About Commissioners' Discretionary Funds: Part I--Support for Outside Non-Profit Entities

The new definition of insanity:  Opposing a practice and a policy for others that one participates in himself 

There was a rather ugly, particularly unnecessary discussion at the end of a recent board of county commissioners meeting that desperately deserves further discussion, analysis, and contemplation.

The topic of conversation that generated the dust up was one commissioner's apparent "disapproval"  of another commissioner's allocations from his office's district discretionary fund.  The reason the angst and gnashing of teeth was so hypocritical was because the commissioner who complained the loudest (and who ultimately voted against the expenditure) has he, himself, allocated tens of thousands to other non-profit community groups locally over the last 5 years.  Imagine that?  Here is the mentally-defective, whacked-out logic from the one dissenting commissioner that made that brief conversation so fascinatingly strange:

"If I want to fund a 501 c 3 of which I approve--- even if it is for $10,000.00 or more at a time----this is perfectly acceptable because this is an entity of which I approve--and therefore it is legitimate!!!!!" 

"But if another commissioner--whom I dislike and with whom I disagree on a host of issues-- chooses to fund $500.00 to a local 501 c 3 supporting girl's softball at a school in his district--this is an OUTRAGE and it is CORRUPTION!!!!!!"

So yeah--it's ridiculous, outrageous, and it was kind of weird in a surreal way--but not entirely unexpected.  The funny thing is, prior to this meeting, I do not believe there has ever been a vote on a request from one commissioner's discretionary fund that was not approved unanimously by his peers.  We all show a level of deference to one another on these requests.  Well, that is how it has typically been done---but I guess that is not going to be the way it is going forward.  Oh well.  He will rack up a lot more 4-1 losses.......lots.

But eventually last Thursday's vote passed 4-1--with the dissenting commissioner opposing all the allocations.  Interestingly-- another counterpart of mine on the dais even chose to add money from his discretionary funds to the same entities to be funded.  That was really great!  And the 4-1 commissioner voted against it all still.  Very strange indeed.

(here is the list of all commissioner's allocations from the general fund and TDT supported pots of discretionary funds from 2015-present--for those that want to see for themselves that I am telling the truth  👈😊)

Here's the thing:  Commissioners each get an allocation of $50,000.00 yearly to support 501 c 3 community nonprofits for which individual commissioners feel benefit the community and serve a public purpose.  Unexpended funds roll forward.  The vote of the commissioners for each other's allocations is the public action that signifies  such expenditures meet a public purpose.

But even with the vote, the expenditure is scrutinized, paperwork must be provided to staff and all


 allocations are made strictly on a reimbursement basis--meaning no money is sent from the county until such time as proof of 501 c 3 status is sent to the county staff and receipts/invoices showing the public purpose for which expenditures were requested have been made.

There is a process, and staff follows it religiously.

No, there are no blank checks sent with no back-end reporting--that does not happen in this process.

And this process has been going for years at the county--since before I came aboard.  (I have suggested that we cut this allocation in half- a request that did not receive support.)

If a commissioner has an issue with this allocation and process--he should seek to change the policy by getting two additional votes to support a change.  Absent that--the dissenting commissioner could always voluntarily reject his allocation.  This counterpart does neither.

But to suddenly go apoplectic over a process that has been established and ongoing in an attempt to display a kind of kabuki-esqe faux outrage---that's just rank, hypocritic stupidity on parade.