Electric City Weblog

Cascade County Sheriff’s Office

Last week I gave the Tribune heck for its “he said, he said” style of reporting on the ongoing issues between the Cascade County Commission and the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office. My concern was that, other than each side suggesting that the other was wrong, nothing in the Tribune’s article really explained the issues involved.

After that, I decided to try to do something about it. I contacted both Sheriff Dave Castle and Commissioner Joe Briggs and asked them to submit a written summary explaining the issues as they saw them.

Sheriff Castle provided a written response to my inquiry. He stated:

This County Commission has signed contracts, increased wages, negotiated labor agreements, and implemented policies and procedures without my approval that obligate costs for this Office, and severely impacts our ability to prepare for, respond to, investigate the effects of, and deal with the aftermath of the emergencies we handle. And then they fail to fund those same obligations. They cast the responsibility of the budget to me, and constantly interfere with it throughout the year.

I have approximately 140 employees. In the last four years, raises alone for my Office have been over $2 million. Of the $9.7 million budget the Commissioners keep mentioning, over $5 million is revenue the Office generates (jail/prison). $3 million is from law enforcement taxes. Deputies don’t produce revenue, nor should they. The rest is the County’s share for their inmates, paying approximately $19 a day per inmate when we are charging others more. And of course it is always a challenge trying to project a budget that is based on emergencies.

Just recently the Michigan Court of Appeals in April of this year (reference Wayne County Sheriff V. Wayne County Executive Officers, Case number 290135) considered a similar issue. Because this case challenged the constitutionality of the Office of Sheriff, it was important to reinforce the operation of a sheriff’s office as being the sole responsibility of the elected Sheriff. The Office of Sheriff is a statutory and constitutional office having exclusive powers and authority under state law in the majority of states. These inherent powers are not the subject to the dictates of a local county governing body for obvious reasons that they are not qualified or experienced in the field of public safety. The perfect example would be if you were told your heart was bad by a doctor would you go to the county commissioners for advice? If you needed legal advice, should you seek it from a county commissioner?

The fiscal responsibility of the Commissioners will be under constant scrutiny, especially if they don’t listen to the other qualified elected officials. This year is no exception by them voting for a raise that affects my office, especially when I voted no. I support my deputies getting a raise like every other employee in the county, but if there is no funding I can’t support getting rid of deputies so the others left get a raise. This has been happening for years. In the 80’s we had 40 deputies, last year I had 36, this year I will have 33. This is not a new problem.

In discussing this further with Sheriff Castle , he explained that he believes the Commissioners have dictated his obligations to him without funding his Office in a way that allows him to address those obligations. Further, they have contracted for things that create new obligations. Thus, he is unable to control the contracting for obligations, or the budget to meet them. Finally, he invites the public to attend an open meeting on November 12, at 6:30 p.m., at the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office to discuss these issues.

County Commissioner Briggs, submitted a written response:

Thank you for the invitation to respond to this question. I apologize in advance for the length of the post, the budget process is rather detailed and difficult to summarize. I am attempting to give as complete a picture as possible of the key issues and repeat the offer we have made throughout this process to sit down and go through the budget with anyone who wants to review it.

30,000 foot level:

The FY 2008/2009 total Cascade County Expense budget was: $66,772,962

The FY 2009/2010 total Cascade County Expense budget is: $57,335,086

Reduction in Cascade County budget between last year and current year: $ 9,437,876

The problem is this number does not tell the whole story. The budgeted expenses each year include provisions for capital improvements, debt reductions and reserves for emergencies. As a result the overall budget may swing substantially from year to year depending on equipment replacement, the cost of fire suppression, new building projects and savings derived within individual departments through streamlined operations. For example, although we budgeted $66,772,962 in the last fiscal year we actually spent $57,174,916. So this year’s budget represents a cut from actual expenses from last year of $160,170.

I point this out so the reader understands how easily these numbers can be misunderstood by casual observation and how easily they can be spun. To say that the commission reduced the budget by over 9 million dollars is true but that does not mean that there have been drastic cuts in spending, in fact the county wide reduction in actual spending is a little over $160,000. As you can see depending on which set of comparisons you used, the overall reduction was large or much more modest.

Now let us look at the Sheriff’s section of the budget rather than the budget as a whole.

The FY 2008/2009 total Sheriff’s office budget was: $9,281,192 (Page 20 line 51)

The FY 2009/2010 total Sheriff’s office budget is: $9,729,287 (Page 20 line 51)

The Increase in the budget between last year and current year: $ 448,095

It is a fact the sheriff’s budget increased by 4.83% over last year’s budget; however this is where the difference in interpretation begins to come in between the commission and the sheriff.

Last year the Sheriff was authorized to spend $9,281,192 but he chose to violate the budget and spend an additional $278,209 over and above what was allocated to him. The Sheriff appears to believe what he spent previously, authorized or not represents the baseline number from which all calculation begins and the amount budgeted to him last year is a meaningless number. That way he can spend his way to a bigger budget just like Washington. If you subscribe to this notion you are in my opinion discouraging efficiency and rewarding waste. However, using the prior year actual spending as a baseline, the Sheriff still received an increase in budget authority of $169,886 over last year.

One of the other differences in interpretation between the Sheriff and the Commission is this whole idea of what constitutes a budget cut. As I already mentioned we compare the authorized final budgeted amounts from year to year because we believe this is a more consistent and logical measure. When the Sheriff accused us of slashing his budget he was actually referring to the Commission not giving him as much money as he requested. He asked for a total of $10,534,920 and we authorized $9,729,287 of that request. In his mind this means we “slashed his budget”, in my mind we did our job of allocating limited resources among competing requirements. I would also say that mandated services like the Sheriff’s department are given priority, but being a priority does not relieve the obligation of a department to be good stewards of the taxpayer’s money.

Getting to some of the specific charges the sheriff made against our actions.

1) The Commission makes contracts the Sheriff has to pay and fails to provide the funding.

The Commission is the authorized contracting entity for the County because we are the only party authorized by law to incur debt on your behalf; accordingly the Commission does sign all contracts. However the existing contract with Aramark for Inmate food and the contract with Spectrum medical were both negotiated by the Sheriff’s designated staff, not the commission. We reviewed and approved them. The Collective bargaining agreements with the Detention officers and Sheriff Deputies were done by a team including the Sheriff’s designee, our HR director and a civil attorney from the County Attorney’s office. In each case the Sheriff was asked for input throughout the process and although some was supplied he voiced no overall objections to the commission until after the contract had been tentatively agreed to by the bargaining team and already voted on by the union.

Our philosophy in negotiating the wages for our detention officers was driven by a need to stop the turnover in the facility. Simply put, it was difficult to attract and maintain a quality staff at the wages we were paying. The new wages structure has fixed this issue. The same is true to a lesser extent with the deputy sheriff positions; the sheriff has had two vacant positions for an extended period of time. Under Montana Law, the only way to raise the Deputies salary is to raise all of the elected official’s salary.

As to the charge that we did not fund these contracts I will refer directly to the budget. The funding for the Aramark contract for inmate food is represented in the Sheriff’s budget in department 404 account 200.222 (Page 14). The Sheriff requested $643,780 for this line item and was funded $643,780. The contract with Spectrum Medical can be found in department 404 account 300.356 (Page 14); the Sheriff requested $631,113 and the Commission approved $631,113.

When we analyzed the Sheriff’s requested budget for Deputies and Detention staff salaries, wages and benefits our staff noticed the numbers were higher than the actual required amounts to retain all currently filled positions. In order to determine how much money was actually needed to meet these contractual obligations from the collective bargaining agreement and the raises approved by the Commission, staff did a detailed cost analysis on person by person. We provided the Sheriff what was required to meet the obligations but not the excess $182,565 he requested. I would also note, the Sheriff requested no funding for the animal control officer position which is currently vacant (Page 12). The personnel budget allocated the Sheriff fully funds all current employees and allows full compliance with the collective Bargaining agreements. What the budget does not allow are unauthorized discretionary promotions, the addition of more officers or the appointment of additional deputy coroners. If the Sheriff believes promotions and additions of this nature are necessary, he is free to come to us and justify why they are needed. If we agree, we can allocate additional funds to him.

Summary: All contractual obligations within the Sheriff’s budget are fully funded.

2) The Commission sets policies and procedures that hinder the Sheriff’s ability to do his job.

Although the Sheriff was not specific as to which policies he was concerned with, I will address a few of those which he has objected to.

Savings and Checking Account:

Under State law, the County Treasurer has jurisdiction over all county funds. He is the only one authorized to create or manage bank accounts or financial instruments. Each year as a part of standard procedures all banks in the area are queried as to any accounts in the County’s name. Since the current Sheriff has been in office, accounts that were not contained within the county accounting system were found and closed. The funds were transferred to appropriate line items within the Sheriff Department’s budget.

Credit Cards:

Approximately two years ago the Commission established a corporate credit card system for Cascade County. This system requires department heads to designate specific individuals in their office to have the cards as well as request specific limits on both the type of purchases and the credit limit. An example would be employees who need to be able to go to Sam’s Club to buy bulk food or supplies would get a card valid only for those types of purchases but they could not charge air fare or hotels. Each card is issued with the name of the employee appearing on the card. Under the previous practice, departments had multiple credit cards that carried no employee name on them. These were handed out to whoever needed them whenever they needed them. This caused a great deal of trouble for the accounting department as they tried to reconcile and validate the use of cards that over the course of a billing cycle might have been used by several different employees who may or may not have kept the receipts. The Sheriff declined to implement the policy and designate card holders in his department for over 18 months and ultimately, the Commission closed the non compliant Credit Card accounts.

Human Resources Policies:

The County has implemented a structured recruitment and hiring policy in all departments to make certain Cascade County complies with all State and Federal Laws regarding employment. This policy is modeled after the State of Montana system and is designed to ensure equal treatment for all applicants. We also have a structured progressive discipline system and grievance procedure in place to ensure that our employees are treated properly. All department heads and elected officials are required to follow these procedures to ensure all employment actions we take are legally defensible. Lastly, our insurance carrier requires a review by their employment law attorneys prior to any discipline action being taken against an employee. The Sheriff has previously expressed that these requirements are inappropriate and that he should be free to handle HR matters as he sees fit.

Summary: The Commission does require all elected officials and department heads to follow specific policies as they relate to public finances and Human Resources. No other elected official has raised concerns over these policies.

I have provided the specifics of how we determined the amount allocated to salaries for this fiscal year but I need to provide you a little more info to supply you a more complete picture of the situation. As I have already told you, the budget for this fiscal year provides full funding for all of the positions currently filled in the Department. The Sheriff’s claim the commission is forcing him to lay off two deputies and the animal control officers is not correct in that the two deputy slots have been vacant for several years and his budget request did not include an animal control officer.

It is true that we did not approve any increase the number of officers that currently exist however the budget plan does free up ½ of one deputies time by transferring responsibility for Computer Support from the Sheriff’s office to the County IT Department. Currently the Sheriff has a sworn officer acting in a computer support role, implementing the Commission’s budget plan will make this deputy available full time for law enforcement duties. This is not the only example of administrative duties within the Sheriff’s office that we believe could be performed by civilians so as to free up sworn officers.

Other key facts regarding the personnel budget in Sheriff’s office:

The Commission has succeeded in reducing the cost per employee for our Health insurance by $1200 per year. This along with some other HR related savings has reduced the cost of the Sheriff having the same size staff by $139,450. The total cost of the raises approved by Commission for all employees assigned to the Sheriff’s department was $532,255.86. Coupling the savings we passed on to the Sheriff and the cost of the raises creates a negative impact on the Sheriff’s budget of $ 392,805.86. However among the comments about the supposed cuts we made to his request, I have yet to hear the Sheriff comment about the ADDITIONAL $597,170 dollars we added to his funding request from the General Fund, . As you can see this amount more than makes up for the raises our employees were granted. I should also note that this is an addition to the $266,030 in increased tax support supplied through the growth of the mill value over the year.

Hopefully, I have shown that:

1) The Sheriff’s current year budget increased over last year’s budget ($448,095).
2) The Sheriff’s current year budget increased over his last year’s actual spending ($169,886).
3) The Sheriff exceeded his budget authority last year by $278,209.
4) All salary obligations for the existing force structure have been fully funded.
5) No layoffs or terminations are required to meet this budget.
6) The amount of funding for the Aramark and Spectrum Contracts are exactly what the Sheriff requested.
7) Adherence to this budget will only require a 3% reduction from last year’s spending levels in non personnel and contracted areas.
8] The rules and regulations that we have placed on the Sheriff are standard best practice management and nothing more.
In closing let me say that although the budgeting process and the budget itself is complicated there are some general rules that apply just like your personal home budget.
a) If you spend more than you take in you have to erode your savings or borrow the money.
b) If you only take from your savings and never put back, it eventually runs out.

In the Sheriff’s case when he took office he inherited $1,590,000 in reserves (savings) which had been built up by his predecessors. Since taking office he has been spending more than he received and eroding reserves to pay for it. Last year his reserve (savings) account went to zero and he started to operate on credit cards (deficit spending). The problem is, you and I as taxpayers are responsible for paying the tab.

The Commission has no desired to hamstring law enforcement, we have no wish to micro manage the Sheriff’s office nor to arm chair quarterback the Sheriff’s actions. We do however have an obligation to demand answers to the questions of how taxpayer’s dollars are spent and to provide additional funds only when the justification is shown.

I would also point out that all budgets can be changed during the year and often times the final authorized budget for a department is different than the one we approve in the budget setting process. However, to do so requires the department head to appear at a public meeting before the commission and justify why the additional funds are needed. The Sheriff did not do this during the last budget year, he just went ahead and spent money he did not have.

To respond to a detailed question about why funds are being spent with “you do not understand law enforcement” is not an adequate answer; name calling is not an appropriate answer nor is calling a press conference. If the Sheriff can defend his spending decisions and justify why he needs more money the Commission will attempt to comply, until then the Commission believes the Sheriff has been adequately funded. Finally it should be noted there is very little slack in the overall County budget so were the Sheriff to demonstrate the need for additional funding, it would likely have to come from direct cuts in services provided by other departments.

Of course, either the Sheriff or the Commissioners are welcome to submit additional thoughts, or simply post in the “comment” section below.

Posted in Cascade County Government | 12 Comments »