 |
| Staff has now confirmed, after some confused statements from the dais last Thursday, that the ECSO does not send any money to any outside organizations for which funding from the Law Enforcement Trust Funds (LETF) is contemplated and requested--- prior to pre-approval by the BCC. This is exactly how the process should be handled under Florida statutes.... |
This past Thursday there was a brief discussion among my counterparts about the process for disbursing funds from the County's Law Enforcement Trust Fund. This discussion came as a sort of a shock to me, as I was under the assumption that we had ironed out the kinks in the previous process and had arrived at a place where the process was working well, and working as contemplated in statutes (i.e. ECSO vets requests for funding then makes recommendations for funding to the BCC, then the BCC votes, and then AFTER the BCC votes on the recommendations--the organizations are funded)
A question during the public forum led to some confusion among some on the dais which ultimately led to an inaccurate statement about the process being made at the meeting, which led to me asking some pointed questions for clarification to insure we were still doing what we are telling folks we are doing--which is approving requests from the Sheriff (and showing great deference to him and his selections for awardees) before funding occurs. And come to find out--that is exactly what is happening. After the discussions I confirmed with staff that the LETF funding for organizations from ECSO only occurs AFTER the BCC votes to approve such funding.
In the past, the funding allocations were made, and then the BCC was sent information after the fact to approve--which was a backward process and did not comport with statutes. So that process was fixed and we are doing it correctly now. Hopefully everyone on the dais now knows that the process is working correctly, and that NO public funds are sent and NO checks are cut from any public funds prior to BCC approval of requests from the Sheriff. From the staff assessment that I requested after the confused statements at the meeting:
"The LET Fund had the following deposited revenues:
FY18/19 - $424,249.76
FY17/18 - $366,216.04
The $424K will be on the rebudget SBA at the 11-7-19 BCC
Meeting. By statute we cannot budget for these funds during the budgeting
process, we use the actual collections to establish the budget in the new
Fiscal year.
The Sheriff consistently generates $300-400k each year in
the LET.
The Clerk would hold that LET payment until the funds are
officially recognized by the BCC and added to the budget.
Handling of LET Requests:
The Sheriff’s Office brings the LET requests to the board
for approval, after BCC approval they cut a check from their General Fund, get
all appropriate backup/documentation for these funding requests, then submit to
the Clerk’s Office to record the expense to the LET and reimburse the Sheriff’s
General Fund. They do not fund an agency request prior to the BCC approval.
I confirmed this is how they are handled with the
Sheriff’s Office."
Aw, this was an incredibly nice post. Taking the time and actual effort to create a good
ReplyDeletearticle… but what can I say… I hesitate a lot and don't
seem to get anything done.
Thanks for posting on this, Commissioner Bergosh.
ReplyDeleteIt's good you detailed it for people who might not understand the process. It seemed it was just a miscommunication between you and Ms. Childers due to some distraction from a FEMA announce that led to the confusion...I took Ms. Childers to be saying that the Sheriff was front-loading from his general budget, not that checks were being cut by the Clerk's office before the BOCC voted.
If the Sheriff wants to spend out of his general fund prior to coming for LET approval, that's obviously his risk to take, and not much of a risk at that. I'm not aware of the BOCC ever turning him down on a particular spend, whether discussion and questions were raised, or no. (Obviously please correct me if I'm wrong on that. There may have been instances of refusal before I began attending meetings.)
Your clarification with Ms. Childers was on a different topic from the questions I posed that initiated the back and forth, which then went a couple of helpful directions. Although I was in no way insinuating the checks were being cut early, a LET conversation never hurts.
My question regarded "front-end" and "back-end" accounting:
(1) Who owns front-end and who owns back-end? and
(2) Is the County receiving the back-end documentation from the Sheriff?
Ms. Childers understandably took my words
(1) "front-end" to mean the Sheriff cutting checks out of his general budget in anticipation of LET reimbursement (which accounting they are responsible for); and
(2) "back-end" as the accounting on when the BOCC votes to reimburse from the LET and the monies get sent to the Sheriff (which accounting they are responsible for).
What I had actually meant by "back-end" was *POST PAY-OUT* of the voted-on LET funds from the Sheriff's office to the ouside agencies. Was there any documentation coming back to the BOCC, *AS SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE*?
Ms. Rogers responded on the dais that her remembrance was that the Sheriff *was* supposed to be turning something in, as a result of a meeting with the state's attorney. She wasn't aware what, exactly, they had agreed to, or if it was indeed coming to the County. She said the onus was on the Sheriff's department to provide it.
I asked Ms. Childers about that after the meeting, and she was really gracious taking the time to clarify the following:
The result of the meeting with the Sheriff's Office and the State's Attorney was the Sheriff's attorney opined that the front-end form was revised to constitute BOTH front- and back-end documenation, as a one and done constituting BOTH THE PRE- AND POST PAPERWORK that the statute seems to clearly require.
Again, with "pre paperwork" meaning record that the BOCC had voted to release the funds and the Clerk had dispensed them out of the LET fund to the Sheriff, and
"post paperwork" meaning a record of the LET funds ECSO then dispensed to an outside agency, with that paperwork returned to the Clerk's Office for filing.
*My understanding from that conversation is that they are NOT submitting anything by way of "receipt" from the outside agencies or anything further having to do with the expenditure of the LET funds once they are dispersed from the Clerk's office following a BOCC vote. Moreover, as I understood it, the lobbying arm for the sheriff's association has pushed this change pretty far and wide across Florida.
Many citizens had suspected that the County wasn't receiving final paperwork on these LET funds, and now we know that to be the case, and why.
What I'm still baffled by is how the BOCC could vote through LET expenditures with the LET fund dry. I'm sure there is an accounting work-around, don't get me wrong. I just don't understand why the Sheriff was allowed to pre-spend out of a till that he already run dry before last Thursday. What are your thoughts on that?
-Melissa Pino
Do you approve to LET this go on https://conjuringjusticeblog.com/2019/10/16/zarzaur-hits-morgan-back/
ReplyDelete