Report of the Cost of Government Commission - January 9, 2007

Home

do and how they function. The Charter mandates that the County Council, every four years, is to critically review every program which receives County funds. However, an independent auditor could provide a more substantive and in-depth review of the County's departmental efficiency. II. AGING A response dated May 2, 2006, to the COGC's questionnaire was received from the Office of Aging. After reviewing and discussing the response, no recommendations were made by the COGC. III. CIVIL DEFENSE A response dated August 31, 2006, to the COGC's questionnaire was received from the Civil Defense Agency. After reviewing and discussing the response, no recommendations were made by the COGC. IV. CORPORATION COUNSEL A response dated May 3, 2006, to the COGC's questionnaire was received from this office. After reviewing and discussing the response, no recommendations were made by the COGC. However, the COGC did make a recommendation regazding the Corporation Counsel coordinating training. See recommendation I(A) on page 2. V. COUNTY COUNCIL • OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK A response dated September 4, 2006, to the COGC's questionnaire, and an addendum dated September 18, 2006, were received from the Office of the County Clerk. After reviewing and discussing the response and addendum, the following recommendation was made: Recommend pursuing that each polling place have the ability to accommodate out-of- district voters through electronic voting only. Backg_round/Explanation: The County Clerk's Office introduced the concept of establishing "vote centers," where registered voters from many precincts may vote, regardless of the precinct in which the voter resides. In discussing this, the commissioners felt that having vote centers would create a problem if extra district ballots had to be brought to each center to accommodate out-of-district voters. In addition, many extra ballots would be printed but not be used. The COGC prefen•ed that 3