Officials criticize election board

The county prosecutor said he knew nothing about additional voting machines.
By DAVID SKOLNICK
VINDICATOR POLITICS WRITER
YOUNGSTOWN -- The controversy surrounding Mahoning County owing $610,000 to its voting machine vendor has local officials blaming and criticizing each other.
The county owes the money to Election Systems & amp; Software for 170 touch-screen voting machines that comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as two years' worth of service and technical support.
County election board officials made a deal with ES & amp;S for 312 additional machines -- one for each of the county's voting precincts -- in September 2004. That was done in anticipation of large voter turnout for that year's November presidential election that could have caused long lines at the polls, said Thomas McCabe, elections board director.
ES & amp;S wants its money now -- after two years without payment for the county's use of the machines and not paying for the support.
Caught by surprise
The county owing $601,000 to ES & amp;S came as a surprise to county Administrator George Tablack and Prosecutor Paul J. Gains.
Gains had successfully worked out a settlement with the Ohio Secretary of State's Office regarding funding for the county's election machines. Also, Gains' office reviews county contracts.
Tablack and Gains criticized election officials for failing to comply with state law to provide purchase orders before agreeing to buy equipment.
"The board needs to go through the proper county procedure," Gains said. "This is a problem. We'll get this resolved, but I'm cautioning that board to follow procedures in the future."
'Chronic' problem
The elections board's failure to follow state and county law to submit purchase orders before making deals, Tablack said, is a "chronic problem that goes back years and years."
The board submitted paperwork to the county for the expenses, McCabe said. But because the $601,000 isn't in the elections board budget, the county's central purchasing office won't issue a purchase order as per its policy, he said.
McCabe said he erred when he said Monday that purchase orders for a majority of the expenses related to the $601,000 were submitted.
Resolution
McCabe said the entire situation could be resolved if county commissioners and other county officials would meet with him to discuss this. McCabe said he's unsuccessfully tried for three months to meet with the commissioners.
"If we could have met months ago like I want to, this would have been resolved," he said.
Tablack said he expects to meet with McCabe, county commissioners and others, including Michael V. Sciortino, who resigned as elections board director in September 2005 to become county auditor.
"Hopefully, this will allow the board of elections to have better budgetary practices and avoid problems like this," Tablack said.
Budget hearings
McCabe said he talked to commissioners during budget hearings about the board's verbal agreement with ES & amp;S regarding the deferred service and technical support fees. He said the company wants its money this year.
The commissioners opted to not include those fees in the election boards' budget, McCabe said.
"A verbal agreement doesn't comply with state statutes," Gains said. "It should be in writing so there's no confusion."
As for the more than $400,000 owed to ES & amp;S for the 170 ADA-compliant voting machines, McCabe said perhaps he wasn't clear to commissioners during budget hearings about that cost.
Election board officials in September 2004 realized there was going to be a problem with long lines to vote that November if more machines weren't added, McCabe said.
Because of that, ES & amp;S gave 312 ADA-compliant machines to the elections board at that time with a contract signed to have the county buy those machines, McCabe said.
Federal assistance
The elections board expected the funding for those machines to come from the Ohio secretary of state through the federal Help America Vote Act, McCabe said.
Instead, the state paid for one ADA-compliant machine at each of the county's then-142 voting locations, McCabe said.
That meant the county had to buy the other 170 machines, and ES & amp;S wants that payment now, McCabe said.
Gains, the county's legal counsel regarding obtaining HAVA money, said he knew nothing about the purchase of the other 170 voting machines. Gains said he was told the county was only borrowing those machines.
Mahoning's election system cost $3.81 million with the county receiving $2.8 million in federal funds for it.
Had he known about the 170 machines, Gains said he would have negotiated with the state to obtain more HAVA money to fund that equipment.
McCabe praised Gains for doing a great job in obtaining the $2.8 million, but there is no way the county will receive any more HAVA money.
An ES & amp;S spokeswoman said the company has "serious payment issues with the county," but the two sides are working to resolve the issues.
skolnick@vindy.com