BOC Denies Clerk’s Extra Election Work Pay Request

By DIANNE ALWARD-BIERY

Cleaver Senior Staff Writer

HARRISON – Upon resuming open session at the Sept. 18 Board of Commissioners meeting, discussion continued with Lori Mott, clerk/register. She spoke of ElectionSource’s assertive attempts to change out the county’s tabulators [at no cost] on Sept. 10, which Mott steadfastly refused to allow on a countywide basis because it would be too close to the election with all the ballot programming and election preparation to be done. Mott had agreed that ElectionSource could do an early changeout for any individual clerks who wished to do so, noting that Lincoln Township had opted for the changeout in advance because the new machines are much faster. The larger changeover will be done after the election.

As far as election security questions that might be lingering, Mott informed that the county had not used modem transmission of voting results since 2018-2019, and that nothing is reported to the state until after results are officially recorded in the clerk’s office.

When the motion that called for a stipend of $9,000 per election for the Clare County Clerk and a stipend of $5,000 per election for the Chief Deputy Clerk/Register was made and seconded, Mott informed that if the motion did not pass, it would mean the Board was voting to transfer the job to ElectionSource, who would be programming at the rate quoted and she would no longer do the programming.

“I would urge you to keep control local,” she said. “In Clare County and under our control instead of outsourcing it to a vendor that most of our constituents don’t like.”

When asked if Clare County had ever outsourced programming, Mott said not that she knew of, and the job duties were not as significant previously as they now are. She also clarified that there had always been an election worker in the office to do the programming, and a clerk had never done it before Mott. She also noted that Clare County had not received any money last year to implement the early voting program because the commissioners had never voted to charge it back to the townships. Also, the state only reimburses for the Presidential Primary, and this year there was no reimbursement because there was no exact cost established for that. Mott said she did submit a bill to the state for $59,000 which has been promised but not yet paid.

Commissioner Dale Majewski suggested there is time still to wait and see if the state will be coughing up funding to pay for Mott’s stipend request. He noted that in a three-election year, Mott would realize an additional $27,000 – to which Mott responded the county would pay ElectionSource $120,000. He went on to say that with four elections, Mott would realize $36,000 and that there are deputies in the sheriff department that don’t make that much.

Mott responded by asking if deputies program the election, and if they get paid for their overtime. She also reiterated that she realizes the BOC will do what it will do, but that she would not continue to program if not compensated for the additional work, and would continue to try to fill the position.

Majewski inferred Mott was holding taxpayers ransom, which Mott denied, adding that she had provided a funding avenue at a previous meeting, allowing ample time for the commissioners to review her solution.

“I’m telling you that my family and personal time are worth something,” she said. “If I’m going to continue to work this hard, I’m going to get paid for it. If you don’t want to pay for it, that’s fine, someone else can do it. And I will not spend the additional hours here. Whatever you decide is your decision, and I will abide by it. Your decision will be to pay ElectionSource or to pay me.”

It was then clarified that programming ballots is not part of the Clare County Clerk’s statutory duties. Mott then referenced an attorney’s opinion from Dave Stoker who described the situation as a no-brainer. And when Commissioner Fancon asked if the townships are being reimbursed for early voting, why were they not taking it on, Mott explained it is not just the cost, but also the many hours required of election inspectors and that clerks don’t have the extra time required to do it.

“And some of them are part time, and aren’t being compensated to work all those hours,” she said. “And I have not heard that the state is going to continue to reimburse long-term for early voting. There may be one or two that want to go on their own, but the majority of the clerks do not.”

Hoefling interjected that his townships had been singing nothing but praises of the county taking over the early vote and look forward eagerly to a January discussion of the cost schedule because they know they can’t afford to do it themselves.

“A lot of them are struggling to even do fire protection services,” he said, adding that one township had to pass a special assessment district just to keep fire protection going.

Mott said that many clerks had wanted to attend the BOC meeting to show their support of the stipend request, but she had urged them not to, lest the commissioners feel attacked or that troops had been rallied against them.

The issue of the commissioners needing more time to consider the request, was met by Mott saying she had brought the issue a month ago, revisited it at a meeting two weeks prior, then sent an email to solicit any questions commissioners might have – including her cell phone number and the offer of meeting early mornings or evenings if the workday didn’t work for them. Mott then reiterated she would appreciate a vote that day, and then if they changed their minds, have a different vote and revisit it. This would enable her to know if she needed to/not to seek hiring help in the office.

Hoefling said he thought it was a reasonable request and saw no reason to vote against it. He also noted the higher cost for ElectionSource, as well as hearing from his constituents their lack of trust in non-local control when it comes to third party vendors, i.e. Dominion voting machines. Hoefling also pointed out the value of locals trusting locals and being able to look them in the eye, and if a job was not done well, they could say ‘you screwed up.’ He then reiterated the cost value by programming locally.

“The election is 50 days away,” he said. “Switching now just doesn’t make any sense.”

At that point, Mott also spoke in objection to bringing up the sheriff department. “One thing has nothing to do with the other,” she said. “I don’t pretend to know anything about their job, or that my job is more important than theirs, or theirs is more important than mine – we all have a vital role in this county, and we all are elected to do specific duties, and we all bust our butt and work hard and deserve to be compensated for what we do.”

She also stated her belief that it causes departments to be pitted against each other to prove their worth over another department, when some elected officials get raises and some do not. “You’re portraying that they are more worthy because their job is more important. I take great offense to that.”

Chair Jeff Haskell disagreed, saying he didn’t necessarily think that’s the case.

“In the past I feel we’ve made mistakes because of that,” he said. “And that’s why I wonder if this is a mistake because it’s singling one unit out. And if you remember, you sat there and we asked if there was time to do a wage study, can we do that? Maybe it’s no trust in us, maybe that’s it … then again we like it when this place runs smooth and people are not pitted against each other.”

Mott reminded that she had suggested using the savings from her office to give to other employees, and that wage studies had been done two or three years ago.

Haskell said the current intent had been to get through the elections and, per discussion, get a final cost. He said all he was asking was for a little time, because he did not have enough time to adequately wrap his head around the request.

“I am for something,” he said. “I really am, but I almost feel like I’m getting pushed into it or someone’s holding me hostage – and I don’t like that. I would hope that you would work with us, find you what we need to pay to make it fair. Get through this election – we can even back-charge that when we’re done. But I’m asking you to give us time, and we want to look at everybody – every elected official here – because I think it matters. To get good candidates, we’ve got to pay accordingly.”

Haskell reiterated that he was asking time for the Board to research the issue, put it in the budget which is a working document, and talk with Mott about it. Get through the upcoming election.

“And you know what, if we treat you wrong, then quit this,” he said. “But instead of making this bitter between all of us, I’m asking you to give us some time and work with you, and we’ll make it fair.”

Mott then said she believed Haskell was sincere, but that she believed there was no trust with the Board because it had kicked the can down the road two or three years ago.

“And the Board said they would look into it,” she said. “And they did look into it, we did the work – and we got not even a response.”

There was talk of wage studies, both current and past, which Haskell said he had seen, adding that he would then vote how he felt. Mott urged that when doing wage studies, the Board compare apples to apples, and cited her belief that there are only two clerk/registers who program, with jobs being very different. Some she said have court administrators who run the courts, not clerks.

Haskell responded by saying he was more looking at hours and to do what’s fair and right, but not just concentrate on Mott: concentrate on everybody so there isn’t “dissention among the ranks” as had been brought up by Mott. He agreed that he didn’t think the extra work was fair, but due to the way it was playing out, he knew how he would have to vote.

Discussion/contention continues, until finally the vote was called on the motion on the floor. There were two affirmative votes from Commissioners David Hoefling and Gabe Ambrozaitis, and seven dissenting votes from Commissioners Marlene Housler, Samantha Pitchford, Dale Majewski, Jeff Haskell, George Gilmore, Jack Kleinhardt and Rickie Fancon. Thus, the motion failed.

© Clare County Cleaver