Following up on yesterday’s post alleging improprieties in Belknap County…
When it comes to the federal dough (ARRA "stimulus") flowing into local law enforcement agencies via the 2009 JAG grant program, I’d sure like to know if the correct procedure to add these new monies for budgetary spending was used ANYWHERE, be it here in the Granite State, or elsewhere throughout the country. The NH AG’s websiite has the methods by which a New Hampshire TOWN must do a supplemental appropriation, but is silent on sheriff’s departments and, more specifically, counties. The letter we addressed to the County Convention [posted below] outlines the basic problem as the process was conducted by the Belknap County Sheriff. Unlike the RSA for the town, RSA 31:95-b, the county has no "go-around" for supplemental appropriations & MUST follow 24:13 & 24:14.
Beyond that, the other big story is the TRANSPARENCY angle. "Oh, Doug, Obama’s gonna make it right– You know, the "new transparency movement" blah-blah and all that?" And indeed, the JAG really does call for transparency. The big question is what happens when it is ignored, as is the case here in Belknap?
I believe that this is an important story because it demonstrates that, to the government types, when it comes to "free" money, the ends justify the means. But when Joe or Jane Sixpack break the law, well, then they MUST pay a price. In this instance, beyond mere government, we’re talking law enforcement here– they’re supposed to ENFORCE the law!
Also, this money is being wasted, and it appears the Sheriff is doing a flim flam by selling it locally as a laundry list of goodies he will buy, while claiming to the feds he’s keeping 10% for "administrative fees." Oh, and Laconia is giving an extra 10% for, who knows what? They would have been better off to "go it alone" and pay the grant in house, for what they’re paying the Sheriff to "administer". They are paying approx $20K of their eligible allocation to the Sheriff. They could have gone with a part timer, or overtime and ended up with more to waste... er, I mean spend on the cops’ goodies & training.
I still can’t believe we’re borrowing monies at the fed level and sending it here for a bunch of gadgets & frivolous miscellany. More cops on the troubled streets of Manchester? Maybe. Tasers for Gilford and an $8,000 computer tower? No way! Believe me– I’m on the budget committee in Gilford. If the cops need a new computer tower, WE’D BUY IT! And I’d vote YES!!!! But why do the feds need to do this? What purpose does it serve? That argument aside, when the government insists on doing such things, shouldn’t it be done within the law? Does the Sheriff feel the law is fine for thee but not for he?
Just imagine this scenario playing out statewide. Nationwide… Now, we’re talkin’ some REAL bucks!
Here is what we sent to the Convention, and to the DOJ on this matter:
Date: 20 May 2009
To: Belknap County Convention
Attn: Alida Millham, Chairperson
RE: Cooperative application for $217,578.00
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Dear Convention members;
It has been reported that the Belknap County Commissioners have authorized Sheriff Wiggin to apply for Cooperative Grant in the amount of $217,578 on behalf of six out of the eleven municipalities comprising Belknap County. The grant is intended to be distributed to only seven law enforcement agencies inclusive of the County’s Sheriffs Department 10% Administrative fees.
We believe the Commissioners exercised an assumed authority which in fact they legally cannot support. Moreover, we believe that only the Convention has such authority. Furthermore, this or any grant application must be accompanied by contemporaneous conditional appropriations by the taxing authorities. Additionally, once the annual budget has been adopted, which is the case for FY 2009, any additional appropriations are supplemental by their very nature.
Now therefore we the undersigned do not believe that the process to date for the filling of a Cooperative JAG Grant is in compliance with current New Hampshire law or Recovery Act (JAG) requirements and say as follows:
1. The 28 January 2009 Commissioners’ minutes state in item number 10, “based on an audit that was performed last year… certain requirements will need to be in place in order for the sheriff to apply and receive those grant monies”. That audit was by an agency of the Federal Government regarding a previous grant.
2. The commissioners are not empowered to authorize an application for Grants without prior approval of the Convention, the appropriating authority.
3. On 22nd April 2009, the “Commissioners read instructions that the Sheriff gave them on this grant”. The minutes state that the “Governing body needs to review and approve before the application can be submitted.” They also say it “needed to be done 30 days ahead of time.” (Emphasis added)
4. We would agree that the Commissioners may apply to the governing body, the Convention, for approval of procedures for any Grant application, as a contemporaneous supplemental conditional appropriation in the event that a grant application is awarded, especially if any matching funds are required.
5. No documented Commissioner or Convention notice, meeting, or minutes, records a public hearing or vote to establish neither a procedure for all Grant applications or provided an opportunity for public comments regarding a JAG application, or any other.
6. The JAG / Recovery Act clearly states that a budget and budget narrative outlining how the fund will be used must be submitted. Moreover, it states that the applicant agency “must make the grant application available for review by its governing body not fewer than 30 days before the application is submitted to BJA.” A 7 May 2009 newspaper account of the Commissioners’ meeting of 6 May 2009 reports that “All the commissioners were concerned that they could not read the grant application itself”. Wiggin explained that the application process was conducted entirely on-line, making it impossible to provide the commissioners with a copy of the document until after it was actually submitted to the justice Department.” (Emphasis added) The application was submitted on 11 May, 2009, and copies were not made available to County Commissioners until 19 May, 2009. The Convention has not, to our knowledge, received copies for their review.
7. The JAG/ Recovery Act clearly states that the application “must include a statement that the application was made public and that, to the extent of applicable law or established procedure, an opportunity to comment was provided to the citizens and neighborhood or community organizations.” No public comment has been solicited, nor given, nor was there ever any opportunity to do so.
8. The definition of a supplemental appropriation is an appropriation by the county convention which shall be itemized in detail and a record thereof shall be kept by the clerk of the convention, to be made after the budget has been adopted. (RSA 24:13 and 14)
9. Any supplemental revenue whose purpose is known shall contemporarily be appropriated indicating the source of revenue to balance the existing budget. Clearly the County has not identified with transparency the specific source of revenues required to meet its intended conditional appropriation, namely the $20,000 from the City of Laconia which is in excess of the 10% rule.
10. In the matter pending before the Convention, re: JAG, neither the Convention nor the Commissioners, and, moreover, the public, had any documents to allow a review of the purposes for the combination of the individual sub-total line item appropriations nor the individual line item purposes for the County’s anticipated $30,818 supplemental expenditures absent conditional appropriations until 19 May 2009.
11. The anticipated County revenues to be received from a 10% share of the 6 municipality cooperative grant, may not even be realized or encumbered, according to the Recovery Act documen
t.
12. Furthermore, 5 municipalities that are not participating in a County venture will benefit by default, as a result of the County’s intended supplemental capital line items that were “not included” in the current budget.
13. That five municipalities will benefit without paying their fare share is contrary to the intent of County government. Since the County levies a tax to every town, conversely every town is entitled to the same unanticipated revenue. In fact the 5 municipalities are paying the administrative expenses up front for which they have no financial recapture rights if the Cooperative JAG Grant Application(s) is denied.
14. What exactly are the Administrative FEES? “The Sheriff appointed Deputy David Perkins as Program Manager”? Who is the Chief Executive Officer who must file the application? Who is the fiscal agent? If the Sheriff is any one or all of the required individuals, it is not a billable item. A sheriff or the sheriff’s department cannot directly receive extra financial income to be encumbered without Convention appropriations.
15. The elected sheriff is salaried and any County-associated work done on County facilities using County equipment is not reimbursable. A sheriff, unlike non-elected employees, is not billable per hour.
16. In order for the Convention to authorize the application of any grant it must contemporaneously appropriate conditionally money for the specific new line items or purposes and identify the source of money, none of which have been identified nor accomplished. RSA 24:13.
17. When the Commissioners or the Convention, of their own initiative, require a 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.
18. The convention shall schedule a public hearing on such appropriation to be held within 30 days of the mailing or delivery of said statement.
19. Notice of the date of said hearing and the date of the Convention vote on the proposed appropriation shall accompany said statement.
20. Transparency regarding all aspects of the Grant Application shall be subject to public review prior to entertaining any public comment for or against such a supplemental appropriation.
21. What is clear is that the County itself intends to utilize $30,818.50 of the Grand total JAG Cooperative Grant. What is problematic is that the $30,818.50 is in violation of JAG Cooperative Grant Rule of 10% for administration. Clearly 10% of the Cooperative Grant is $21,757.80. The difference is attributed to the City of Laconia’s line Item “Purchase Reason narrative / appropriation. The eligible amount is $112,910.00 less 10% should result in its portion of the Grant to be $101.619.00. However, what the City of Laconia allocation will only be $92, 910.00. The unpublished amount of the Laconia portion of the grant to be used by the County Sheriffs Department is $20,000. The $20,000 exceeds the 10% by $8,709. Not only is this contrary to the JAG, but, considering a lack of a JAG public hearing in Laconia, compounded by the absence of a County cooperative public hearing, it gives the appearance of clouding over the required transparency.
22. The Recovery Act states; “All applications are due by 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 18, 2009”. All public deliberation by the Commissioners with the Sheriff began on 28 January 2009 when he told them “that monies from the Department of Justice will be available in the near future.” The only other discussion publicly documented was not about a procedure but in fact an admission by Commissioners that only the “governing body” could approve such a document. On 11 May 2009 Sheriff Wiggin filed the application. As noted above in paragraph 6, the Commissioners were not afforded a copy of the grant application until 19 May 2009, after the closing date for the JAG Cooperative application.
23. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall be in hand at the beginning of the JAG application Process, not during or after, signed by each jurisdiction’s authority– i.e. town, city or county– who has authority to impose taxes. The MOU from each unit must identify which jurisdiction will serve as the applicant/Fiscal agent for joint funds. The fiscal agent must make the grant application available for review by the governing body not fewer than 30 days before the application is submitted to BJA. Per Attachment 3, a Review Narrative which includes a statement that the application was made public. (See Paragraph 6 above).
Moreover, the Act requires that at the time of application submission, the Local JAG Agent must include a statement that the application was made public and that, to the extent of applicable law or established procedure, an opportunity to comment was provided to citizens and neighborhood or community organization. (Emphasis added)
NOW THERFORE due to the failures of the Fiscal Agent / County to comply with the statutory procedures and the lack of transparency regarding the JAG Cooperative application for a $217,578.00 grant absent contemporaneous supplemental appropriation, we demand:
The Convention withdrawn the County as Fiscal Agent or put on hold any action regarding an application for a JAG Grant, and
Suspend any actions by the Fiscal Agent / County Sheriff or the Sheriff’s Department Staff from any actions intending to encum
bering County funds via Grant applications absent contemporaneous “supplemental” conditional appropriations authority vested only with the Convention, and
Investigate the process that began on 28 January 2009 soliciting the Commissioners for a DRAFT “procedure” for ALL grant applications, which was subsequently created by Sheriff Wiggin and adopted by the “Commissioners” and never made public till 19 May 2009 per RSA 91-A. Moreover a procedure shall include conditional appropriation by the authority having taxing powers.
The grant procedure has not been made public, or voted by the Convention. The erroneous designation of Sheriff Wiggin as the apparent Fiscal Agent by the Commissioners to make the JAG Application violated the statutory power that is vested only in the Convention, the appropriating authority. In this, the Convention MUST re-assert their lawful place as designated by law.
If it is too cumbersome to follow what the law requires, the only option is to CHANGE it, not circumvent it and violate it, as has happened at nearly every turn in this instance involving the 2009 JAG application process conducted by a sheriff who gives it little to no regard. Nobody is above the law, ESPECIALLY those who are tasked with upholding it. Given the stated desire to make County government more open and transparent, the conduct put forth by the Sheriff in the pursuit of this year’s JAG grant demonstrates once again that there is still much work to be done. Correcting this latest sorry episode will be one more step in the right direction. The fact the money is “free” doesn’t mean that the laws no longer apply.
Thomas A. Tardif
Douglas Lambert.
Cc: Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Fraud Detection Office, media