The Un-Breaking Story of Bruce Funk (R) (DIEBOLD) RATE THIS UP

[helderheid]

#325 <http://www.democracyforutah.com/cvc/node/981#comment-325> On Tue,
09/19/2006 3:18am Larry Bergan said,

Sept. 18, 2006

The Un-Breaking Story of Bruce Funk

Last week, Mr. Bruce Funk, clerk and auditor in Emery county Utah until his, for lack of a better word, "separation" from those duties on April 1st 2006, testified, under oath, that the largest circulation newspaper in Utah, The Salt Lake Tribune, had misstated his claim that he had notified county commissioner Ira Hatch that he intended to keep his job of 23 years. Although he admitted he had verbally quit that job the night before, he was left with the strong impression that, because of the highly charged emotions present, he would have until the next day to decide whether to submit a formal resignation. Indeed, just minutes after he left that contentious meeting, Glen Warchol of the Tribune called Mr. Funk to say that he understood he had resigned. Funk told Mr. Warchol that he had been given the night to think things over, and Warchol printed that statement in a story about the incident the next day.

In a consequent story by Mr. Warchol, instead of printing Funk's
assertion that he had simply notified Mr. Hatch of his desire to stay on
the job, stated in an article for the Tribune that "Funk changed his
mind. Instead of confirming his resignation in writing, Funk hired a
lawyer and says he will fight for his position." Funk had admittedly
"visited" Doug Short, a prominent attorney who, having been through a similar situation, told Funk he should stay in his position.

Emery County District Attorney, David Blackwell, who was representing Emery commissioner Ira Hatch before the state records committee last Thursday was extremely intent, and almost seemed to be bluffing to get Funk to say that he had verbally issued an intent to take legal action against the state or certain personalities either in recorded session or "in passing in the hall". Funk admitted that things had been going "ninety miles an hour", and that he couldn't recall all of the things that might have been said.

Mr. Funk is calling for the public release of the recorded sessions to
clear things up.

Patricia Smith-Mansfield, who presided over the archives committee, made it clear throughout, that she didn't think it was under the committee's jurisdiction to release the archives. Funks attorney, Phillip W. Dyer made it clear that he believed the records should be released because the names of those voting to take the discussion of Mr. Funk into closed session had not been, under law, properly documented in the minutes of those meetings.

Mr. Blackwell claims that this was merely a technicality and since it
was known there was a unanimous decision made to go into closed session, should be allowed to, and would be willing to correct the mistake. Funks attorney, claims that the commission has had six months to correct the records and that they should be released. Two members of the archives commission agreed with Mr. Dyer, and one said she had noticed a pattern of this sort of thing happening in the past. The full vote resulted in a further withholding of the documents.

Now I would like to talk about the title of this post on the
"blogosphere", The Un-Breaking Story of Bruce Funk. I am by, profession, an optician but have also published one computer program. The reason I got up at 7 a.m. and took my camcorder down to the State Archives Building last Thursday was because I was worried the press would not cover this very important story. It seems I was correct in that assumption.

Those who have been following the willful ignorance of both the
television and print media on the most fundamentally important right of a nation that calls itself a democracy, the right to vote, and to have
that vote counted, are watching in disbelief , and an increasing sense
of anger at what is nothing less then a complete blackout on even a
discussion of the voting fraud being wrought.

The Utah press's very spotty coverage, although somewhat dignified some three years ago has devolved to the point that one reporter, Jay
Evensen, of the Deseret Morning News referred to Mr. Funk as being "not too bright", for having called in a third party to inspect the machines without state oversight, knowing full well, it might result in wide government scrutiny of his actions. What Funk couldn't have known at the time, is that his brave action would shortly result in full vindication of, not only himself, but also the Black Box Voting organization which for many years, had been ignored, vilified, made fun of, and even had their website illegally shut down by Diebold.

For the first time, the terrible threat of the voting machines had
received full national coverage! Something hundreds of computer
scientists and voting rights activists had been fighting for. Even wider
acknowledgment, and proof of the dangers of computerized voting, came shortly after, when the Brennan report was released.

Diebold had sent a letter to state officials stating that Mr. Funks
actions may have breached the contract entered into between themselves, the Lt. Governors office, and Emery county, and that the warranty of the machines might be in jeopardy. When asked by Blackwell if he could understand why the county thought they might be headed into litigation, he answered, under oath, "No. Because I had tried to do everything on my own to protect Emery county. I protected Emery county to the best of my ability from any liability."

Mr. Funk made sure that BBV's inspection of the Diebold voting machines, as properly documented on videotape. One of the reasons he decided to keep his job was to make sure the same kind of documentation was preformed when Diebold had access to Utah's voting equipment. Remarkably, the BBV efforts revealed that closed door access to the machines would not even be necessary to change the results of an election.

Diebold has been sued at least three times, and had already lost two of those lawsuits before the state made the purchase of the machines. The state continues to give Diebold unrestricted access to the machines and refuses to let Funk do his job protecting the integrity of the elections he's been charged to oversee.

In my opinion, the state is not throwing any argument out in their
defense of removing Funk from his position, and preventing him and us from access to what transpired in those secret meetings with Diebold, but it was obvious they are not comfortable with, publically impugning his character, professional competence or mental health, and seem to be grasping at his inability to "fairly run an election."

Where is the press and television media? If it wasn't Bruce Funk who
said he was going to "hire" a lawyer. Who gave Glen Warchol that
information?