Local county officials disagree with an assessment by state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale that accepting small treats from voting machine vendors “smacks of impropriety.”
DePasquale released a list on Feb. 22 of 18 Pennsylvania counties that voluntarily reported gifts, meals or trips received by election officials from companies selling new voting machines. The gifts were received at conferences the election officials attended.
In 2018, the Pennsylvania Department of State told counties to choose new voting systems by the end of 2019 to be in use by the 2020 primary election.
Cameron, Elk and Potter counties were on the list.
County officials argue that their actions were not illegal and they were aiming for transparency when reporting the small items.
According to Tom Tompkins, Cameron County solicitor, the actions of election officials were not only legal but also have no impact on what voting machine firm gets the county’s business.
“It all boils down to, one, did Cameron County violate state law? The answer unequivocally is no,” Tompkins said. “Two: fundamental understanding of the way the county works.”
He explained that Cameron County’s two election officials “have absolutely no say whatsoever” regarding what vendor the county’s three commissioners — the county’s “financial watchdogs” — “select to provide voting machines.
“Pennsylvania law is crystal clear,” said Tompkins in explaining the process. The vendors “will go through a competitive bidding process by Pennsylvania law with commissioners awarding the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
He noted that Cameron County commissioners did not attend any of trainings/conferences where gifts were given.
The Elk County Board of Commissioners also stood up for election officials.
“Elk County voluntarily provided this information to the Auditor General to comply with a request seeking input from all county board of elections directors,” the commissioners stated.
“It was noted in a written reply to the state, that the Elk County Solicitor determined no violation of the Ethics Act occurred. This legal opinion was not unexpected.
“Elk County values transparency and accountability in government and welcomes the opportunity to cooperate with any inquiries,” said the Elk County Commissioners.
In Potter County, Commissioner Paul Heimel explained the situation in more detail.
“After seeing the Auditor General’s report, I spoke with Director (Sandra) Lewis about the issue and learned from her that a dinner sponsored by Dominion (voting system company) was attended by a large proportion of statewide county election officials attending a conference last year,” he said. “The assumption was that the meal was, in essence, part of the conference.
“So, understandably, she and her colleagues statewide didn’t give any thought to the possibility that it would be inappropriate to attend it.”
Potter County officials are looking to see what changes, if any, should be made.
“As a result of the Auditor General’s report, we are conferring with County Solicitor Tom Shaffer for guidance on how county representatives should respond in the future should any meals be provided by vendors in conjunction with statewide conferences,” said Heimel.
Tompkins said he was first involved in the matter when the auditor general requested that election officials disclose any gratuities or gifts.
In the name of full transparency, Tompkins advised Cameron County officials to use “absolute full disclosure. Put down anything and everything you remember,” he explained.
Tompkins said, “The county did nothing unlawful whatsoever.” He explained the disclosed items were “well below the legal value established by Pennsylvania law.”
He added, “We made absolute full disclosure down to a box of chocolate-covered pretzels.”
Tompkins noted that while election officials from some other counties reported no gifts, Cameron County election officials told him some of those officials were at the same luncheons they were receiving the same items.
According to Tompkins, what election officials experienced is a normal part of conferences in the political and private worlds.
“That is just an acceptable practice,” he said.
He explained that all municipal official go to conventions and trainings, and each of these events has vendors that provide similar items such as sponsored lunches or promotional items.
He talked about how “absolutely ethical” Cameron County officials are, saying “everything is transparent or above the board, or, frankly, I wouldn’t agree to be county solicitor.”
Tompkins does not currently see a need for any changes in Cameron County, explaining officials are already well versed in the knowledge that they are not to accept gifts of a certain value or show favoritism.
“We will comply with state laws,” he said. “We will end up having this new voting machine” — despite the law being “financially deleterious to us.”
Potter County officials reported accepting dinners sponsored by a company at conferences from 2013 through 2018. Elk County officials reported accepting two lunches from two different companies in 2018, and Cameron County reported accepting things including several meals, tours, transportation and a box of chocolate-covered pretzels between 2016 and 2018.
DePasquale plans to report his findings to the state Ethics Commission for review. He has also called for stronger laws on accepting and reporting gifts.
