Philip Rowe appeared before the Dewey Beach Board of Elections on Thursday, September 26th, with his complaint about an election flawed by discrepancies between machine and absentee ballots and his further concerns over how Paul Bauer represented his residency status as a candidate for town council. I can you please explain. The paperwork, as it turns out, submitted is fraudulent and that's my claim. All right. And there's a penalty in the town charter for fraudulent filing. So at the very least that should be addressed and pursued. Well, that's your that's your contention that it's fraudulent. So so what's Rowe has stated that his September 21st lost a Bauer by just six votes, a percentage that sparked an automatic recount, has nothing to do with his complaint. His concern centers on how residency status can have an impact on how people in Dewey Beach vote. With extreme time constrictions in play, the courtroom style hearing was held with just a few days notice. Rowe chose to represent himself before the board. Town solicitor Fred Townsend read from state statute during a series of convoluted questions posed to Rowe, most of which were unanswerable without extensive legal knowledge. Do you acknowledge that there's a right line test for establishing residency and a subjective prong of that test as well? And again, I I'm not holding you to the same standards as your your attorney if you were represented, but I will ask you this. I don't really know the answer. I don't have time to consider that. That's a fair fair answer, but I'm going to indicate to you that residency, the right line test for establishing residency is going to be whether there is a dwelling in the jurisdiction that that one could intend to make their primary residence. Could or does could could. I'm saying that's prong one, that's prong one. So if if if you're opponent owned a restaurant and no dwelling in this jurisdiction, you would be contesting whether he is even eligible to run correct. I don't know the rules for restaurants, so I can't answer that either. Well, you acknowledge. Johnson said he was attempting during the questioning to bring the board of elections up to speed on the law. However, it made for an awkward and frustrating exchange with little resembling due process as seen here at the 20 minute, 44 second mark in the accompanying video clip. You know, I might as well just go file with the state. Well, suit them in civil court. I believe that's the appropriate place for your complaint, but I would. I'm not in. I'm not. I'm not going to disallow you from from continuing, you know, I was just done where we're going. Well, I'm serving. This is actually helpful for the board. Sure. Please be open to. Yes, I'm open to it. I just. I don't know. Well, again, I am not unsympathetic to your position. I can tell you that if you filed in court for some kind of an injunctive relief, you would be in a similar scenario, you would be answering a lot of questions of the court. But I haven't done that. An explanation from the September 23rd meeting shed some light on how the ballot error occurred. It appears information from the last election was used as a template for the new absentee ballot instead of election officials referencing the newly filed paperwork. That paperwork included bowers change to residency status. The matter was summarily dismissed on the spot by elections board chair Elaine Bull as a clerical error. At the September 26th hearing, Townsend called the issues, quote, a couple of irregularities, and quote, and said, quote, election officials are not required to investigate the candidate's submissions for truthfulness. And quote, this should raise questions for town commissioners. Is the matter being swept under the rug? Was it properly investigated? Bull said they were short-handed. Is that situation being dealt with? At the very least, commissioners should be concerned about costs as their main focus is managing the town budget. Where would the money come from to hold a second election? What about attorney fees? It is not micromanaging on the part of town council to address operational issues within a department, and no citizen should feel like cost is a reason to not come forward when something is obviously wrong. During his questioning at the hearing, Townsend repeatedly told Roe he should have noticed the ballot discrepancies and brought them to the board before the election, even though Roe had made it clear he was not aware of the issue beforehand. Roe was told he should have gotten the ballot ahead of time, but would it have occurred to anyone to request both ballots and compare them? Rather than Roe taking on the job of proofreader, could the problem have been more readily detected if ballots were simply posted on the town website in the interest of fully preparing voters? Townsend suggested Roe intentionally withheld his concerns until after the election, causing them to be outside of the jurisdiction of the board. Roe said he knew Bauer represented himself as a resident and had an issue with it, but reiterated he did not know about the ballot discrepancy before the election, which escalated the matter to an immediate complaint. Finally, Townsend asked Roe to state his complaint to the board at which point Bauer said she would not entertain allegations, as seen here in the accompanying video clip at the 26-minute 5-second mark. I am not sure exactly how I would have been able to state my case with no allegations. Instead, he and Townsend spoke circumspectly at what might be allowed, with Roe alluding to a long list of issues and potential criminal activity. Townsend's response was to state which should have been said at the beginning, that the board of elections does not have jurisdiction to set aside election results. If he knew the elections board had no jurisdiction once an election was over, why did Townsend prolong the hearing, asking question after question, knowing Roe would not be able to answer. Why did he direct Roe to state his complaint to the board knowing it did not matter? And why would Bauer expect to not hear allegations in a complaint that is essentially a request to investigate allegations? Roe was forced to give up, saying that he would take his case to the state elections commission. He went on to make this statement seen at the 31-minute 13-second mark. One of my issues is all the people that supported me and contributed to the campaign are out money because of this filing. So, you know, it's an unfair filing. It's an illegal filing under the Townsend Charter. If there's nothing to be done about somebody running for one of the highest offices in the town, violating the Towns Charter, we have no rules. Well, Mr. Roe, I'm not saying. The hearing was concluded with a unanimous vote to deny the complaint based on lack of jurisdiction, followed by a public comment session where no one chose to speak. At the post-election organizational meeting on October 2nd, re-elected commissioners were sworn in, followed by a vote for mayor. Bauer nominated TJ Redifer. There was no call for further nominations. The vote was unanimous.