Venice
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
 
69   06-05-16 Yes Robin Rudisill   3003 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291 (310) 721-2343 wildrudi@mac.com Campaign Material Issues Flyers were handed out with the website:  popul.us/vnc.  The very first page announces that the website is “The Official Channel of the Venice Neighborhood Council.”, a claim which is repeated later on  in the website.  The website may be found at http://popu.us/vnc.  A pdf of the entire website is submitted along with this challenge.
This “official channel” endorsed George Francisco, (Vice President), Matthew Royce (Chair of LUPC), Matt Kline (Outreach officer), as well as the following Community Officers:  William Hawkins, and Sunny Bak.  The following successful candidates took further affirmative steps to use the “Official Channel of the Venice Neighborhood Council”:  Evan White (Communications Officer) and Matt  Shaw (Community Officer).   
This conduct is explicitly prohibited by Article IX (A) of the 2016 Neighborhood Council Election Manual which warns that “[T[he use of . . . any other official Neighborhood Council designation created by the Department is prohibited for use on candidate materials.  IX (A)(3) points out that “[The purpose of this provision is to prevent candidates or supporters of candidates from campaigning under the expressed or implied endorsement or authorization of the City, a City department, or a Neighborhood Council and prevent voter confusion.”

 DESIRED REMEDY:  Candidates supported by or availing themselves of this bogus website should be disqualified from holding office for this term. popul us site.pdf Venice_2016_Election_Challengers_June10,2016.pdf   RobinRudisillElectionChallengeDetermination061416.pdf IEA Dismissed 06-14-16                               Yes Robin Rudisill
70   06-05-16 Yes Robin Rudisill   3003 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291 (310) 721-2343 wildrudi@mac.com Campaign Material Issues Campaign material offered financial inducements to vote for a slate.  The C&O restaurant, a large Venice employer, offered to pay employees who are not working for their time in voting in the Neighborhood Council election, (as well as a free meal).  The letter, which calls on the employees to vote for a hand-picked slate of candidates, goes on to state that AWe have prepared everything you need to vote that you can get from your managers@ and says Awe will pay you for an hour of your time and even provide a free lunch.@

2.    Campaign material was provided along with free meals and drinks at Scopa, another Venice restaurant, during which the free diners were given slate sheets telling them whom to vote for and loaded into a van and taken to the polling place.
Both of these tactics violate Elections Code '18522, which declares it a felony to Apay, lend, or contribute, any money or other valuable consideration to or for any voter ... to: (a) Induce any voter to: ... (2) vote ... for any particular person.@  In each case the slate supported included Ira Koslow, George Francisco, Melissa “24/7” Diner, Matthew Royce, Evan White, and Matt Kline.  
The campaign materials handed out at SCOPA also called for electing the restaurant’s owner, Steve Livigni, as a community officer.  Livigni won with the sixth highest vote count of all Community Officer candidates.
 The members of the slates should be disqualified from holding office for this term, including Steve Livigni. c&o letter.pdf Venice_2016_Election_Challengers_June10,2016.pdf   RobinRudisillElectionChallengeDetermination2061416.pdf IEA Dismissed 06-14-16 Steve Yaeger rsyla@me.com (310) 584-1016 Steve Yaeger signed witness statement.pdf                       Robin Rudisill
71   06-05-16 Yes Robin Rudisill see all challengers attached 3003 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291 (310) 721-2343 wildrudi@mac.com Eligibility of Voter 1.    Many people received stakeholder ballots when there was no real evidence that they were stakeholders or even minimally eligible The Venice Chamber of Commerce, short term rental landlords, and restaurants were openly handing out letters purporting to describe people as employees or holders of a community interest when they were neither.  

2.    Although the VNC has historically had one of the highest rates of citizen participation, this year there was 40% increase in “voters”.  This statistically unlikely increase is due in large measure the influx of purported employees with nothing more than a form letter attesting to their “employment”.

3. There are other serious problems with the voter accreditation/registration process but we cannot tell specifically what those are yet as we have been given less than 4 days to analyze 2,700 registration forms, and DONE did not change them the way they said they would, to add the name of the employer, which is causing us to have to take even more time to research. DONE did not follow through with its promises, and we should not be prejudiced by the fact that DONE did not do what it said it would do.

There are other serious problems with the voter accreditation/registration process but we cannot tell specifically what those are yet as we have been given less than 4 days to analyze 2,700 registration forms, and DONE did not change them the way they said they would, to add the name of the employer, which is causing us to have to take even more time to research. DONE did not follow through with its promises, and we should not be prejudiced by the fact that DONE did not do what it said it would do.

4.    Observers noted many “voters” who claimed to work in Venice but could not say where or for whom they worked.

5.    Perversely, voters who are homeowners, voters with professional offices in Venice, and voters who work as journalists for Venice-based publications were either denied ballots altogether or were relegated to “community interest” ballots.  

6.    DONE has impeded challenger’s ability to furnish supporting evidence by insisting upon an artificially foreshortened time period in which to assert challenges, even though this challenge requires analysis of over 2,700 registration sheets.
 A new election with proper accreditation of voters. Eligibility_Venice_2016_Election_Challengers_June10,2016.pdf     RobinRudisillElectionChallengeDetermination3061416.pdf IEA Dismissed 06-14-16 Carmine Gangemi, D.C. bakfixx@verizon.net (877) 225-3499 Carmine_Gangemi_Witness_Statement.pdf Gloria Dabbs     Gloria_Dabbs_Witness_Statement.pdf         Teri_Keresey_Witness_Statement.pdf   Robin Rudisill
72   06-05-16 Yes Robin Rudisill   3003 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291 (310) 721-2343 wildrudi@mac.com Incorrect Ballots The VNC ballot was incorrectly designed, leading to an overcount of 107 votes for Community Officer, out of 2,264 ballots cast for CO positions.  An overcount rate of 4.7% is extraordinarily high.  Moreover, the fact that the overcount rate for community officer was. 4.7%, while the overcount rate for general executive officers was one tenth of one percent makes it clear that the problem was incorrect ballot design.  
Since only sixteen votes separate the successful CO candidate with the lowest number of votes (69) and the next eight CO candidates.  With nearly five percent of the CO ballots not being tallied, there is a great likelihood that the VNC board’s composition would be substantially different but for the incorrect ballots.  Finally, the number of “overcount” ballots exceeds the difference in votes between the differential between the winning and the losing Community Interest Officer candidates.  
Further note:   DONE has refused to turn over the best evidence – the actual overcount ballots.  These ballots are now the subject of a request via the California Public Records Act. However, since they are already in DONE’s possession, they should be considered as part of the supporting information for this challenge.
 A new election for all general community officers and the community interest officer. VeniceNC-2016-Unofficial-Canvass-of-Votes.pdf Venice_2016_Election_Challengers_June10,2016.pdf   RobinRudisillElectionChallengeDetermination4061416.pdf IEA Dismissed 06-14-16                               Yes Robin Rudisill
73   06-05-16 Yes Robin Rudisill   3003 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291 (310) 721-2343 wildrudi@mac.com Incorrect Ballots addendum to last challenge A new election for all general community officers and the community interest officer. Spreadsheet_VNC_2016_Election_Registration_Forms.pdf Venice_2016_Election_Challengers_June10,2016.pdf   RobinRudisillElectionChallengeDetermination4061416.pdf IEA Dismissed 06-14-16                                 Robin Rudisill
113   06-08-21 Yes Jed Pauker   824 Amoroso Place, Venice, California 90291 (310) 800-3845 jed@jed.net Vote-by-Mail Process ELECTION CHALLENGE:  2021 VENICE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL ELECTION
Some three decades ago, a highway patrol officer flagged me down for appearing to roll through a stop sign.  He that every citation given prevented seventeen traffic accidents.  It gave me food for thought during traffic school.
Such statistics apply to voting.  Without prior metrics, we can't know how many Venice stakeholders were deprived of their right to vote by the City Clerk's ballot application procedures.  The experiences catalogued in this transmission can be employed only as a starting point for producing a projection of how many Venice stakeholders were failed by the error-prone ballot application and submission procedure.  What existing data aggregation CAN do is affirm that the process was so flawed that it convinced even highly motivated stakeholders to abandon a process that caused them not to vote.   
The process failed the following Venice resident groups:
•    elder stakeholders
•    stakeholders without computer experience
•    stakeholders without computers 
•    stakeholders without cellphones
•    stakeholders without time to follow up on persistent digital portal failures
The process favored the following groups:
•    non-resident stakeholders who own Venice property 
•    non-resident stakeholders who run or work in Venice businesses 
Failures to send ballots to all eligible resident stakeholders deepens the de facto suppression of voting by Venice residents, whose current voter registration data is available in public records.  
As such, you must set aside this election's results and perfect - or, at the least, improve - the process so as to produce a trustworthy result from a second effort.
I look forward to your positive response and action.  Feel free to contact me with any questions at 310.800.3845 or by reply email.
Sincerely,

Jed Pauker
For information only:
Venice Resistance
Los Angeles County Voters Action Coalition
Indivisible CA-33
 Per the above letter, resolving relevant issues and a second election are necessary. VNC ELECTION CHALLENGE 2021.pdf           Jed Pauker jed@jed.net (310) 800-3845 VNC ELECTION CHALLENGE 2021.pdf See attached       VNC ELECTION CHALLENGE 2021.pdf See attached       VNC ELECTION CHALLENGE 2021.pdf   Jethro (Jed) Pauker
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