Opinion: Ducking a difficult decision

It is difficult for an elected official to raise taxes, even when it's the right thing to do. A majority of the Pinellas County Commission recently chose easy over right, and that could compromise the county's search for the best voting technology.

The commission was faced with a 3.4-percent tax rate increase to cover the county's anticipated expenses and an extraordinary cost. State law requires commissioners to replace the county's punch-card voting machines with new (and expensive) technology. The tax increase was reasonable, amounting to an extra $17.23 a year on a $100,000 house with a homestead exemption.

The commission started the budget process weeks ago with $15-million allocated for voting machines, later reducing the amount to $12-million. On Tuesday night, commissioners fiddled some more, cutting the $12-million to $10-million and then to $6.7-million. That allowed them to reduce the tax increase to less than 1 percent. It also limited their options.

The commission will have to choose between two types of voting machines: optical scanners or electronic machines, such as touch screens. The price difference is significant, but so is the potential for accuracy and ease of use. Optical scanners are cheaper, estimated to cost Pinellas $3.4-million, but they rely on a hand-marked ballot that could be prone to confusion and error. Electronic machines are estimated to cost $14-million, but they promise a less confusing voter experience.

It is too early to say which system Pinellas should buy. The county is seeking proposals for both kinds of machines. But it is significant that other urban counties with complex ballots are beginning to see the virtues of touch screens.

Had the commission left enough money in the budget for either system, that would have removed cost as such an important factor in choosing a voting system. Unfortunately, Calvin Harris, John Morroni, Karen Seel and Ken Welch chose to cut the amount budgeted for voting machines. It is difficult to follow their reasoning.

Those commissioners said they will figure out the financing later, perhaps taking money from another part of the budget. Or, they said, the county can borrow what it needs.

That sounds like excuses for putting off a tough decision. If the county finances its purchase, that could increase the cost by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Taking the money from other programs is never an easy task. Either way, the commission would face more tough budget decisions and, possibly, another tax increase next year. Had they raised enough money in this year's budget, the commission could have looked for a tax decrease next year.

Now, we will wonder whether some commissioners are going to choose the best voting system available or the voting system that fits their truncated budget. After the 2000 election fiasco, commissioners should have been most concerned about renewing voter trust in the mechanism of democracy.

This was the first tax-setting session for the newly formulated seven-member commission. A certain amount of hesitation is understandable. But we should be able to expect our county commissioners to take a difficult stand when it is the right thing to do.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page