RUMFORD — After losing his bid for another three-year term on the Board of Selectmen by 58 votes, incumbent Frank DiConzo filed for a recount by written statement Thursday.
At his first meeting after open-heart surgery this winter, Rumford Selectman Frank DiConzo, left, admonishes the board April 1 for failing to reduce the proposed $7.2 million municipal budget. In Tuesday's election, DiConzo lost his bid for another three-year term to newcomer Jeremy Volkernick by 58 votes. DiConzo has requested a recount, which will be done Monday.
The recount is scheduled for Monday, June 14, Town Manager Carlo Puiia said.
“Other than that, I haven't had any other requests, but if they did, it would, of course, have to be in writing within five days,” Puiia said.
DiConzo asked that municipal ballots pertaining to selectmen be recounted.
“Due to problems incurred on June 8, 2010, and how they were handled to bring about the final totals, needs to be scrutinized in order to bring about a proper tally,” DiConzo wrote.
Problems with voting machines, including a sticky note attached to a ballot that corrupted a machine and resulted in ballots being stored in an unlocked bin, were among his reasons for requesting the recount.
Contacted at home Thursday afternoon, DiConzo elaborated on his reasoning.
“The races all totally were less than a 100-vote difference for the top vote-getters, and the fact that they had so many problems with the machines, OK, and the calibration of those machines, so anything could have gone wrong with those, and I think to have over 100 ballots that might not have been counted. I mean, they should be looking at those ballots and seeing what was the intent, in being judged,” DiConzo said.
A former Rumford elections warden and outspoken selectman who missed a few months on the board this winter due to open-heart surgery and recovery, DiConzo said he previously spoke about some of the balloting problems. He said they should have been taken care of by now, "but they didn't get done.”
“But if we're going to get it right, let's get the count right,” he said. “Let's look at all the ballots and discuss them all.”
In the race for two three-year terms on the Board of Selectmen, incumbent Chairman Brad Adley received 810 votes to win re-election. Newcomer Jeremy Volkernick, who took DiConzo's seat, got 570 votes, and former Selectman Jolene Lovejoy got 524. DiConzo took fourth place with 513 votes.
Two others in the race, former Selectman Frank Anastasio and newcomer Eric Giroux, got 388 and 221 votes, respectively.
In the one-year term race, incumbent Jeff Sterling got 824 votes to win re-election, while opponent Paul Lowell tallied 758, a difference of 66 votes.
However, tallies on some of the town warrant articles were much closer, such as the River Valley Chamber of Commerce's request for $3,000. That was defeated 741-738. And the Finance Committee's recommendation of $6,200 for the River Valley Growth Council, which requested $16,000, was approved by a 19-vote margin, 658-639.
Additionally, a request by local ski hill Black Mountain for the selectmen's recommendation of $56,700, was killed by 20 votes: 657 wanted no funding, while 637 OK'd the Finance Committee's recommendation of $51,000.
Referring to DiConzo's issue with voting machine problems, Puiia said there were only two problems of which he was aware.
“There was one early in the morning when a citizen put a ballot in and it didn't go in correctly, and then the person pulled back on it and it left a piece of the ballot in, but they got that unjammed, and they were able to continue using that machine, so it was kind of a temporary problem,” Puiia said.
The other problem involved someone who left a sticky note on a ballot and fed it into the machine, and it contaminated the numbers, Puiia said. The sticky note was removed, but the damage had been done, so every ballot — more than 11,000 at seven ballots per person — had to be re-entered into the machines to be counted. That process was completed by 6 a.m. Wednesday.
While one machine was down, Puiia and Giasson said Thursday that a large rubber bin with a lid was used by Deputy Election Wardens J. Arthur Boivin and Mark Belanger as a repository for ballots to alleviate long lines if people didn't want to or couldn't wait to put their ballots into the machines.
In retrospect, Puiia and Giasson said they should have used a locked box. However, Giasson said Boivin and Belanger were right there to ensure that no one messed with the ballots in the bin.
“Like anything, you learn from your mistakes,” Puiia said. “And one was that one of the machines had a malfunction that was correctable, but we know that we should have a secure ballot box available if that happens again.”
Report a correction
In truth, the entire budget,
In truth, the entire budget, referendum and ordinances need to be recounted there is so much in question and some of the budget items are within fewer than 10 votes to being a NO funding vote.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Recount Criteria
Rumford needs to revisit or develop standards for a recount. Watchdog, you needed 571 votes to win a seat but only received 513. The difference of what you needed vs. what you received is greater than 10%. That is a large difference and you need to either accept the will of the people in this town or pay for a recount out of your own pocket. Rumford needs to select a % amount of voting differential that would qualify for a recount...3% seems reasonable, 5%, not so much, 10% or more, no way in hell (unless you want to fund it yourself). Frank, you are asking the taxpayers to throw some hard earned money your way to pay for something frivolous. And you claim to be concerned with wasteful spending? Show some dignity and accept the will of the citizens.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's obvious who watch dog
It's obvious who watch dog is!! I agree with read it right, that year I was told I could leave my ballots in a blue recycle bin if I did not have time to wait and place them in the machine!! So disagree all you want Frankie.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You are all lucky
You are all lucky to be able to go to the poll on election day and cast your votes. I now live in the Pacific North West. Here, you are mailed your ballots and you have to mail them back or drop them off at the town hall. This leads to many challenges and lots of confusion. People cannot meet with the candidates at the poll because there isn't one. The officials should have been better prepared in Rumford's case. Maybe someday, they will get their act together.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Making a point
This recount is to show that Rumford made a good decision to go to the secret ballot and not about who won or lost. There should be more than two voting machines at the polls. That is what this recount is all about. The town was told by the clerk that the state was looking into different types and would be buying in bulk so would be less expensive for towns to purchase. If you wait for the State then you are doomed. Mr. DiConzo requested that the town purchase at least two more machines and have them at the polls in order to make it easier for the voters since the voter turn outs have become substantial. That's common sense ! But who listens to common sense. It showed during this election. Mr. DiConzo was fourth out of six. He's not challenging the difference between him and Adley. It's the difference between 2,3 and 4. Are they correct? If they are prove it! The break downs were not Mr. DiConzos fault so why should he be made to pay anything for this recount. The town created this problem a few years back when the office or powers to be lacked insight to correct problems in future.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wrong observation
Read it Right ,you are way off base. When Mr. DiConzo was warden the ballots you observed were ones that had already gone through the machine and had to be taken out because machine was to full to continue. They were being seperated by what they were and placed in locked boxes as counted. And if you were so observent you would have noticed that he was prepared for a breakdown. There was a secured box at the polls.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.During early voting, some
During early voting, some voters were instructed to put ballots of certain colors through one machine and other colors in the other machine. Some were told to put all thier ballots in the unsecured bin. Later in the day the full machines were etied into these same bins. Where the previosly unscanned ballots ever counted or were counted ballots just dumped on top of them? In the evening voters were told to put all thier ballots through either machine, that it did not matter what color went in what machine. How is it that different machines read different ballots in the morning but both machines read all the ballots in the evening?
This country makes a big todo about the legitimacy of voting in other countries going so far as to send observers to polling places in foreign countries and disputing results. Polling practices in our own country have become highly suspect. Is it only a matter of time before the UN or others are policing our polls?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ballot Procedures
The reason that the election results were delayed, is due to the fact that the election clerks and wardens had start from scratch. When the post-it note jam occurred, they had to reset the machine. This lost the data for the ballots that had been counted through that machine. Rather than make a mistake on which ballots had or had not been counted. the Election Warden decided start over. The machines were reset and every ballot was re-entered.
An issue was raised over the unsecured ballot box during the election. Mr. Puiia had brought over the old metal ballot box from the town office, but the decision was made to continue using the tote. I can only speculate that this was due to the fact that the opening on the secured metal ballot box was slightly smaller than the ballots and could have caused damage to the ballots. I observed the operations at various times during the day, and never saw the tote unsupervised. In my opinion, though it was not locked, it might as well have been.
Aside from the unsecured ballot box, the only concern I heard was that the jam may have thrown off the calibration of the machine. Not being a voting machine tech, I cannot speak to this issue, but I have been informed that any recount for the Selectman race will be done by hand count.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Dixfield graduation
Well I hope they were Dickies brand.
What happened to showing some pride and putting on a coat and tie? By the way. The baggy clothes went out 3 years ago Mainers.
Gary in Los Angeles
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Recount
Mr. Puiia and Ms. Giasson have been consulting with Maine Municipal Association. Any recount, once properly requested with appropriate deposit, will be scheduled and handled within the bounds of the law.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.hes entitled-if he feels he
hes entitled-if he feels he needs a re-count more power to him.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.adios amigos
Frank,
You, Jolene, and few other fine FORMER town elected officials need to do us all a favor and PLEASE stay out of town politics. MANY of us associate the dismal view outsiders have of Rumford with youse 2!!!!!! Consider moving to Puerto Vallarta or Cancun. They will think you are intelligent down there.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You lost give it a rest.
Frank you lost face it and you didnt loose by 100 votes you lost by over 200, The Rumford voters have spoken, they're tired of your bullcrap!!!!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Deposit?
There is nothing scarier and more insiduous than people who reference law out of context and pass it off as authoritative. Title 21-A MRSA pertains to STATE elections. Title 30-A (Municipalities and Counties) provides for a recount of ballots for MUNICIPAL office. S. 2531-A Recount hearing: "This section governs all recount hearings in any election for municipal office. Recount procedures for other offices do not apply to elections for municipal office." S. 2531-A(2) Amount of deposit: The amount of deposit is determined by the municipal clerk and must be 50% of the reasonable estimate of the cost to the municipality of performing the recount."
Although Susan08 is dead right, let's not make this more complicated than it is by passing off unrelated snippets of state law as though you're an expert.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This will be entertaining to
This will be entertaining to watch!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.$5000 Deposit?
Did Mr. Diconzo pay the appropriate $5000 deposit to secure his recount, as required by STATE LAW? Title 21-A of the Maine Revised Statues, again, also reads that:
1. Deposit for recount. All deposits required by this section must be made with the Secretary of State when a recount is requested by a losing candidate or an undeclared write-in candidate. Once the State Police have taken custody of the ballots and other election materials from the municipalities, the deposit made by the candidate requesting the recount is forfeited to the State if the resulting count fails to change the outcome of the election. If the recount reverses the election, the deposit must be returned to the candidate requesting the recount. The amount of the deposit is calculated as follows.
Mr. Adley's vote count is 810. Mr. Diconzo's is vote total is 513. 810-513 = 297. There were 3026 votes cast in the three-year-term elections. 297/3026 = 9.814%. Please read the following from Title 21-A of the Maine Revised Stautes:
E. If the percentage difference shown by the official tabulation between the leading candidate and the requesting candidate is more than 8% and less than or equal to 10% of the total votes cast for that office, the deposit is $5,000. [2003, c. 447, §25 (NEW).]
In essence, Mr. Diconzo is required to make a $5000 deposit to have his recount, and if the results are not overturned, he forfeits that amount of money to the Secretary of State.
Please contact the Town Office and follow-up with your elected officials, and Mr. Puiia, to make sure that the STATE LAW is not being VIOLATED in the name of overturning the results of an election.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Are they going to follow the law?
I hope the town of Rumford knows that, according to Title 21-A of the Maine Revised Statues, that the Secretary of State is in charge of the recount and not local officials. I'd hate for STATE LAW to be violated because they decide to do a recount at the town hall instead of under the direction of the Secretary of State's office, as required by LAW.
Title 21-A: ELECTIONS
Chapter 9: CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS
Subchapter 3: POST ELECTION PROCEDURE
Article 3: INSPECTION AND RECOUNT
§737-A. Recount
Once a recount is requested, the Secretary of State shall notify the State Police, who shall take physical control of all ballots and related materials involved in the recount as soon as possible. [2007, c. 515, §8 (AMD).]
The State Police shall store and maintain exclusive control over the ballots and other materials pending and during the recount except when the counting is being conducted by the Secretary of State. [1993, c. 473, §31 (NEW); 1993, c. 473, §46 (AFF).]
A candidate who is the apparent loser and who desires a recount must file with the Secretary of State a written request for a recount within 5 business days after the election. The recount is held under the supervision of the Secretary of State, who shall allow the candidate's representatives or counsel to recount the ballots. The candidate may not act as a counter of ballots. [2007, c. 515, §9 (AMD).]
If, after the official tabulation is submitted to the Governor, the apparent winner is determined the losing candidate, that candidate may request another recount within 3 business days after the date the Governor receives the tabulation. [1993, c. 473, §31 (NEW); 1993, c. 473, §46 (AFF).]
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wasn't there a problem a few
Wasn't there a problem a few years ago with the ballots all over the floor while Frank was in charge? How secure were they then? Maybe Frank could go cut down a tree and use the wood to make a secure box for the ballots.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.fourth
Oh come on frank..You came in fourth,nobody believes your bullshit anymore.Just go away quietly already....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Funny, our balot machine went
Funny, our balot machine went crazy, and we had to use machine #2...then THAT one broke down too....had to be tinkered with..then it worked....hummmmmm wonder how many other towns had the same problem??
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.