During public comment at a Middlesex County commissioners meeting, a resident questioned an additional funding request for vendor support of voting equipment.

“How come they need another $200,000 to help us with this election?” asked Charlie Pratt, noting a prior amount referenced at the meeting. Pratt said he had warned commissioners when the machines were purchased and expressed frustration that taxpayers repeatedly cover vendor support costs after equipment issues.

A county speaker replied that the request reflected a recommendation from the county Board of Elections and described the extra funds as a routine support request. “That’s the recommendation that the board of elections makes, and we’re gonna support that because, obviously, we want to make sure that the elections don’t have any kind of hiccups,” the speaker said.

Pratt pushed back, saying the vendor in question, Election Systems & Software, had failed in at least one past state election and that repeated support requests suggest ongoing reliability concerns. The transcript does not show a vote on new funding during the excerpted discussion; county staff did not provide a detailed itemized explanation at the microphone, and a precise total requested for the current increase was not unambiguously stated in the public comments.

What happens next: The Board of Elections’ recommendation was noted during the meeting; any formal appropriation or contract amendment would need to appear on the agenda and be adopted in a subsequent official action.