It is a formal criticism alleging doable unprofessional and unethical conduct by the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace in Oakland, election tampering, and doable violations of the Elections Code. I’m submitting this criticism as a result of I’m involved about transparency and accountability in Oakland.
Briefly, I’ve proof that the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace knowingly and deliberately backdated and misstated the time that official Mayoral candidate paperwork had been filed with the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace on the afternoon of August 12, 2022. Particularly, paperwork that was required by legislation to be obtained no later than 5:00 p.m. on that date was obtained after 5:00 p.m., however was timestamped to make it seem that the supplies had been obtained prior to five:00 p.m. I’ve spoken to a few Mayoral candidates who’ve knowledgeable me that the time indicated on their paperwork is fallacious, and that they had been truly within the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace at a time very completely different than that indicated on the time-stamped paperwork. I’ve additionally spoken to the Assistant Metropolis Clerk, Krystal Sams, who admitted that the paperwork was stamped prior to five:00 p.m. as a result of it needed to be stamped prior to five:00 p.m., although it was after 5:00 p.m. Throughout that very same dialog, nevertheless, Ms. Sams claimed that the time stamping machine was malfunctioning, and that this defined the truth that the timestamp was incorrect. For causes defined in additional element beneath, I’ve purpose to query Ms. Sams’ claims that the timestamping machine was malfunctioning.
As defined in additional element in a earlier criticism filed by Mayoral Candidate Alyssa Victory, Mayoral candidates had been initially knowledgeable that the submitting deadline for his or her paperwork was August 17, 2022. On the afternoon of August 12, 2022, the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace notified a number of mayoral candidates that the submitting deadline beforehand given was fallacious, and that all of them wanted to file their paperwork no later than 5:00 p.m. that day. Many candidates had been then left scrambling to collect signatures and manage their paperwork on the final minute.
Candidate Seneca Scott arrived at Metropolis Corridor shortly earlier than 4:30 p.m. He was informed by Ms. Sams he wanted to e mail her a doc, and he did so at 4:29 p.m., indicating the time he was in her workplace. He completed submitting his paperwork at roughly 4:55 p.m. Nevertheless, his paperwork is all timestamped by the Clerk’s workplace with “3:54 p.m.,” which is clearly fallacious.
Candidate Alyssa Victory and several other members of her group arrived at Metropolis Corridor as Mr. Scott was leaving. They spoke briefly, posed for pictures taken by Ms. Victory’s husband, after which Ms. Victory started having her paperwork processed. In keeping with Ms. Victory, the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace didn’t let her within the door till after 5:00 p.m. The paperwork course of usually takes 20-Half-hour. Nevertheless, in keeping with a later dialog with Ms. Sams, Ms. Victory’s processing took longer, as a result of there have been points along with her title (she wished to look on the poll as “Victory,” however her authorized title was “Villanueva”) and different points. Even supposing Ms. Victory’s paperwork was processed properly after 5:00 p.m., a few of her paperwork is time stamped “3:54” and different paperwork is timestamped “4:54.” I’ve spoken to Ms. Victory and the time stamp of three:54 is clearly fallacious. In keeping with Ms. Sams, it took practically an hour for Ms. Victory’s paperwork to be processed. Ms. Victory says it was extra like 30-45 minutes, however Ms. Sams admitted that the paperwork shouldn’t be usually timestamped until it has been reviewed first and is so as, i.e., on the finish. Due to this fact, it ought to have been stamped nearer to five:30 p.m. or later.
Candidate Sheng Thao arrived at Metropolis Corridor shortly after Ms. Victory. Whereas Ms. Victory was having her paperwork processed, at roughly 5:00 p.m., Ms. Sams noticed Ms. Thao ready exterior and a choice was made to start processing her paperwork alongside Ms. Victory’s paperwork. (In keeping with Ms. Sams, there have been three folks serving to with the paperwork – her, Metropolis Clerk Asha Reed, and an assistant named Britney Davis.) In keeping with video footage clips, Sheng Thao left Metropolis Corridor at roughly 6:04 p.m. In keeping with emails to the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace, Ms. Thao’s paperwork was not accomplished till after 5:50 p.m. However, a few of her paperwork are stamped “3:54” and different paperwork are stamped “4:54.” These occasions are clearly fallacious, as all of her paperwork ought to have indicated a time between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
At roughly 6:00 p.m., the final candidate of the day, Monesha Carter, was invited into the Clerk’s workplace to have her paperwork processed. In keeping with her, her paperwork took 20-25 minutes to have reviewed. It due to this fact ought to have been stamped at roughly 6:25 p.m. Once more, nevertheless, the time stamps are fallacious, as her paperwork is stamped both 4:54 or 4:59 p.m. In my dialog with Ms. Carter, she confirmed that the time stamps are clearly fallacious. (Ms. Carter was finally disqualified as a result of she was unable to submit a adequate variety of signatures that day).
The next week, Ms. Victory was informed that a number of of her signatures weren’t legitimate as a result of they weren’t registered voters. Ms. Victory was informed she was disqualified. Ms. Victory finally filed a criticism in opposition to the Metropolis and with the Secretary of State contesting this willpower, and later, the Metropolis reversed its place and she or he is now certified on the poll. This problem, together with the Metropolis Clerk’s failure to offer the right deadline to candidates, obtained in depth publicity and was fairly embarrassing for the Metropolis and the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace.
Because of the unfavourable publicity, different issues about improprieties within the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace arose. There was suspicion that Sheng Thao, one of many high candidates, had not truly arrived at Metropolis Corridor and/or the Clerk’s workplace prior to five:00 p.m. Due to this fact, a sequence of public data requests had been filed starting on September 8, 2022, requesting video footage of the entrance of Metropolis Corridor, and documentation that was filed with the Metropolis Clerk’s workplace on August 12. Below the California Public Information Act, the Metropolis had 10 days to answer the requests. Time was of the essence, because the election was solely weeks away, and the paperwork had been related to problems with election integrity.
Due to the Metropolis’s delay in responding to the CPRA requests, I filed a proper request for mediation with the Public Ethics Fee on September 29, 2022, on behalf of the individuals who submitted the CPRA requests. I didn’t obtain all the stamped paperwork that had been requested till October 24, 2022. As of in the present day, October 25, 2022, we nonetheless haven’t obtained any of the video footage we requested.
When Mr. Scott realized that his paperwork confirmed the fallacious date, he contacted Ms. Sams in September to ask her about it. Initially, she claimed that he had been in her workplace earlier than 4:00 p.m., and had despatched him an e mail. Mr. Scott requested her to offer him with a duplicate of that e mail, however she by no means did. Later within the dialog, Ms. Sams informed Mr. Scott that that they had been having points with the time stamping machine that day, and this might clarify why the time stamp was off.
I subsequently did a proper public data request for paperwork referring or relating as to if the time stamping machine was malfunctioning that day, in days prior, or days thereafter. On October 19, 2022, Ms. Sams referred to as me to get clarification on the paperwork I used to be looking for. Throughout that dialog, I requested her questions concerning the claims that the time stamp machine had been malfunctioning, and the chronology of the candidates coming to the workplace that afternoon. Under is a abstract of what she informed me:
I had requested for all paperwork time stamped August 12, 2022. Ms. Sams indicated they don’t observe paperwork by date of time stamp date, so I requested her to only present all the paperwork obtained by candidates that day. Ms. Sams confirmed that there have been points with the time stamping machine. She had positioned an order for a brand new one, and had obtained a brand new one round September 26. She stated they hadn’t positioned an order sooner as a result of they had been too busy with different issues.
Ms. Sams stated that when the candidates got here in, they might stamp every little thing abruptly, after it had all been reviewed and located to be so as. Due to this fact, they don’t stamp till the candidate is about to depart. Ms. Sams thought Ms. Victory got here in a lot earlier – like round 3:30. (This was contradicted by Ms. Victory and Mr. Scott.) Ms. Victory was there for an hour, as a result of she was lacking loads of paperwork they usually needed to ask her to e mail paperwork that had been lacking. (Ms. Victory informed me that Ms. Sams truly informed her to not e mail her something after 5:00 p.m.).
I requested Ms. Sams why Ms. Thao’s and Ms. Victory’s paperwork was stamped at precisely the identical time, right down to the minute. Ms. Sams said, “Now we have to stamp earlier than 5 p.m.” She famous that whereas they had been processing Ms. Victory’s paperwork, Ms. Thao was within the hallway, they usually went out to collect her paperwork. She stated once more, “We stamp earlier than 5 p.m. We needed to manually change the time stamp.” Ms. Sams stated that the time stamping machine was “Ordinarily very correct.” She stated that Asha Reed and Britney Davis had been serving to with time stamping and “they weren’t checking the occasions….” It appeared that she was blaming them for not catching the “errors” on the time. She went on to say, “There was a lot chaos on that individual day – I do know they weren’t checking the time” and that checking all of the paperwork was their major concern, not ensuring the time stamp was correct. She then claimed that the machine’s “motor was out – It stopped turning.” She then claimed that this occurred “on each of our machines” (she indicated there was a machine on the entrance desk and within the again.)
She then stated, “Any individual wants to have a look at them.” She stated when the motor goes out, they need to manually regulate the time. When requested if there had been issues with the machine on days prior and after, she stated that there had been, however that there was no documentation memorializing that truth. Ms. Sams concluded the dialog by saying, “It doesn’t look good, I perceive that. We will’t management the way it seems to be. However we wouldn’t permit her (Sheng) to file after 5. Our integrity is on the road.” (This was contradicted by her earlier statements of “we have now to stamp earlier than 5:00” and admissions that they had been manually altering the time stamp). Lastly, Ms. Sams indicated that they began stamping Ms. Thao’s paperwork similtaneously Ms. Carter’s. This was contradicted by Ms. Carter, who stated they didn’t let her in till roughly 6:00 p.m.
Shortly after my dialog with Ms. Sams, I obtained paperwork from her in response to my CPRA request indicating {that a} quote for a brand new time stamping machine was obtained on September 6, 2022 (a number of weeks after the alleged malfunctioning occurred) and a brand new machine was obtained on September 26.
After extra delays in receiving the paperwork that had been requested, the Clerk’s workplace failed to offer any paperwork for Monesha Carter. I then emailed Ms. Sams in regards to the lacking paperwork, and she or he stated she had forgotten about these. They had been lastly supplied later that day.
Primarily based on my evaluate of the paperwork supplied, and my conversations with the related witnesses, I consider that Metropolis Clerk’s workplace was seemingly deliberately stamping official election paperwork with the fallacious time to make it seem that they had been obtained prior to five:00 p.m., when in actual fact they weren’t. I don’t essentially consider that the candidates who had supplies stamped after 5:00 p.m. needs to be disqualified, significantly for the reason that delays would have been attributable to the Clerk’s workplace. Nevertheless, what I do consider is extraordinarily problematic is what in essence constitutes forgery of official paperwork, by deliberately placing the fallacious time stamp on the paperwork. This implicates potential violation of Elections Code Sections 18203, 18202, 18201, 18204, and different legal guidelines concerning tampering with official election associated paperwork. It additionally constitutes unprofessional and unethical conduct.
I’m additionally involved about the truth that statements made to me by Ms. Sams had been contradicted not solely by herself, however by different related eyewitnesses, and by the paperwork themselves. The truth that no quote was obtained for a brand new time-stamping machine till weeks later, after a lot unfavourable publicity in regards to the Clerk’s Workplace, and two days previous to an official PRA request for related paperwork, is extremely suspicious.
It might appear {that a} malfunctioning time stamping machine could be an pressing matter, demanding instant consideration, significantly given the sensitivity of the election and the truth that three candidates had been later disqualified for lacking related deadlines.
I’ve copies of all the related paperwork. Nevertheless, as of in the present day, no video footage has been supplied.
