Lobbyist challenged on voting machines
Legal. But ethical? S.L. County's lobbying firm also works for the devices' manufacturer
By Derek P. Jensen
The Salt Lake Tribune    14 August 2005

Salt Lake County leaders continue to unleash a litany of complaints about the $10 million load of fancy electronic voting machines they must use by next year.
   Problem is, the county's own powerful lobbying firm, The Tetris Group, helped do the deal.
   Turns out, Tetris doubles as a lobbyist for Diebold Election Systems, whose touch-screen voting machines the firm helped prod the state to buy.
    Tetris' role is not a legal violation. But the relationship is raising questions of a possible conflict, particularly given the cost.
   County Mayor Peter Corroon and Clerk Sherrie Swensen cite sticker shock and the furious pace of the plan as a problem.
   "It's just so new and it hasn't been tested," Swensen says. "I'm a little frustrated that we're being forced to make it before that technology has been perfected."
   County taxpayers' tab: at least $5 million more than what the federal government or state will cover, according to Corroon.
   Conversely, Tetris associates Dan Hartman, Blaze Wharton and Paul Rogers will profit "hand over fist," says Deputy District Attorney Gavin Anderson.
   Wharton deferred comment to Tetris principal Hartman, who did not return multiple phone calls. Rogers also could not be reached.
   To comply with the federal Help America Vote Act, the ballot-system overhaul was mandated last year. In May, Diebold was awarded the statewide contract - Salt Lake County will get 2,817 new machines - beating out one other bidder. Then, last month, the Tetris team escorted its client to the County Government Center for a presentation.
   But the Mayor's Office never dispatched its political muscle - Tetris - for the job.
   "We never asked Tetris to go out and lobby the state to get the Diebold systems," Corroon says. "They came in with Diebold and let Diebold do the talking. They tried to dispel rumors . . . about their machines."
   Corroon says any conflict of interest depends on the definition of lobbying.
   "Is lobbying coming in and sitting down with your client or making calls to persuade us in advance?" he asks. "It's probably a gray area."
   If Tetris was lobbying county officials, the firm would be required to publicly disclose its client list on the county Web site. Failing that, the firm would face a class B misdemeanor and five-year suspension of its lobbying license under the terms of an ordinance adopted in December.
   Anderson says the impetus to determine an economic conflict must come from the mayor's office.
   "There's nothing in the law," he says. "It's a matter of the county saying, 'Do we trust these guys or are they going to be in Diebold's pocket?' "
   
 
The role is even more problematic because Tetris is paid to lobby for the county mayor's office, and the mayor's office and the county clerk weren't sold on the Diebold system.
    "As a contractor, they could say: 'Hey, Tetris, are you looking out for our best interest?' " Anderson says.
    In July, the County Council voted 8-0 to add six full-time employees to help transition to the new voting machines. The extra staff will cost nearly $300,000 per year. Depending on early-voting options, more machines may be needed for the 2008 presidential race, costing $4 million. And county real estate officials also are on the hunt for a storage facility - a 25,000-square-foot air-conditioned warehouse is needed - which could run millions more.
   Right now, the equipment for each precinct - there are more than 700 - is tucked inside a single box in the basement of the county building.
   Swensen, who served on the ion committee that chose Diebold, insists she was not personally lobbied by the county's firm. But she remains uncomfortable with the state contract that group helped secure.
   "We had a good voting solution," she says. "Our punch card has been very economical. But because of what happened in Florida, the Congress made sort of a knee-jerk reaction."
   Last month, Corroon questioned the cost of the venture during a public meeting with Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who expressed concern.
   "The intent on the front end was not to saddle counties with additional costs," Matheson told Corroon and the County Council. "That was not the idea behind the legislation."
   Meanwhile, a representative for Diebold insists there is no conflict with Tetris because the lobbying firm represents the county mayor's office, not the county as a whole.
   Either way, the relationship is destined to change.
   Corroon says the county will soon expand its lobbyist pool to provide options beyond Tetris.
   Acknowledges Anderson: "That's in the works."