Studio City
Challenges
 
Record ID#
I hereby submit my challenge for the
Neighborhood Council
Election held on
I affirm that I am a stakeholder in this Neighborhood
Council who voted in the election and I have
personal knowledge of the following challenge.
Name
Business Name (if applicable)
Address
Phone
Email
Reason for Challenge
Please state the facts for your challenge. (max 500 words)
Please state your desired remedy. (max 100 words)
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Determination
Status
Date
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Phone Number
Witness Statement
First Name 2
Last Name 2
Email Address 2
Phone Number 2
Witness Statement 2
First Name 3
Last Name 3
Email Address 3
Phone Number 3
Witness Statement 3
If no witness,
please check
this box
Name2
 
4 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Peter Cole   4206 Cahuenga Boulevard, Studio City, California 91604 (818) 641-1070 pirate_post@mac.com Electioneering by candidates SCNC President Lisa Sarkin and the Chairperson of the outreach and Election committee Lana Shakelford refuse to place certified candidates information such as their photo, candidate statements etc on either the SCNC website or  distribute them to Studio City stakeholders on the SCNC's behalf because they feel that some of the statements are deemed inflammatory to the current SCNC board. Said actions can be deemed as candidate suppression and should be remedied immediately. 
 		 As time is of the essence I urge you to demand that all certified candidates be placed front & center on the SCNC website AT ONCE and that a plan of distributing said candidate information to stakeholder residences  be presented to the city clerks office and DONE for approval and verification immediately.         City Clerk Dismissed                                    
5 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Peter Cole   4206 Alcove Ave., Studio City, California 91604 (818) 506-4809 pirate_post@mac.com Electioneering by candidates SCNC President Lisa Sarkin and the Chairperson of the outreach and Election committee Lana Shakelford refuse to place certified candidates information such as their photo, candidate statements etc on either the SCNC website or  distribute them to Studio City stakeholders on the SCNC's behalf because they feel that some of the statements are deemed inflammatory to the current SCNC board. Said actions can be deemed as candidate suppression and should be remedied immediately. 
remedied		 As time is of the essence I urge you to demand that all certified candidates be placed front & center on the SCNC website AT ONCE and that a plan of distributing said candidate information to stakeholder residences  be presented to the city clerks office and DONE for approval and verification immediately.         City Clerk Dismissed                                    
16 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Mike Szymanski Studio City Community Activism Examiner 6770 Milner Road, Los Angeles, California 90068 (323) 356-7860 mikeszy@aol.com Concerns regarding BallotsVote-by-Mail Process This is Mike Szymanski, I am a stakeholder in the Studio City area, and voted in the Studio City Neighborhood Council elections on Thursday, April 7, 2016.

I voted in the elections in three categories: At-Large Stakeholder, Employee/Contractor and Service Organization.

My credentials are attached, including my Voter Registration Card which is User Name: 8991183 and Pin 1137.

The basis of the challenge is on:

Incorrect Ballots

The ballots both online and in person were given out arbitrarily and many ballots were handed out incorrectly based on improper documentation, or ballots were not given even though the person had proper documentation. One husband and wife were given different ballots even though they had the same documentation. Others, like me, gave documentation online and never heard whether we could actually vote or not. Many gave up. 

This would have made a difference very clearly in the election because a mere few votes would have changed the election in any direction.

The only remedy is completely start the election process over again, invalidate the election and change the documentation process, or offer it with “self affirmation.”

Witnesses include:

John and Debra Van Tongeren. A husband and wife team who voted for the first time. He was denied voting in the Housing category, and she was accepted. They own their house together, and this shows again some problems with the documentation policies required in this election. This couple offered the same documentation, but different ballots.

Lisa Sarkin. She knew of people who were unable to vote online and in person because of the documentation issues. She warned the board before they voted against the “self affirmation” that this entire election was going to be a problem.

Eric Previn. He talked to me about challenging the election and sent out a petition as such weeks before the election was held. He said he had also seen improprieties and knew of people who were unable to vote both online and in person.

Rita Villa. She knows and has heard from stakeholders who were unable to vote because of documentation problems.

Alex Izbecki. He said he saw some potential discrepancies and problems in the voting issues when we talked on the day of the voting.

Also see: http://www.examiner.com/article/provisional-ballots-messy-studio-city-election-still-need-to-be-counted
 The only remedy is completely start the election process over again, invalidate the election and change the documentation process, or offer it with “self affirmation.”   IMG_2887.jpg IMG_2890.jpg Mike Szymanski Election Challenge Panel Determination 041816.pdf Panel Dismissed 04-18-16                                  
17 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Mike Szymanski Studio City Community Activism Examiner 6770 Milner Road, Los Angeles, California 90068 (323) 356-7860 mikeszy@aol.com Campaign Material Issues My previous challenge were for other issues, but I was unable to upload and attach these for the improper Campaign Material which is a separate issue. The OurStudioCity.org website set up for specific candidates used improper logos from the Neighborhood Council and DONE in violation of the rules. City logos were used by the Candidates behind the OurStudioCity.org website.  Those candidates are Craig Radow, Patrice Berlin, Eric Preven, Richard Welch, Patrick Lewis, Heidi MacKay. The candidates that fall under these banners should be considered ineligible. IMAG0763.jpg IMAG0759.jpg IMAG0775.jpg Mike Szymanski Election Challenge Panel Determination 041816.pdf Panel Dismissed 04-18-16                                  
18 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Mike Szymanski Studio City Community Activism Examiner 6770 Milner Road, Los Angeles, California 90068 (323) 356-7860 mikeszy@aol.com Campaign Material Issues Additional materials attached   IMAG0762.jpg IMAG0767.jpg IMAG0765.jpg Mike Szymanski Election Challenge Panel Determination 041816.pdf Panel Dismissed 04-18-16                                  
21 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Rita C. Villa   4117 Farmdale Avenue, Studio City, California 91604 (818) 384-1942 ritav@earthlink.net Concerns regarding Ballots There have been many complaints and questions raised by stakeholders related to the online voting process.  Many have felt that they were disenfranchised.  I submitted PRA requests to enable me to reconcile the information I was provided verbally regarding the number of voters certified to vote on line  between the dates of the two reports and the on line vote information attached hereto.  The on line voting information requested is electronic and should have been immediately available since April 8th when the on line canvas of votes was released.  As the information I am requesting  has not been provided, I challenge the validity of the on line voting process and the number of voters/ ballots that were counted I request a delay in the certification of the election until the on line vote count information is reconciled.  if it can't be reconciled I request a complete redo of the election as the failure of the on line vote count system will have had an impact on every candidate. SCNC all voters.csv scnc_canvass_votes_04082016.pdf   RitaVillaElectionChallengeDetermination041416.pdf IEA Dismissed 04-14-16                                  
22 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Rudy Melendez   4528 Camellia Ave, Studio City, California 91602 (310) 963-6263 rudy.melendez@roadrunner.com Concerns regarding BallotsElectioneering by candidatesVote-by-Mail Process As a studio city stakeholder, 2016 nc candidate and current scnc board member
I am disappointed and concerned with the empowerla online voting experience in the 2016 studio city nc elections. 
I believe all online ballots should be thrown out as a result of reported cases of widespread online voter disenfranchisement. 
I have documented my own personal experience below:

After registering with the empowerla online voting registration portal on Thursday March 24th I had chosen to vote using the telephone option that was presented to me.
I received an automated email informing me I had registered to vote and would be verified in three days. Unfortunately I was never verified to vote. I waited patiently to receive my unique user ID & PIN#
I called the helpline and left a message and when I was finally contacted on Mar 31 the last day to register to vote online I received conflicting information from empowerla staff regarding my supporting documents but still no user ID & PIN#
For the record I submitted my rental agreement and social security card. Both documents from the empowerla website approved list. It is important to note these same two documents were submitted to the candidate filing portal and my candidacy was approved without delay.

After getting nowhere with a rude and disruptive registration help desk staffer I called Jay Handal the empowerla elections administrator on the morning of March 31 to inform him I had not been verified.  The elections administrator requested I send him email which I did and that I would be verified by noon on March 31. I never received an email reply from him and I was never verified to vote. EmpowerLA made many promises to deliver a fair and equitable election in 2016 but has failed to deliver true online voting

With a week left before election day I still had some faith in the process. I was patient I would be verified but I never was.
On election day I received another email from everyvotecounts informing me I had been registered to vote and I would be contacted but I was never verified to vote. I called and emailed and was told it was too late to be added into the system and that I would have to appear in person at the polls.

At this point my patience had run out after congratulatory emails from empowerla etc I was never verified to vote. I have had my privacy violated and my personal information released without my consent via the now infamous jay handal sgrest email. I now had reason to believe the 2016 online voting process was a failure.

Fortunately my work schedule allowed me to be present at the polls on election day. I was determined to vote in the 2016 scnc election.
At the polling location I witnessed many candidates electioneering and gross negligence by the staff of empowerla to maintain a fair and equitable election. 

At the polling location I was told my voter registration information was lost and I would need to start over which I did reluctantly.
I now had concerns that my personal information may be compromised.  With reservations I was prepared to show my supporting documentation. After completing the entire registration process over again in front of four empowerla staffers I was totally shocked alarmed and in disbelief when I was issued the incorrect ballot.  I had to inform the empowerla staff they had made another mistake. They had no idea I was issued the incorrect ballot. How could this be happening at the polls and how does this equate to a fair and equitable election? It absolutely does not. 
The empowerla staff not knowing I was a candidate and current board member blamed the scnc council for the problems I was facing. This type of empowerla staff behavior in no way creates a fair and unbiased election.  Disparaging remarks and blaming the neighborhood council for the failures of empowerla to deliver a fair and equitable election making  rude and slanderous comments to voters at the polls will not be tolerated and at the least should be grounds for dismissal. It certainly does not create a fair and equitable election. 

The 2016 empowerla online voting system I encountered failed me as a stakeholder every step of the way to election day. 

On Friday Apr 8th the day after the election I received an email with the canvas of voters document attached. The canvas of voters document had inaccuracies printed on it and the many hand written notes and revisions that appear on it make it very difficult for me to believe in its accuracy. There is no indication of the total number of voters in the election and I doubt anyone truly knows. 

The problem to correct here is the complete failure on the part of empowerla to hold fair and equitable elections using online voting which has proven to be a nightmare for many who's personal information was compromised and who's ability to vote online was disenfranchised and as I have heard from other stakeholders and as clearly illustrated above they received incorrect online ballots and in some cases received more than one online ballot and worse never received a ballot at all. 

It is for these reasons the LA city clerk should cast all online ballots out of the system and refer only to those paper and provisional  ballots that have been thoroughly vetted and supported with appropriate documentation before even considering to certify the 2016 scnc election.

Please take a stand and certify the 2016 SCNC election results using only paper and provisional ballots that have been thoroughly vetted out with the appropriate supporting documents.

Online ballot counts clearly can not be verified for their accuracy. 

Sincerely

Rudy Melendez
310.963.6263
Studio City Stakeholder
2016 SCNC Candidate
SCNC VP & Board Membe		 Online ballots should be thrown out due to widespread online voter irregularities as supported by stakeholder comments and attached supporting documents       RudyMelendezElectionChallengeDetermination041416.pdf IEA Dismissed 04-14-16                                  
23 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Stuart M. Miller The Stuart M. Miller Co. 11684 Ventura Boulevard-#225, Los Angeles, California 91604 (818) 506-6067 smmco@aol.com Electioneering by candidates In keeping with the language of the Election Manual, pages 27 and 28, I hereby challenge the Studio City Neighborhood Council election of April 7, 2016 on the following basis:  That I personally witnessed prohibited electioneering by candidates Eric Preven, Patrice Berlin (and others I cannot identify) in and around the polling place, including the room where votes were actually cast, during the time the poll was open, and that it was carried out at such a high level of volume and intensity that the supervisor of the election proceedings,  Stephen Box, had to attempt to remove them from the polling place with equally loud shouts and language.  That said, it appeared that several stakeholders waiting in line to vote became disgusted or intimidated by the outbursts and left the building without voting.
 
Witnesses to these incidents include, but are not limited to, the following persons, and I believe some or all of them have their own observations to share:

Jane Drucker
Heidi Holicker
James Kellem
Mike Lewis, LAPD
Judy Price
 
Note that #5 in the Election Challenges section of the manual reads "The supporting documentation must prove that the alleged challenge is not only valid, but would also have made a difference in the election outcome."  I'm not sure how that criterion can be met unless one has photographic documentation showing the guilty parties causing, by their actions, people to leave the poll without voting, which I do not have, but my witnesses and many other attendees definitely observed and can testify to the cited prohibited behavior.
 
I voted  in the following categories; AT LARGE, RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER, BUSINESS OWNER and COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION member and presented the necessary documentation at the polling place.  I've attached copies of each form of documentation I used that day, slightly redacted for my protection due to DONE's earlier gross breech of security in making public other stakeholders' personal information. 
 
In my opinion, the two candidates I've named disqualified themselves by their clear failure to observe the rules of the election; their eligibility for board seats should be rescinded. This particular category, Employee/Independent Contractor, is comprised of only two seats; if  either or both of candidates Preven and Berlin are disqualified, the candidates with the next highest vote count in that category would be elected.  Therefore this challenge meets test #5 of the Elections Challenges section, i.e., that the challenge "would have made a difference in the election outcome.” 
 

 Disqualify the guilty candidates and revise the election results in that category appropriately

NOTE:  I SUBMITTED MY CHALLENGE STATEMENT AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION TO EMPOWERLA BY EMAIL AT 4:51 PM PDT.  ONLY AFTERWARDS DID I SEE THIS "CHALLENGE PROCESS" INFORMATION.  I BELIEVE MY ON TIME SUBMISSION TO EMPOWERLA SHOULD BE HONORED.		 SCNC election docs.pdf SCNC election docs 2.pdf   Stuart Miller Election Challenge Panel Determination 050916.pdf Sustained 05-10-16 Jane Drucker ijoaching@aol.com (818) 571-4931 Drucker SCNC Election Challenge-Witness-Form (1) 2016.04.14.pdf Heidi Hollicker hholicker@gmail.com (818) 762-0706 Holicker WITNESS STATEMENT - STUDIO CITY ELECTION.pdf James Kellem Kellemprod@aol.com (818) 980-2093 KellemWitnessChallenge.pdf    
25 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Beth Schiffman   4385 Kraft Avenue, Los Angeles, California 91604 (818) 599-1267 schiffy41@hotmail.com Electioneering by candidates My name is Beth Schiffman and I was a SCNC Volunteer during the Elections on April 7, 2016 at Walter Reed Middle School. In addition, I voted as a Homeowner, Business Owner, Employee, Member of a Civic Organization and At-large Stakeholder.  Please find supporting documentation attached.

On this day, Tuesday, 4/13/2016, I am challenging the outcome of the final tally for the Studio City Neighborhood Council on the grounds of “Electioneering by Candidate(s)”, specifically INSIDE the Building where Voting was taking place as well as within the 100’ perimeter that was to be free of any Electioneering by Candidates.

To my point

1)    Stephen Box had posted me as a “Greeter” for the Electronic Voting Room.  I was stationed there from 3:50pm until the close of Voting which was called at 8:07pm (by my watch).  My attention was directed towards Mr. Preven when I heard a voice growing louder just inside the room.  I stepped inside the Electronic Voting room to see what was going on and Mr. Preven looked at me and as he took a step towards me (we were standing less than 2 feet apart) and in a very loud voice said to me “you people need to..” as which point I tried to cut him off and explain to him that I was not “you people” and that I was a Volunteer and a Neighbor. He spoke over me to repeat himself and (regrettably) I replied with “I’m not you people, I’m a f__cking Volunteer and Neighbor”.  At which point he started yelling that I’d just told him to f’ off. I replied that I most definitely did not say that and he then called me a Liar.  In any event, he starting yelling for “whose in charge”, and I got both Gracie and Stephen from EmpowerLA. As Stephen spoke to Mr. Preven, I stepped back outside the door, where I could clearly hear Mr. Preven yelling that  “he demanded” to Stephen that as Candidate, he had the undeniable right to demand my removal from the position of Greeter.  He repeated his Candidacy several times. He also was yelling that I was a “flunky” or something of that nature to Lisa Sarkin and could tamper with the Ballots. After a few moments of further discussion with Stephen, he left the building. I was not removed from my post and in fact both Stephen and Grayce from EmpowerLA apologized to me several times for this incident.  At 8:15p, when I went to leave, Mr. Preven was still outside.  As I felt Mr. Preven’s behavior was somewhat erratic, I felt in physical in danger from Mr. Preven and had Officer Mike Lewis escort me to my car after the Voting was closed. 

Witnesses to Mr. Preven announcing he was a Candidate: Stephen Box, Grayce Liu, 5-7 Empower/D.O.N.E. Employees 5 that were at the Electronic Confirmation desk, Volunteer Mary Mallory (Statement attached).



2)    sThere was another Candidate (youngish man, 6’4’ or so, purple and white gingham checkered shirt) who was later identified to me as Patrick Lewis.  Mr. Lewis, while standing at the Registration Desk, expressed frustration as to the confusing process. As he was getting upset, his voice rose and he then stated loud enough for me to hear (approximately 10 feet away) that the process was messed up and people were going leave without Voting and that could effect the outcome for his Candidacy.  The Empower/D.O.N.E. Employees didn’t react.  I admonished him and warned him that he would have to leave if he continued.  He started to talk again and I gave him a second warning. He then apologized and stopped talking and then continued in to cast his Vote.

Witnesses: 2-3 Empower/D.O.N.E. Employees at the Registration Desk, and possible: Volunteers: Patty Kirby, Judy Price.


3)    At one point a few hours in, I stepped outside the front doors to get some air and witnessed Patrice Berlin standing on the walkway leading into the School Property.  She was perhaps 40 feet from the doors, and clearly in violation of the 100’ perimeter.  She was talking to people who were on their way in to Vote.

Witnesses: Volunteer Barry Weiss (Statement attached), Rita Villa, Candidate who I understand at the time of occurrence reported the violations to Tom Meredith of Empower L.A./D.O.N.E., who was handling Curbside Voting.

 In all three instances, I am requesting that the above named individuals be disqualified, as they clearly ignored the governing rules of qualification as defined by Empower L.A./Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, which prohibits Electioneering within 100’ of the Election location.  I believe that the disqualification of these Candidates, would most definitely impact and change the outcome of the final count.
 Schiffman qualify docs.PDF     Beth Schiffman Election Challenge Panel Determination 041816.pdf Panel Dismissed 04-18-16 Mary Mallory marymallory0@gmail.com (818) 752-2950 MMallory_Empower LA Witness Form.pdf Barry Weiss barryweissLA@gmail.com (818) 257-3181 BWeiss_SCNC Election Statement.pdf Rita Villa ritav@earthlink.net (818) 384-1942 RVillaChallenge-Witness-Form.pdf    
27 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Lila Chacin   4353 Colfax Avenue # 31, Studio City, California 91604 (310) 467-1158 lila2@malibuonline.com Incorrect Ballots incorrect registration forms caused the issuance of incorrect ballots which caused voters to vote in the
wrong category and resulted in them voting either more or less for qualified or incorrect candidates.

The voter registration from that I was given and many others were given at the election site that had the incorrect stakeholder categories on it was on 8 ½ X 11 paper.  There was a form which had been customized by the SCNC which had the correct categories and it was on 11 X 14 paper.  There were 500 copies of that form made by the SCNC and they were in that room.  There is no reason why stakeholders should have been given the improper form. This was, at least in part, responsible for the stakeholders being given incorrect ballots.  Additionally, certain stakeholders had their registration rejected. Some stakeholders who appeared with documentation had
their documentation rejected and were in fact disenfranchised.  One stakeholder was given three ballots, one of which was a duplicate and not one that he should have been given.  

Note that #5 in the Election Challenges section of the manual reads "The supporting documentation must prove that the alleged challenge is not only valid, but would also have made a difference in the election outcome."
Clearly giving people the wrong voter categories to register to vote would have impacted all of the contested seats.  I have a witnesses Rita Villa who can testify to the delivery of the 500 copies of the 11x14 voter registration from to the voting room.

I voted in the  AT LARGE and  RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER categories at the polling place only after confirming that I had been given an incorrect registration from and insisting that they give me an AT LARGE Ballot .  I have attached both the incorrect registration form that I have received and the correct from that I should have received. 
 Do to the failure to provide the proper registration forms to myself and to many other stakeholders I request that there be a redo of the entire Neighborhood Council election.  All contested seats were impacted by the use of the improper forms.
 2016-Voter-Registration-Form-Eng_Spn.pdf SCNC VOTER REGISTRATION FORM corret  version.jpg   LilaChaconElectionChallengeDetermination041416.pdf IEA Dismissed 04-14-16 Mike Ferrell mfocontact@gmail.com (818) 508-4794 Mike Ferrell Whitness Statement.jpeg Laurie Cohn Lmarbe@sbcglobal.net (818) 985-7788 Witness Laurie Cohn SCNC.pdf Rita Villa ritav@earthlink.net (818) 384-1942 Challenge by Lila  Chacin-Witness-Form - RV.docx    
28 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Lila Chacin   4353 Colfax Avenue #31, Studio City, California 91604 (310) 467-1158 lila2@malibuonline.com Incorrect Ballots same as challenge 27 this form used to submit my additional witnesses.

Incorrect registration forms caused the issuance of incorrect ballots which caused voters to vote in the
wrong category and resulted in them voting either more or less for qualified or incorrect candidates.

The voter registration from that I was given and many others were given at the election site that had the incorrect stakeholder categories on it was on 8 ½ X 11 paper.  There was a form which had been customized by the SCNC which had the correct categories and it was on 11 X 14 paper.  There were 500 copies of that form made by the SCNC and they were in that room.  There is no reason why stakeholders should have been given the improper form. This was, at least in part, responsible for the stakeholders being given incorrect ballots.  Additionally, certain stakeholders had their registration rejected. Some stakeholders who appeared with documentation had
their documentation rejected and were in fact disenfranchised.  One stakeholder was given three ballots, one of which was a duplicate and not one that he should have been given.  

Note that #5 in the Election Challenges section of the manual reads "The supporting documentation must prove that the alleged challenge is not only valid, but would also have made a difference in the election outcome."
Clearly giving people the wrong voter categories to register to vote would have impacted all of the contested seats.  I have a witnesses Rita Villa who can testify to the delivery of the 500 copies of the 11x14 voter registration from to the voting room.

I voted in the  AT LARGE and  RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER categories at the polling place only after confirming that I had been given an incorrect registration from and insisting that they give me an AT LARGE Ballot .  I have attached both the incorrect registration form that I have received and the correct from that I should have received.
 Do to the failure to provide the proper registration forms to myself and to many other stakeholders I request that there be a redo of the entire Neighborhood Council election.  All contested seats were impacted by the use of the improper forms. 2016-Voter-Registration-Form-Eng_Spn.pdf SCNC VOTER REGISTRATION FORM corret  version.jpg   LilaChaconElectionChallengeDetermination041416.pdf IEA Dismissed 04-14-16 Patty Ray pattyrayre@gmail.com (818) 406-1853 Patty Ray Witness Statement for Lila Chacin.pdf Patty Kirby patty.a.kirby@gmail.com (818) 209-8333 challange witness statement P Kirby.pdf              
32 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Lila Chacin   4353 Colfax Avenue # 31, Studio City, California 91604 (310) 467-1158 lila2@malibuonline.com Incorrect Ballots incorrect registration forms caused the issuance of incorrect ballots which caused voters to vote in the
wrong category and resulted in them voting either more or less for qualified or incorrect candidates.

The voter registration from that I was given and many others were given at the election site that had the incorrect stakeholder categories on it was on 8 ½ X 11 paper.  There was a form which had been customized by the SCNC which had the correct categories and it was on 11 X 14 paper.  There were 500 copies of that form made by the SCNC and they were in that room.  There is no reason why stakeholders should have been given the improper form. This was, at least in part, responsible for the stakeholders being given incorrect ballots.  Additionally, certain stakeholders had their registration rejected. Some stakeholders who appeared with documentation had
their documentation rejected and were in fact disenfranchised.  One stakeholder was given three ballots, one of which was a duplicate and not one that he should have been given.  

Note that #5 in the Election Challenges section of the manual reads "The supporting documentation must prove that the alleged challenge is not only valid, but would also have made a difference in the election outcome."
Clearly giving people the wrong voter categories to register to vote would have impacted all of the contested seats.  I have a witnesses Rita Villa who can testify to the delivery of the 500 copies of the 11x14 voter registration from to the voting room.

I voted in the  AT LARGE and  RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER categories at the polling place only after confirming that I had been given an incorrect registration from and insisting that they give me an AT LARGE Ballot .  I have attached both the incorrect registration form that I have received and the correct from that I should have received. 
 Do to the failure to provide the proper registration forms to myself and to many other stakeholders I request that there be a redo of the entire Neighborhood Council election.  All contested seats were impacted by the use of the improper forms.
       LilaChaconElectionChallengeDetermination041416.pdf Dismissed-Submitted after challenge deadline 04-14-16 Mike Ferrell mfocontact@gmail.com (818) 508-4794   Laurie Cohn Lmarbe@sbcglobal.net (818) 985-7788   Rita Villa ritav@earthlink.net (818) 384-1942      
33 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Lila Chacin   4353 Colfax Avenue # 31, Studio City, California 91604 (310) 467-1158 lila2@malibuonline.com Incorrect Ballots incorrect registration forms caused the issuance of incorrect ballots which caused voters to vote in the
wrong category and resulted in them voting either more or less for qualified or incorrect candidates.

The voter registration from that I was given and many others were given at the election site that had the incorrect stakeholder categories on it was on 8 ½ X 11 paper.  There was a form which had been customized by the SCNC which had the correct categories and it was on 11 X 14 paper.  There were 500 copies of that form made by the SCNC and they were in that room.  There is no reason why stakeholders should have been given the improper form. This was, at least in part, responsible for the stakeholders being given incorrect ballots.  Additionally, certain stakeholders had their registration rejected. Some stakeholders who appeared with documentation had
their documentation rejected and were in fact disenfranchised.  One stakeholder was given three ballots, one of which was a duplicate and not one that he should have been given.  

Note that #5 in the Election Challenges section of the manual reads "The supporting documentation must prove that the alleged challenge is not only valid, but would also have made a difference in the election outcome."
Clearly giving people the wrong voter categories to register to vote would have impacted all of the contested seats.  I have a witnesses Rita Villa who can testify to the delivery of the 500 copies of the 11x14 voter registration from to the voting room.

I voted in the  AT LARGE and  RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER categories at the polling place only after confirming that I had been given an incorrect registration from and insisting that they give me an AT LARGE Ballot .  I have attached both the incorrect registration form that I have received and the correct from that I should have received. 
 Do to the failure to provide the proper registration forms to myself and to many other stakeholders I request that there be a redo of the entire Neighborhood Council election.  All contested seats were impacted by the use of the improper forms.
       LilaChaconElectionChallengeDetermination041416.pdf Dismissed-Submitted after challenge deadline 04-14-16 Mike Ferrell mfocontact@gmail.com (818) 508-4794   Laurie Cohn Lmarbe@sbcglobal.net (818) 985-7788   Rita Villa ritav@earthlink.net (818) 384-1942      
34 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Peter Cole   4206 Alcove Ave., Studio City, California 91604 (818) 506-4809 pirate_post@mac.com Electioneering by candidates SCNC President Lisa Sarkin and the Chairperson of the outreach and Election committee Lana Shakelford refuse to place certified candidates information such as their photo, candidate statements etc on either the SCNC website or  distribute them to Studio City stakeholders on the SCNC's behalf because they feel that some of the statements are deemed inflammatory to the current SCNC board. Said actions can be deemed as candidate suppression and should be remedied immediately. 
remedied		 As time is of the essence I urge you to demand that all certified candidates be placed front & center on the SCNC website AT ONCE and that a plan of distributing said candidate information to stakeholder residences  be presented to the city clerks office and DONE for approval and verification immediately.       PeterColeElectionChallengeDetermination042816.pdf Dismissed-Submitted after challenge deadline 04-28-16                         soong316@hotmail.com (626) 262-0774      
35 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Peter Cole   4206 Cahuenga Boulevard, Studio City, California 91604 (818) 641-1070 pirate_post@mac.com Electioneering by candidates SCNC President Lisa Sarkin and the Chairperson of the outreach and Election committee Lana Shakelford refuse to place certified candidates information such as their photo, candidate statements etc on either the SCNC website or  distribute them to Studio City stakeholders on the SCNC's behalf because they feel that some of the statements are deemed inflammatory to the current SCNC board. Said actions can be deemed as candidate suppression and should be remedied immediately. 
 		 As time is of the essence I urge you to demand that all certified candidates be placed front & center on the SCNC website AT ONCE and that a plan of distributing said candidate information to stakeholder residences  be presented to the city clerks office and DONE for approval and verification immediately.       PeterColeElectionChallengeDetermination042816.pdf Dismissed-Submitted after challenge deadline 04-28-16                         soong316@hotmail.com (626) 262-0774      
36 Studio City 04-07-16 Yes Lila Chacin   4353 Colfax Avenue # 31, Studio City, California 91604 (310) 467-1158 lila2@malibuonline.com Incorrect Ballots incorrect registration forms caused the issuance of incorrect ballots which caused voters to vote in the
wrong category and resulted in them voting either more or less for qualified or incorrect candidates.

The voter registration from that I was given and many others were given at the election site that had the incorrect stakeholder categories on it was on 8 ½ X 11 paper.  There was a form which had been customized by the SCNC which had the correct categories and it was on 11 X 14 paper.  There were 500 copies of that form made by the SCNC and they were in that room.  There is no reason why stakeholders should have been given the improper form. This was, at least in part, responsible for the stakeholders being given incorrect ballots.  Additionally, certain stakeholders had their registration rejected. Some stakeholders who appeared with documentation had
their documentation rejected and were in fact disenfranchised.  One stakeholder was given three ballots, one of which was a duplicate and not one that he should have been given.  

Note that #5 in the Election Challenges section of the manual reads "The supporting documentation must prove that the alleged challenge is not only valid, but would also have made a difference in the election outcome."
Clearly giving people the wrong voter categories to register to vote would have impacted all of the contested seats.  I have a witnesses Rita Villa who can testify to the delivery of the 500 copies of the 11x14 voter registration from to the voting room.

I voted in the  AT LARGE and  RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER categories at the polling place only after confirming that I had been given an incorrect registration from and insisting that they give me an AT LARGE Ballot .  I have attached both the incorrect registration form that I have received and the correct from that I should have received. 
 Do to the failure to provide the proper registration forms to myself and to many other stakeholders I request that there be a redo of the entire Neighborhood Council election.  All contested seats were impacted by the use of the improper forms.
       LilaChaconElectionChallengeDetermination041416.pdf Dismissed-Submitted after challenge deadline   Mike Ferrell mfocontact@gmail.com (818) 508-4794   Laurie Cohn Lmarbe@sbcglobal.net (818) 985-7788   Rita Villa ritav@earthlink.net (818) 384-1942      
Subdivision challenges
Created on May  2, 2016 at  7:05 PM (PDT). Owned by Paramazian, Sevak.
Sevak Paramazian
Show fields from Show fields from Show fields from a related table
Report Name *
Description
Reports and Charts Panel
Each table has a panel listing its reports and charts, organized in groups.
Please wait while your new report is saved...
Field label
Column heading override
Justification
What does auto mean?
Fields in:

Fields to Extract:
Name for the new table:
Items in the new table are called:

When you bring additional fields into a conversion, Quickbase often finds inconsistencies. For example, say you're converting your Companies column into its own table. One company, Acme Corporation, has offices in New York, Dallas and Portland. So, when you add the City column to the conversion, Quickbase finds three different locations for Acme. A single value in the column you're converting can only match one value in any additional field. Quickbase needs you to clean up the extra cities before it can create your new table. To do so, you have one of two choices:

  • If you want to create three separate Acme records (Acme-New York, Acme-Dallas and Acme-Portland) click the Conform link at the top of the column.
  • If the dissimilar entries are mistakes (say Acme only has one office in New York and the other locations are data-entry errors) go back into your table and correct the inconsistencies—in this case, changing all locations to New York. Then try the conversion again.

Read more about converting a column into a table.

We're glad you're interested in doing more with Quickbase!

Now we need to make you official before you share apps or manage your account.

Verifying your email lets you share Quickbase with others in your company.

Your work email
Your company