From: Heida, Harke
Sent: Saturday, 11 November 2006, 21:56
To: 'jan groenendaal'
CC: Schipper-Spanninga, Hanneke; Mazel, René
Subject: RE: integral voting system
Dear Mr. Groenendaal,
Herewith I acknowledge the receipt of your email message dated the 10th
of this month. I find that our opinions differ on many issues. For this
reason I will not discuss the content of your email. From your message
I also conclude that we do agree about the great importance of an
immaculately run election, coming November 22th.
with kind regards,
----- Original message -----
From: jan groenendaal [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, 10 November 2006, 11:45
To: Heida, Harke
CC: Schipper-Spanninga, Hanneke
Subject: integral voting system
Dear Mr. Heida,
Thank you for responding despite these busy times. Like no other we
know the stress surrounding an election. That's why we are were shocked
by the unnecessary and undesirable increase of pressure here.
However, the tenor of your answer is exactly what I didn't want to
hear. On hearing the word 'committee', leave alone 'broad committee',
my hair stands on end. For the cause of the current 'commotion' can
be attributed largely to that other commission (from Ireland) which
needed two years and 365 pages to cloud its incompetence.
For many years I've pleaded fruitlessly for a fundamental
reconsideration, and now this reconsideration will arrive, regarding
our contribution, simply too late.
It's not a secret that the moment hacker G. would be admitted to such a
committee, we will instantly suspend all our activities and invoke the
Otherwise, we've asked our Legal Adviser to examine the possibilities
to start criminal proceedings against this criminal, based on a
so-called section X procedure, for situations where the government has
been failing in fulfilling its law enforcement duty.
After all, his activities are disrupting society and thereby comparable
to acts of terrorism. Detention pending trial and a preliminary
investigation hearing would have been completely justified here.
Furthermore we are considering to submit claims against the
municipalities that have cooperated and which now have been identified
by us, as well as against the television programme 'Een Vandaag', for
precognition of aforementioned indictable acts.
Exactly this action is in our opinion the one and only vigorous answer
that the minister should have given: We do not give in to the first
The approach that has been selected: a top-heavy project organisation
that's pushing an overkill of non-effective measures through, at
prohibitively high expenses, involving a way too large number of
basically unqualified employees, which makes us look into the future
(yes, the coming rapidly approaching parliamentary elections too) and
we definitely prefer not to be involved any longer.
Rather bizarre is the current position of the Ministry of Domestic
Affairs; shining for decades along the sideline with grave blunders
(central candidate nomination, introduction of phased voting, notation
of groups and candidates, role and position of the central election
office, launch of The Expert Centre, and, moreover, an anachronistic
Election Legislation that acts like elections are still run using paper
ballots most of the time).
And now, all of a sudden, they come rushing in for a match of panic
play (which idiot ordered a 100.000 pencils using my tax money ??).
But, worst of all, the primary incentive is apparently not protecting
the election process, but rather to cover the responsibilities of the
minister and the department.
One must realise without exaggeration that the organisation of the
Election process in the Netherlands is by far the best in the world!
Without false modesty we also dare to state that our involvement
thereby played a big role.
So, you must be able to approve that the motivation, which pushed us
for more than 20 years to bring the election process, in spite of
little collaboration of respective ministries and policy civil
servants, in the Netherlands and later also in foreign countries to an
undeniable high quality level, at present is decreased until far
What exclusively still moves us at this moment, is our feeling of moral
(NB none contractual!) obligation towards our faithful group of
customers from more than 400 municipalities, where we still score an
unprecedently high contentments figure.
If the department believes, as now obviously appears from the
disproportional concern, that we do not come up to the mark, then the
solution is clear;
* The department takes over the shares of our company at a
* Ceases operations immediately
* Has its hands completely free for every future development that
can be thought off,
* Amortising the takeover expenses within a few elections by
means of charging the municipalities, which see temporarily
continuation of the service for a gentle price, unless off
course the ministry comes up with something better overnight.
* We will then still cooperate for the next elections (PS 2007).
I could imagine that you and/or your division do not feel competent to
decide on this matter immediately. Therefore please advise of any ways
you see in which this process can be expedited; make a direct proposal
to the minister or to the parliamentary commission that deal with the
ministry of the interior?