"Hey buddy, were here to collect your ballot, and you best have the right boxes marked if you know what's good for you".

Doesn't sound like that big a deal, they're just trying to increase turnout on their side. What's strange though is the story was posted on Oregonlive for about 15 minutes, but the link wasn't accessible when you clicked it. And now the story is nowhere to be found on that site.

Eric it is and its here.
http://www.oregonlive.com/west-linn/index.ssf/2012/11/two_pac_members_caught_collect.html#incart_river

Sorry... we're

Why would you ever hand it to a stranger? Voter suppression seems much less likely than an attempt at voter intimidation.

I think the "tampering" story at the ClackCo Clerk's office is really interesting.

It would be a tragedy is the Clackistan Rebellion's victory over Lehan and co. is tainted by allegations of vote fraud.

I probably read too many spy yarns and fictional political thrillers, but a candidate who is losing badly might find it helpful engineer some apparent tampering favoring her opponent, expose same, and hope to garner a bunch of last minute sympathy votes sufficient to carry the election, or failing that, get the election thrown out in court so as to try again in a rerun, again with a healthy helping of sympathy votes in a rerun.

My "gut" feel was that he Rs were going o do well in Clackistan this time around. hey didn't need this.

Oregon election law says it's OK as long as the helpful partisan hack is carrying a sign.

I'd ask Kate Brown why carrying a sign ensures that a ballot makes it from the voter to the election office.

I see great opportunity for disposal of ballots from areas likely to lean one direction.

Voters from all political persuasions should restrict their ballot delivery to official locations or reliable (and independent) delivery methods.

I'm imagining the outcry we'd hear from the Bus Project or Our Oregon folks if conservatives or the Young Republicans were as helpful in the Democratic neighborhoods of Portland.

Big difference between collecting sealed ballots without the required disclosure button, and intentionally falsifying incoming incomplete ballots in favor of one party. The most important one being significant jail time.

I have to wonder if the "accusation" is nothing more than a smear attempt to attempt to discredit the anti-light rail group, in yet another attempt to keep this decision out of the public and in the hands of a closed group of people who desire unlimited power.

My gut feeling is that nothing happened...so a story is being fabricated.

Our system isn't perfect, for sure. But there are some trade-offs: vote by mail would be a breeze in a place where polling places were submerged, swept away and/or without electricity or heat.

Unlikely Hall would have reported a problem without some evidence. But that's what investigations are for. It doesn't require a conspiracy for someone to do something really stupid.

Despite the BlueOregoon attempt to inflate it in all likelihood this ballot tampering story will turnout to be a foolish and failed attempt by a lone worker who was caught with her first of near first attempt to tamper with a ballot.

Although nothing can prohibit someone from trying the process has observers to catch such attempts and it seems it worked just as anyone can imagine it would with observers right there watching.

"Hey, what the heck are you doing?"
"Nothing".
"What are you doing with that pencil?"
"This person is trying to fill out ballots!"
Staff and management approach the offender, they're caught, detained and law enforcement is called.
The offender confesses and everything is reported.

But that doesn't stop the BlueOregoons from making up stories and accusations that would require accomplice observers to pull it off.

Carla Axtman,
"Based on my understanding,
Within this context,
it would appear
that Clackamas filed a security plan and didn't follow it.
Further, it appears that volunteers were allowed to handle ballots outside the law. "

Stacey Dycus
"This person could have been doing it for years. To me, it seems if they felt comfortable enough doing it, they may have done it before, maybe many times. What's the culture of Hall's office? We know there's been other "mistakes' - There have been some Very close races in Clackamas the last few cycles where D's have lost by less than 300 votes. I hope there is a full investigation of the office, not just this worker."

Carla and Stacey could have added this.

Oh the horror. That one same person may have been a tampering nerd for years. Perhaps they had a 007 pencil contraption in a ring, wrist watch or bracelet and a slick move they had perfected allowing them to avoid detection? We just don't know! We may never know. :(
And if Lehan loses [60-40] we'll never know for sure if that's really what the voters wanted.

Fortunately voters know Lehan and Damn paid TriMet $20 million 4 days before they could vote to decide themselves.

Funny how its never a conspiracy when it's your team. Just one bad apple in the bunch.

Speaking of coercion, here is noted election expert Bill Maher speaking thoughtfully on the sanctity of the secret ballot:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/03/maher-if-you-vote-romney-black-people-know-who-you-are-and-will-come

This one should breeze thru unmolested, though. People are falling over themselves rushing to line up to sign the recall petitions for the two troubled hangers-on at Clackamas River Water:

Ratepayer mounts campaign to recall remaining two Clackamas River Water board members
By Molly Harbarger, The Oregonian | November 02, 2012

Naomi Angiers has had enough. On Friday, she started a recall campaign to oust Clackamas River Water board members Patricia Holloway and Grafton Sterling.
http://www.oregonlive.com/milwaukie/index.ssf/2012/11/ratepayer_mounts_campaign_to_r.html

Naomi is just a wee bit misdirected.

The only 2 people at CRW who are not trying to prevent the forensic audit are Holloway and Sterling.

Anyone interested in the truth should be supporting them and the audit. Or at the very least the audit. It would clear everything up. Or reveal those who need revealing.

This isn't nearly as confusing or circus-like as some seem to want it to be.

The many irregularities that have been raised by former CRW employees and board members caused the CRW auditors write a letter to the CRW recommending an investigative forensic audit.

The employees and auditors were fired and for the past two years a battle to prevent the audit and attack Holloway and Sterling for demanding it has been waged.
All the while the manger in the middle of it all has been telling people the audit has already occurred while refusing to provide any documentation. That's pretty bizarre.

Especially since this fictitious audit would clear everything up.

Fun times ahead.

And Naomi is going to find it much harder to gather signatures than she thinks it is.

Forget Kyle's red herrings.

See, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010
http://www.crwater.com/wp-content/uploads/FY11-CRWFinancialStatements.pdf

The conclusion of the auditing firm, Moss Adams, in their Dec. 30, 2011 Audit Report was:

"We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above."

The Moss Adams report is at the end of the Financial Report above.

See also, CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR BOARD MEETING, BOARD INDEX OF AUDIOTAPE, January 12, 2012
http://www.crwater.com/wp-content/uploads/01-12-2012_RgBdMt_Sum-2_.pdf

Relevant excerpt below:

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
President Kami Kehoe Secretary Barbara Kemper Treasurer Mike Cardwell Commissioner Patricia Holloway Commissioner Grafton Sterling

CRW LEGAL COUNSEL:
Dan Olsen, Attorney (filling in for Dean Phillips) Agenda Item 1.0: Call to Order

STAFF PRESENT:
Lee Moore, General Manager Adam Bjornstedt, Engineering Manager Carol Bryck, Chief Financial Officer Donn Bunyard, Operations Manager Adora Campbell, Executive Assistant to the Board Suzanne DeLorenzo, Water Quality Manager Karin Holzgang, Executive Assistant to the GM Bob George, District Engineer Kham Keobounnam, Information Systems Manager Tracy Triplett, Water Quality/Lab Analyst

VISITORS PRESENT:
Bob Garbarino (SWA); Al Jones; Joe Karas; (Moss Adams); Gary Kerr; Cyndi Lewis-Wolfram; Warren Mitchell; George Payne (OLWD); Bill Schulenberg

****

Agenda Item 3.0: Financial Report

(a) Audit Update: Presentation by Moss Adams and Distribution of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CAFR) - This was the second year Moss Adams’ audited CRW financials.

CRW had again received a clean audit opinion. According to the Oregon Minimum Standards, there were no findings or issues of non-compliance; the District received a clean report. CRW had addressed the audit findings from last year and all documents requested had been quickly provided by staff.

Examples of non-compliance could be: expenditures over appropriations (the most common); contracts that did not follow fair, competitive bidding; the lack of having insurance in place; or an appropriate accounting system with reasonable internal controls.

Auditor’s responsibilities were to conduct the audit according to General Accepted Accounting Standards (GAAS) and report the audit to the Board. This included expressing an opinion about whether the financial statements prepared by management and with Board oversight are fairly presented in all material respects and in conformance with GAAP. The auditors had expanded their testing in certain areas as discussed with the Board. There were no significant, new accounting policies or changes to existing policies.

− Accounting estimates: Estimates included in the audit were items like unbilled revenue, allowance for doubtful accounts and recovery periods for the cost of the plant.

− Unanticipated Audit Adjustments: There were no posted or passed adjustments.

− Disagreements with Management: There were no disagreements with management.

− Consultation with Other Accountants: There was no consultation with other accountants (opinion shopping) or difficulties encountered in performing the audit.

− Material Weaknesses: There was no material weaknesses - meaning there were no material adjustments consequential to the financial statements.

− Significant Control Deficiency: There were no significant control deficiencies.

There were no significant audit findings this year....

Mojo,

Red herring?

You are either confused or misleading.

Every government agency undergoes annual financial statement audits.

Those are not investigative, forensic or performance audits.

They are looking at accounting compliance not the operations & management for any impropriety or misappropriation.

TriMet has annual financial statement audits by Moss-Adams.
You may have heard all is not well at TriMet.
However, even the narrow scope of their annual audit does report their unfunded liabilities.

When Moss Adams replaced VanBeek and Company at CRW they did not investigate the previous irregularities mentioned in the VanBeek letter to CRW.

And there has never been the forensic audit they recommended before being fired.

Quite the contrary CRW management has been seemingly nefarious in obstructing and preventing that from happening.

The City of Molalla underwent annual audits like everyone else. Only after their city council narrowly voted 4-3 to hire a forensic auditor did they discover management had knowingly misappropriated $2.5 million in system development charges.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/03/investigator_says_molalla_alre.html

The alarming letter sent to CRW by the previous auditors contained far more indications of potential improprieties.

So all of those quotes you posted,
"There were no disagreements with management"
"There was no consultation with other accountants or difficulties encountered in performing the audit"
"There was no material weaknesses"
"There were no significant control deficiencies"
"no significant audit findings this year" etc

were ONLY in regards to the CRW financial statements and accounting standards.

Not the operation, management, performance appropriations or anything clearing CRW of any reported irregularities.

Now are you not understanding what those annual audits and forensic audits are or you are conflating the two because you do not want the investigative audit to occur?

Holloway and Sterling are standing firm in their call for the full forensic audit.

CRW management is doing all they can to prevent that from happening.
Including the same conflating of audit types you posted.

Yes, CRW has had their routine 2010 & 2011 annual financial statement audits performed. I have read them. 2012 has not completed yet.

The turmoil at CFW is being caused by efforts to white wash & cover up the irregularities (raised by the fired employees and auditors) which others want fully investigated as recommended.

Where do you stand?

Somewhere beyond your sphere of paranoia, Kyle.

You are misrepresenting what annual audits are and because I'd like to see the forensic audit completed as advised by professionals I'm paranoid?
Gosh that's a convenient conclusion.