Least cost estimates as a justification for government course of action

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Paul:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:13:59 -0700, you wrote:

[snip]
>> 
>> Both Alisa and Linda presented cost estimates for mail v. precinct
>> elections.  Those numbers are publicly available.  If Joe and/or Neal could
>> point readers at those numbers, I am sure that the readers would be
>> grateful.
>> 
>> One of the costs that - as far as I can tell - was not included in the
>> estimates was the cost of stamps that each citizen who wished to vote would
>> have to pay for.  This appears to be an "off budget" item because,
>> obviously, the City does not directly pay for this out of funds in the
>> City's coffer's.
>> 
>> At approximately $0.70/ballot, if this cost to the citizens of the election
>> were added (and this is money that the citizens are truly spending) then it
>> would appear that the true cost of a mail-in ballot to the citizens of
>> Boulder vastly exceed the cost of a precinct election.  Yes, the "cost"
>> *apparently* drops to zero if the citizen drops off the ballot at a central
>> location but then the citizen must make a special trip and that, too, costs
>> time and money.
>> 
>> So, Alisa, I ask you to please consider that the governance of Boulder is
>> not government v. citizens; but that the total cost to citizens be the
>> appropriate measure of the cost of the election rather than the
>> out-of-pocket cost to the government of the City of Boulder.  A mail-in
>> ballot is a hidden tax on the citizens of Boulder.
>> 
>> It is my opinion upon reviewing the numbers that a precinct election would
>> reflect a total lower cost to the citizens of Boulder and that that is what
>> you, Alisa, as a government official, should be considering as, perhaps, one
>> of the major concern.
>> 
>> 
>> Respectfully,
>> 
>> Ralph Shnelvar
>
>I have some difficulty with least cost estimates as a justification
>for a particular course of action in government affairs. There are
>usually policy considerations that far out weigh cost
>considerations. This is a such a case. I agree with Ralph that there
>is merit in having precinct balloting, but I think he should not
>object to the details of a least cost calculation.  The cost of a
>flawed balloting process is unknowable and very large. 

First, let me say that "least cost" is not my consideration: it appears to
be Alisa's and, by proxy, the Council's.  My preference is for hand counting
even at considerable extra cost over, say, DREs.

The city is very short of funds.  Nonetheless, offloading the cost of an
election from an on-budget item to an off-budget item is not good
government.

>
>But what Ralph, and I, consider a flaw may not be considered a flaw
>by others.

I don't understand.

>Pretending it is just a matter of cost accounting is itself
>certainly a flaw. 

Expense is certainly one component necessary to make a public policy
decision.  If Alisa raises the cost issue then it is only fair to let me do
the same.

In terms of expense (and expense only): For Alisa, apparently, it is the
cost to government that counts.  For me, it is the total cost to the
citizens that counts.

Ralph Shnelvar