As promised, here is more on the ongoing mess the Belknap County finds itself in regarding their faulty budget practices.
“Unlawful conduct by elected officials erodes the important trust that citizens expect and deserve from all public officials” ~ NH AG Kelly A. Ayotte March 11, 2008, NH Union Leader regarding $5000 town treasurer theft charges.
The following letter was sent to the NH Attorney General, the NH Dept. of Revenue Administration, Belknap County Treasurer and the county’s bond counsel:
May 12, 2008
Ms. Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General
Department of Justice
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301-6397
Subject: Belknap County Appropriations and Supplemental Appropriation
Notice per RSA 24:14-(a)Dear Attorney General Ayotte:
Belknap County’s Convention is once again attempting to appropriate money– this time a Supplemental Appropriation. And once again, the Commissioners are the masterminds of yet another procedural grievance. The Commissioners have requested a supplemental increase of their original Dec 1, 2007 Proposed Appropriations for 2008, now the Default budget.
As of 25 April 2008, the Conventions caused a “Public Hearing Notice” for the commissioners to present their request for a supplemental appropriation, amounting to $965,294.00 over the FY 2007 budget, an increase to $26,620,211. However, the actual Appropriation increase can only be $447,974.00 because the default budget is $26,172,237.00
The Law does not require a “Public Hearing” in order for the Commissioners to present a request for a Supplemental Budget. However, it does require the Convention to have a public hearing before it can appropriate for new purposes, citing the source of the money required per RSA 24:14-(a).
However, the Convention’s unnecessary notice of a public hearing for the Commissioners’ presentation indicates intent to have a second general meeting on May 13, 2008 at which it will entertain public input and then will vote on said request. Therefore, the public hearing was simply an information presentation of a desired supplemental appropriation.
Once again, the normal course of action then for this coming Tuesday was not and will not be in compliance with state laws. Accordingly, your individual or collective review is once again being requested. Please allow us to explain:
As it presently stands, the Convention’s dual meeting “Notice” concept for the “Public Hearing” on one date and another “meeting” on a different date gives rise to two issues. 1.) RSA 91-A requires a notice for the Commissioners to meet in the same place at the same time as the Convention which was not done for the 6 May meetings. Historically, these situations have been notice as a “Joint meeting” by other public bodies. Did a violation occur? 2.) The Public Hearing “Notice” for 6 May 2008 had the inclusion of a Convention meeting on 13 May 2008, with no mention of the Commissioners meeting jointly with them, when they will vote on the supplemental appropriation as presented on 6 May 2008. Does this fulfill the meeting notice requirement of 91-A?
This innovative dual type of notice, one for a public hearing and an inclusion of a general meeting does not on it face meet the requirement of RSA 24:14 (a) for the “Convention” to hold a public hearing giving notice to City, Town and Secretary of State the actual purpose for the supplemental appropriation, including the source of the money required to meet the new encumbrances.
Accordingly, based on our understanding of the process and the information provided to the public and its officials, a vote for any supplemental appropriation on Tuesday 13 May 2008 is fatally flawed to say the least. What is problematic is the noticed supplemental appropriations are nothing more that the failed departmental summary amounts as resolved by the convention on March 4, 2008. What the Commissioners presented differed greatly as to what it was requesting of the Convention on 6 May. Moreover, the Supplemental Request contemporaneously contained some 24 individual unencumbered line items amounting to $157,947.00 being reduced.
The commissioners have identified $28,834.00 of line items that “will not be used in part for the specific purpose as appropriated in the default budget for non-Nursing Home purposes, and another $128,112.00 in Nursing Home individual line items that also will not be used in part for it specific appropriated purpose in the default budget. The TOTAL amount of the individual line items un-encumbrances is $157,947.00 (See Commissioners letter of 16 April,2008)
It is our understanding of budgetary laws that the Commissioners should have requested prior separate approval of the Executive Committee to transfer that amount to other or as many individual line items projected to exceed their appropriation amount as possible, in accordance with RSA 24:14, to augment known encumbered over expenditures.
The commissioners, having identified $157,947.00 in unencumbered funds are required to follow current budgetary law, not make an innovative interpretation of those laws by calling transfers CHANGES and including those amounts as part and parcel to a “Supplemental Appropriation’ request. Moreover, the Commissioners in fact, at the Public Hearing, withdrew their requested increase as noticed and announce it as “a request for a Supplemental “Reduction” rather than as noticed a supplemental “increase of appropriations”.
Commissioner Boothby stated that it made no difference whether a supplemental appropriation is for an increase or decrease, it required a public hearing. This is simply not in accordance with any known law. A supplemental appropriation is for a new purpose including the source of money equal to the new expenditure. As for a decrease, the appropriated simply need not be spent.
The Commissioner’s justification for the change in the noticed amounts was a result of negotiation with the State, which will “hold harmless” Belknap County regarding NH expenditures and increase promised revenues, Pro Shares. This information, we were told, only became known “this past Friday” and was not published anyplace, nor was it made available during the meeting on any documentation provided the public in attendance.
During the public hearing, the Convention’s chairman asked the members “if they had any problems with the numbers before you.” He called for a vote, which passed, followed by a motion to adjourn. What exactly those numbers are is not publicly documented.
The commissioners, who made this request for a supplemental appropriation offered no proof that the Treasurer indicated any impending emergency or shortfalls, much less why the 92 so-called changes were even necessary. It is an unprecedented action by the Convention or any other public body to take any vote (action), while in the midst of a Public Hearing. Historically, following the close of a hearing, the appropriating body deliberates based on public input in support or against, and either vote, table or postpone any action to another date.
At this juncture, the public has no documentation as to the Hold Harmless promises from the state or if the $26,620,211 resulting noticed request changes have resulted in some lower amount. If the process, on 13 May, 2008, is allowed to proceed by a vote up or down of the Commissioners noticed request, clearly it shall give rise to a challenge, once again, that the Commissioners are not following the laws, re: 92 transfers/Changes. RSA 24:14, III, entangling the convention into another legal quagmire.
Unless otherwise ordered by the county convention, under RSA 24:14, whenever it appears that the amount appropriated for a specific purpose will not be used in whole or in part for such purpose, the county commissioners may use such sum to augment other appropriations, if necessary, provided the total payments for all purposes not to exceed the total sum of appropriations in any year made by the county convention.
NOW THERFORE, the Commissioners should not have sought nor should the Convention approve of such non-compliance with state laws.
I) Seeking a supplemental appropriation in the second Fiscal Quarter in order to restore a failed Convention budget is a vexatious, frivolous and wanton disregard of State laws governing County budgets, DRA standards and their fiduciary responsibility to represent the property taxpayers in such difficult economic times. Each time the Convention meets, its members are paid monies from the treasury. To conduct the changes and transfers as verbally implied at the May 6, 2008 “public hearing” needs no supplemental appropriation, as all that is required is that the Commissioners obtain written permission from the Executive Committee, provided the changes not exceed the original appropriation.
II) Accordingly, we request a directive informing the Convention that they cannot approve a supplemental appropriation using the improper circumstance they arrogantly profess to proffer.
III) The co-mingling of the transfer process with the supplemental appropriation process gives rise to the clear and present danger of undetectable money shifting to indiscernible accounts. Shall we say more of a county under investigation by the AG’s office, and its failure to publish the 2007 Annual Financial Report as required by law?Given the facts as they are, and given the requirements of the law and the probability of legal action should this matter continue its present course, the most expedient action the Belknap County Convention can take is to do nothing and post a notice to cancel the intended meeting for Tuesday March 13, 2008.Respectfully,Thomas A. TardifXX XXXXXXXLaconia, NH 03246.
xxx-xxx-xxxxDouglas Lambert
XX XXXXXXXX
Gilford, NH 03249
xxx-xxx-xxxxNOTE: A timely response is appropriate considering the County Convention is intent on completing these actions tomorrow evening, March 13, 2008.
A complete video tape of the presentation and “public hearing” is available upon demand.
RSA 24:14 Appropriations. –
I. Appropriations by the county convention shall be itemized in detail and a record thereof shall be kept by the clerk of the convention. The executive committee of the county shall have authority to review the expenditures of the county after adoption of the county budget. Such review may occur as often as voted by the executive committee, but no less than quarterly each year. The convention may require the county commissioners to report once each quarter to the convention or to the executive committee the expenditures of the county as compared to the budget as voted, in such detail as determined by the convention. The county convention may require that the county commissioners obtain written authority from the executive committee before transferring any appropriation or part thereof under RSA 24:15, III.
II. The county convention shall adopt its annual budget within 90 days after the beginning of the county’s fiscal year if the county operates on a calendar year basis. If the county operates on an optional fiscal year basis pursuant to RSA 31:94-a, then the county convention shall adopt its annual budget not later than September 1. If the county convention does not adopt its annual budget by the time specified, the budget, as recommended by the commissioners, shall take effect.24:14-a Supplemental Appropriations. – The commissioners may apply to the county convention for an appropriation to be made subsequent to the adoption of the annual county budget, or the convention, on its own initiative, may consider and act upon a proposed supplemental appropriation. The clerk of the convention shall deliver or mail to each member of the county convention (who will be in office on the date of the convention vote on the proposed supplemental appropriation) and to the chairperson of the board of selectmen in each town and the mayor of each city within the county and to the secretary of state a statement including the amount of the proposed supplemental appropriation and the objects for which the money is required. The convention shall schedule a public hearing on such appropriation to be held within 30 days of the mailing or delivery of said statement. Notice of the date of said hearing and the date of the convention vote on the proposed appropriation shall accompany said statement. A supplemental county appropriation shall require a vote of the county convention as provided in RSA 24:13.
24:15 Exceeding Appropriations. –
I. No county commissioner, or elected or appointed county officer, shall pay, or agree to pay, or incur any liability for the payment of, any sum of money for which the county convention has made no appropriation, or in excess of any appropriation so made except for the payment of judgments rendered against the county.
II. In the case of an emergency, the county commissioners, or an elected or appointed county officer, may apply to the executive committee, which, after a public hearing, may grant to the county commissioners or officer authority in writing to make such emergency payment.
III. Unless otherwise ordered by the county convention, under RSA 24:14, whenever it appears that the amount appropriated for a specific purpose will not be used in whole or in part for such purpose, the county commissioners may use such sum to augment other appropriations, if necessary, provided the total payments for all purposes do not exceed the total sum of appropriations in any year made by the county convention.
IV. If any county commissioner, or elected or appointed county officer, is found in a prosecution for violation of RSA 643:1 to have paid or incurred any liability for the payment of any sum of money contrary to this section, it shall be prima facie evidence