crying during press conference in 2012
Lehigh Acres Gazette Editorial Board is calling for a comprehensive audit of the Lee County Supervisor of Elections office based on what is essentially a $1.6 million mistake over the recent purchase of an electronic voter registration system that is incompatible with existing poll pads.
Supervisor of Elections Sharon Harrington showed negligence in her job by not thoroughly investigating and testing the computer equipment, which was supposed to make it easier to access voter registration and party affiliation data and to transmit early voting and absentee data. The “Voter Focus” software also allows for integration of records between county precincts and with the state database.
The elections office discovered later it had purchased the wrong package for $749,846, had no way of recovering the full costs. Another package, through a different vendor, needed to be purchased for $890,000. Harrington did a poor job of making her case for the new equipment during last Tuesday’s board of county commissioner’s budget workshop.
Harrington was so vague with commissioners, and provided few answers on why the commissioners should feel any more confident the new package would work, in about 30 minutes of questioning. She had no timeline when the new VF equipment would be ready for installation and tested. Her only assurance to commissioners that this system would be compatible was “62 other counties” are using it. It is the same system Collier has been using since 2000, and Lee could have purchased over the last 15 years.
Typically, her office goes through a financial audit each year by the Fort Myers accounting firm Tuscan & Co., (editor note this is the same firm that audits Lehigh Acres Fire each year) but that audit would not include certain procurement procedures, including details of how a contract is negotiated. According to statute, Harrington can ask for a full audit by the Lee County clerk of court office, which also does such audits every three years for each of the Lee County government departments. Such an audit would look at contract procedures. We encourage her to ask Clerk of Court Linda Doggett and her staff to conduct such an audit over the next year.
The commissioners need more specifics than that to spend additional taxpayer money to improve a voting process that hit new lows in 2012, when an unusually large ballot and poor planning resulted in not enough scanning machines, leading to 5-hour-long lines to vote and many people not voting at all. Harrington was remorseful after the election and vowed to fix the problem by adding more scanning equipment. Commissioners gave her an additional $586,500 to purchase 100 scanners in 2013.
We believe the entire procurement process used in the elections office must be investigated to avoid more costly mistakes. The original contract was purchased through a one-person vendor, who verbally convinced the elections office the system would work, without thorough testing.
What is even more alarming is Harrington’s reluctance to act earlier in purchasing the system the other counties have been using for a number of years that makes linking with state information much easier. The system also cuts down on the manpower needed when a voter shows up at the wrong precinct on election day. Typically, a call would be made to people manning a bank of phones, and the correct precinct located. With the integrated system, the voter’s registration can be called up, and a ballot made much quicker and without a phone call.
The disturbing part about the original $749,000 contract was the lack of safeguards built in should the system fail. “If something happened to him; there was no back up,” Harrington told commissioners. This vendor was the only provider of this system, which was supposed to link to approximately 785 poll pads, which was almost half of that purchase at $368,950.
Apparently, Harrington thought her office could make the purchase, have the system installed and have it all work without ever involving a consultant – another issue that seemed to alarm commissioners. When Commissioner Larry Kiker asked her Tuesday if she considered a consulting service, she said: “I have not thought about it.”
The elections office does have an IT department, as do many other county and state government offices that would have been happy to work with it on integrating the system. It doesn’t appear Harrington reached out.
When Kiker asked how long it would take to install the new system, Harrington responded: “Not sure.” When Harrington was not able to answer that question or had not developed any sort of timeline, the commissioners appropriately stepped in and asked County Manager Roger Desjarlais to have the county’s IT contractor work with Harrington on the logistics.
Harrington wants to have the system up and running by the fall to prepare for the 2016 presidential election year. That means the money must be appropriated quickly, the system installed and tested soon.
Harrington worries without the quicker system, the long lines of 2012 will materialize once again in 2016. We don’t see that happening because the voting culture has changed – more people are voting by mail or taking advantage of early voting. In fact, her proposed budget, asking for a whopping 31 percent increase, includes $1.3 million more to mail ballots than it did last year.
Harrington’s department, its contract negotiations and buying practices must be reviewed and changes implemented so another $1.6 million mistake does not happen again.
Editorial note: Lehigh Acres Gazette used some the News-Press research and editorial story in this article. Thank you News-Press
i believe she is voted into office as of right now she should be fired it at all posible there is no reason for that, that only did she screw up but whoever else in that dept like her asst and the i.t. person…the i.t. person should have shouted that this was not compatible with whatever in the state that need the same info…the BUCK STOPS HERE…come folk start complaining….
Is Ms. Harrington’s position an elected position? If yes, when is she up for re-election?
She is up for re-election in 2016
This is a fine editorial about the elections office. The argument is well made. The writing is clear and to the point. Grammar and spelling are outstanding. Did you write it, Robert? If not, who did? They deserve some credit for an outstanding piece of journalism.
Credit was gave at the end of the article.