Unanswered Questions About June 2020 New Rochelle School Election

We followed up with an email to the School Business Official asking this question and many others. For the past two months, school officials have refused to answer questions while stonewalling and dissembling (i.e., lying and perjuring themselves) in response to Freedom of Information requests.

I requested access to all election material. When I asked, no ballots/envelopes that arrived after the June 16th, 5 pm deadline and thus not canvassed or voided were produced. Please confirm in writing that there are no such ballots.
Was any effort made to track which ballots arrived via US Mail v. Dropbox?
Why are some envelopes time-stamped when most are not? How do you know that all ballots that were canvassed arrived before the June 16th, 5 pm deadline?
The signature books (blue books) do not match the voter registration lists (black binders). I was able to confirm instances where a voter was registered in a particular Election District but they were not in the signature book. How could that happen? How was the signature book produced if not from the list of registered voters? It is also possible then that there are names in the signature book for people who are not registered voters, can you address that?
What list was used by the printer to send out the absentee voter list? I have an outstanding FOIL request for all communications between the District and printer who prepared and sent out the ballots to New Rochelle voters and this list is covered under that FOIL request. To date, I received none of the records sought under that FOIL request. There is a question as to whether all registered voters were sent a ballot and some evidence that people who were not registered voters including three that moved out of Westchester County in January 2020 were sent ballots to their new address (not forwarded by USPS). Can you please fulfill that FOIL request so I can evaluate the list used by the printer to mail ballots?
For every ED, there were accepted ballots and the related oath envelopes in a sealed pink bag and voided ballots and the related oath envelopes in a sealed yellow bag but also an UNSEALED brown cardboard box with both accepted ballots and voided ballots. There is a law that requires all ballots and the related oath envelopes to be sealed. A rough estimate is that about 35% of the accepted ballots and the related oath envelopes were in the brown boxes (unsealed) and 65% of the accepted ballots and the related oath envelopes were in the pink and yellow bags (sealed). Is there a law that requires all ballots and the related oath envelopes to be sealed from the time that the oath envelopes are opened and ballots counted until some time after the election (i.e. six months) or something like that? If all ballots and the related oath envelopes must be secured in sealed bags why was a large percentage of ballots and the related oath envelopes stored in an unsealed brown cardboard box?
Why do some oath envelopes have pre-printed labels? Are those oath envelopes sent to voters on the permanent absentee voter list, typically voters who are sick or elderly? Some ballots from oath envelopes were voided, marked as “unregistered voter”. How would a voter on the permanent absentee voter list sending back an envelope with a unique pre-printed label be voided as “unregistered voter” when, by definition, any voter sending back an oath envelope with a pre-printed label is on the permanent absentee voter list and thus known to be a registered voter?
A large number of ballots were voided with a note that read “opened”. In many cases opened referred to a ballot that was not sealed because the voter failed to wet the glue on the envelope to seal the envelope but in many other cases opened referred to a ballot that had been slit open, apparently by a pair of scissors or a letter opener or knife. It seems unlikely that voters would take the trouble to fill out the ballot, then place it in the oath envelope, fill out the voter information on the oath envelope, sign and date the oath envelope, place the oath envelope in the return envelope with the pre-paid postage and return mailing address back to City Hall and then, having done all that, taken out a pair of scissors and slice open the envelopes and then put the now-open envelopes in the US Mail or dropbox. It seems far more likely that the envelopes and ballots were received by the District intact and that a poll worker used a knife or pair of scissors to open the return envelope and in the process, slit open the oath envelope then marking the ballot void because the oath envelope was open — not because of anything the voter did but due to the carelessness of the poll worker. Can you address this point and explain what steps were taken to prevent voiding ballots due to poll worker error?
The Tally Sheet for ED 13 states towards the top of the page that there were 17 accepted ballots out of 30 received implying 13 ballots were voided. At the bottom, the same Tally Sheet for ED 13 states were 18 accepted ballots and 0 voided ballots. The Same Tally Sheet for ED 13 states one candidate (Tim McKnight) received 23 votes. Likewise, the budget referendum received 21 votes (16 yes, 5 no). Can you explain how the same Tally Sheet can report 17 and 18 accepted ballots, 13 and 0 voided ballots, and how more votes can be cast for a candidate or on the budget referendum that there were accepted ballots for the ED?
The Tally Sheet for ED 12 states towards the top that there are 2,309 registered voters in ED 12 and that there were 2,526 ballots received and the section for “accepted ballots” for ED 12 is left blank so no indication of how many received ballots were accepted or voided. Toward the bottom of the same page the Tally Sheet for ED 12 states that are 2,526 total valid ballots and 50 voided ballots. The same Tally Sheet for ED 12 states there were 588 votes counted for the budget referendum (366 yes, 222 no) and 1,142 votes cast for school board candidates (Adina Barrios Brooks, 173, Katie Castellano Minaya 129, Barbara D’Alois 32, Chris Daniello 240, Stephen A DiDonato 30, Sharon Footes, 15, Matthew T. Hirschman 43, Michael Leone 47, Tim McKnight 63, Mario A. Scorano 79, Julia Taylor 270, Donald Vega 21). Can you explain how the ED 12 Tally Sheet can report 2,526 ballots were received in ED 12 which, according to the same Tally Sheet has just 2,309 registered voters; how the ED 12 Tally Sheet states at the top there were 2,526 ballots received but 0 ballots accepted but at the bottom states there were 2,526 ballots accepted and 50 ballots voided. I did an unofficial hand count of the accepted ballots from the ED 12 pink bag and the ED 12 brown box. There were 359 accepted ballots in the pink bag and 255 accepted ballots in the brown box for a total of 614 accepted ballots. Given resource constraints, I did not count each vote cast on each ballot so I cannot be sure if the votes recorded on the ED 12 Tally Sheet accurately reflect the actual votes on the budget referendum or for school board candidates but 588 votes on the budget out of 614 (95.8% voting on the budget) while seemingly high seems far more likely to be close to the true count than 588 votes on the budget out of 2,526 (23.2% voting on the budget). Likewise, 1,228 (86.0%) votes cast for school board candidates, where voters can vote for up to 2 candidates on their ballot, out of a potential 1,428 votes for school board candidates (614 x 2 votes per ballot) seems far more likely to be close to the true count than 1,142 (22.6%) votes for school board candidates out of a potential of 5,052 votes for school board candidates (2, 526 x 2 votes per ballot). Can you explain any of these apparent errors on the ED 12 Tally Sheet?
In order to maintain secrecy on how a particular person voted, there must be no way for anyone to see a completed ballot in connection with an oath envelope which contains the voters’ name, address and signature. In over 200 cases of voided ballots, the voided ballots and oath envelopes are held together with paper clips and/or the voided ballots are still inside opened oath envelopes. As a result, anyone can see how those 200+ people voted in the election. Likewise, during the counting process, any election inspector or others in the counting room including District employees, school board members and board candidates could see any oath envelope opened and the corresponding ballot inside. In other words, under the existing absentee ballot voting process ballots are not “secret”. Anyone in the room interested to know how a particular person voted has access to that information. Can you address this flaw in the absentee ballot voting process? Should the process have included requiring voters to place ballots in blank envelopes and only then placing the now sealed ballot in an oath envelope so that a person opening an oath envelope could not view the ballot while knowing the voters identity?
Many ballots were voided solely because the voter failed to sign the back of the oath envelope. Should voters be notified and given the opportunity to “cure” the ballot by coming to City Hall to add their signature to the oath envelope?
In reaching out to some voters whose ballots were voided, I have yet to find a single voter who knew their ballot was voided. Should voters be notified if their ballot may be or was voided? Is there a process where a voter or candidate can challenge a decision to void a ballot? How would either the voter or candidate avail themselves of whatever challenge process may exist if they are not aware a particular ballot has been voided.
Some voters say they received ballot even though they were no longer registered to vote, that they moved out of Westchester County and ballots were sent directly to their new address (not forwarded by USPS).
Some voters who are registered say they did not received ballots.
Some voters who are registered but not in the list of registered voters provided to me by the District were given ballots at City Hall upon request, voted but then had their ballots voided because they were not in the list of registered voters provided to me by the District. Should these ballots be voided?