Former Luzerne County Director of Elections Marisa Crispell is seen in a file photo. The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission has determined Crispell violated the state ethics act for recommending the county’s purchase of electronic poll books from a company while she served on that company’s advisory board.

Former Luzerne County Director of Elections Marisa Crispell is seen in a file photo. The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission has determined Crispell violated the state ethics act for recommending the county’s purchase of electronic poll books from a company while she served on that company’s advisory board.

Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission has determined former Luzerne County election director Marisa Crispell violated the state ethics act for recommending the county’s purchase of electronic poll books from a company while she served on that company’s advisory board.

In addition to this conflict of interest, the commission says Crispell violated the act with actions related to financial interest statements.

She failed to file a 2014 statement of financial interest and “attempted to conceal” her relationship with the vendor — Election Systems & Software, or ES&S — by filing a deficient 2017 financial interest statement that did not report the transportation/lodging/hospitality over $650 that had been provided by the company, the commission said.

As punishment, Crispell, who left county employment last September, must pay $3,500 to the state through monthly $100 installments. The consent agreement also directs her to pay another $500 to the commission to help cover its costs to investigate and enforce the matter.

In its 57-page adjudication order, the commission extensively outlined numerous email communications and actions by Crispell as evidence of her friendliness with the company and efforts to push for ES&S over other poll book vendors.

ES&S received a $325,000 county electronic poll book contract.

Crispell has said the 2017 ES&S advisory board trips to Las Vegas, Nevada and Omaha, Nebraska, were valued at nearly $2,500.

The commission cited a different figure — $2,920 — and noted Crispell also received her regular county pay while traveling to what it describe as ES&S “marketing” events because she did not use leave time.

The trip to Las Vegas was March 1 to 3, and the Omaha one was Aug. 2 to 3.

Crispell could not be reached for comment Monday in her current position at the election office in Orange County, Florida. Her private cell phone number has changed.

When the trips were publicly disclosed through the media, Crispell had argued her advisory involvement was cleared by Administrative Services Division Head David Parsnik and county assistant solicitor Michael Butera.

According to the commission’s order:

Parsnik advised Crispell to seek legal counsel from Butera and said he never followed up with Crispell regarding the legal advice he had provided.

Parsnik also claimed Crispell never informed him she would be traveling to Las Vegas or Omaha for the advisory board meetings or officially requested permission to participate in the advisory board.

Butera said he had informed Crispell it was lawful for her to participate in the advisory board in his opinion and that he did not provide advice or guidance on her need to disclose the vendor-supplied expenses on her financial interest statement.

Crispell mentioned to county Manager C. David Pedri in February 2017 in a conversation that she was invited to participate in the advisory board, but she never made a formal request or disclosed she would be attending vendor-covered meeting trips to Las Vegas or Omaha.

“At the time Crispell met with Pedri on February 15, 2017, Crispell had already accepted an invitation to receive travel/hospitality/lodging from ES&S, at a time when she (Crispell) was advocating to the county to lease/purchase electronic poll books from ES&S,” it said.

When ES&S voting equipment was not certified for use by the state “as timely as ES&S desired,” Crispell “acted as an agent” for the company by pushing for a September 2017 letter from the Election Personnel Association urging expedited certifications.

This letter carried “influence” in speeding up the state’s review of the ES&S poll book.

After stating she wanted the county to purchase electronic poll books during a September 2017 election board meeting, Crispell organized a poll book demonstration at the Woodlands Inn and Resort in Plains Township that October, inviting county officials and employees.

She arranged for ES&S to sponsor the event lunch and told an employee by email the system she is “excited about is last on the schedule,” which was the ES&S one.

The county authorized the solicitation of proposals from poll book vendors in December 2017.

Five poll book suppliers had responded to the county’s request for proposals, and ES&S was the high bidder by more than $61,000.

Before the content of the responses was publicly accessible, an ES&S representative emailed Crispell information critical of competitors “while advocating for ES&S.”

In January 2018, Crispell scheduled an RFP committee meeting at the election bureau offices. She selected the committee members and presented an outline without following the routine committee process of completing scoring sheets.

“After presenting each RFP, Crispell, acting as an agent for ES&S, asked the committee members, ‘Does everyone agree with ES&S?’”

ES&S was selected as the recommended vendor with no roll call taken by the committee. Crispell did not inform committee members she was a member of the ES&S Advisory Board.

Crispell forwarded a letter to the administration recommending a contract award to ES&S.

In March 2018, Crispell emailed three ES&S management employees documents she “put together over the last few months, pushing the purchase of EPB (electronic poll books) with my county officials.” She did not send similar information to any other vendor.

The county election board also endorsed the purchase of ES&S poll books “based on Crispell’s recommendation.”

Council unanimously voted for the purchase in April 2018 with no knowledge of Crispell’s participation in the advisory board.

In her defense, Crispell has argued that she stepped down from the advisory role in fall 2017 before the county sought proposals from electronic poll book suppliers.

The commission stressed Crispell never resigned from the advisory board.

ES&S invited her to attend an advisory board meeting in Charleston, South Carolina set for March 2018.

Crispell told an ES&S representative in October 2017 and February 2018 that she was interested but could not attend while the poll book contract was pending before council.

In April 2018, ES&S invited her to the September 2018 board meeting in Boston, but Crispell told the representative she may be unable to attend if the county seeks proposals for a new paper-trail voting system at that time.

“Finger crossed that we will see you there Marisa! We miss you!!,” the ES&S representative wrote.

Crispell returned the sentiment in a reply and noted it was “a win” that she obtained a unanimous vote for the poll books from 11 council members who “very rarely agree on anything.”

“You are a strong leader so they know when you speak that you can be trusted!” the representative replied.

No advisory board meetings were held after a June 2018 McClatchy news article questioning the practice of election officials accepting trips from a contractor. Following local media articles, county council pressed for disclosure about the trips at the end of 2018.

Factoring in the poll book purchase, Crispell participated in approving $604,251 of purchase orders for ES&S while serving on the advisory board and after the board ceased functioning. The other expenses included support and maintenance, batteries and ballot assistance for voting machines.

When Crispell was hired by the county in December 2012, she received a copy of the county ethics code and signed that she understood the contents. The county code spells out requirements to follow the state ethics law and disclose financial interests.

The county code also forbids acceptance, directly or indirectly, of a gift, loan, reward, benefit or considerations from a business seeking a financial relationship with the county.

The commission’s investigative division did not recommend law enforcement or other authorities take action in the matter but reserved the right to initiate enforcement actions if Crispell fails to comply with the agreement or cooperate with any other authority choosing to further review the matter.

Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.