web1_Church.jpg

Diocese of Scranton’s annual Red Mass will be celebrated Oct. 11

web1_TTL101019Blackhole_1.jpg

Local filmmakers debut short film exploring end of the world

<p>Luzerne County Council should be voting yes or no on the county manager&#8217;s recommended new voting system &#8212; not interviewing vendors and choosing one on its own, county Councilwoman Linda McClosky Houck asserted Wednesday.</p><p>&#8220;Having council pick a vendor is completely against the principles of the home rule charter,&#8221; McClosky Houck said, referring to the customized government structure that took effect in January 2012.</p><p>McClosky Houck called for county Manager C. David Pedri to follow the usual protocol of negotiating the &#8220;best possible terms&#8221; with all vendors seriously under consideration, selecting one and bringing that recommendation to council for a vote, she said in a Wednesday afternoon email to her council colleagues.</p><p>Instead of a typical agenda submission, Pedri gave council both a brief memo with his recommendation to purchase machines from Dominion Voting Systems and a report from a citizen/employee selection committee assembled by the manager endorsing a different system from Election Systems and Software (ES&amp;S). Hart InterCivic also submitted a proposal.</p><p>Council has never been expected to break a tie or select a vendor from a &#8220;menu of options,&#8221; McClosky Houck wrote. Any council discussions that &#8220;compare and contrast vendors&#8221; are &#8220;counter to the principles of a non-meddling council,&#8221; she maintained.</p><p>Council can have &#8220;legitimate discussion that reflects our appropriate role as council members&#8221; after the manager submits his detailed recommendation, she said.</p><p>Pedri said Wednesday he made his choice &#8220;loud and clear&#8221; and never has a problem taking a stance, but he wanted to provide council with latitude and options in this situation because the machine selection is a &#8220;big decision&#8221; that ultimately rests with council.</p><p>Council Chairman Tim McGinley said he personally disagrees with McClosky Houck&#8217;s position, largely because he discovered after council approved the administration&#8217;s recommended purchase of electronic poll books last year that there were less expensive options he believes should have been presented to council.</p><p>McGinley argued council should perform its own due diligence in larger purchases as an independent check and balance. Unlike the manager and selection committee&#8217;s reviews, council&#8217;s questioning of voting machine vendors has been conducted in public, allowing citizens to learn more about all options before a decision is reached, he said.</p><p>&#8220;We&#8217;re talking about a 15-year commitment with the new machines. It&#8217;s a major commitment financially and a lengthy time we will be married to these machines,&#8221; McGinley said.</p><p>He said he advocates similar council public interviews of both vendors interested in installing a new digital 911 emergency radio system, regardless of which system is recommended by the administration. Council this week authorized borrowing of $19.7 million toward that planned purchase.</p><p>&#8220;Whenever we have a decision of this magnitude, we should take the steps to perform extra due diligence,&#8221; McGinley said, noting he will respectfully proceed differently if a majority wants to limit its vote on the manager&#8217;s recommendation.</p><p>Counties must choose a voting system by the end of the year and start using it by the April 2020 primary under a state mandate requiring paper ballots or receipts that can be checked by voters and kept in case tallies are questioned.</p><p>McClosky Houck said the manager can present a different voting system option if a council majority rejects his recommendation, noting that&#8217;s what happened when the prior manager&#8217;s nominee for a division head post failed to secure majority council confirmation in 2013.</p><p><strong>Voting system costs</strong></p><p>The quoted price of the three potential voting systems ranges from around $2.6 million to $3.5 million when all hardware, software, maintenance and one year of support are factored in, a document shows.</p><p>These figures &#8212; which may be subject to change through future negotiations &#8212; come from an unredacted version of a county report obtained by the Times Leader.</p><p>According to this purchasing department summary of the voting system selection committee findings, the prices with one year of support are: Dominion, $2.6 million; ES&amp;S, $3.5 million; and Hart, $3.39 million.</p><p>The county is not required to select the lowest price for specialized services and equipment as it would be for construction or basic supplies.</p><p>Council agreed to provide $1.4 million for a new voting system in this week&#8217;s borrowing package. That equates to up to $3.5 million for the system because the administration sought 40 percent, expecting the state to kick in 60 percent. County officials have said they will borrow less &#8212; or pay back borrowed funds without penalty &#8212; if they do not need the full amount projected.</p><p>The unredacted document also listed the price each vendor submitted for all equipment and five years of maintenance and support, although it&#8217;s unclear if the state would provide funding toward such extended support.</p><p>These five-year amounts, the document said: Dominion, $3.4 million; ES&amp;S, $4.08 million; and Hart, $4.3 million.</p><p>Citizen Walter Griffith complained about the county&#8217;s refusal to release prices during Monday&#8217;s council work session, saying the information should not be a &#8220;big secret.&#8221;</p><p>&#8220;I think the citizens really want to know what they cost. They don&#8217;t care about all this other stuff. They&#8217;re the ones paying for it,&#8221; Griffith said.</p><p>But county Chief Solicitor Romilda Crocamo said proposal submission amounts are not publicly released before a final contract is up for approval, largely because it could weaken the county&#8217;s negotiating strength if a preferred vendor knows what others are charging.</p><p>Vendor proposals for such specialized services don&#8217;t have to be publicly released like like standard bids, she said. Some proposals also deem prices trade secrets, she said.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/web1_oldcourthouse.jpeg-1.jpg">
<div class="neCaption">Luzerne County Courthouse </div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/web1_oldcourthouse.jpeg-1.jpg</photo0><caption0>Luzerne County Courthouse </caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>By Jennifer Learn-Andes</p><p>jandes@www.timesleader.com</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Luzerne County voting machine selection format criticized