Letter: Funds for ballot box surveillance were not requested by Auditor Kimsey

Clark County Councilor Karen Dill Bowerman disputes Auditor Greg Kimsey’s account of prior discussions about regarding the installation of video cameras at area ballot boxes

By Karen Dill Bowerman
Clark County Councilor

This is the first year that severe vandalism of ballot boxes became a major public issue and the Election Department’s lack of video surveillance has been newsworthy. Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey was elected to begin service 25 years ago. He oversees the Clark County Elections Department, among others.

In a November 1, 2024 story in Clark County Today, story in Clark County Today, Auditor Kimsey is quoted as stating that last summer he said in writing and in a public meeting that if the Council would provide the funding for video cameras on the drop boxes, his office would be happy to install them and handle managing the video and responding to public records requests. Really?

I was Council Chair in 2023 when his writing and giving statements in a public meeting on video cameras would have taken place, but his claims did not ring a bell. So, I utilized our county’s online archives and went to the three dates (in June, August and September 2023) when the auditor had an agenda item before us or appeared in person. Each agenda item revolved around his request for $4.4 million in funds for remodeling the Elections Office work area.

I read the agendas, listened to all discussion and testimony, and read the written minutes. Here is what I found. There was no request whatsoever for funding ballot box surveillance. Never once was ballot box security an issue. Auditor Kimsey did not mention video cameras for drop boxes in writing. He did not discuss a need for video surveillance on drop boxes. He said nothing about being happy to install and maintain video cameras “if the council would provide the funding.”

Ultimately on Sept. 26, 2023, the council approved his actual request for allocating funding in the amount of $4,495,000 and federal HAVA3 Election Security Grant funding in the amount of $205,000 to remodel the building … to increase the Elections Office workspace area and relocate the Auto License Department to the Public Service Center….” Auditor Kimsey did not include ballot box surveillance within his large funding request.

During the period when council approvals were being prepared for funds requested, there was a short mention of surveillance of drop boxes in an obscure 5-page memo from Auditor Kimsey to council. Auditor Kimsey followed up on June 27, 2023 to a citizen comment given earlier during public testimony saying that it is after a ballot arrives at the Elections Office, not at the ballot box, when the Elections Office determines that only properly registered voters are casting ballots. Auditor Kimsey went on to write that when video surveillance was

investigated with potential vendors in years past, it was decided that “costs greatly exceeded any perceived benefit.” He added that “if the Council would like to provide funding … the Elections Office is willing to assist in that process.” But you guessed it. Auditor Kimsey made no request for funding of video surveillance in that letter or in the proper form for requesting

funds in the upcoming budget. In fact, he made no mention to the council even of a need for video surveillance.

In the months since the Auditor Kimsey’s funding request was approved by council, there appears to be only one public reference he has made to video cameras for the ballot boxes, and he gave no hint of an interest in funding from council for that purpose. In fact, when asked, he said that retrieving ballots from drop boxes would be done in the same manner whether cameras were installed or not. He was confident that the chain of custody is now maintained, and after all, half of the ballots arrive from the USPS with no video cameras to record their deposit or pickup.

If Auditor Kimsey had requested funds, which he did not, that offhand comment would not have justified $1 million in taxpayer funds, which was learned recently on cost. Despite the lack of record with regard to funding videocams, it should be stated that in Clark County there are rigorous and transparent processes in place for election integrity, and good employees to deliver consistency.

What are the takeaways from the auditor’s recent interview in Clark County Today? First, realize that in the 2026 budget year there may be requests that council will be unable to fund because of having to prioritize requests in the face of General Fund shortfalls. Revenues are not keeping pace with rising expenses, and by 2026 the projected fund balance will reflect that reality. Second, elect people to office and hire managers who understand their department’s priorities and can clearly present the case for funding items if they’re important. When a request has a critical nature, it must emerge as a priority.

On the other hand, understand also that the County Council is an easy “whipping boy.” When there are pressures, how does a person respond? Therefore when an official like Auditor Kimsey blames council for not funding on a priority they supposedly presented to council, have them prove it (easy to do). The “Council-is-at-fault” impression may be nothing more than “passing the buck.”

Clark County Councilor Karen Dill Bowerman disputes Auditor Greg Kimsey’s account of prior discussions about regarding the installation of video cameras at area ballot boxes

Also read:

share