejected during Recount. Mr. Becker also objected to an incomplete inspector’s statement regarding this issue.
Oshkosh Poll List Certification = 548County Poll List Certification = 548Canvass Tape = 548
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 15Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 15Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 155 155 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 196 196 MICHELLE A. MONTE 86 87DAN BECKER 164 165 AMY WEINSHEIM 181 181 WAYNE TRASKA 160 160
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073092 at 7:45 p.m.
TOWN OF VINLANDTown Clerk Shirley Brazee was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Vinland at 8:14 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 the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Dan Becker objected to the Town of Vinland ballots and asked that they be excluded due to voter intimidation and voter fraud occurred at the polling place.
Amy Weinsheim stated that she does not believe voter intimidation or fraud occurred.
The Town Clerk made a statement which collaborated with the notation in the inspector’s statement. TheBoard unanimously agreed to proceed and open the ballot bag.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (LA #442) (Marked #1) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a penciled signature of elector and witness (BB #443) (Marked #2) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing witness address (CR #445) (Marked #3) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing witness address (KR #446) (Marked #4) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (WR #447) (Marked #5) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to the extemporaneous nature. Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (GS #451) (Marked #6) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (JS #452) (Marked #7) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to no witness signature (GT #439) (Marked #8) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.
The board unanimously agreed to accept absentee envelopes marked 1-8 as valid.
A ballot was pulled with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. (Marked #9)
Amy Weinsheim noted that poll inspectors’ initials on one particular ballot do not appear to match any other initials nor does the ink match any other ballot.
Vinland Poll List Certification = 453County Poll List Certification = 453Canvass Tape = 453
Town of VinlandNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 11 None in Oshkosh DistrictNumber of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 11Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 11 10 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 16 16 MICHELLE A. MONTE 5 5DAN BECKER 10 10 AMY WEINSHEIM 11 10 WAYNE TRASKA 12 12
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 sealed with Seal #0073413 at 9:01 p.m.
TOWN OF NEKIMIClerk of Nekimi Jerry Braasch was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bags for the Town of Nekimi at 9:03 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty. There was no Recreated Ballot Envelope for the Town of Nekimi. The Clerk attested to the fact that there were no recreated ballots for the Town of Nekimi. Dan Becker objected to procedural issues.
Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on absentee envelope (KB) as well as a missing application. (Marked #1)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on absentee envelope (HH) as well as a missing application. (Marked #2)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (CO) (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (EO) as well as a pencil signature of elector. (Marked #4)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (MW) as well as a missing application and the fact that there is no voter registration attached to the absentee envelope. (Marked #5)
The Town Clerk noted that there are 3 missing permanent absentee applications due to the fact that they were never transferred to him 12 years ago when he assumed the duty of Town Clerk of Nekimi. The Town Clerk also stated that prior to this election, towns under 2500 were not required to have registration lists. Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk, explained that a voter registration statement is not a public record due to containing private information.
The Board unanimously determined that all 5 absentee envelopes (Marked 1-5) be accepted as valid.
Amy Weinsheim noted that the permanent list for absentee voters has been on file for 12 years and it is not incumbent on the voter to check on their records. It should be the responsibility of the town.
Nekimi Poll List Certification = 176County Poll List Certification = 176Canvass Tape = 176
Town of NekimiNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 5Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 5Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 59 59 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 93 94 MICHELLE A. MONTE 38 38DAN BECKER 91 91 AMY WEINSHEIM 63 64 WAYNE TRASKA 65 65
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073424 at 9:37 p.m.
Attorney Renning announced that the Board of Canvassers will meet in closed session at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, April 17, 2006 pursuant to §19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats., to confer with legal counsel and will reconvene in open session at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, April 17, 2006.
Kim Ringler made a motion to recess until Monday, April 17, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. Second by Claudette Elliott. The meeting recessed at 9:47 p.m.
APRIL 17, 2006
The Board of Canvassers convened at 2:30 p.m. in closed session to confer with legal counsel regarding the challenges to the recount process raised by Dan Becker and to discuss strategy for responding to the same.
Present: Teresa Collins, Claudette Elliott, Kim Ringler, and Tony Renning, attorney for the Board of Canvassers
The Board of Canvassers reconvened in open session at 3:09 p.m. in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of certifying the recount results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.
Candidates Present: Dan Becker and Amy Weinsheim
A draft of the minutes was distributed to the candidates and the media. The three (3) challenges raised by Mr. Becker were addressed by the Board of Canvassers as follows:
1. Absentee Envelopes lacking applications: Mr. Becker’s position was that these votes should not be counted. The State Elections Board has opined that when the intent of the voter is clear, there is no evidence of any fraud and the defect is no fault of the elector, we should count the ballot. There is no way to tell which ballot applies to which absentee voter. Furthermore, the absentee envelopes and electors are on the poll lists. In light of Lee vs. Paulson, the Board of Canvassers has decided to error on the side of caution. The applications for the absentee ballots have been supplemented to the extent possible. Once we match up the applications that we have, we will exclude those envelopes that do not have written applications on file. When necessary, we will reduce the number of ballots. 2. Ballots containing initials of none or one poll worker: Mr. Becker’s position was that ballots with no initials or one set of initials should be counted. Based on objections of both parties and the desire to remain consistent, the Board pulled (did not count) these ballots. In light of Roth vs. Lafarge School District, the Board of Canvassers reached a decision that we will count these ballots.
3. Qualifications of an elector in the Town of Vinland: The inspection statement from the polling site as well as the Town Clerk verified there was some confusion regarding an elector’s voting jurisdiction being Winneconne or Oshkosh. There was no evidence of fraud or voter intimidation. When we get to the Town of Vinland, we will reduce the number of electors by 1.
Absentee Envelopes and ApplicationsTown of Utica: The Town Clerk provided the Board with the 2 missing applications. There were no objections.
District 5: There were 2 absentee envelopes with no applications (PM and RM).
District 10: The City Clerk provided the missing application (IH). There were no objections.
District 15: The application was subsequently found in the application binder (MM). Dan Becker requested the application be held to compare the signature on the envelope to the signature on the application. This was subsequently done.
Town of Algoma: Eleven absentee envelopes will be eliminated and ballots, if necessary. The Town Clerk provided an application for (DG). Dan Becker reserved his right to object to this application until documentation could be provided proving DG returned an absentee envelope every year since he filed his permanent application.
Town of Oshkosh: One absentee envelope will be eliminated. The Town Clerk was able to provide an application for (RW). There were no objections.
Town of Vinland: The Town Clerk was able to provide all 4 applications. There were no Oshkosh Area School District applicants. There were no objections.
Town of Nekimi: Three absentee envelopes with no applications will be eliminated.
Ballots containing initials of none or one poll workerThe following voting districts and municipalities had ballots that were initially pulled (not counted) due to the objections of both candidates for lack of one or more inspector’s initials and will be added back into the vote totals:
District 4 1 ballotDistrict 6 1 ballotDistrict 9 2 ballotsDistrict 10 1 ballotDistrict 11 4 ballotsDistrict 12 6 ballotsDistrict 14 3 ballotsDistrict 15 16 ballotsDistrict 16 1 ballotDistrict 17 1 ballotAlgoma 6 ballotsBlack Wolf 1 ballotVinland 1 ballot
DISTRICT 5The ballot bin seal and the ballot bag seal were broken at 3:43 p.m.There were 13 absentee envelopes and 2 were removed (marked #1 and #2) leaving 11 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 2, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots. There were no objections. One vote was subtracted from Kavanaugh, Monte, and Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073104 at 3:55 p.m.
TOWN OF OSHKOSHThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:00 p.m.There were 15 absentee envelopes and 1 was removed leaving 14 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 1, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots.One vote was subtracted from Kavanaugh. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073443 at 4:07 p.m.
TOWN OF NEKIMIThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:09 p.m.There were 5 absentee envelopes and 3 were removed leaving 2 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 3, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots.Votes subtracted were 1 vote from Wilson, 1 vote from Kavanaugh, 3 votes from Becker, and 1 vote from Weinsheim. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073176 at 4:12 p.m.
DISTRICT 4The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:14 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials. Votes added were 1 for Wilson, 1 for Monte and 1 for Becker. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073171 at 4:16 p.m.
DISTRICT 6The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:17 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials resulting in one more ballot than electors. There were no ballots completely blank or with no initials. Accordingly, the ballot with one set of initials was deemed defective and not counted to reconcile electors and ballots. District 6 remained the same with regard to Wards 11 and 12. The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073493 at 4:26 p.m.
DISTRICT 9The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:28 p.m.Ward 18 electors and ballots reconciled. Ward 17 contained 1 more ballot than elector.There were no ballots completely blank or with no initials for Ward 17.Two ballots were objected to because of one set of initials. A random draw was made of these ballotsin order to reconcile the electors and ballots in Ward 17. Ballot #5 was not counted.Ballot #9 was counted. One vote was added for Monte. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073175 at 4:38 p.m.
DISTRICT 10The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:39 pmOne ballot was added in for lack of initials; however, there were no votes cast on the ballot for the Oshkosh Area School District so there was no change to the vote totals.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073180 at 4:40 p.m.
DISTRICT 11The seal was broken from the ballot bin at 4:41 p.m.The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:42 p.m.Four ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: (Ward 21) 1 votes for Wilson, 1 vote for Becker and 1 vote for Weinsheim and (Ward 22) 2 votes for Kavanaugh, 3 votes for Becker and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073197 at 4:44 p.m.
DISTRICT 12The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:45 p.m.Six ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 2 votes for Wilson, 3 votes for Monte, 5 votes for Becker, 1 vote for Weinsheim, and 5 votes for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073150 at 4:49 p.m.
DISTRICT 14The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:53 p.m.Three ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Wilson, 3 votes for Kavanaugh, 1 vote for Becker, and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bags were resealed with Seal #0073109 and #0073498 at 4:56 p.m.
DISTRICT 15The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:57 p.m.There were 16 ballots added in for lack in initials and votes were as follows: (Ward 28) 6 votes for Wilson, 7 votes for Kavanaugh, 3 votes for Monte, 6 votes for Becker, 11 votes for Weinsheim, and 8 votes for Traska and (Ward 29) 1 vote for Kavanaugh and 1 vote for Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0040552 at 5:05 p.m.
DISTRICT 16The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:06 p.m.
As City Clerk Pam Ubrig had explained earlier, Ward 30 had 230 ballots and the tape showed 232 because 2 ballots were put through the voting machine twice. The Board had hand counted 230 ballots in Ward 30. The Recount tape showed 232 because there were 2 absentee envelopes (Marked #1 and #5) that were initially rejected by poll workers (and, therefore, not identified on the poll list) but accepted by the Board. There is 1 ballot (Marked #7) that was not counted because of a defective absentee envelope. In Ward 30 the number of ballots exceeded the number of electors and, therefore, a defective ballot with only 1 signature was pulled to reconcile electors to ballots. There was no change to District 16.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073146 and #0073121 at 5:42 p.m.
DISTRICT 17The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:44 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Monte and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073161 at 5:45 p.m.
TOWN OF BLACK WOLFThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:46 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Wilson and 1 vote for Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073122 at 5:48 p.m.
TOWN OF VINLANDThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:49 p.m.The Board reduced the number of electors by one for the Winneconne resident who voted as an Oshkosh resident. There was one more ballot than elector. The Board determined the ballot with only 1 set of initials was defective and pulled the ballot to reconcile the number of ballots and electors. Therefore, the count remained the same for the Town of Vinland.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073178 at 6:25 p.m.TOWN OF ALGOMAThe seals were removed from the ballot bags at 6:26 p.m.There were 30 absentee envelopes. Dan Becker objected to an application submitted by DG as inappropriate because no verification existed that the elector had returned an absentee envelope at all times from the time the application was initially filed. The clerk stated that this individual did, in fact, return an absentee envelope at all times since she has been the Town Clerk. The application indicates DG is indefinitely confined. Attorney Renning pointed out that this application is similar to other permanent applications the Board has accepted. The Board unanimously accepted the application as valid. The Board reduced the number of electors by 11 because of a lack of written applications. Accordingly, 11 ballots were pulled (not counted). The Board discovered no blank ballots, eliminated 5 ballots with no initials, and randomly drew 6 other ballots. The votes were subtracted as follows: 3 for Wilson, 3 for Kavanaugh, 2 for Monte, 3 for Becker, and 1 for Traska. (See Tally) There was one non-absentee ballot added in for lack of initials and the vote was 1 for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bags were resealed with Seal #0073177 and #0073113 at 6:49 p.m.
CLOSING REMARKSDan Becker thanked everyone who participated in the recount. He stated that he owed it to the individuals who voted for him to request a recount. The citizens and taxpayers needed to know this election was legitimate. He would like the opportunity to address some election issues regarding process with the clerks from the city and county. He offered his congratulations to Mrs. Weinsheim.
John Weinsheim, on behalf of Amy, thanked the Board of Canvassers as well as the Oshkosh voters for their patience in this process.
Attorney Renning thanked both candidates for being very patient during the recount process. Hopefully, the Board did everything it could through the course of the recount to be fair. He thanked City Clerk Pam Ubrig and Winnebago County Clerk Sue Ertmer for helping the Board through this process as well.
Teresa Collins read off the certified election/recount results as follows:Lee Wilson 3,970Dennis Kavanaugh 5,410Michelle A. Monte 2,948Dan Becker 4,659Amy Weinsheim 4,670Wayne Traska 4,884
A motion was made by Claudette Elliott, seconded by Kim Ringer to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
Dated this 17th Day of April, 2006
I really feel that this election is critical for our district. I think this election will either move this district forward or stall it and perhaps even begin a downward spiral. Two of my fellow candidates have made it pretty clear that they support the status quo as far as buildings go, both have stated, in writing that they would only close Lincoln for sure. Without a doubt that will mean deeper budget cuts that will affect our students negatively. If we keep all our buildings but one, we will have millions in repairs that we cannot afford and will be hard pressed to ever have the dollars for catch up and continuing maintenance. It is vital to the future of our district that Mrs. Bowen and I get elected.
Last year during his campaign, Mr. Becker started his opening statements with "Do you want a board member who..." Well I ask, "Why would anyone want a board member who spent 6 days trying to have as many votes thrown out as he possibly could?" The official minutes from last year's recount are at the end of this post. Mr. Becker had 200+ objections to Mrs. Weinsheim's approximately 15. I ask that you think about how much you feel an elected official is "representing you" when his mantra is "vote yes for me so I can vote no for you". Voting no certainly doesn't move things forward.
I have been very straight-forward in telling voters what I belive, even if it isn't popular. I do hope people respect that but even if it costs me the election, I will never regret being honest and making decisions based on what I believe is best for our students, instead of saying what special interest groups want to hear so I can get their vote.
Most of all, I would ask those of you who support me to go out and vote and tell everyone you know to do the same. Remember this election could be decided by ONE vote... yours does count so please vote Thiel and Bowen on April 3rd.
Thank you.
Now some bedtime reading, guaranteed sleep aid ;-)
Here are the official minutes from last year's recount.
OSHKOSH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF CANVASSERS
MINUTES OF RECOUNT HELD BY THE BOARDFOR THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERSPRING ELECTION HELD APRIL 4, 2006
April 7, 2006
April 10, 2006
April 11, 2006
April 12, 2006
April 13, 2006
April 17, 2006
APRIL 7, 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 1Absentee Envelopes – Ward 1DM – 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 2PH 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 1City Poll List Certification = 293County Poll List Certification = 293Canvass Tape = 294
Ward 2City Poll List Certification = 313County Poll List Certification = 313Canvass 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 1Number of Absentee Envelopes: 73Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 54Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 89 90 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 152 152 MICHELLE A. MONTE 84 85DAN 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 2Number of Absentee Envelopes: 26(2 were pulled – Previously marked #1 & #2)Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 23Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 128 128 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 161 161 MICHELLE A. MONTE 75 75DAN 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 UTICADan 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 = 190County Poll List Certification = 191Canvass 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: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 35 35 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 54 56 MICHELLE A. MONTE 21 21DAN 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 2Seal #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 3City Poll List Certification = 248County Poll List Certification = 248Canvass Tape = 248
Ward 4City Poll List Certification = 99County Poll List Certification = 99Canvass Tape = 99Ward 3Number of Absentee Envelopes: 17Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 17Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 109 109 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 146 147 MICHELLE A. MONTE 65 65DAN 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 4Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 16Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 25 25 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 47 47 MICHELLE A. MONTE 26 26DAN 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 & 6Seal #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 5City Poll List Certification = 38County Poll List Certification = 38Canvass Tape = 38
Ward 6City Poll List Certification = 32County Poll List Certification = 32Canvass Tape = 32Ward 5Number of Absentee Envelopes: 1Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 8 8 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 17 17DAN 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 6Number of Absentee Envelopes: 6Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 16 17 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN 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 & 8Seal #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 7City Poll List Certification = 276County Poll List Certification = 276Canvass Tape = 276
Ward 8City Poll List Certification = 575County Poll List Certification = 575Canvass Tape = 575Ward 7Number of Absentee Envelopes: 32Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 32Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 100 100 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 136 136 MICHELLE A. MONTE 81 81DAN 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 8Number of Absentee Envelopes: 42Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 42Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 279 278 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 280 281 MICHELLE A. MONTE 131 131DAN 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 & 10The 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 9City Poll List Certification = 215County Poll List Certification = 215Canvass Tape = 215
Ward 10City Poll List Certification = 265County Poll List Certification = 265Canvass Tape = 265Ward 9Number of Absentee Envelopes: 13Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 13Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 68 68 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 113 113 MICHELLE A. MONTE 76 76DAN 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 10Number of Absentee Envelopes: 8Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 95 96 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 116 116 MICHELLE A. MONTE 84 84DAN 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, 2006The 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 & 12The 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 11City Poll List Certification = 282County Poll List Certification = 282Canvass Tape = 282
Ward 12City Poll List Certification = 158County Poll List Certification = 158Canvass Tape = 158Ward 11Number of Absentee Envelopes: 11Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 11Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 100 100 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 169 170 MICHELLE A. MONTE 85 85DAN 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 12Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 16Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 50 50 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 81 82 MICHELLE A. MONTE 39 39DAN 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 & 14The 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 13City Poll List Certification = 21County Poll List Certification = 21Canvass Tape = 21
Ward 14City Poll List Certification = 39County Poll List Certification = 39Canvass Tape = 39Ward 13Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 7 7 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 13 13 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN 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 14Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 19 19 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 26 26 MICHELLE A. MONTE 7 7DAN 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 & 16The 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 & 18Seal #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 17City Poll List Certification = 463County Poll List Certification = 463Canvass Tape = 463
Ward 18City Poll List Certification = 210County Poll List Certification = 210Canvass Tape = 210Ward 17Number of Absentee Envelopes: 24Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 23Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 183 183 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 245 245 MICHELLE A. MONTE 121 121DAN 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 18Number of Absentee Envelopes: 24Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 25Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 82 82 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 105 105 MICHELLE A. MONTE 63 66DAN 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 & 16City 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 15City Poll List Certification = 141County Poll List Certification = 141Canvass Tape = 141
Ward 16City Poll List Certification = 121County Poll List Certification = 121Canvass Tape = 121Ward 15Number of Absentee Envelopes: 4Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 4Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 48 48 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 63 63 MICHELLE A. MONTE 40 41DAN 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 16Number of Absentee Envelopes: 3Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 3Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 49 49 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 68 69 MICHELLE A. MONTE 35 35DAN 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 & 20Seal #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 19City Poll List Certification = 282County Poll List Certification = 282Canvass Tape = 282
Ward 20City Poll List Certification = 228County Poll List Certification = 228Canvass Tape = 228Ward 19Number of Absentee Envelopes: 20Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 20Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 83 83 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 165 165 MICHELLE A. MONTE 55 55DAN 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 20Number of Absentee Envelopes: 14Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 79 79 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 123 124 MICHELLE A. MONTE 54 55DAN 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, 2006The 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 & 22Seal #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 21City Poll List Certification = 184County Poll List Certification = 184Canvass Tape = 184
Ward 22City Poll List Certification = 226County Poll List Certification = 226Canvass Tape = 226Ward 21Number of Absentee Envelopes: 10Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 9Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 1
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 64 63 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 94 94 MICHELLE A. MONTE 65 65DAN 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 22Number of Absentee Envelopes: 6Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 6Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 77 77 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 99 97 MICHELLE A. MONTE 77 78DAN 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 & 24The 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 23City Poll List Certification = 294County Poll List Certification = 294Canvass Tape = 294
Ward 24City Poll List Certification = 426County Poll List Certification = 426Canvass Tape = 425 + 1 rejected = 426
Ward 37City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 23Number of Absentee Envelopes: 18Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 18Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 110 110 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 145 145 MICHELLE A. MONTE 90 91DAN 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 24Number of Absentee Envelopes: 21Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 21Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 144 142 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 187 188 MICHELLE A. MONTE 154 152DAN 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 37Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN 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 & 35Seal #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 25City Poll List Certification = 97County Poll List Certification = 97Canvass Tape = 97
Ward 35City Poll List Certification = 3County Poll List Certification = 3Canvass Tape = 3Ward 25Number of Absentee Envelopes: 3Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 3Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 38 38 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 51 51 MICHELLE A. MONTE 24 24DAN 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 35Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 1 1 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 2 2 MICHELLE A. MONTE 2 2DAN 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 & 27Seal #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 26City Poll List Certification = 454County Poll List Certification = 454Canvass Tape = 454
Ward 27City Poll List Certification = 326County Poll List Certification = 326Canvass Tape = 326Ward 26Number of Absentee Envelopes: 35Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 36Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 150 149 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 226 221 MICHELLE A. MONTE 133 133DAN 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 27Number of Absentee Envelopes: 13Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 13Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 109 109 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 159 159 MICHELLE A. MONTE 101 101DAN 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, 34Seal #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 28City Poll List Certification = 470County Poll List Certification = 470Canvass Tape = 469
Ward 29City Poll List Certification = 428County Poll List Certification = 428Canvass Tape = 427
Ward 34City Poll List Certification = 2County Poll List Certification = 2Canvass Tape = 2The 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 28Number of Absentee Envelopes: 27Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 27Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 213 208 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 243 237 MICHELLE A. MONTE 113 110DAN 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 29Number of Absentee Envelopes: 18Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 19Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 181 181 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 198 197 MICHELLE A. MONTE 107 108DAN 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 34Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 1 1 MICHELLE A. MONTE 1 1DAN 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 & 31Seal #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 30Absentee envelope (FRB) (Marked #2) Ballot was Recreated #2 – Ward 31Absentee 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 poll list for either city or county. The ballot could be identified as Recreated #2 and was pulled. Dan Becker objected to the pulling of the matching ballot. Attorney Renning recommended that the identifiable ballot be pulled and put back into the envelope along with the original. The Board concurred and both ballots were returned to the respective envelope.
Dan Becker objected to ABS ballots and envelopes not matching. There were more envelopes than ballots in both wards.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot having only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board unanimously agreed and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #7)
Ward 30City Poll List Certification = 230County Poll List Certification = 230Canvass Tape = 232
Ward 31City Poll List Certification = 417County Poll List Certification = 417Canvass Tape = 417Ward 30Number of Absentee Envelopes: 22Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 79 79 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 111 111 MICHELLE A. MONTE 79 79DAN BECKER 121 121 AMY WEINSHEIM 101 101 WAYNE TRASKA 96 96
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 31Number of Absentee Envelopes: 16Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 14Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 140 139 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 208 209 MICHELLE A. MONTE 102 102DAN BECKER 193 194 AMY WEINSHEIM 181 182 WAYNE TRASKA 194 195
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back in the two ballot bags with Seal #0073454 and Seal #0073033 at 6:52 p.m.
Kim Ringer made a motion to recess and reconvene on April 13, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.. Claudette Elliott seconded. The meeting recessed at 6:59 p.m.
APRIL 13, 2006The meeting of the Board of Canvassers was called to order at 8:39 p.m. on Thursday, April 13, 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. Dan Becker objected to ballot security regarding the County ballot bin not being sealed.
DISTRICT 17 – WARDS 32, 33, 36, 38The seal was broken on ballot bin at 8:41 a.m. Seal #0073001 was broken on the ballot bag for District 17 at 8:43 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 20 ballots from Ward 32 and 9 ballots from Ward 33. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to absentee ballot (original #22) being recreated in the wrong ward and District 11, Ward 21 being found in District 17, Ward 32 election materials. He challenged the validity of the ballot. A note was attached to the absentee envelope from the City directing poll workers to recreate as best they could. The board unanimously accepted the ballot as valid. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (PA) having no voter elector signature. The Board concurred and the ballot was pulled. (Marked #2) 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 an absentee voter application (SG #356) not being updated in the absentee log. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope bearing elector’s signature in pencil. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to no date voted or returned recorded in the internal log for absentee envelope (RO). The board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to no date voted or returned recorded in internal log for absentee envelope (ER). The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (BS) bearing witness signature in pencil. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #7)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope (AS) contending that the elector’s signature was partially missing. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #8)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope on technical inconsistencies. A typed address was crossed out and an address was handwritten above it. Both signatures were present. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #9)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope bearing a pencil signature of elector. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #10)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #11)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #12)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #13)
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope (LC) due to not appearing on the absentee ballot log. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #14)
Amy Weinsheim noted that the absentee ballot log is not a requirement but an internal tracking piece.
Dan Becker objected to the validity of an absentee envelope (VH) due to elector’s penciled signature. The Board unanimously accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #15)
Dan Becker objected to the County poll list not having ABS after #270 RR. (Marked #16)
Dan Becker objected to MG (274) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #17)Dan Becker objected to RG (275) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #18)Dan Becker objected to JL (258) having an illegible number in the county poll list in 33SD. It is marked correctly in the City poll list as 258ABS, which matches the envelope. Dan Becker contended it is an incomplete number on the County poll list. (Marked #19)Dan Becker objected to DP(276) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD. (Marked #20)Dan Becker objected to RP (278) not being noted on the absentee envelope as belonging in 33SD (Marked #21)Dan Becker objected to KK (274) not being noted as ABS on county poll list. (Marked #22)
Dan Becker noted that there is 1 less absentee ballot than absentee envelope for Ward 32.
Dan Becker noted that there are extra ballots stored with initials PRU representing the city clerk being used as duplicate recounts. He noted ballot security as a concern.
Dan Becker objected to the validity of a ballot bearing PRU in inspector’s initials as well as ballot security. The Board unanimously determined the ballot was valid. (Marked #23)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. (Marked #24)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. (Marked #25)
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during the recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. Voting Machine error stated over vote when trying to feed the ballot through. The ballot was Recreated #9. (Marked 26)
Dan Becker objected to two ballot jams. Amy Weinsheim commented that ballots are curled and as Pam Ubrig stated, it could affect the machine reading them.
Dan Becker noted prior objections of voting machine rejecting absentee ballots during recount when apparently it did not reject them on Election Night.
Dan Becker objected to the voting machine rejecting an absentee ballot during recount when apparently it did not reject it on Election Night. The voting machine error stated “blank voted”. The ballot was marked in ink. Recreated #16
Dan Becker noted his serious concerns with the voting machine. He requested that proceedings stop at this point until a new machine can arrive from City Hall. Amy Weinsheim objected to that. The Board unanimously agreed to proceed.
Dan Becker renewed his objection as stated above. Amy Weinsheim restated that City Clerk Pam Ubrig did tell us by virtue of the ballots being moved, folded, bent, etc., because it is a light reader that there may be some issues with ability to read.
Dan Becker noted an objection that the machine jammed when feeding a ballot. Suggested that it would be more expedient to request a new voting machine.
Dan Becker objected to a ballot containing only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board concurred and the ballot was pulled. (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.
Attorney Renning spoke with City Clerk Pam Ubrig, who was not aware of a ballpoint pen in a voting box. Attorney Renning gave the option of continuing to recreate ballots or hand count the ballots. It was determined to continue to recreate.
Pam Ubrig stated that in 2001 the City went through redistricting and 2 new machines were purchased which allows pen marks. Dan Becker asked if there is documentation that this machine was located at Alberta Kimball. Ms. Ubrig stated that each machine has a label identifying its polling location and proceeded to show the label on the machine. She also stated that everyone is encouraged to use black markers. She has no control over what people take into the voting booth. She attempted to contact the District 17 chairperson to find out if a pen was left in a voting booth but has been unable to make contact. Poll workers are also encouraged to view the booths periodically.
Because of the amount of ballots recreated by the recount, Pam Ubrig furnished the Board of Canvassers with a blank ballot bag. She recommended that the Board indicate the Wards, District, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, April 4, 2006, and indicate this was from the recount, give a brief explanation, and sign and date it today.
Dan Becker noted that there were 238 ballots recreated for District 17.
Dan Becker objected to the fact that the Board was going to proceed with the recount without his legal counsel. Attorney Renning informed him that when his legal counsel arrived, we would stop for whatever statements she needs to make.
The City ballot bin was sealed at 2:14 p.m.
Ward 32City Poll List Certification = 426County Poll List Certification = 426Canvass Tape = 426
Ward 33City Poll List Certification = 380County Poll List Certification = 380Canvass Tape = 380
Ward 36City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 38City Poll List Certification = 0County Poll List Certification = 0Canvass Tape = 0
Ward 32Number of Absentee Envelopes: 82Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 1Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 82Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 144 143 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 213 213 MICHELLE A. MONTE 134 133DAN BECKER 208 208 AMY WEINSHEIM 179 176 WAYNE TRASKA 181 178
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 33Number of Absentee Envelopes: 29Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 29Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 138 138 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 195 195 MICHELLE A. MONTE 108 108DAN BECKER 161 162 AMY WEINSHEIM 160 160 WAYNE TRASKA 212 213
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
Ward 36Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN 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.
Ward 38Number of Absentee Envelopes: 0Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 0 0 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 0 0 MICHELLE A. MONTE 0 0DAN 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 #0073071 at 1:07 p.m. A replacement bag was brought from the city because the Seal hole in the original bag was too big to reseal the bag and ensure security. Seal #0073426 was used and the replacement ballot bag was sealed at 2:10 p.m.
TOWN OF ALGOMATown of Algoma Clerk Sue Miller was present. It was also noted that the County ballot bin did not have a cover. Clerk Designee Teresa Collins was informed by Winnebago County Clerk Sue Ertmer that the County’s ballot bins do not have covers. Ms. Collins also stated that prior to this morning, the County’s bin has been held in Conference Room A.
Attorney Elizabeth Hartman brought to the attention of the Board of Canvassers recount practices that she feels are incorrect. One of the issues is counting absentee ballots that do not have applications associated with them. Those ballots should not be counted if there are no applications associated with them. The other practice is excluding ballots that have one inspector’s initials rather than two. Attorney Hartman concedes that Mr. Becker objected to the ballots but doing so was incorrect under the statute as well as case law. The ballots should be counted. Another issue is that Dan Becker was contacted by a voter in Vinland, which contains both Winneconne and Oshkosh school districts. This individual went to the polls to vote and asked for a Winneconne ballot but was given an Oshkosh ballot under his objection. There is no affidavit; however, Mr. Becker has the name of the individual. Attorney Renning responded that Vinland has not been counted yet so it will be noted. The second thing is the Board of Canvassers has a lot of work ahead of them to certify the results and go through the minutes. Attorney Renning’s recommendation was that the Board continue as they have been for consistency. The hope is that Monday we can reconvene to tie up any loose ends. In the event we agree, we can go back and rectify any concerns at that time.
Amy Weinsheim noted for the record that both parties objected to ballots with only one signature. However, Ms. Weinsheim contends the decision to pull ballots with only one signature is discretionary – permissive as opposed to mandatory.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Algoma at 2:18 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 the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing application (CB #362). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #1)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application as well as a missing address from the absentee envelope (#363). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #2)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RG #366). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (MM #376) as well as a signature from a legal guardian with no power of attorney attached to the envelope. The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #4)
Amy Weinsheim commented on absentee envelopes missing applications. Once a voter has sent in an application, it is not incumbent on the voter to periodically check on the application status. She is concerned with keeping votes out of the process. Missing applications are a matter of town personnel and what they have done with records vs. voter error.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (DR #382). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #5)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (AP #381). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #6)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (MN #379). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #7)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (LN #380). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #8)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RK #373). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #9)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application as well as incorrectly identified in one poll list and not the other (LK #374). The Board unanimously agreed to clerical error and accepted the envelope as valid. (Marked #10)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (BI #372). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #11)Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing application (DG #365). The Board unanimously agreed to accept the envelope as valid. (Marked #12)
Dan Becker objected to voter intent on a ballot. The Board unanimously agreed that they could determine voter intent. The ballot was Recreated #4
A ballot was identified with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #13)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #14)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #15)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #16)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #17)An absentee ballot was identified with no initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #18)
Algoma Poll List Certification = 1010County Poll List Certification = 1010Canvass Tape = 1010
Town of AlgomaNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 30Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 25Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 5
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 370 370 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 481 478 MICHELLE A. MONTE 218 214DAN BECKER 405 405 AMY WEINSHEIM 409 407 WAYNE TRASKA 512 506
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073431 and Seal #0073446 at 5:46 p.m.
TOWN OF BLACK WOLFTown of Black Wolf Clerk Ellen Chmielewski was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Black Wolf at 5:47 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering.
There was an application request for each absentee envelope.
Dan Becker objected to a Town of Clayton recreated ballot being included with the Town of Black Wolf ballots.
Dan Becker objected to the Board recreating a Town of Black Wolf SD (pink ballot) on a Town of Black Wolf (white ballot). There were no extra pink ballots to accommodate Mr. Becker’s request. Recreated #1
Dan Becker noted a ballot with only 1 set of initials. The Board unanimously agreed to pull the ballot. (Marked #1)
Black Wolf Poll List Certification = 407County Poll List Certification = 407Canvass Tape = 407
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 2Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 2Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 138 137 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 202 202 MICHELLE A. MONTE 134 134DAN BECKER 175 175 AMY WEINSHEIM 176 175 WAYNE TRASKA 195 195
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 sealed with Seal #0073427 at 6:28 p.m.
TOWN OF OSHKOSHJeanette Merten, Town of Oshkosh clerk, was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for Town of Oshkosh at 6:34 p.m. The black tie was broken on the second ballot bag at 6:51 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 and the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector and witness. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #1)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector and witness. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #2)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled witness signature. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #3)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope with a penciled signature of elector. The Board unanimously determined it was valid. (Marked #4)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (DO #391). The Board unanimously determined it was valid based on appropriate signatures. The Town Clerk explained that the application was on file previously but lost with a change of clerk. (Marked #5)
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope missing an application (RW #401). The Board determined it was valid based on the signature. The Town Clerk stated that she had the application and would supply such application before certification of the recount. (Marked #6)
Dan Becker objected to a completely blank ballot apparently being accepted on Election Night but rejected during Recount. Mr. Becker also objected to an incomplete inspector’s statement regarding this issue.
Oshkosh Poll List Certification = 548County Poll List Certification = 548Canvass Tape = 548
Number of Absentee Envelopes: 15Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 15Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 155 155 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 196 196 MICHELLE A. MONTE 86 87DAN BECKER 164 165 AMY WEINSHEIM 181 181 WAYNE TRASKA 160 160
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073092 at 7:45 p.m.
TOWN OF VINLANDTown Clerk Shirley Brazee was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bag for the Town of Vinland at 8:14 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 the Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope were both empty.
Dan Becker objected to the Town of Vinland ballots and asked that they be excluded due to voter intimidation and voter fraud occurred at the polling place.
Amy Weinsheim stated that she does not believe voter intimidation or fraud occurred.
The Town Clerk made a statement which collaborated with the notation in the inspector’s statement. TheBoard unanimously agreed to proceed and open the ballot bag.
Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (LA #442) (Marked #1) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a penciled signature of elector and witness (BB #443) (Marked #2) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing witness address (CR #445) (Marked #3) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing witness address (KR #446) (Marked #4) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (WR #447) (Marked #5) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.Dan Becker objected to the extemporaneous nature. Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (GS #451) (Marked #6) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to a missing application (JS #452) (Marked #7) The clerk assumed this was a Neenah voter.Dan Becker objected to an absentee envelope being invalid due to no witness signature (GT #439) (Marked #8) The clerk assumed this was a Winneconne voter.
The board unanimously agreed to accept absentee envelopes marked 1-8 as valid.
A ballot was pulled with only 1 set of inspector’s initials. (Marked #9)
Amy Weinsheim noted that poll inspectors’ initials on one particular ballot do not appear to match any other initials nor does the ink match any other ballot.
Vinland Poll List Certification = 453County Poll List Certification = 453Canvass Tape = 453
Town of VinlandNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 11 None in Oshkosh DistrictNumber of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 11Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 11 10 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 16 16 MICHELLE A. MONTE 5 5DAN BECKER 10 10 AMY WEINSHEIM 11 10 WAYNE TRASKA 12 12
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 sealed with Seal #0073413 at 9:01 p.m.
TOWN OF NEKIMIClerk of Nekimi Jerry Braasch was present.
The black tie was broken on the ballot bags for the Town of Nekimi at 9:03 p.m. There were signatures of election officials, the bag was sealed properly, and there did not appear to be any tampering. The Rejected Absentee Ballot Envelope was empty. There was no Recreated Ballot Envelope for the Town of Nekimi. The Clerk attested to the fact that there were no recreated ballots for the Town of Nekimi. Dan Becker objected to procedural issues.
Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on absentee envelope (KB) as well as a missing application. (Marked #1)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on absentee envelope (HH) as well as a missing application. (Marked #2)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (CO) (Marked #3)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (EO) as well as a pencil signature of elector. (Marked #4)Dan Becker objected to no ABS voter number on an absentee envelope (MW) as well as a missing application and the fact that there is no voter registration attached to the absentee envelope. (Marked #5)
The Town Clerk noted that there are 3 missing permanent absentee applications due to the fact that they were never transferred to him 12 years ago when he assumed the duty of Town Clerk of Nekimi. The Town Clerk also stated that prior to this election, towns under 2500 were not required to have registration lists. Sue Ertmer, Winnebago County Clerk, explained that a voter registration statement is not a public record due to containing private information.
The Board unanimously determined that all 5 absentee envelopes (Marked 1-5) be accepted as valid.
Amy Weinsheim noted that the permanent list for absentee voters has been on file for 12 years and it is not incumbent on the voter to check on their records. It should be the responsibility of the town.
Nekimi Poll List Certification = 176County Poll List Certification = 176Canvass Tape = 176
Town of NekimiNumber of Absentee Envelopes: 5Number of Defective Absentee Envelopes 0Number of Absentee Ballots/Clerks Initials 5Number of Absentee Ballots/Without Clerks Initials 0
ELECTION NIGHT RECOUNT LEE WILSON 59 59 DENNIS KAVANAUGH 93 94 MICHELLE A. MONTE 38 38DAN BECKER 91 91 AMY WEINSHEIM 63 64 WAYNE TRASKA 65 65
The Board of Canvassers voted unanimously to use the recount results as the official count.
The ballots were placed back into the ballot bags and sealed with Seal #0073424 at 9:37 p.m.
Attorney Renning announced that the Board of Canvassers will meet in closed session at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, April 17, 2006 pursuant to §19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats., to confer with legal counsel and will reconvene in open session at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, April 17, 2006.
Kim Ringler made a motion to recess until Monday, April 17, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. Second by Claudette Elliott. The meeting recessed at 9:47 p.m.
APRIL 17, 2006
The Board of Canvassers convened at 2:30 p.m. in closed session to confer with legal counsel regarding the challenges to the recount process raised by Dan Becker and to discuss strategy for responding to the same.
Present: Teresa Collins, Claudette Elliott, Kim Ringler, and Tony Renning, attorney for the Board of Canvassers
The Board of Canvassers reconvened in open session at 3:09 p.m. in the boardroom of the Central Administration Building located at 215 S. Eagle Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin for the purpose of certifying the recount results of the April 4, 2006 Spring Election for the position of school board member.
Candidates Present: Dan Becker and Amy Weinsheim
A draft of the minutes was distributed to the candidates and the media. The three (3) challenges raised by Mr. Becker were addressed by the Board of Canvassers as follows:
1. Absentee Envelopes lacking applications: Mr. Becker’s position was that these votes should not be counted. The State Elections Board has opined that when the intent of the voter is clear, there is no evidence of any fraud and the defect is no fault of the elector, we should count the ballot. There is no way to tell which ballot applies to which absentee voter. Furthermore, the absentee envelopes and electors are on the poll lists. In light of Lee vs. Paulson, the Board of Canvassers has decided to error on the side of caution. The applications for the absentee ballots have been supplemented to the extent possible. Once we match up the applications that we have, we will exclude those envelopes that do not have written applications on file. When necessary, we will reduce the number of ballots. 2. Ballots containing initials of none or one poll worker: Mr. Becker’s position was that ballots with no initials or one set of initials should be counted. Based on objections of both parties and the desire to remain consistent, the Board pulled (did not count) these ballots. In light of Roth vs. Lafarge School District, the Board of Canvassers reached a decision that we will count these ballots.
3. Qualifications of an elector in the Town of Vinland: The inspection statement from the polling site as well as the Town Clerk verified there was some confusion regarding an elector’s voting jurisdiction being Winneconne or Oshkosh. There was no evidence of fraud or voter intimidation. When we get to the Town of Vinland, we will reduce the number of electors by 1.
Absentee Envelopes and ApplicationsTown of Utica: The Town Clerk provided the Board with the 2 missing applications. There were no objections.
District 5: There were 2 absentee envelopes with no applications (PM and RM).
District 10: The City Clerk provided the missing application (IH). There were no objections.
District 15: The application was subsequently found in the application binder (MM). Dan Becker requested the application be held to compare the signature on the envelope to the signature on the application. This was subsequently done.
Town of Algoma: Eleven absentee envelopes will be eliminated and ballots, if necessary. The Town Clerk provided an application for (DG). Dan Becker reserved his right to object to this application until documentation could be provided proving DG returned an absentee envelope every year since he filed his permanent application.
Town of Oshkosh: One absentee envelope will be eliminated. The Town Clerk was able to provide an application for (RW). There were no objections.
Town of Vinland: The Town Clerk was able to provide all 4 applications. There were no Oshkosh Area School District applicants. There were no objections.
Town of Nekimi: Three absentee envelopes with no applications will be eliminated.
Ballots containing initials of none or one poll workerThe following voting districts and municipalities had ballots that were initially pulled (not counted) due to the objections of both candidates for lack of one or more inspector’s initials and will be added back into the vote totals:
District 4 1 ballotDistrict 6 1 ballotDistrict 9 2 ballotsDistrict 10 1 ballotDistrict 11 4 ballotsDistrict 12 6 ballotsDistrict 14 3 ballotsDistrict 15 16 ballotsDistrict 16 1 ballotDistrict 17 1 ballotAlgoma 6 ballotsBlack Wolf 1 ballotVinland 1 ballot
DISTRICT 5The ballot bin seal and the ballot bag seal were broken at 3:43 p.m.There were 13 absentee envelopes and 2 were removed (marked #1 and #2) leaving 11 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 2, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots. There were no objections. One vote was subtracted from Kavanaugh, Monte, and Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073104 at 3:55 p.m.
TOWN OF OSHKOSHThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:00 p.m.There were 15 absentee envelopes and 1 was removed leaving 14 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 1, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots.One vote was subtracted from Kavanaugh. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073443 at 4:07 p.m.
TOWN OF NEKIMIThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:09 p.m.There were 5 absentee envelopes and 3 were removed leaving 2 absentee envelopes. The Board of Canvassers reduced the number of ballots by 3, looking for blank ballots, ballots without initials, and ballots with only one set of initials before randomly drawing ballots.Votes subtracted were 1 vote from Wilson, 1 vote from Kavanaugh, 3 votes from Becker, and 1 vote from Weinsheim. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073176 at 4:12 p.m.
DISTRICT 4The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:14 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials. Votes added were 1 for Wilson, 1 for Monte and 1 for Becker. (See Tally) There were no objections.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073171 at 4:16 p.m.
DISTRICT 6The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:17 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials resulting in one more ballot than electors. There were no ballots completely blank or with no initials. Accordingly, the ballot with one set of initials was deemed defective and not counted to reconcile electors and ballots. District 6 remained the same with regard to Wards 11 and 12. The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073493 at 4:26 p.m.
DISTRICT 9The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:28 p.m.Ward 18 electors and ballots reconciled. Ward 17 contained 1 more ballot than elector.There were no ballots completely blank or with no initials for Ward 17.Two ballots were objected to because of one set of initials. A random draw was made of these ballotsin order to reconcile the electors and ballots in Ward 17. Ballot #5 was not counted.Ballot #9 was counted. One vote was added for Monte. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073175 at 4:38 p.m.
DISTRICT 10The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:39 pmOne ballot was added in for lack of initials; however, there were no votes cast on the ballot for the Oshkosh Area School District so there was no change to the vote totals.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073180 at 4:40 p.m.
DISTRICT 11The seal was broken from the ballot bin at 4:41 p.m.The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:42 p.m.Four ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: (Ward 21) 1 votes for Wilson, 1 vote for Becker and 1 vote for Weinsheim and (Ward 22) 2 votes for Kavanaugh, 3 votes for Becker and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073197 at 4:44 p.m.
DISTRICT 12The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:45 p.m.Six ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 2 votes for Wilson, 3 votes for Monte, 5 votes for Becker, 1 vote for Weinsheim, and 5 votes for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073150 at 4:49 p.m.
DISTRICT 14The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:53 p.m.Three ballots were added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Wilson, 3 votes for Kavanaugh, 1 vote for Becker, and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bags were resealed with Seal #0073109 and #0073498 at 4:56 p.m.
DISTRICT 15The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 4:57 p.m.There were 16 ballots added in for lack in initials and votes were as follows: (Ward 28) 6 votes for Wilson, 7 votes for Kavanaugh, 3 votes for Monte, 6 votes for Becker, 11 votes for Weinsheim, and 8 votes for Traska and (Ward 29) 1 vote for Kavanaugh and 1 vote for Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0040552 at 5:05 p.m.
DISTRICT 16The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:06 p.m.
As City Clerk Pam Ubrig had explained earlier, Ward 30 had 230 ballots and the tape showed 232 because 2 ballots were put through the voting machine twice. The Board had hand counted 230 ballots in Ward 30. The Recount tape showed 232 because there were 2 absentee envelopes (Marked #1 and #5) that were initially rejected by poll workers (and, therefore, not identified on the poll list) but accepted by the Board. There is 1 ballot (Marked #7) that was not counted because of a defective absentee envelope. In Ward 30 the number of ballots exceeded the number of electors and, therefore, a defective ballot with only 1 signature was pulled to reconcile electors to ballots. There was no change to District 16.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073146 and #0073121 at 5:42 p.m.
DISTRICT 17The seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:44 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Monte and 1 vote for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073161 at 5:45 p.m.
TOWN OF BLACK WOLFThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:46 p.m.One ballot was added in for lack of initials and votes were as follows: 1 vote for Wilson and 1 vote for Weinsheim. (See Tally)The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073122 at 5:48 p.m.
TOWN OF VINLANDThe seal was removed from the ballot bag at 5:49 p.m.The Board reduced the number of electors by one for the Winneconne resident who voted as an Oshkosh resident. There was one more ballot than elector. The Board determined the ballot with only 1 set of initials was defective and pulled the ballot to reconcile the number of ballots and electors. Therefore, the count remained the same for the Town of Vinland.The ballot bag was resealed with Seal #0073178 at 6:25 p.m.TOWN OF ALGOMAThe seals were removed from the ballot bags at 6:26 p.m.There were 30 absentee envelopes. Dan Becker objected to an application submitted by DG as inappropriate because no verification existed that the elector had returned an absentee envelope at all times from the time the application was initially filed. The clerk stated that this individual did, in fact, return an absentee envelope at all times since she has been the Town Clerk. The application indicates DG is indefinitely confined. Attorney Renning pointed out that this application is similar to other permanent applications the Board has accepted. The Board unanimously accepted the application as valid. The Board reduced the number of electors by 11 because of a lack of written applications. Accordingly, 11 ballots were pulled (not counted). The Board discovered no blank ballots, eliminated 5 ballots with no initials, and randomly drew 6 other ballots. The votes were subtracted as follows: 3 for Wilson, 3 for Kavanaugh, 2 for Monte, 3 for Becker, and 1 for Traska. (See Tally) There was one non-absentee ballot added in for lack of initials and the vote was 1 for Traska. (See Tally)The ballot bags were resealed with Seal #0073177 and #0073113 at 6:49 p.m.
CLOSING REMARKSDan Becker thanked everyone who participated in the recount. He stated that he owed it to the individuals who voted for him to request a recount. The citizens and taxpayers needed to know this election was legitimate. He would like the opportunity to address some election issues regarding process with the clerks from the city and county. He offered his congratulations to Mrs. Weinsheim.
John Weinsheim, on behalf of Amy, thanked the Board of Canvassers as well as the Oshkosh voters for their patience in this process.
Attorney Renning thanked both candidates for being very patient during the recount process. Hopefully, the Board did everything it could through the course of the recount to be fair. He thanked City Clerk Pam Ubrig and Winnebago County Clerk Sue Ertmer for helping the Board through this process as well.
Teresa Collins read off the certified election/recount results as follows:Lee Wilson 3,970Dennis Kavanaugh 5,410Michelle A. Monte 2,948Dan Becker 4,659Amy Weinsheim 4,670Wayne Traska 4,884
A motion was made by Claudette Elliott, seconded by Kim Ringer to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
Dated this 17th Day of April, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)