Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Equipment Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise warranty, data-sharing and support concerns over ballot-processing contract
Summary
Two residents questioned the county's proposed equipment and software contract, citing a one-year equipment warranty, high software extension costs, data-sharing language and a short vendor support window tied to elections.
Get email alerts on the Election Equipment Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two residents urged the Erie County Board of Elections on public comment to clarify warranty, data-sharing and vendor support terms in a proposed contract for ballot-processing equipment and related software.
Greta, a resident who identified herself during the hearing, said she had read the contract and was concerned that the equipment carries only a one-year warranty while software extended warranties could cost nearly as much as the equipment. "There is only a 1 year warranty for the equipment, and it appears that there are extended warranties for the software, which add up to almost as much as the cost of the equipment, but there's no warranty for the equipment after year 1," she said.
The resident also asked how the machine would handle attached declaration-of-assistance forms and multiple inserts in envelopes and noted a contract clause that disclaims any implied agreements. "It says very clearly in the contract that there's no implied anything beyond what's in the contract," she said, and asked how the vendor would process ballots that include additional forms.
Greta further raised concern about a clause stating that information would be provided to "the county and to state elections, etcetera, and agencies of the United States government," and said she wanted clarity about what data would be shared and under what conditions. She read the contract language that the "client agrees to bear all risk of loss, injury, or destruction of such goods and materials," and said the allocation of those risks appeared one-sided.
Both commenters asked for clarification of the vendor's technical-support window. The contract language noted support resources would be provided beginning 15 days prior to election day and for seven days after. Greta and board members questioned whether that window covered the period when mail ballots are accepted and recommended wording that aligns support with ballot-processing timelines. "It would seem to me that when do we begin to accept mail in ballots? I think that's more than 15 days prior to election day," Greta said.
Chairman Drexel and staff acknowledged the concerns during the meeting and indicated contract language could be refined during negotiations. No formal action was taken during the meeting to change the contract text; public comment served as a request for clarification and potential revision prior to final contracting.
The comments combined expressions of appreciation for the elections staff with repeated requests for clearer warranty terms, explicit descriptions of what data will be shared and expanded vendor support tied to the county's ballot timeline.

