See this press release.  Here is the conclusion of the report commissioned by the G.A.B.:

CONCLUSIONS
The evidence establishes this is not a situation in which a number of ballots were discovered, hidden or surreptitiously added to the vote totals. Evidence of this is the fact that City of Brookfield Clerk Kris Schmidt provided the results for Brookfield to reporter Lisa Sink on election night. The unofficial results for the City of Brookfield were posted in news account by Ms. Sink and available to the public at the BrookfieldPatch only hours after the election. The article showed Mr. Prosser received 10,859 votes and Ms. Kloppenburg received 3,456 votes in the City of Brookfield. Although she did not include these votes in her unofficial report published on election night, these are the same vote totals for the City of Brookfield Ms. Nickolaus reported to the state via the Canvass Reporting System after reimporting the City of Brookfield spreadsheet template into the Access 2007 database on the morning of April 6,2011. They are the same results for the City of Brookfield that were certified through Waukesha Board of Canvass on April 7,2011. They are the same results for the City of Brookfield that were certified during the statewide recount, which included the hand counting of ballots, in May 2011.

This information directly contradicts and undercuts speculation of a grand conspiracy. By failing to include the City of Brookfield in the unofficial results Waukesha County posted on election night, it appears Kathy Nickolaus violated the state law that requires her to post all returns. Her actions, however, do not appear to be the result of an intentional act, the refusal to perform a statutory duty or willful neglect. Therefore, her actions do not likely rise to the level of criminal misconduct.

It appears, instead, Ms. Nickolaus simply inadvertently uploaded a blank template into the database that did not contain the vote totals for Brookfield and posted inaccurate results on election night. While this error may be fairly characterized as a human error, the problem appears to stem from potentially larger issues. Ms. Nickolaus was the sole person responsible for uploading the spreadsheet/templates into the Access 2007 dalabase on election night. There was not a system in place to check for potential errors in this process. Ms. Nickolaus also was responsible for posting the results to the website. By her own account, she failed to go back and double check the numbers before posting the final results. The Waukesha County Clerk’s Office failed to have adequate systems and procedures in place to receive and verify vote totals before posting the results to the public.

The simple step of requiring a second person to verify all results imported into the database and all results published to the website very likely would have resulted in the immediate detection of the omitted City of Brookfield results on election night. Similarly, if Ms. Nickolaus adopted the interpretation of $ 7.60 taken by the G.A.B. and published the results independently by ward, rather than a countywide total, she would have detected the error on election night. lnstead, Ms. Nickolaus simply relied on the overall report generated through the database without confirming it.

Compounding the problem was the way in which the matter was handled after Ms. Nickolaus discovered the error. There appears to have been a general lack of communication and transparency about the situation. Ms. Nickolaus shared information about the potential problem regarding the Brookfield votes with a very limited number of people. She informed her deputy clerk on the morning after election. But she did not inform members of the Board of Canvass, nor Brookfield Clerk Kris Schmidt prior to the canvass. She told Ms. Nowak about the problems, but it appears Ms. Nickolaus did so only because she suspected the canvass would confirm the results posted on election night were incorrect, and she needed Ms. Nowak’s assistance in arranging a press conference.

Based on the statements Ms. Nickolaus made when interviewed, it is clear she believes she was attempting to contact the G.A.B. as soon as she discovered the error. Records confirm she did contact the G.A.B. multiple times on the morning of April 6. But the statements from Mr. Hirscher and Mr. Harvell show that Ms. Nickolaus failed to adequately convey the specific nature and scope of the problem to them. Ms. Nickolaus also acknowledged she conveyed the problems in more general terms, simply saying she needed help with the Access database. She clearly did not convey the urgency of the situation to the G.A.B. Ms. Nickolaus’ failure to immediately inform G.A.B. Director and General Counsel Kevin Kennedy or G.A.B. Elections Division Administrator Nat Robinson about the scope of potential problem with the Brookfield vote totals also shows a lapse in judgment. Had she simply delayed the start of the canvass until she was able to confer with them, it is possible the G.A.B. could have provided immediate assistance and expertise and may have been able to help her in addressing the issue at the press conference. lnstead, after having limited contact with Mr. Hirscher and Mr. Harvell on the morning of April 6, she did not contact anyone from the G.A.B until immediately before the press conference on the evening of April 7. She never spoke directly to either Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Robinson.

The manner in which Ms. Nickolaus decided to hold the press conference also exacerbated this situation. ln an already politically charged election, the release of information that resulted in a shift from what appeared to be a close victory for Ms. Kloppenburg to a victory for Mr. Prosser brought with it high drama. Through the Board of Canvass, Ms. Nickolaus had confirmed the results she posted on election night were inaccurate. But at the time she held the press conference, sh¡e clearly did not know exactly how the error occurred. During the press conference, for example, Ms. Nickolaus repeatedly stated the error was the result of failing to properly save the results in the Access 2Q07 database. This explanation only fueled suspicion of fraud because members of the public familiar with the program were aware the program does not require a user to save data after it is uploaded and were aware the explanation did not make sense.

Had Ms. Nickolaus contacted Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Robinson prior to the press conference, she would have been able to publicly state that she immediately notified the G.A.B. when she first suspected a problem and maintained contact with the G.A.B. throughout the canvass process. This would have added a layer of transparency to the process. Although it may not have eliminated later claims of a conspiracy, it would have bolstered public confidence in the process. Despite these issues, it does not appear there was any intentional misconduct on the part of Kathy Nickolaus, nor were there significant problems with the manner in which the official canvass was conducted. As previously indicated, the official canvass process, the G.A.B. review, and the statewide recount confirmed the official vote totals are correct, and that the unofficial vote totals published on election night were in error.