Am I missing something here? Carolyn Crnich is Humbolt County's Registrar of Voters. Premier/Diebold is an independent vendor of voting equipment. The letters to Crnich were not submitted by Humbolt County Counsel. They were submitted by Premier/Diebold's legal counsel, who do not, insofar as this article sets forth, represent either Humbolt County or Crnich. (There would be a conflict of interest if they did).

The attorney-client privilege only attaches to confidential communications between the attorney and that attorney's client. Since Premier/Diebold's attorneys do not represent either Humbolt County or Crnich, the letters would not be shielded by the attorney-client privilege irrespective of whether they were read aloud in a public hearing or not. (When a client publicly discloses the content of an attorney-client communication, the privilege is ordinarily waived, but there was no privilege to begin with here.)

Ernest A. Canning
Attorney at Law

Attorney-Client privilege prevents only the ATTORNEY from disclosing something. The client, against all advice of his attorney, can discuss anything he or his attorney spoke or communicated about. Crnich is stating there is a Client Attorney privilege she cannot breach.

It might be the documents are not open records because the records are attorney-client communications. If that is the case then she violated the open records law by reading the records at a public meeting.

I suspect exemption from disclosure for a official record may be like trade secrets or virginity; once violated it is gone permanently.

CA open records law may be such that once an official has made an otherwise exempt record public, the previously exempt record is now permanently classified as a public record.

I don't CA public records well enough to know which of these possibilities (illegal to read at the public meeting or now permanently public) is the correct interpretation of the law.

1. EVM specs, physical, electronic and computer code, must be PUBLISHED FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ.

2. Contest to BREAK IN to a candidate machine, followed by a large REWARD for anyone who can break in.

3. No WIFI or INFRARED access to an EVM. Only physical wires.

4. NO MORE BUSINESS for ES&S, TRIAD, DIEBOLD or SEQUOIA because they wanted us to use GARBAGE and they HAVE STOLEN ELECTIONS. The above-named companies are to be put OUT OF THE EVM BUSINESS as our reward for their patriotism.

1. Tear up the contracts
2. Use the paper for ballots.
3. Done

Can it really be any harder than that?

... John Washburn said on 3/25/2009 @ 3:22 pm PT.

It might be the documents are not open records because the records are attorney-client communications.
_______________________

Mr. Washburn: You might try to follow what the President said he does when asked why he did not speak out immediately about the AIG bonuses--"I like to know what I am talking about before I speak."

The article reflects that the letters were sent by Diebold's attorneys to Ms. Crnich, who is not their client. A letter sent by an attorney to a person who is not that attorney's client is not a privileged communication.

Your speculations about some other possible privilege are not useful. Ms. Crnich did not invoke a privilege other than attorney-client privilege.

Just go to paper and pencil and a human count... works in Canada and a lot cheaper.

However, its much cheaper to game

3 words to get out of a Diebold/Premier contract, "every damn time", so do it (now) & we're free!

Skeptic94514 said:

"However, its much cheaper to game"

Perhaps. But much more difficult to succeed at and/or not get caught.

Wow. We can add blackmail to the list of reasons not to use propitiatory, computerized systems that can't be understood by non-computer specialists. Sounds like Premier should be working for Russia's oil and gas companies so they could cut those resources off from Europe when the Ukraine doesn't pay.

It seem like Ms. Crnich is the hero in this bigger story.

I don't know why she does not want to give this Park guy the letters, but who cares, she had the guts to run their Transparency Project in the first place, and that's more then any other Registrar of Voters any where in the entire country has done. I would spend more time praising her and less time second guessing her judgment on this one rather minor issue.

Crnich sounds like a super gal and a full disclosure type of public official of the type we need more of! Crnich's story, along with Tom Ammiano's proposal to legalize marijuana to fix the budget deficit, almost restore my faith in government officials --- at least for today.

On this attorney client privilege thing, I gather someone in County Counsel's office has told her not to distribute the Diebold/Premier termination letters because of some concern over possible "liability" or some other reason (maybe there are more threats from Premier/Diebold that we don't know about.) I wouldn't be surprised if Crnich told Bostrom that County Counsel told her not to distribute the letters, and when asked why, she said it was "privileged" (County Counsel's advice)and Bostrom thought she meant the letters. Assuming Bostrom indignantly denies my interpretation, then someone in County Counsel's office must have given Bostrom a dumb excuse to give for not distributing the letters. An excuse like "attorney client privilege" almost invariably originates with the attorney, not the client.

Paul McCarthy, Oakland

(Judging from the comments, it sounds like there are a lot of attorneys who read Bradblog, myself included...)

John Smith said:

I don't know why she does not want to give this [Parke] guy the letters.

She does not want to give me the letters because she does not want them published. She does not want the public to be able to see and read the letters.

I would spend more time praising her and less time second guessing her judgment on this one rather minor issue.

Were this the first time Registrar Crnich has controlled the flow of information, it might be a minor matter. But this is not the first time. A few of the other cases are detailed on my blog:

http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4
http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/1

Registrar Crnich's requests for secrecy have been confirmed by Dave Berman and by the Times-Standard. Many election activists in Humboldt County are very loyal to Registrar Crnich and do not criticize her lack of transparency in these matters, but I am not one of them.

Paul McCarthy said:

On this attorney client privilege thing, I gather someone in County Counsel's office has told her not to distribute the Diebold/Premier termination letters because of some concern over possible "liability" or some other reason

From what source did you "gather" this information?

(maybe there are more threats from Premier/Diebold that we don't know about.)

Registrar Crnich saying "What else can they do to me?" would tend to contradict your theory.

I wouldn't be surprised if Crnich told Bostrom that County Counsel told her not to distribute the letters, and when asked why, she said it was "privileged" (County Counsel's advice) and Bostrom thought she meant the letters.

I am confident that you would not be surprised, but that is not what happened. It is indeed more surprising to discover that Registrar Crnich is in fact not a "a full disclosure kind of gal".

Assuming Bostrom indignantly denies my interpretation, then someone in County Counsel's office must have given Bostrom a dumb excuse to give for not distributing the letters.

Wrong in so many ways.

I do deny your interpretation, but I would welcome written clarification from Registrar Crnich or County Council as to why the letters (a) can be read aloud at a public meeting but (b) cannot be released to the public.

Whether I am denying your interpretation indignantly is a matter of opinion. I will leave it up to readers to decide.

And as for your second implicit assumption (that "someone in County Counsel's office must have given Bostrom a dumb excuse"), you are also wrong, for I have never spoken to anyone in the County Counsel's office.

Additionally, Registrar Crnich sent copies of the letter to the Secretary of State's Office, when they requested copies. Attorney-client privilege was not a problem for her then.

This is the second time Registrar Crnich has read me a letter but refused to give me a copy of it. The first was around noon on December 30, 2008. The letter was from Hart explaining why Hart had unilaterally withdrawn the newer version of their election system (version 6.4) from the Federal certification process. Crnich offered to give me a printed copy of the letter. I made the mistake of requesting an electronic copy instead. As a result, Crnich gave me neither an electronic copy of the letter, nor the paper copy she had offered moments before.

An excuse like "attorney client privilege" almost invariably originates with the attorney, not the client.

This is one of those exceptional cases where the excuse originated with the client.

Humboldt County is lucky.

COMMENT #2 John Washburn is right. So beware when a client evokes "client-attorney" privilege. It's a lie, it's the client's privilege to say what he wants.

3/29/09

I am a member of the Humboldt County Elections Advisory Committee, and a volunteer with its Election Transparency Project. I attended the meeting during which Carolyn Crnich declined to give Parke Bostrom copies of the letters from Diebold/Premier which she had read to us.

It is my understanding that that the letters are part of an ongoing, difficult, and possibly unresolved, business transaction. On this basis alone I feel that Ms. Crnich's decision not to release the letters is fully justified. Issues about attorney-client privilege are quite secondary, in my view. I think that Ms. Crnich's mention of ("privileged") communication was actually a "shorthand" reference to her earlier statement that the letters shouldn't be released until reviewed by (the assistant) County Counsel, who was unavailable because he was on vacation.

I fully expect that after she speaks with County Counsel, and if she isn't advised otherwise, she will release the documents.

The demand or expectation for Ms. Crnich to release letters of this type is tantamount to a demand or expectation that any citizen should be able to go into the office of any elected official at any time and demand to see any or all of that official's correspondence. Clearly, that would be absurd. We elect our officials to take care of our business in a competent, professional, even-handed, and efficient way. Carolyn Crnich's performance has been excellent, and groundbreaking, without fail.

--- Jim Lamport

P.S. Mr. Bostrom's statement that Carolyn Crnich ". . . . does not want to give me the letters because she does not want them published. She does not want the public to be able to see and read the letters." begs the question of why she doesn't want the public to see them. In my view this question cannot be answered, because once the prudent step of getting attorney approval is done, the letters will be released.

So those damn machines must be returned?

Ok, line 'em all up in straight, parallel lines right in front of the pair of tracks on a bulldozer; run bulldozer straight forward all the way along the lineup of the machines.

Then return the flattened/shattered machines.

Point made.

I'm with Mozart!