Voter Fraud?

09/28/2016

 
Recent news reports of voter fraud in Harrisonburg, Virginia have largely gone unreported and it is very important that we all understand some of the details.  A student at James Madison University (JMU) has confessed to voter fraud when he presented voter registration forms to the City Registrar’s Office for numerous persons that were known to be deceased.  The student was working with an organization called HarrisonburgVOTES *, an obscure organization founded by Joe Fitzgerald and two JMU students. Their mission seems to be limited to voter registration.

In order for individuals and organizations to legally conduct voter registrations drives in Virginia, they must complete training and be certified by the Virginia Dept. of Elections.  HarrisonburgVOTES was certified by the Virginia Dept of Elections, and thus was fully informed of the proper way to conduct voter registrations, and the penalties for fraud.  HarrisonburgVOTES was aware they are fully liable for employees and volunteers actions conducting voter registration drives.


Besides being founder of HarrisonburgVOTES, Mr. Fitzgerald is the PR Coordinator at the JMU College of Arts and Letters, and he is Chairman of the 6th Congressional District Democrat Committee.

It is important to understand just how high up in the Virginia Democratic Party Joe Fitzgerald is.  The state of Virginia is divided up into 11 Congressional Districts, for our 11 Representatives in the House of Congress.  For each Congressional District, there is a Democratic Committee, which in turn has a Chairman.  Each of these 11 Democratic District Chairmen serve on the Steering Committee e.g. the Board of the VA Democratic State Party.  See their State Party website, halfway down page.)

His wife, Deb Fitzgerald, is Chairman of both the Harrisonburg (City) Democratic Committee and the Harrisonburg Planning Commission. Interestingly, she also serves as the Chief Election Officer for the JMU Convocation (Convo) Center Voting Precinct in Harrisonburg. This is a recently created precinct that contains a high number of college student voters. An Election Officer is responsible for the proper and orderly voting in a local precinct. A report on the investigation was given to the City of Harrisonburg Electoral Board at their 9/12/2016 meeting by Chris Bean of the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office.  (Download the Minutes, see page 3) 

The close relationship between the confessed fraudster and Election Officers and State Democrat Party leadership cannot be ignored and is quite troubling. Few people have any idea how far this sort of corruption has crept into our system. Research shows that voter fraud charges are rarely prosecuted at the state or federal level. Given the media’s reluctance to report on such matters we must do our best to inform the voters about this corruption and make sure it doesn’t happen on our watch.

*
Update October 3, 2016 - because of the increased scrutiny, the HarrisonburgVOTES website and Facebook page have been suddenly taken down.  However here's a screenshot of the website's 'About' page, with a biography of Joe Fitzgerald:

Screenshot from 'About' page of HarrsionburgVOTES website
Click in box for larger image

Here are some other informative links, which haven't been removed yet:
https://www.everipedia.com/joseph-fitzgerald/ & https://www.everipedia.com/harrisonburgvotes/

Because this topic of voter fraud in Harrisonburg is so controversial and current and the direct links with the state Democratic Party leadership are so important and yet ignored by mainstream media, we will provide updates as they become available.


GCRC Local Action Committee

For more information, please contact GCRC Vice Chairman Keith Bourne at LocalAction@gcrcgop.com
 
 
There are very specific laws that address how local governments must conduct the public business of the people. All meetings are to be conducted publically, according to Virginia Code §2.2-3707  with some specific exceptions outlined in Virginia Code §2.2-3711.

Such matters of exception from the public meeting law that any County Board of Supervisors may encounter could be;
  • Personnel discussions, hiring or disciplinary actions. 
  • Acquisition and disposal of property. 
  • The protection of the privacy of individuals in personal matters not related to public business. 
  • Prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. 
  • Discussion or consideration of the investment of public funds where competition or bargaining is involved, where, if made public initially, the financial interest of the governmental unit would be adversely affected. 
  • Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation…
  • Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds, including interviews of bidders or offerors, and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, where discussion in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. 
Barkley email
Closed meeting sessions have a very specific and limited purpose.  They are not to be used to plan or conduct public business not exempted by law, discuss how to conduct public meeting proceedings about tax rates or budget hearings, rehearse or role-play.  

Matters that come before the Board of Supervisors on behalf of constituents should be openly discussed in public without origination from a closed door session.  Improper use of closed meetings is an abuse of the public trust.

For lawfully exempted matters to be discussed in a closed meeting or “executive session”, a motion is required during a public meeting to enter into the closed meeting stating its purpose, the § code cited covering the exception within §2.2-3711, and the subject of the exception. 

FOIA image
The Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council is sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Virginia and publishes a pamphlet entitled, “The Freedom of Information Act and Local Government Officials” as a resource.  The pamphlet states that, “Unless a public body or public official specifically elects to exercise an exemption provided by this chapter or any other statute, every meeting shall be open to the public and all public records shall be available for inspections and copying upon request.”  The pamphlet also defines public records, the Policy of FOIA, meeting requirements, defines what a meeting is and is NOT, and covers record retention.

For any open session to continue upon conclusion to a closed session, a motion must be made to come out of closed session.  Each member of the board present during the meeting must certify if only lawful matters exempted by §2.2-3711 were discussed during the closed meeting. This certification affirms that the members followed the law while out of public view.


Bob Young
Ruckersville, VA

/* Download this article in PDF form here. */

 
 
Greene County Board of Supervisors’ Misuse of Executive Session, and Their Non-Compliance with Freedom of Information Act 
Statement by Mr. McPeeks 
I live on Haney Rd, one of two roads in the Golden Hills subdivision that have not been accepted into the VDOT secondary road system. While the reasons these public roads were never accepted into the secondary road system dates back to 1991, the reason they remain unmaintained is because of the inaction of this board. We are all aware of the facts and I do not feel the need to go through them all again. I would like to point out that with the help of the Surveyor, Ray & Associates, we have found the deed that dedicates the roads to public use and hope that this ends the Board’s claim that these are private roads. 

With all that said, that is not the reason for my comments today. I would to like to make the public aware of two issues my neighbors and I have encountered while trying to overcome the Board’s reluctance to address our roads. Both of these issues pertain to Title 2.2, Chapter 37 of the Virginia Code, which is the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

First, is the appearance that the Board is not complying with Virginia code 2.2- 3707 by discussing items during closed-door executive sessions that are not permitted. There have been many times during our discussions with members of the Board, and particularly with Chairman Martin, that it was clear meetings were occurring and decisions being made behind closed-doors. Our suspicions appear to have been confirmed by an email obtained in our August 18, 2016 FOIA request. In an email on February 23, 2016, Mr. Barkley states that he has scheduled a “brief overview of the requests for improvements to private roads received from certain homeowners in the Golden Hills subdivision for tonight’s executive session.” If such a briefing did in fact take place, in no way does this briefing meet the requirements of Virginia Code 2.2-3711. The code specifically states “briefings by staff members pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body”. 

First, despite the claims from Chairman Martin, there has been no probable litigation. Even if there were pending litigation, only the advice by counsel or discussions that could affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the Board are allowed in closed-session. A briefing by the County Administrator of public business is inappropriate for a closed-session. 

Additionally, the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, in it’s pamphlet “The Freedom of Information Act and Local Government Officials,” reminds local government officials that closed meetings “require motion stating purpose, Code cite AND subject.” The pamphlet italicizes the and for emphasis. The minutes from the February 23, 2016 Board of Supervisors meeting clearly show that Mr. Cox motioned to enter Executive Session, the code was referenced and what could loosely be interpreted as a purpose but the subjects were not. The Advisory Council makes it clear that the subjects are to be identified to the public. By not providing the subjects, the Board of Supervisors gives the perception that it is trying to hide the subjects of these discussions from the public. 

If the Board was to follow the intent of the law the briefing would be held in public and then the Board would enter into Executive Session, stating the purpose, citing the code, and the subject. The fact that the Board continually does not follow the code is concerning and raises alarm for the citizens of the county who elected this Board. 

The second subject I want to comment on today is the fitness of Mr. Barkley as the FOIA officer for this county. Virginia Code 2.2-3704.2 states that all local public bodies shall designate a FOIA officer. Mr. Frydl informed me verbally that Mr. Barkley is the County’s FOIA officer. Paragraph E of 2.2-3704.2 states that the FOIA officer shall possess specific knowledge of the provisions of Chapter 37 and be trained annually. Mr. Barkley has continually shown he does not possess the required knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act to remain the County’s FOIA officer. This is evidenced by his mishandling of the FOIA request from Mr. Rob Schilling on April 30, 2015, which led to legal action against the County and now by his mishandling of Mr. David Underwood’s February 16, 2016 FOIA request. 

In an email on February 17, 2016 Mike Nichols, of Shenandoah Technology Systems, informs Mr. Barkley that he doesn’t know how far the archive goes back and that Mr. Barkley will need to contact employees involved to have them search their own email files. Mr. Barkley’s response to Mr. Nichols was to do the best he could, which is perfectly acceptable, if Mr. Barkley intends to pursue the remaining emails by other means. However, after that Mr. Barkley only reached out to the Board and Mr. Svoboda to get additional information. The FOIA request is effective January 1, 2003 and is inclusive of the entire county; why was no attempt made for other files and emails outside of those individuals? Mr. Barkley has not been here since 2003 to know that no one else had the requested information. 

I would also like to point out Virginia Record Retention and Disposition Schedule No. GS-06 Series 000290: 
“Agreements, Bonds, and Contracts This series consists of agreements, contracts, and bonds relating to professional services and construction. This series may include but is not limited to: surety, bonds, correspondence, letters of credit, and public/private agreements.” 

It states all of these must be maintained for 5 years after completion of the project. 

In his March 10, 2016 email to me Mr. Martin stated “there were extenuating circumstances with regard to the developer that may have caused the project to languish and remain incomplete.” Additionally, Mr. Svoboda and others have stated to us the project was never completed. Considering, according to County officials, the project was never completed, we are still within that period. Therefore, the records must be retained according to state code. Mr. Barkley has only been County Administrator since 2013, so why was no effort made to access the previous Administrators' email? Either the County is not following FOIA or the Public Records Act and its corresponding schedules; either of which should be addressed by this Board. The Virginia FOIA advisory council makes it very clear that email has always been considered a public record and is subject to PRA schedules and FOIA, since its inception. 

With this in mind, I ask that the Board of Supervisors immediately remove Mr. Barkley as the County’s FOIA officer. I also think it would be appropriate for Mr. Underwood’s and my FOIA requests to be revisited after a new FOIA officer is appointed and properly trained in accordance with Paragraph E of 2.2-3704.2. Landon McPeeks Greene County, Virginia September 13, 2016 


Landon McPeeks 
Greene County, Virginia 
September 13, 2016 


The preceding statement – in its entirety – was to be read to the Greene County Board of Supervisors, during the Public Comment period of the September 13, 2016 Meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Unfortunately, Chairman Martin did not permit Mr. McPeeks to complete the full reading.  Download Mr. McPeeks' statement in a PDF form here.  

Watch Mr. McPeeks Call the Board of Supervisors to Account

Video courtesy of 'Our Meetings Greene County' - Please subscribe to this channel, and share this blog article and video around to all your Greene County friends.
 
 
Anyone who has paid attention to the machinations of Washington knows that when powerful elites want to bury a story they have it released on a Friday night. Moreover, this is preferably done before a long holiday weekend when the American people’s attention is focused elsewhere. So, the beginning of this Labor Day weekend witnessed the cynical release of the FBI's investigatory report covering Hillary Clinton's July interview. Some of the public had been already disturbed when FBI Director James Comey previously came before the nation's media to give his report of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary’s shenanigans as Secretary of State and her final interview. Director Comey sequentially stated the case against Hillary Clinton’s use of an illegal server as Secretary of State, exposing Top Secret Classified governmental materials to foreign eyes, and then subsequently stating his Pontius Pilate-like washing of his hands by shockingly not recommending any actions be taken over her previously stated violations of Federal Statutes. All of this occurred as you may remember as Bill Clinton “coincidentally” conferenced privately with Comey’s direct superior, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac in Arizona in a locked-down plane. Now, as America settles in to College football and barbeque, comes the release of the background report of that very same FBI interview of the Secretary of State and Presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This document, known as a ‘302’ is the FBI's investigatory report of that interview that Director Comey previously paraphrased and details the specifics of who was present and what was said. Firstly, the documents show Hillary was accompanied by a phalanx of lawyers, namely David Kendall, Catherine Turner, Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, and amazingly enough, ‘an attorney who shall not be named’. What? Secondly, it relates the substance of her responses to questions by the FBI lawyers which generally took the form of "I don't recall" or "I trusted State Department professionals."  She claimed ignorance of receiving training from the State Dept. for classification categories, handling of classified information, and procedures for retention of government document despite the legal Non-Disclosure Agreement she herself signed that she had. In all, Hillary amazingly stated at least 26 times that she could not recall key incriminating actions taken by her as Secretary of State. These include:

- When she received security clearance
- Being briefed on how to handle classified material
- How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
- Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
- How to select a target for a drone strike
- How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
- The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
- Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
- Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
- Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
- Getting guidance from state on email policy
- Who had access to her Blackberry account
- The process for deleting her emails
- Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
- Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
- Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
- Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
- Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
- Using an iPad mini
- An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
- Jacob Sullivan using personal email
- State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
- Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
- Being nofied of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
- Being read out of her clearance
- Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account

In truth, all of the document is political farce masquerading as high drama and shows Hillary mostly restating her standard defenses to compliant FBI attorneys. More importantly though there are no questions about the emails relayed by the illegal server(s)-in-question to and from Clinton aides regarding Clinton Foundation business. These emails have only recently come after-the-fact to light, most likely on the council of her lawyers who advised withholding them in the first place which in turn forced the FBI to recover them. This kabuki dance served a dual purpose: 1) Hillary was allowed to appear forthcoming, even though she did nothing but provide the same talking points and evasions she had all along, and 2) the facilitation of this charade by the FBI who provided her with an official forum to repeat her outright denials of intent. This was a Win/Win for both pares, Hillary and the FBI.

Please allow me your forbearance in borrowing the metaphor that, on this weekend there is more smoke out there than is being generated by the nation’s collective barbeques. I can only conclude from the dense clouds wafting across the nation that both pares are guilty. Hillary for her evasions and FBI Director James Comey for being a political lackey, or bought off, or both. Nonetheless, as I previously said, the timing has been preordained to minimize the impact of these revelations and buffalo a distracted, unalert, and possibly inebriated, American public.

Carry on.


Michael Wolkowicz
Stanardsville, VA
 
 
The minutes of the April 26th, 2016 meeting of the Greene County Board of Supervisors, held at the William Monroe High School Performing Arts Center, reflect comments concerning the most recently audited 2015 fiscal year, and opinions about the current 2017 fiscal year budget.

According to the Greene County Administrator, John Barkley, “the 2015 Comprehensive Financial Audit Report demonstrates continued evidence of disciplined spending and fiscal responsibility”, and the 2017 fiscal year budget is “lean and efficient”. County Administrator Barkley outlined that the budget continues to fund core services such as education and safety, investment in County personnel, support of local and regional partners, continued focus on utilizing technology to provide better information and services to residents and businesses, and enforcement of regulations and state mandates.

Even the members of the Board of Supervisors agreed with County Administrator Barkley, with four of five Supervisors voting in favor of the FY’17 budget including raising the Real Estate tax rate to 77.5 cents per 100 dollars of assessed value.  All four Supervisors who voted in favor of the rate increase cited the need for additional funds to invest into county services and initiatives.

Budgeting and planning for the future is a fundamental function of the County Administration and of the Board of Supervisors.  Additionally, and more importantly, so should ensuring that every tax dollar collected is used efficiently by examining how County Departments under the leadership of the County Administrator function and perform…results must matter.  

Take the Greene County Solid Waste Facility, for example.  This facility is an operation that has the potential to be very self-sufficient and sustaining through fees paid by the customers who use the service.  However, for at least the past 4-audited years and through information provided by the County, the facility has collected $3.4 million in total fee revenue, incurred $4.6 million in operating costs, and rack up an operating deficit of $1.17 million dollars.  The facility lost an average of $293 thousand dollars per year during the 2012 – 2015 fiscal years.  We are waiting on the audited results of fiscal year 2016 to see how this is trending.
These financial results scream that improvements need to be made in this particular County department.  Either costs need to be managed better, a new fee structure developed, or both.  Inquiries need to be made and an operational study performed to ensure that quality controls are in place for capturing and charging for every pound of waste received.  Are the scales calibrated and working consistently?  After all, the cost for transferring the metric tons of waste out can be more than 63% of the operational costs alone.  If this is not a self-sustaining venture, a new business model must be considered for this service.  As of now, this potentially-self-sustaining operation is subsidized at the expense of other County core services. 

To place this into further perspective, the average financial loss per year for the solid waste facility, over the last 4-audited years, is more than 62% of the 2017 Real Estate tax increase that the Board of Supervisors explained was necessary to generate more revenue for Greene County.

Perhaps next budget season, County Administrator Barkley and the Board of Supervisors can address this example and explain where improvements were made that led to being “lean and efficient”.  The Greene County Solid Waste Facility can be the first piece of low hanging fruit.


Bob Young
Ruckersville, VA