Our effort to bring the City Commissioners into the 21st Century has hit the Daily News:

Philadelphia taxpayers have spent $20 million over the last five years to upgrade the city's voting machinery, permitting a rapid, computerized vote count on election night.

But the general public has little to show for it.

On election night, there's no public access to the vote count. News organizations pay hundreds of dollars to the city to see voting returns on a password-protected Internet site. But dozens of political VIPs get election-night access for free.

The three city commissioners, in charge of the city election machinery, have been providing free Internet passwords to a group of public officials, political-party bigwigs and others with the right connections.

On the night of the April 22 primary election, they got to see unofficial, ward-by-ward returns - information that the city commissioners still have not posted on their public Web site, more than two months after the election.

State Sen. Vincent Fumo got 10 free passwords - at least twice as many as he needed, according to his office. Councilman Jim Kenney got five and attorney Kevin Greenberg, who represents the commissioners in a federal voting-rights case, got six.

John Dougherty, the electricians union leader who ran to replace Fumo in the Senate, got one free password, and the union's political director, Bobby Henon, got two.

And the Commissioners tell us, that jeez, its hard to put these things online:

"It's not as easy as it sounds," said Deputy City Commissioner Renee Tartaglione, daughter of commissioners' chairwoman, Margaret Tartaglione.

She said that the city's vote-counting equipment, manufactured by Danaher Controls, allows Internet access to no more than 150 people at once, requiring the city to limit the number of passwords it provides.

"That's a really, really goofy excuse," replied Urevick-Ackelsberg. "You could pay a [tech-savvy] kid $12 an hour to come up with a fix to that limit, just taking those results and spitting them out onto a public Web site."

150 passwords. Ten Passwords for Fumo, none for you... That is the thing: Not only is it a goofy excuse, it sort of misses the point. Because if you are looking for a section of law that says 'ol Vince and Co. should have super duper special access to our elections, keep looking, because it doesn't exist.

As the article notes, Jim Kenney has a bunch of those passwords, too. To his credit, Jim has been the only person in office to try and help us. I sent my first request to a million different politicians, and most people didn't bother to respond. He did, within a day. His office talked to Marge and Co., and found out about the magical 150 number. And he offered to get us whatever numbers we needed. While his offer of help was most appreciated, seeing election returns really should not have to fall under a constituent service.

We will have more later today, including the letter the Commissioner's Office sent me (where they would not even tell me how much they charge), and the magical list of passwords they gave out. We will also have a way that anyone who is interested in this can help force their hand. In fact, members of Philly for Change started that process just last night.

Greetings from Poland, a land of many processed meats.

Last month we requested that the City Commissioners' Office, whose only job is to oversee elections- put detailed election returns online. Seems sort of basic in 2008, right?

Well, we were denied, basically with a plea of technological incompetence. The City said that they have created a system where only 150 people at a time can look at results, or else everything crashes. Can someone remind me why we pay the salary of three elected officials for this?

At any rate, today we appealed, with a very sweet and kind letter, the text of which is below.

The catch is that we have been told by multiple sources that Commissioners' office charges some groups (the media generally) a bunch of money for access, while giving away access to other people. This has raised a whole new set of questions.

Going through this long of a process, just to see election returns is a real "only in Philadelphia" moment...

This letter is to formally appeal the June 6th decision of the City Commissioners Office, denying our request for unofficial election results. We believe the decision is incorrect under Pennsylvania’s right-to-know law and the Commissioners’ own mission statement. Additionally, because the decision raises additional questions about how the Commissioners’ deliver city services, we now expand our request.

Despite the fact the City receives voting returns electronically (from a multi-million dollar, voter-approved upgrade to voting machines less than ten years ago), you have offered to let us, days after the election, view paper printouts of election returns. For an office that only has one real job, overseeing elections, and a generous budget, we find this response lacking and inconsistent with PA right-to-know law. 65 P.S. § 66.1 et seq.

Furthermore, the response has only raised additional question and concerns about how the Commissioners’ Office functions. We are of information and belief that the Commissioners’ Office has given away a number of passwords to certain individuals and campaigns, allegedly for free. As such, your denial of our request raises additional questions about how your office decides who is worthy of receiving one of the 150 passwords that you say are available, and how you decide to charge them. To put it mildly, it is not the role of an elected officer to decide which citizens get to view election returns and which do not. Nor is it acceptable to grant free access to some, while charging others.

We believe that, generally, right-to-know statutes don’t deal well with requests for election returns because it is unthinkable that in a democracy in 2008, some citizens can view voting records instantly, while others cannot.

And so, in addition to appealing your decision, we now request the following:

1) The exact price the city charges for access to election returns. Please include any and all contract terms, as well as the Commissioners’ justification for those terms under the ‘reasonable fee’ standard of electronic access under the PA right-to know-law. Please include receipts of all payments received from the last 24 months.
2) The exact number of passwords the office has given out, along with how much each recipient was charged (including if they were charged nothing).
3) Any and all guidance from the Commissioners’ Office on who may receive a password to examine returns, and whether that password shall be free.
4) Any and all public notice from the Commissioners’ Office to notify the public that citizens may apply for a password.
5) A list of all those people who have free passwords to examine election data.

We find your plea of technological incompetence to be troubling for an office whose sole purpose is to oversee elections. That said, we find it even more troubling that it appears you are using that excuse to grant privileged access to the connected few.

Very truly yours,

/s/
Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg

I am appalled at the magnitude of people in this city who have no idea what a City Commissioner is or even worse, how most have never even heard of such an office. Yet, it is an office that is one of the highest paid offices in City Hall. Even more, it has been headed by Marge Tartaglione for over 40 Years! The question might be asked, is this because Marge is so great? Has her administration over that office been so wonderful, that she has been allowed to stay in that position, far longer than any Judge, Mayor, Governor, or any other State, City, or Federal office leaders have been in service to this city??