State of Virginia Faults County on Vienna Poll Problems
From the Examiner (image 1 and image 2):
William C. Flook, The Examiner 2007-05-18 07:00:00.0 Current rank: # 81 of 6,412 Fairfax County -The Virginia State Board of Elections this week criticized Fairfax County election officials for failing to promptly remove a poll worker accused of misconduct during Vienna’s May 1 election.
But no agencies, either state or county, have said at this point they plan to further investigate the circumstances surrounding the day, in which three incumbents won re-election by a wide margin over Deborah Brehony and Susan Yancey Stich.Fairfax County oversees the town’s elections, and any legal probe would come from Commonwealth’s Attorney Robert Horan’s office. Horan did not return repeated phone calls this week, though Fairfax County Board of Elections Secretary Maggie Luca said she had not heard of any investigation.
Three days after the election, the State Board of Elections received a handful of complaints by voters, submitted en masse by Brehony. One voter, according to a copy of the complaint, was approached at the booth by a poll worker who told her to “vote for three,” referring to the maximum number of candidates a voter could cast a ballot for.
“I said ‘you mean up to three,’ ” the voter wrote in the complaint. “She said that I should vote for three ‘or the new people will get in.’ ”
Because there were only two challengers, entering three candidates would give a vote to at least one of the incumbents. Voters are not required to cast all three votes.
Fairfax County election officials later that day removed the worker, who was identified as Rhoda Stevens, Luca said. Stevens, reached by phone on Thursday, denied any wrongdoing.
Other complaints charge that poll workers were standing near the booths to see how people were voting.
“Certainly, there was a problem with two officers in the polling place ... that should have been addressed promptly on Election Day and was not fully addressed,” said Rosanna Bencoach, policy manager for the State Board of Elections.
Both challengers have said they believe the election events represented a larger problem than the poll workers themselves. According to the complaint, Stevens had said “she was only doing what she was told.”
“The actions that took place on Tuesday, May 1 were not mistakes,” Behony wrote in a letter accompanying the complaint. “They were planned and calculated.”
Vienna Vice Mayor Michael Polychrones emphatically denied that accusation.
“To me, it’s more sour grapes,” he said. “Just look at the numbers — it was almost two to one. There was no way one person making an albeit dumb but innocent comment could have influenced that many people.”
Comments
Just a "dumb" poll worker and Deborah and Susie are just "sour grapes", eh?
Nice statement, Mike. You sound like someone who is running the corrupt machine with Maud and Jane.
I am dumbfounded that NOT ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN or TOWN OFFICIAL said the actions were gross and voter fraud will not be tolerated and we're cleaning house with our poll workers.
Posted by: vienna mommy | May 18, 2007 01:50 PM
Yes, I saw the article this morning. Why is no one being punished for the shenanigans at the recent Town election?
Posted by: Pontific8tor | May 18, 2007 02:10 PM
Problem is that no one will arrest an 85-year old grandmother. No matter how illegal her actions are.
Posted by: I'm old so you can't touch me | May 18, 2007 03:00 PM
I cannot even imagine that town officials would discount reports of impropriety, especially when third party officials had to intercede. Sounds like they are defending themselves instead of believing that Rhoda was the problem. Mr. Vice Mayor, that was a real intellectual statement: "sour grapes". You make us proud. Talk of charging anyone with a violation reminds me of Charlies statement when confronted with the fact that the town passed the deadline for handicap facilities at town hall: What are they going to do put us in jail? Now that's Vienna History.
Posted by: Ruminator | May 18, 2007 07:01 PM
The reason nothing is going to happen with any substance is that from every level of oversight, no matter how deep and far the corruption goes, is that The State of Virginia simply does not want a black eye over this, and doing nothing but stating that it was merely a overzealous poll worker or candidates complaining of sour grapes, means that the problem won't have to be dealt with in the open: they are afraid of showing their dirty laundry. So this level of corruption will be accepted in so far as no charges will be files, no-one will be held liable, and no change in the election results or new election, simply because there is no one in Virginia that is willing to take a stand and really deal with this lawbreaking. They'll let it slowly and quietly simmer off into the sunset, and no-one will care anyway...
Maud was re-elected, and that's all that counts.
Posted by: The Mayor (not of Vienna, of Course) | May 19, 2007 06:45 AM
The last I knew, Virginia was still under "probation" of some sort under the Voting Rights Act. Does anyone out there know if this is still the case? If so, it might be interesting to see if the Feds are willing to investigate this. I am guessing that Mother Maud is a Republican (given that she endorsed Tom Davis for re-election). Perhaps Madam Speaker Pelosi should be notified of these shenanigans.
Posted by: Pontific8tor | May 19, 2007 04:32 PM
Our Vice-Mayor said look at the numbers of the last election and see that it does not matter if some votes were swayed. Let me remind him of the Vienna election where the margin between candidates was only 13 votes. Now under those circumstances only 7 votes were needed to change the outcome of that election. I would remind the Vice-Mayor that it was not the number of votes that counted but the fact that there was an impropriety.
Posted by: Ruminator | May 19, 2007 05:44 PM
OK, just for kicks I sent a note to Speaker Pelosi to see if the Voting Rights Act might apply to this situation, as most parts of Virginia (including Fairfax County) appear to be under some forms of special scrutiny under the Act. It will be interesting to see what sort of reply might occur. If I hear from Nancy, I will fill everyone in.
Posted by: Pontific8tor | May 19, 2007 08:06 PM
Ruminator while ruminating about his last entry reflecting that 13 votes (really 7 votes) effected the outcome of an election realizes that the 16 write- in votes at the last election could have been significant if the numbers were as close. However, the official poll counts do not reflect those 16 votes which I think is wrong. Whatever those votes were there was the intent of sending a message. We cannot deduce that information if the votes are kept secret. For instance some people vote "non of the above". Was that the case in the last election? Remember every vote counts. We deserve better.
Posted by: Ruminator | May 20, 2007 06:13 PM
GEEZ MIKE, HERE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE COUNCIL PERSON WITH THE GUTS TO STAND UP TO MAUDE AND "ME TOO" JANE. GUESS NOT! SOS!
Posted by: HISTORIC LIES | May 22, 2007 09:26 AM
I guess Mike Polychrones is not above the fray when it comes to begging for his next term this next year. I would have thought at least one person would stand up and take an honest stand against this corrupt individuals. The only person I remember in recent past was Syd Verinder. Mike, you are no Syd Verinder, and I voted for you last time, but never again, and that goes for E. Kelleher who was also caught spreading bad rumors about the challengers!
Is there anyone in the TOV that is honest and not strayed by greed, and power?
Posted by: Mike you are no different than the rest | May 22, 2007 12:43 PM
I guess ol' Mike really puts the term "vice" in vice-mayor.
Posted by: Pontific8tor | May 22, 2007 02:37 PM
Mike, are you considering a run for mayor?
If you do, get ready for the heat.
Posted by: Is Mike thinking about mayor? | May 23, 2007 01:08 PM
"Mike, are you considering a run for mayor?"
Mike doesn't have to run for Mayor. Jane will run and win, then she'll resign. As Vice Mayor, Mike will step in. Then, he'll be an incumbent for the next election, and he'll keep his job as Mayor.
Posted by: Watch and see... | May 23, 2007 03:15 PM
Think about this folks... the Town vice-mayor fails to defend the common good. Rather than speak to the wrong that was done, he dismisses it as inconsequential... even defends it with a vote count. Why? Because it is a symptom of the larger corruption that is Vienna's stagnant entrenched political power structure of which he is part and parcel... he's just another 'us' poly-{...]. It's time to clean house in Vienna. Show no mercy for these council {...]s. Vote, Vienna! Just 800 thinking voters need to go to the polls next spring to start dismantling the garden club. Let's not wait for them to devolve into their twilight of full on dementia.
Posted by: Town Green | May 24, 2007 09:52 AM