Open and transparency review suppressed

The Victorian State Parliament following a complaint from the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, has removed publication of submissions made to the Electoral Matters Committee. The submission which is critical of the conduct of the 2006 Victorian State Election raised concerns that the Chief Electoral Commissioner may have mislead the parliamentary committee in his evidence and report where the Commissioner claimed that copies of preference data files were destroyed during the last election, with an allegation that the Commission is engaged in an cover-up and avoidance exercise to prevent proper scrutiny of the 2006 State election.

The State Parliament has been called on to initiate greater oversight in the conduct of public elections following the disastrous errors in the computerized counting systems that occurred in the 2006 State election and the 2008 Municipal Elections.

The submission outlined issues of concern about the lack of openness and transparency in the computerized counting system introduced in Victoria and the failure of the Commission to provide copies of the preference data files and its failure to reconcile the total number of votes with the information recorded on the voting centre return declarations. As a result of this ommission the total number of votes recorded for the Western Metropolitan Region had changed between the primary count and the second count.

‘The Parliament needs to make sure that the total number of ballot papers recorded are reconciled with voting centre returns to ensure that all ballot papers are properly accounted for and that there is no repeat of the situation where hundreds of ballot papers go missing between counts as was the case in the Western Metropolitan Region. The Victorian Electoral Commission must be required to produce a reconciliation report of the voting centre declarations outlining the total number of ballot papers that have been issued and returned prior to the commencement of data entry of ballot paper preferences. All votes should issued and returned be accounted for on Election night.

Further the Parliament needs to investigate the data management process of the Electoral Commission following evidence that copies of the detailed preference data files had been overwritten and were not available for independent review or scrutiny. “It is conceivable that the Electoral Commission did not maintain backup copies this crucial and important data. It costs Millions of dollars for the Commission to collate this information. Any professional IT management would ensure that all crucial data in the vote counting was backed-up as a matter of course as part of a disaster recovery plan. If backup copies were not made then there are major issues that need to be reviewed.”

The submission, which was pulled from publication on Friday, called on the State government to restore public confidence in the conduct of electrons in Victoria by ensuring that the public elections remain open and transparent and that crucial information is readily available and that the Victorian Electoral Commission is held accountable for its actions.

The submission also outlines a serious complaint of ongoing harassment and intimidation against witnesses to parliamentary inquiries by the Chief Electoral Commissioner and has called on the State Parliament to remove limitations in the Ombudsman Act that prevent the Chief Electoral Commissioner from being investigated by the Victorian State Ombudsman.

A complaint has been lodged with the chairman of the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee which will review the submission which has been removed from the parliament’s web site.

The Electoral Matters Committee meets next Monday to consider this issue.

Open and transparency review suppressed

The Victorian State Parliament following a complaint from the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, has removed publication of submissions made to the Electoral Matters Committee. The submission which is critical of the conduct of the 2006 Victorian State Election raised concerns that the Chief Electoral Commissioner may have mislead the parliamentary committee in his evidence and report where the Commissioner claimed that copies of preference data files were destroyed during the last election, with an allegation that the Commission is engaged in an cover-up and avoidance exercise to prevent proper scrutiny of the 2006 State election.

The State Parliament has been called on to initiate greater oversight in the conduct of public elections following the disastrous errors in the computerized counting systems that occurred in the 2006 State election and the 2008 Municipal Elections.

The submission outlined issues of concern about the lack of openness and transparency in the computerized counting system introduced in Victoria and the failure of the Commission to provide copies of the preference data files and its failure to reconcile the total number of votes with the information recorded on the voting centre return declarations. As a result of this ommission the total number of votes recorded for the Western Metropolitan Region had changed between the primary count and the second count.

‘The Parliament needs to make sure that the total number of ballot papers recorded are reconciled with voting centre returns to ensure that all ballot papers are properly accounted for and that there is no repeat of the situation where hundreds of ballot papers go missing between counts as was the case in the Western Metropolitan Region. The Victorian Electoral Commission must be required to produce a reconciliation report of the voting centre declarations outlining the total number of ballot papers that have been issued and returned prior to the commencement of data entry of ballot paper preferences. All votes should issued and returned be accounted for on Election night.

Further the Parliament needs to investigate the data management process of the Electoral Commission following evidence that copies of the detailed preference data files had been overwritten and were not available for independent review or scrutiny. “It is conceivable that the Electoral Commission did not maintain backup copies this crucial and important data. It costs Millions of dollars for the Commission to collate this information. Any professional IT management would ensure that all crucial data in the vote counting was backed-up as a matter of course as part of a disaster recovery plan. If backup copies were not made then there are major issues that need to be reviewed.”

The submission, which was pulled from publication on Friday, called on the State government to restore public confidence in the conduct of electrons in Victoria by ensuring that the public elections remain open and transparent and that crucial information is readily available and that the Victorian Electoral Commission is held accountable for its actions.

The submission also outlines a serious complaint of ongoing harassment and intimidation against witnesses to parliamentary inquiries by the Chief Electoral Commissioner and has called on the State Parliament to remove limitations in the Ombudsman Act that prevent the Chief Electoral Commissioner from being investigated by the Victorian State Ombudsman.

A complaint has been lodged with the chairman of the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee which will review the submission which has been removed from the parliament’s web site.

The Electoral Matters Committee meets next Monday to consider this issue.

Open and transparency review suppressed

The Victorian State Parliament following a complaint from the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, has removed publication of submissions made to the Electoral Matters Committee. The submission which is critical of the conduct of the 2006 Victorian State Election raised concerns that the Chief Electoral Commissioner may have mislead the parliamentary committee in his evidence and report where the Commissioner claimed that copies of preference data files were destroyed during the last election, with an allegation that the Commission is engaged in an cover-up and avoidance exercise to prevent proper scrutiny of the 2006 State election.

The State Parliament has been called on to initiate greater oversight in the conduct of public elections following the disastrous errors in the computerized counting systems that occurred in the 2006 State election and the 2008 Municipal Elections.

The submission outlined issues of concern about the lack of openness and transparency in the computerized counting system introduced in Victoria and the failure of the Commission to provide copies of the preference data files and its failure to reconcile the total number of votes with the information recorded on the voting centre return declarations. As a result of this ommission the total number of votes recorded for the Western Metropolitan Region had changed between the primary count and the second count.

‘The Parliament needs to make sure that the total number of ballot papers recorded are reconciled with voting centre returns to ensure that all ballot papers are properly accounted for and that there is no repeat of the situation where hundreds of ballot papers go missing between counts as was the case in the Western Metropolitan Region. The Victorian Electoral Commission must be required to produce a reconciliation report of the voting centre declarations outlining the total number of ballot papers that have been issued and returned prior to the commencement of data entry of ballot paper preferences. All votes should issued and returned be accounted for on Election night.

Further the Parliament needs to investigate the data management process of the Electoral Commission following evidence that copies of the detailed preference data files had been overwritten and were not available for independent review or scrutiny. “It is conceivable that the Electoral Commission did not maintain backup copies this crucial and important data. It costs Millions of dollars for the Commission to collate this information. Any professional IT management would ensure that all crucial data in the vote counting was backed-up as a matter of course as part of a disaster recovery plan. If backup copies were not made then there are major issues that need to be reviewed.”

The submission, which was pulled from publication on Friday, called on the State government to restore public confidence in the conduct of electrons in Victoria by ensuring that the public elections remain open and transparent and that crucial information is readily available and that the Victorian Electoral Commission is held accountable for its actions.

The submission also outlines a serious complaint of ongoing harassment and intimidation against witnesses to parliamentary inquiries by the Chief Electoral Commissioner and has called on the State Parliament to remove limitations in the Ombudsman Act that prevent the Chief Electoral Commissioner from being investigated by the Victorian State Ombudsman.

A complaint has been lodged with the chairman of the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee which will review the submission which has been removed from the parliament’s web site.

The Electoral Matters Committee meets next Monday to consider this issue.

Keeping State Secrets VEC under review

The Victorian Electoral Commission has been the subject of intense reviews by VEXNEWS this week. The review follows on from a number of complaints and growing disillusionment of VEC management and the culture of avoidance, corruption and cover up.

Victoria’s public elections are no longer open and transparent and the Chief Commissioner Steve Tully has gone to extraordinary steps to avoid accountability.

A large number of complaints have beeN received across the state that the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make available copies of the detailed election results record on computeR. Candidates’ scrutineers have reported that they were denied access to copies of the preference data files which are used to determine the results of the election in spite the fact that this information is a public document and subject to FOI the Commission is refusing to publish the preference data files.

The returning officer for the City of Hume wrongfully informed one candidate that the information was not available. Without access to this data scrutineers are denied the opportunity to scrutinise the count of public elections, there is no reason why this information is not made public.

In 2006 Steve Tully came under criticism for a botch up computerised count where wrong data had been recorded and over 250 votes went missing between count A and Count B in the Western Metropolitan region. The results of the election changed bwteeen counts with a difference of less then 150 votes. Without a copy of the crucial preference data-files, independnet analysis and review of the data-entry quality can not be made.

Steve Tully when requested by the Victorian Parliament Electoral Matters review committee to provide copies of the data file for booths counts claimed that the crucial information for Count A had been destroyed and the data overwritten.

This has raised serious concern over the practices and security of data held by the VEC. Some think that Steve Tully has deliberately mislead the Parliament in an attention to cover-up what was clearly a botched election count.

Simon Hancock and Glenda Fraser are responsible for the VEC computer count and many IT professionals consider it unlikely that there were no backups of such an important data-entry exercise, costing Victoria millions of dollars. To not have in place risk management and backup of data would be considered negligent and leave the Commission open to allegations of fraudulent coverup of mistakes made during the count.

There are accusations that Steve Tully has compromised the professional standing of his senior staff by implying that the administration of the VEC IT system is shonky at best.

Steve Tully has engaged in a campaign of harassment and lies, designed to seek revenge and intimidation of witness to the parliamentary enquiry into the VEC botched elections processes.

His disgraceful false accusations against Labor Strategist Ray Collins late last week is a sign of a desperate man who will stop at nothing to avoid criticism and review.

Submission have been made to the State Parliament to have the Ombudsman empowered to review the administration of the Commission. The VEC is specifically excluded form the review under the current terms of the Ombudsman Act.

Keeping State Secrets VEC under review

The Victorian Electoral Commission has been the subject of intense reviews by VEXNEWS this week. The review follows on from a number of complaints and growing disillusionment of VEC management and the culture of avoidance, corruption and cover up.

Victoria’s public elections are no longer open and transparent and the Chief Commissioner Steve Tully has gone to extraordinary steps to avoid accountability.

A large number of complaints have beeN received across the state that the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make available copies of the detailed election results record on computeR. Candidates’ scrutineers have reported that they were denied access to copies of the preference data files which are used to determine the results of the election in spite the fact that this information is a public document and subject to FOI the Commission is refusing to publish the preference data files.

The returning officer for the City of Hume wrongfully informed one candidate that the information was not available. Without access to this data scrutineers are denied the opportunity to scrutinise the count of public elections, there is no reason why this information is not made public.

In 2006 Steve Tully came under criticism for a botch up computerised count where wrong data had been recorded and over 250 votes went missing between count A and Count B in the Western Metropolitan region. The results of the election changed bwteeen counts with a difference of less then 150 votes. Without a copy of the crucial preference data-files, independnet analysis and review of the data-entry quality can not be made.

Steve Tully when requested by the Victorian Parliament Electoral Matters review committee to provide copies of the data file for booths counts claimed that the crucial information for Count A had been destroyed and the data overwritten.

This has raised serious concern over the practices and security of data held by the VEC. Some think that Steve Tully has deliberately mislead the Parliament in an attention to cover-up what was clearly a botched election count.

Simon Hancock and Glenda Fraser are responsible for the VEC computer count and many IT professionals consider it unlikely that there were no backups of such an important data-entry exercise, costing Victoria millions of dollars. To not have in place risk management and backup of data would be considered negligent and leave the Commission open to allegations of fraudulent coverup of mistakes made during the count.

There are accusations that Steve Tully has compromised the professional standing of his senior staff by implying that the administration of the VEC IT system is shonky at best.

Steve Tully has engaged in a campaign of harassment and lies, designed to seek revenge and intimidation of witness to the parliamentary enquiry into the VEC botched elections processes.

His disgraceful false accusations against Labor Strategist Ray Collins late last week is a sign of a desperate man who will stop at nothing to avoid criticism and review.

Submission have been made to the State Parliament to have the Ombudsman empowered to review the administration of the Commission. The VEC is specifically excluded form the review under the current terms of the Ombudsman Act.

Keeping State Secrets VEC under review

The Victorian Electoral Commission has been the subject of intense reviews by VEXNEWS this week. The review follows on from a number of complaints and growing disillusionment of VEC management and the culture of avoidance, corruption and cover up.

Victoria’s public elections are no longer open and transparent and the Chief Commissioner Steve Tully has gone to extraordinary steps to avoid accountability.

A large number of complaints have beeN received across the state that the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make available copies of the detailed election results record on computeR. Candidates’ scrutineers have reported that they were denied access to copies of the preference data files which are used to determine the results of the election in spite the fact that this information is a public document and subject to FOI the Commission is refusing to publish the preference data files.

The returning officer for the City of Hume wrongfully informed one candidate that the information was not available. Without access to this data scrutineers are denied the opportunity to scrutinise the count of public elections, there is no reason why this information is not made public.

In 2006 Steve Tully came under criticism for a botch up computerised count where wrong data had been recorded and over 250 votes went missing between count A and Count B in the Western Metropolitan region. The results of the election changed bwteeen counts with a difference of less then 150 votes. Without a copy of the crucial preference data-files, independnet analysis and review of the data-entry quality can not be made.

Steve Tully when requested by the Victorian Parliament Electoral Matters review committee to provide copies of the data file for booths counts claimed that the crucial information for Count A had been destroyed and the data overwritten.

This has raised serious concern over the practices and security of data held by the VEC. Some think that Steve Tully has deliberately mislead the Parliament in an attention to cover-up what was clearly a botched election count.

Simon Hancock and Glenda Fraser are responsible for the VEC computer count and many IT professionals consider it unlikely that there were no backups of such an important data-entry exercise, costing Victoria millions of dollars. To not have in place risk management and backup of data would be considered negligent and leave the Commission open to allegations of fraudulent coverup of mistakes made during the count.

There are accusations that Steve Tully has compromised the professional standing of his senior staff by implying that the administration of the VEC IT system is shonky at best.

Steve Tully has engaged in a campaign of harassment and lies, designed to seek revenge and intimidation of witness to the parliamentary enquiry into the VEC botched elections processes.

His disgraceful false accusations against Labor Strategist Ray Collins late last week is a sign of a desperate man who will stop at nothing to avoid criticism and review.

Submission have been made to the State Parliament to have the Ombudsman empowered to review the administration of the Commission. The VEC is specifically excluded form the review under the current terms of the Ombudsman Act.

Close call VEC conduct under review

Time to reflect on days events.

Question: “How can someone win on 10% of the vote?”

Well it is 11% actually and it not clear if it is Singer or Ng on the hunt. It is close by all accounts which is why we believe there will be a recount. There is a huge unknown factor with the drift away from the book at around 40% or more.

We try and explain how the fold up might go.

The interesting close junctions are Singer/Ng virtually neck to neck at around 11%

The combined vote of Singer and Catherine Ng out polls the Greens in each case.

If Singer survives *** Morgan/Columb votes go to McMullin with drift from Morgan( now 27%) the Greens (now 19-20%) Doyle (29%) Singer 23%. Greens next eliminated bring Singer to the lead above Doyle and McMullin there is a close nexus between Doyle and McMullin exact value unknown due to drift to Doyle from Morgan But again it is close. With a McMullin/Doyle toss up Singer is best position to jump of the line either way

If Ng survives *** Morgan flows to Ng but with some leakage to both Doyle and McMullin. Ng is now on around 26-27% McMullin who is on around 25-26Doyle moves into the front at around 31% the Greens at 18% Greens are eliminated and the drift see McMullin at 33 Doyle 33% and Ng 34% It is potentially very close and the spilt can go either way Ng is in the best position as she collects most of the ticket vote and if she is ahead then the other is eliminated. So it is a question of who goes out and what value the drift is at this stage. No one is prepared to place bets at this stage. Some think it could be decided by a hand full of votes who is excluded and who is not. There is now two major junctions points Ng/Singer and the final three.

VEC Count under review

To add to the frustration the VEC failed to undertake a preliminary distribution into primary votes. reason unknown. They did do a manual sort for the city Council above the line which is the same size and effort had they distributed the leadership primary vote and did a manual count we would know the result by 12 noon tomorrow.instead it will take a good 12-14 hours to complete the data-entry and chances are there will be a recount. Under the circumstances where the VEC refused to maintain an open and transparent count and rejected the Parliamentary recommendation to undertake a preliminary first preference distribution anything within 1.5% merits a recount. (Had a preliminary sort taken place a recount would only be justified if the result was within 1%)

The Council seven have been decided on above the line preferences.
The winners are (With Primary vote indicated) Quota 12.5%

Candidate (Primary %)
JETTER, Carl (21.5%)
OKE, Cathy (18.7%)
CLARKE, Peter (9.1%)
LOUEY, Kevin (12.0%)
ONG, Ken (11.4%)
SHANAHAN, Brian (9.9%)
KANIS, Jennifer (10.4%)
(1% diff unknown)

I hope I have my maths right.

Again had the VEC undertaken a preliminary primary vote count as had been requested by most candidates the process and results would be much more clear and the count more transparent.

Apology in the offering but not good enough

I am also told that the returning Officer, Bill Lang, offered a private apology to Ray Collins who had been falsely accused by Steve Tully of threatening and intimidating VEC staff. This allegation was false and malicious.

A private apology is not good enough, Bill Lang and Steve Tully owe Ray Collins a public apology for what was clearly an act of intimidation on behalf of the VEC if not defamatory against Ray Collins. Ray Collins warned the VEC that the result was close and that a preliminary sort or manual count was the best way to proceed. They would not listen and Steve Tully made a false statement to cover up his wrong decision.

More on that soon when the count is over.

Close call VEC conduct under review

Time to reflect on days events.

Question: “How can someone win on 10% of the vote?”

Well it is 11% actually and it not clear if it is Singer or Ng on the hunt. It is close by all accounts which is why we believe there will be a recount. There is a huge unknown factor with the drift away from the book at around 40% or more.

We try and explain how the fold up might go.

The interesting close junctions are Singer/Ng virtually neck to neck at around 11%

The combined vote of Singer and Catherine Ng out polls the Greens in each case.

If Singer survives *** Morgan/Columb votes go to McMullin with drift from Morgan( now 27%) the Greens (now 19-20%) Doyle (29%) Singer 23%. Greens next eliminated bring Singer to the lead above Doyle and McMullin there is a close nexus between Doyle and McMullin exact value unknown due to drift to Doyle from Morgan But again it is close. With a McMullin/Doyle toss up Singer is best position to jump of the line either way

If Ng survives *** Morgan flows to Ng but with some leakage to both Doyle and McMullin. Ng is now on around 26-27% McMullin who is on around 25-26Doyle moves into the front at around 31% the Greens at 18% Greens are eliminated and the drift see McMullin at 33 Doyle 33% and Ng 34% It is potentially very close and the spilt can go either way Ng is in the best position as she collects most of the ticket vote and if she is ahead then the other is eliminated. So it is a question of who goes out and what value the drift is at this stage. No one is prepared to place bets at this stage. Some think it could be decided by a hand full of votes who is excluded and who is not. There is now two major junctions points Ng/Singer and the final three.

VEC Count under review

To add to the frustration the VEC failed to undertake a preliminary distribution into primary votes. reason unknown. They did do a manual sort for the city Council above the line which is the same size and effort had they distributed the leadership primary vote and did a manual count we would know the result by 12 noon tomorrow.instead it will take a good 12-14 hours to complete the data-entry and chances are there will be a recount. Under the circumstances where the VEC refused to maintain an open and transparent count and rejected the Parliamentary recommendation to undertake a preliminary first preference distribution anything within 1.5% merits a recount. (Had a preliminary sort taken place a recount would only be justified if the result was within 1%)

The Council seven have been decided on above the line preferences.
The winners are (With Primary vote indicated) Quota 12.5%

Candidate (Primary %)
JETTER, Carl (21.5%)
OKE, Cathy (18.7%)
CLARKE, Peter (9.1%)
LOUEY, Kevin (12.0%)
ONG, Ken (11.4%)
SHANAHAN, Brian (9.9%)
KANIS, Jennifer (10.4%)
(1% diff unknown)

I hope I have my maths right.

Again had the VEC undertaken a preliminary primary vote count as had been requested by most candidates the process and results would be much more clear and the count more transparent.

Apology in the offering but not good enough

I am also told that the returning Officer, Bill Lang, offered a private apology to Ray Collins who had been falsely accused by Steve Tully of threatening and intimidating VEC staff. This allegation was false and malicious.

A private apology is not good enough, Bill Lang and Steve Tully owe Ray Collins a public apology for what was clearly an act of intimidation on behalf of the VEC if not defamatory against Ray Collins. Ray Collins warned the VEC that the result was close and that a preliminary sort or manual count was the best way to proceed. They would not listen and Steve Tully made a false statement to cover up his wrong decision.

More on that soon when the count is over.

Close call VEC conduct under review

Time to reflect on days events.

Question: “How can someone win on 10% of the vote?”

Well it is 11% actually and it not clear if it is Singer or Ng on the hunt. It is close by all accounts which is why we believe there will be a recount. There is a huge unknown factor with the drift away from the book at around 40% or more.

We try and explain how the fold up might go.

The interesting close junctions are Singer/Ng virtually neck to neck at around 11%

The combined vote of Singer and Catherine Ng out polls the Greens in each case.

If Singer survives *** Morgan/Columb votes go to McMullin with drift from Morgan( now 27%) the Greens (now 19-20%) Doyle (29%) Singer 23%. Greens next eliminated bring Singer to the lead above Doyle and McMullin there is a close nexus between Doyle and McMullin exact value unknown due to drift to Doyle from Morgan But again it is close. With a McMullin/Doyle toss up Singer is best position to jump of the line either way

If Ng survives *** Morgan flows to Ng but with some leakage to both Doyle and McMullin. Ng is now on around 26-27% McMullin who is on around 25-26Doyle moves into the front at around 31% the Greens at 18% Greens are eliminated and the drift see McMullin at 33 Doyle 33% and Ng 34% It is potentially very close and the spilt can go either way Ng is in the best position as she collects most of the ticket vote and if she is ahead then the other is eliminated. So it is a question of who goes out and what value the drift is at this stage. No one is prepared to place bets at this stage. Some think it could be decided by a hand full of votes who is excluded and who is not. There is now two major junctions points Ng/Singer and the final three.

VEC Count under review

To add to the frustration the VEC failed to undertake a preliminary distribution into primary votes. reason unknown. They did do a manual sort for the city Council above the line which is the same size and effort had they distributed the leadership primary vote and did a manual count we would know the result by 12 noon tomorrow.instead it will take a good 12-14 hours to complete the data-entry and chances are there will be a recount. Under the circumstances where the VEC refused to maintain an open and transparent count and rejected the Parliamentary recommendation to undertake a preliminary first preference distribution anything within 1.5% merits a recount. (Had a preliminary sort taken place a recount would only be justified if the result was within 1%)

The Council seven have been decided on above the line preferences.
The winners are (With Primary vote indicated) Quota 12.5%

Candidate (Primary %)
JETTER, Carl (21.5%)
OKE, Cathy (18.7%)
CLARKE, Peter (9.1%)
LOUEY, Kevin (12.0%)
ONG, Ken (11.4%)
SHANAHAN, Brian (9.9%)
KANIS, Jennifer (10.4%)
(1% diff unknown)

I hope I have my maths right.

Again had the VEC undertaken a preliminary primary vote count as had been requested by most candidates the process and results would be much more clear and the count more transparent.

Apology in the offering but not good enough

I am also told that the returning Officer, Bill Lang, offered a private apology to Ray Collins who had been falsely accused by Steve Tully of threatening and intimidating VEC staff. This allegation was false and malicious.

A private apology is not good enough, Bill Lang and Steve Tully owe Ray Collins a public apology for what was clearly an act of intimidation on behalf of the VEC if not defamatory against Ray Collins. Ray Collins warned the VEC that the result was close and that a preliminary sort or manual count was the best way to proceed. They would not listen and Steve Tully made a false statement to cover up his wrong decision.

More on that soon when the count is over.

VEC occupational hazard Not enough room to breath let alone to work

Scrutineers are reporting that the data-entry of preferences is being held in a 10 x 15 metre room with 18 data-entry personal crammed in and no room for scrutineers.

It is hot and oxygen is in short supply. It is reported that many mistakes in the data-entry are being made as a result. First data-set should be available around lunch time. With 18 data-entry operators and 11 candidates in theory the room should be able to accomodate over 200 people. Fantatic logicistial planning on behalf of the VEC. If a recount is on the cards you can expect a full house

Estimated time to data entry is 14 hours based on the VEC estimate of 15 sec per vote

Crikey.com has edited censored comments about Bill Lang and Steve Tully. “Censorship at its worst”, Thanks to Vex News for publishing the facts.

VEC occupational hazard Not enough room to breath let alone to work

Scrutineers are reporting that the data-entry of preferences is being held in a 10 x 15 metre room with 18 data-entry personal crammed in and no room for scrutineers.

It is hot and oxygen is in short supply. It is reported that many mistakes in the data-entry are being made as a result. First data-set should be available around lunch time. With 18 data-entry operators and 11 candidates in theory the room should be able to accomodate over 200 people. Fantatic logicistial planning on behalf of the VEC. If a recount is on the cards you can expect a full house

Estimated time to data entry is 14 hours based on the VEC estimate of 15 sec per vote

Crikey.com has edited censored comments about Bill Lang and Steve Tully. “Censorship at its worst”, Thanks to Vex News for publishing the facts.

VEC occupational hazard Not enough room to breath let alone to work

Scrutineers are reporting that the data-entry of preferences is being held in a 10 x 15 metre room with 18 data-entry personal crammed in and no room for scrutineers.

It is hot and oxygen is in short supply. It is reported that many mistakes in the data-entry are being made as a result. First data-set should be available around lunch time. With 18 data-entry operators and 11 candidates in theory the room should be able to accomodate over 200 people. Fantatic logicistial planning on behalf of the VEC. If a recount is on the cards you can expect a full house

Estimated time to data entry is 14 hours based on the VEC estimate of 15 sec per vote

Crikey.com has edited censored comments about Bill Lang and Steve Tully. “Censorship at its worst”, Thanks to Vex News for publishing the facts.

Steve Tully Under review

Allegations of threats and intimidation is an abuse of authority.

There was no act of bulling or harassment as claimed by Steve Tully, Chief Electoral Commissioner.

Mr Steve Tully’s accusations are false and not supported by the facts.

Mr Tully was not even present at the briefing in question.

Having spoken to a number of people present at the meeting all stated that Mr Tully’s statement is a gross over-reaction to criticism at the way in which the VEC elections are to be counted.

There was no grounds or justification to Mr Tully’s statement or his accusations.

The reason behind Mr Tully’s emotive outburst is simple, Steve Tully had come under serious criticism in relation to his conduct of the 2006 State election along with concern that he may have deliberately mislead the parliament in his evidence given to the State Parliamentary committee on electoral matters.

Mr Tully had cut corners and in the process he made a number of serious mistakes during the conduct of the 2006 State election.

Under the terms of the Local Government Act and regulations the Returning Officer is required to preliminary sort ballot papers into primary votes which in turn is used to reconcile the number of votes pertaining to the election as part of the process of scrutiny of the ballot.

Mr Tully has opted to once again cut corners and ignore requests that the count be open and transparent and that the ballot papers be subject to a preliminary distribution as required under the Act for a manual count.

There is no justification for a computerised counting of the Lord Mayors ballot. A majority of candidates had supported calls for the ballot to be counted manually so that it could be subject to proper scrutiny.

The Victorian Parliament in reviewing the mistakes made during the 2006 State election recommended that the VEC preliminary presort ballot papers into primary votes as is the case with Federal elections. Mr Tully chose to ignore the parliament’s recommendation and the request made by candidates and others. Mr Tully directed Mr Bill Lang, City of Melbourne’s Returning Officer, to reject the request for the preliminary sorting of ballot papers undermining the independence of the appointed Returning Officer.

The Chief Commissioner misused and abused his position of authority.

At no time had staff been subjected to any threats and any act that warrants or requires police presence. Steve Tully’s statement calling for police protection is a further act of intimidation and harassment against his critics and an abuse of authority.

Mr Tully made similar false threats of intimidation in the leaduop to and following the 2006 State election in which votes went missing during the count and the data recorded seriously flawed. Mr Tully was unable and unwilling to provide access to crucial data related to the 2006 count.

In giving evidence to the parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee, Mr Tully stated that the data records of the 2006 Western Metropolitan Province count had been destroyed and were no longer available. An extraordinary claim given that it costs millions of dollars to count the ballot and it turns out that backup copies of the data were not recorded.

The complaints and submission lodged in relation to the proposed City of Melbourne count were seeking to prevent a repeat of the mistakes made by the Chief Commissioner in 2006. Mistakes that were made as result of a lack of due diligence and denial of access to crucial data by the Chief Commissioner. Mistakes that should be avoided and not repeated with the Melbourne City Council elections.

It is fundamental to our democracy that elections are open and transparent in order that public confidence in the electoral process is maintained, This issue does not just effect the City of Melbourne but the entire State.

The actions of Mr Tully are a form of retribution and intimidation of critics to his administration. This is not the first time Mr Tully has acted in such a manner.

Members of Parliament are very much aware of Mr Tully’s acts of intimidation and abuse of process against those who gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr Tully in making false accusations of this nature has raised doubts and questions as to his suitability to hold the office of Chief Commissioner.

Steve Tully Under review

Allegations of threats and intimidation is an abuse of authority.

There was no act of bulling or harassment as claimed by Steve Tully, Chief Electoral Commissioner.

Mr Steve Tully’s accusations are false and not supported by the facts.

Mr Tully was not even present at the briefing in question.

Having spoken to a number of people present at the meeting all stated that Mr Tully’s statement is a gross over-reaction to criticism at the way in which the VEC elections are to be counted.

There was no grounds or justification to Mr Tully’s statement or his accusations.

The reason behind Mr Tully’s emotive outburst is simple, Steve Tully had come under serious criticism in relation to his conduct of the 2006 State election along with concern that he may have deliberately mislead the parliament in his evidence given to the State Parliamentary committee on electoral matters.

Mr Tully had cut corners and in the process he made a number of serious mistakes during the conduct of the 2006 State election.

Under the terms of the Local Government Act and regulations the Returning Officer is required to preliminary sort ballot papers into primary votes which in turn is used to reconcile the number of votes pertaining to the election as part of the process of scrutiny of the ballot.

Mr Tully has opted to once again cut corners and ignore requests that the count be open and transparent and that the ballot papers be subject to a preliminary distribution as required under the Act for a manual count.

There is no justification for a computerised counting of the Lord Mayors ballot. A majority of candidates had supported calls for the ballot to be counted manually so that it could be subject to proper scrutiny.

The Victorian Parliament in reviewing the mistakes made during the 2006 State election recommended that the VEC preliminary presort ballot papers into primary votes as is the case with Federal elections. Mr Tully chose to ignore the parliament’s recommendation and the request made by candidates and others. Mr Tully directed Mr Bill Lang, City of Melbourne’s Returning Officer, to reject the request for the preliminary sorting of ballot papers undermining the independence of the appointed Returning Officer.

The Chief Commissioner misused and abused his position of authority.

At no time had staff been subjected to any threats and any act that warrants or requires police presence. Steve Tully’s statement calling for police protection is a further act of intimidation and harassment against his critics and an abuse of authority.

Mr Tully made similar false threats of intimidation in the leaduop to and following the 2006 State election in which votes went missing during the count and the data recorded seriously flawed. Mr Tully was unable and unwilling to provide access to crucial data related to the 2006 count.

In giving evidence to the parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee, Mr Tully stated that the data records of the 2006 Western Metropolitan Province count had been destroyed and were no longer available. An extraordinary claim given that it costs millions of dollars to count the ballot and it turns out that backup copies of the data were not recorded.

The complaints and submission lodged in relation to the proposed City of Melbourne count were seeking to prevent a repeat of the mistakes made by the Chief Commissioner in 2006. Mistakes that were made as result of a lack of due diligence and denial of access to crucial data by the Chief Commissioner. Mistakes that should be avoided and not repeated with the Melbourne City Council elections.

It is fundamental to our democracy that elections are open and transparent in order that public confidence in the electoral process is maintained, This issue does not just effect the City of Melbourne but the entire State.

The actions of Mr Tully are a form of retribution and intimidation of critics to his administration. This is not the first time Mr Tully has acted in such a manner.

Members of Parliament are very much aware of Mr Tully’s acts of intimidation and abuse of process against those who gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr Tully in making false accusations of this nature has raised doubts and questions as to his suitability to hold the office of Chief Commissioner.

Steve Tully Under review

Allegations of threats and intimidation is an abuse of authority.

There was no act of bulling or harassment as claimed by Steve Tully, Chief Electoral Commissioner.

Mr Steve Tully’s accusations are false and not supported by the facts.

Mr Tully was not even present at the briefing in question.

Having spoken to a number of people present at the meeting all stated that Mr Tully’s statement is a gross over-reaction to criticism at the way in which the VEC elections are to be counted.

There was no grounds or justification to Mr Tully’s statement or his accusations.

The reason behind Mr Tully’s emotive outburst is simple, Steve Tully had come under serious criticism in relation to his conduct of the 2006 State election along with concern that he may have deliberately mislead the parliament in his evidence given to the State Parliamentary committee on electoral matters.

Mr Tully had cut corners and in the process he made a number of serious mistakes during the conduct of the 2006 State election.

Under the terms of the Local Government Act and regulations the Returning Officer is required to preliminary sort ballot papers into primary votes which in turn is used to reconcile the number of votes pertaining to the election as part of the process of scrutiny of the ballot.

Mr Tully has opted to once again cut corners and ignore requests that the count be open and transparent and that the ballot papers be subject to a preliminary distribution as required under the Act for a manual count.

There is no justification for a computerised counting of the Lord Mayors ballot. A majority of candidates had supported calls for the ballot to be counted manually so that it could be subject to proper scrutiny.

The Victorian Parliament in reviewing the mistakes made during the 2006 State election recommended that the VEC preliminary presort ballot papers into primary votes as is the case with Federal elections. Mr Tully chose to ignore the parliament’s recommendation and the request made by candidates and others. Mr Tully directed Mr Bill Lang, City of Melbourne’s Returning Officer, to reject the request for the preliminary sorting of ballot papers undermining the independence of the appointed Returning Officer.

The Chief Commissioner misused and abused his position of authority.

At no time had staff been subjected to any threats and any act that warrants or requires police presence. Steve Tully’s statement calling for police protection is a further act of intimidation and harassment against his critics and an abuse of authority.

Mr Tully made similar false threats of intimidation in the leaduop to and following the 2006 State election in which votes went missing during the count and the data recorded seriously flawed. Mr Tully was unable and unwilling to provide access to crucial data related to the 2006 count.

In giving evidence to the parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee, Mr Tully stated that the data records of the 2006 Western Metropolitan Province count had been destroyed and were no longer available. An extraordinary claim given that it costs millions of dollars to count the ballot and it turns out that backup copies of the data were not recorded.

The complaints and submission lodged in relation to the proposed City of Melbourne count were seeking to prevent a repeat of the mistakes made by the Chief Commissioner in 2006. Mistakes that were made as result of a lack of due diligence and denial of access to crucial data by the Chief Commissioner. Mistakes that should be avoided and not repeated with the Melbourne City Council elections.

It is fundamental to our democracy that elections are open and transparent in order that public confidence in the electoral process is maintained, This issue does not just effect the City of Melbourne but the entire State.

The actions of Mr Tully are a form of retribution and intimidation of critics to his administration. This is not the first time Mr Tully has acted in such a manner.

Members of Parliament are very much aware of Mr Tully’s acts of intimidation and abuse of process against those who gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr Tully in making false accusations of this nature has raised doubts and questions as to his suitability to hold the office of Chief Commissioner.