Tag Archives: Maureen Kirk Chico Ca

Grubbs “resents” my asking questions about missing ballots, thrown out ballots, undeliverable ballots…

2 Nov

I sent a note to my third district supervisor, Maureen Kirk, regarding my own and others’ concerns about missing ballots, “undeliverable” ballots, etc, and she forwarded my questions to Candace Grubbs.  Here’s Grubb’s response, forwarded to me by her assistant.  

I had asked these questions of Maureen Kirk, telling her things other people have told me, and experiences my husband and I have had. I didn’t send these questions to Grubbs because I know she’s busy right now – but busy doing what, is what I’m wondering, given I have two friends who’ve told me her office has declared their ballots “undeliverable” after they’ve been voting at the same address for years. Two people have told me the post office took them off the voting rolls and wonder how that’s possible. So I ask questions – screw me! – and this what I get:

Hello Juanita,

It has been very busy here today, please excuse me for not getting back to you sooner.

You asked the following questions: As of 10/31/2016,

1) “How many (voters) did not get their first ballot because of whatever mistake by post office or clerk’s office?

Answer: 1820 Ballots have been returned to us as “undeliverable” by the post office. Reasons, people have moved (Election material is not forwarded) including those that have moved out of state; Postal delivery errors- on these we are in contact with the postal authorities and they have and are investigating.

It is important to note: We have issued 1993 2nd ballots to voters.

The ballots undeliverable and 2nd issues are from the entire county, not just the Chico area.

2) “What does she mean by “undeliverable” ballots – see above

3) “Voters were told it would take 7 to 9 days for them to receive their ballot” – All mail in Butte County goes to Sacramento to be sorted by address. Due to the large volume of mail at the Sacramento Distribution Center, it is taking longer for mail to reach Butte County. That is why, I advise voters who want to keep their ballot until Election Day to drop the ballot at any polling location by 8:00 pm. Also new legislation allows us to count ballots that are postmarked by or on Election Day (November 8th) to be counted as long as we receive it within 3 business days.

4) “Last election the news reported Grubbs threw out a lot of ballots because she didn’t think the signatures matched”. First off – we do not throw out any ballots. All voters are contacted by letter or phone if (1) they did not sign the return envelope or (2) if the signature did not significantly match the signature on file. In the Primary Election 2016, we were able to count 80% of the ballots that were originally challenged. In order to contact voters, we sent out 1211 letters and made 1139 phone calls. And yes, we could clearly see some of the ballots were returned with a signature that did belong to the voter. Wouldn’t you want us to check to make sure you are the person that voted your ballot AND not someone else?

5) If you would like to update your signature on file, I have am sending you a voter registration card for that purpose.

6) “It should be public how many she throws away and for what reason”. It is not enough to say I resent these comments, but they are factually untrue. All ballots are kept for 22 months after an election in case of a court challenge. This office spends thousands of tax payer dollars to make sure that every vote than can count is counted.

5) If you would like to update your signature on file, I have am sending you a voter registration card for that purpose.

6) “It should be public how many she throws away and for what reason”. It is not enough to say I resent these comments, but they are factually untrue. All ballots are kept for 22 months after an election in case of a court challenge. This office spends thousands of tax payer dollars to make sure that every vote than can count is counted.

Juanita, I invite you to view for yourself our operation and see the work we do to train precinct officers, to validate all vote by mail ballets and to count all ballots correctly.

Sincerely,

Candace Grubbs

County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters

All I did was ask questions, and she resents that? She didn’t give me the answers right away either – she e-mailed me telling me to drive up to Oroville and she’d give me the tour. I don’t have time to take from my work day to drive to Oroville, and if she’s so busy, why would she invite me to lolly-gag around the shop with her? Besides,   I wanted the answers in writing so nobody  could accuse me of misquoting or spreading misinformation.

I’m not satisfied with Grubb’s response, I resent her resenting it, and I think she’s acting guilty about something.  You decide. If you have any more questions about your ballots ask old Candy yourself, I’m done with her.

And Maureen too. I don’t really think Kirk cares about this stuff.  The both of them need to step down. 

Kern County supervisors vote to formally oppose Cal Water rate hike – what are our local elected officials doing about it?

23 Sep
Kern County Supervisors voted unanimously today to actively oppose a water rate increase by the County’s largest water supplier, California Water Service (CWS).   The action allows the county to officially intervene in a proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission, which is considering CWS’s request to raise water rates up to 19.2% in Bakersfield and 10.5% in the Kern River Valley.

Supervisors said they believe it is unfair to expect these residents to absorb such a large increase in their water budget, particularly since CWS has not offered sufficient financial justification for the rate increases.

“More than half of Cal Water’s Bakersfield and Kern River Valley residents have low to moderate incomes or are senior citizens living on fixed incomes,” Board of Supervisors Chairman David Couch said. “This rate increase would impose a significant hardship on these people.”

Supervisors said they have many questions regarding the need for rate increases that could send water bills for CWS customers in Bakersfield to an average of $1,176 per year and as high as $1,596 on average in the Kern River Valley. The rate increases would come on top of higher water rates approved in 2013.

CWS’ proposal would raise rates incrementally over three years (2017, 2018 and 2019). Its CPUC filing claims the increases are necessary to replace water lines and upgrade facilities in the region, but Supervisors question whether CWS has been providing responsive and effective water service in return for the rates it charges, and they expressed strong concerns about the affordability of the proposed increases.

“The EPA’s recommended affordability threshold for water and wastewater costs combined is 2.5% of income, and the California Department of Public Health sets affordability at 1.5% of income,” Supervisor Couch said. “Cal Water’s current rates in the Kern River Valley already far surpass the affordable level and would climb even higher under the current rate proposal. In Bakersfield, half of Cal Water’s customers have incomes below the federal poverty level, and their water bills will be nearly 50% higher than the affordable threshold if this is approved.”
Couch said county officials will provide formal testimony in opposition to the rate increase later this year.