For your consideration.
Waco Trib Opinion - The weeks long feud between fiscal-minded McLennan County commissioners and Precinct 7 Justice of the Peace Jean Laster Boone over her quest for a county-paid iPad had to end eventually.
The Trib overlooked a couple of things I think are important from the 3-19-2013 Meeting of the Court.
Judge Boone mentioned in her comments one Judge was using an IPad to do “Magistrations”. This is the process of arraignment and setting bond for someone arrested and charged with a crime. Taxpayers pay for a Jail Magistrate but on the weekends, the duty falls to a rotating list of Justices' of the Peace. Commissioner Jones in an attempt to make the problem go away, negotiated the purchase price down to less than $700.00.
This is important because later in the meeting. Commissioners approved $4,800.00 budget amendment from the Justice Technology fund for Justice of the Peace Precinct 5. 
Here is where it gets interesting. Judge Boon had originally requested to use funds from the Technology fund and was denied. The Court has some interesting discussion between the two items.
1. Some evidence was offered that a $700.00 IPad might be able to do the same thing as the system which cost almost $5,000.00. Commissioners discussed this but offered that might not be the case.
2. It was pointed out the video system is dated as soon as it is installed and has been problematic since inception. Problematic to the point court testimony indicated one Judge refused to use the system.
3. Pct. 5 JP might not be assigned jail duties for a while making the approval less than immediately necessary. It was suggested, since there was time, to research if the equipment was really necessary. The County Judge intervened and saved the day causing Commissioners to approve the budget amendment and spend a bunch of money because that, rather than finding solutions to problems, is what they do best.
You are welcome to your opinion about whether an IPad is necessary but don’t think for a minute this had anything to do with fiscal responsibility on the part of the Court.
