shortlink http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=391
UTD’s Karen Aronowitz: A History of Voting Questions.
First, let me state very clearly: scores of images of ballot envelopes with vote tallies and THOUSANDS of votes reported to our independent tally site indicate that RTTT and both JUNE 2011 and FEBRUARY 2012 Healthcare and WAGE FREEZE votes have been completely REJECTED by union bargaining unit members – 2:1 rejection, in complete contradiction to UTD’s published results.
UTD MUST RELEASE INDIVIDUAL POLL SITE DATA from the ballot envelopes to avoid further legal action including the charges of election FRAUD. See at the end of this post for the legal requirements of individual poll site data reporting.
Here is the audio of the IFC scoffing and ridiculing my request for such: UTDrevoteCOUNTquestions
On May 22, 2012, Miami’s public school teachers union, the United Teachers of Dade (UTD), conducted a court ordered revote on 3 contract changes that had occurred over the prior year. The courts had ordered the revotes because the original ratification/elections occurred over what the courts deemed an insecure online voting system.
We are still awaiting the required publishing of the individual polling site data. Friday, May 25, 2012 11 PM was the deadline and no data has been released.
UTD had released preliminary data as provided by the illegal automated machine “count” (after each envelope of the ballots had disappeared into UTD’s building out of public sight for undetermined amounts of time).
The reason for the court ordered revote is that UTD broke the law in the other elections. The courts deemed the system UTD utilized insecure because, among other things, the user names – employee id #’s – and passwords – social security numbers – were readily available to the union as evidenced by the “accidental” release of the author’s social security number and other union members and stewards personal data – including cell phone numbers – in a publicly accessible bundle of “evidence” submitted by UTD in the trial process. In yet another lie, UTD’s Karen denies this…but the courts ruled against her because she did exactly this (N.B. If you think you might be affected, you should contact UTD and demand they redact your personal information before you become victim of identity fraud).
Additionally, UTD used a machine “tally” that doesn’t allow observers/unit members from actually seeing the count. The alleged ballots are fed into a scanner and an image of what is supposed to be each ballot marking is projected onto the screen. There is no way of being able to correlate what is on the screen and what is on the alleged ballots. Furthermore, we don’t know if the VOTENET man in the back of the room is being given the actual ballots taken from the envelopes or that the envelopes being opened are ALL the envelopes or that they actually contained the same ballots they left the school with since they disappeared into the UTD/union building for unknown amounts of time.
Here is an image of the vote tally room:

We observers stand on the 3rd floor behind a barricade having been separated at the 2nd floor from the ballot envelopes. We CANNOT see what is being brought in the back door, nor if anything is being given to the VOTENET guy in the far left back of the room. We cannot know if all the ballots submitted below are the ones being opened now. We cannot know if these envelopes have been tampered with.
Additionally, UTD is the subject of another lawsuit in which plaintiff Eugenio “Geno” Perez (former candidate for UTD president and likely winner if his lawsuit is substantiated) contends that UTD officers and staff had access to voting data during the election with suggestion that at least one staff member was witnessed manipulating data. Consider:
This was the original court motion that was rejected for failure to exhaust “internal” paths for resolution first (going through UTD’s Internal Function’s Committee then American Federation of Teachers – both denied Geno’s complaints): http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2010cv20659/353025/23/0.pdf
Here is the reference of the IFC rejecting Geno’s case and the results of his appeal to the general council of stewards, the next step: http://www.utd.org/file_download/144/2010_Oct21-APPROVED_minutes.pdf
Because both UTD’s IFC and Steward Council denied Geno’s request for intervention from the Union and then the parent Union (the American Federation of Teachers), the local Civil court has resumed jurisdiction (which implies sufficiency after multiple attempts by UTD to dismiss again have been rejected by the court).
To see the active docket, go here http://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/Search.aspx and use the information below to search for the active case. No details are given here though:
PEREZ, EUGENIO vs UNITED TEACHER OF DADE (LOCAL 1974)
* Click on BOOK/PAGE of a particular docket to see the image if it is available *
Case Number (LOCAL): 2010-24454-CA-01 Dockets Retrieved: 79 Filing Date: 04/23/2010 Case Number (STATE): 13-2010-CA-024454-0000-01 Judicial Section: 21
There have been oddities associated with EVERY election this leadership has been involved in, and oddities with every electronically facilitated election (all run by Votenet, the electronic voting company).
Consider:
2004 – Aronowitz and UTD staff are charged with voter fraud by opponent Shirley Johnson who had won by a large margin the primary vote. By the run-off election, Shirley had lost her double digit lead…in a quiet, non-public election (we’re not talking national broadcast politics here):
” United Teachers of Dade (UTD, Florida), currently under administration by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), [is] enduring accusations of vote fraud by losing candidates for the office of president in elections designed to allow the two unions to undertake local self-rule.
In Florida, losing presidential candidate Shirley Johnson filed election complaints claiming poor ballot security, secret meetings, bias on the part of AFT Administrator Mark Richard, and an “attempt to confuse members.”
“This election was tainted by fraud,” Johnson told the Miami Herald. “We are asking for a full investigation.”
Johnson was defeated by Karen Aronowitz, who turned a 19 percent deficit in the first round of voting into a 52-48 percent victory in the December 2004 runoff. Aronowitz and her caucus won the top three union executive positions.”
see page 8 of http://homepage.mac.com/liz_ow/Design/SRN%203.05.pdf
2007 – Aronowitz’ UTD is charged with violating internal and federal electioneering laws by candidate Beightol:
A) UTD ensured its incumbent materials were at each work location but NEVER fulfilled its own requirement to physically mail materials from the opponents:
“UTD shall conduct at UTD expense, at least one (1) mailing, and one e-mailing to the membership per each round of voting and one open forum per entire election.” – Internal Functions Committee Election rules, p.1, #7.
Information for mailing and emailing was solicited but not sent out to membership. Opponents deferred their own mailings anticipating UTD to fulfill its obligation to send out a mailing of the biographies and platforms of opposition parties. UTD did not, rather, merely posted them on their website and sent emails – NOT the physical mail to physical addresses as required by rules.
B) UTD refused to remove my secretary-treasurer candidate from the ballot when she withdrew 3 weeks early to prevent a “vote split,” her presence on the ballot produced the anticipated vote split giving the incumbent the margin he needed to win.
C) Federal Law requires all union parties running for election to have equal provision for display of materials -
“whenever such labor organizations or its officers authorize the distribution by mail or otherwise to members of campaign literature on behalf of any candidate or of the labor organization itself with reference to such election, similar distribution at the request of any other bona fide candidate shall be made by such labor organization and its officers, with equal treatment as to the expense of such distribution.”
29 U.S.C. 481 SEC. 401. (C)
Such was not provided and statements were gathered witnessing that opposition materials were missing across the school district from bulletin boards where incumbent materials were plainly posted.
D) Incumbents and UTD staff were witnessed visiting classes and discussing the upcoming election, in violation of state law (during work/teaching hours and on the union pay).
E) Insufficient notice of election days and insufficient voting windows – statements and proof that only 1 day notice was provided to many employees of the specific voting window. Furthermore, voting windows of only 20 minutes were evidenced (emails announcing vote times as short as 20 minutes are on file).
F) “3 presidential challengers addressed [UTD officers and council of building stewards] from the microphone the need to verify the vote count on an ongoing basis throughout the machine tally on February 21, 2007. We were assured that this would be done. After an initial demonstration early in the day, no verification was offered. …” – in other words, ballots disappeared from the school sites uncounted and were not accounted for for over a week.
2009 – Evote is introduced in October 2009. Prior to Evote, the average employee participation (2003-2009 averages) was 53%. After Evote, the 3 ratifications held over the internet have averaged 21% participation. Aronowitz UTD doesn’t address this, doesn’t seek to improve it, in fact, perpetuates and amplifies this by continuing to complexify and selectively advertise the vote process.
2010 – detailed above.
2011 – June 2011 and August 2011 Healthcare hides wage freeze and RTTT funds used as bribe to pass excessive teacher evaluation changes over illegal and insecure internet voting system and illegal vote counting meeting.
Here is what the courts have said about ratification votes involving union contract changes in the public employee sector:
Florida’s Rule 60CC-4.002(4) states that “Where it is necessary to conduct more than one ratification meeting, each such meeting shall be counted pursuant to the foregoing requirements, provided that the combined results of voting conducted at the several meetings shall be announced within three (3) days after the final ratification meeting.”
“Each meeting shall be counted pursuant…,” that is, “in accordance with” the foregoing requirements:
Subsection (3) spells out the “foregoing requirements” – the various ratifications should use
secret ballots, publicly counted, the results announced at the conclusion of voting and counting.
PERC continues, quoting its ruling re: a union dispute over voting in Tampa:
“…In seeking to discern the meaning of ‘ratification meeting,’ we look to the purpose of the rule provision at issue. Subsection (3) is intended to safeguard the integrity of the ratification election process by having the vote counted before it is removed from public view. Equally
important as preventing actual vote tampering, this procedure seeks to avoid the appearance of impropriety in elections, which must attend when ballots are handled outside of the public view. We note that there are no neutral parties to ratification elections; both the Union and the employees have vested interests in the election results and are susceptible to tampering charges.
Therefore, a public vote count is necessary to protect the appearance of propriety as well as the actual integrity of the vote.”
it goes on:
“Thus, we have concluded that:
…a ‘ratification meeting’ is reasonably defined as the period of time from the opening of the polls to the closing of the polls, irrespective of a change in meeting location. Thus the rule requires that the vote be publicly counted and announced each time the polls close…”
pages 16 & 17
http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=CB/CaseYr=11/CaseNo=073/File=CB11\073-Ord17-022912084010.pdf
Note the courts additional comments:
p.17:
“the Union urges the Commission to accept internet voting because it is faster, more efficient, and more cost-effective than traditional methods of voting.
We cannot overlook the hearing officer’s real and legitimate concerns regarding the inherent vulnerabilities of the Union’s internet voting procedure which could ultimately affect election results and which led the hearing officer to conclude that ‘the internet voting procedure used in this case raises significant doubts about the sanctity of the secret vote’…Under the traditional methods, voters have an opportunity at the ratification meeting to monitor the tally, discover discrepancies, and/or challenge the voting results…No such safeguards existed in the internet voting implemented in the instant case.”
Although the internet procedure may be more expedient, we decline the Union’s invitation to abandon our long standing rule requiring a ratification meeting during which votes are publicly counted, and the results are publicly announced”…the purpose of the rule is not merely to preserve the integrity of the vote but to preserve the appearance of propriety in the election…”
NOTE THAT UTD’s REQUEST ON THE BASIS OF SPEED OFVOTE COUNTING is REJECTED!
p.12
“When the window period closes, Votenet’s computer system automatically and instantaneously tallies the ballots.”
p.13
“Neither the employees nor the Union officers observed the vote tally.”
The ONLY vote count observed by witnesses is presumed to be at the school sites where they were hand counted and open to public view BEFORE the votes disappeared into the bowels of UTD’s building.
