Some blog thoughts as this Tuesday approaches. I am not quite willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. This is the time for learning, listening and assessing. Some musings and comments:
Greg L is all over the discretionary funds issue on the dark site. The fault I find with his analysis is his perpetual problem of partisanship. Many of the supervisors have questionable use of the discretionary funds, yet Letiecq chose to call out only Democrats by name. If we are going to discuss names, then let’s be fair and name all who have abused or attempted to abuse the discretionary fund system.
Meanwhile, I have to hand it to the Sheriff of Nottingham for his diligence on this matter. He did some things I was not willing to do myself.
I suppose now I have to eat a few bites of crow over that Cory’s puppet Petey Candland picture. To date that has not been the case. For now I will admit I was wrong. I hope I stay wrong.
Many others are attempting to get in the limelight as heroes. However, we know the blog that broke the big Thanksgiving Day giveaway story involving a certain 501(c) out off of Antioche Road and we know who lifted it from us. That is typical of that individual though. Those working with him need to watch their backs. We found out the hard way. The blog, by way, was Moonhowlings. The only reason it didn’t hit the screen on Thanksgiving Day was a matter of taste. That’s not the best of Thanksgiving stories.
However, that organization still stands to get close to a quarter of a million in taxpayer funds unless our supervisors learn to say NO. That is too much to give to charities, regardless of worthiness and regardless of how many supervisors those associated with the organization attempt to lure in.
This Tuesday should be interesting. I wouldn’t miss it for the world. Meanwhile, I think I will keep my opinions to myself and simply call for fair handling of the issue. Right now I call on Greg to push his bias aside and if one gets called out, let all who have questionable habits get called out.
The Sheriff was able to accomplish quite a bit in a short period of time.
[Update: It looks like Greg is not limiting his scathing remarks to just Democrats.]
Greg has been bi-partisan. There is a starting point.
It is an issue we all seem to agree on…that is what the BOCS should take note of. A partisan calling another partisan a partisan is…well……what’s the use?
Pokie, it started off that way, the way he usually does. Apparently you weren’t paying attention. Another post went up since I first put this one up yesterday. I noted appropriately regarding partisanism.
I haven’t called anyone out over it except the one big case $100k case. I haven’t mentioned that just the Democrats or just the Republican supervisors abuse funds. I would say, from the evidence presented,that supervisors from both parties seem to be running a race to see who can give away the most taxpayer money to their own personal interests.
We can’t fix a process that doesn’t exist is the first problem. There needs to be an acutal grant process for allocating public funds to private non profits that serve a public need.
Just look at the current budget, Wally found a way to cirucmvent discretionary funds by including Rainbow Riding in the general budget. We still have a problem even if discretionary funds are eliminated. We need to tackle this problem from a holistic perspective.
Rainbow Riding was able to sell its land in Brenstville when the taxpayers gave them free land, i.e. 45 acres of Silver Lake property. How much did that land sell for? Lets not forget that as their profit margin also.
45 acres has to translate to a million dollars where that land is located. Where are their own funds.
I saw where their ambassador was out wooing supervisors for an afternoon of fun. I think that is what we call lobbying for tax payer money. NO.
I think the question becomes, how much would that organization get if they had to apply and go through a grant process and didn’t have that special “in” with the BOCS.
Before I am accused, no, I don’t hate horses.
Ms. Elena is dead on point. The slush fund spending is only a symptom of the deeper problem of picking winners and losers among charities based on who knows who and who is on what Board of Directors.
A rigorous competitive process overseen by independent citizens for submission during the regular budget process would be a good start to clean up the cesspool.
The Sheriff of Nottingham
I love Horses! Shell Cordovan!
You’re both close…you missed the target, but hit the tree. Government shouldn’t be taking what it doesn’t need to take to provide the services in its charter. Charity should be charity, government and taxes should be government and taxes.
Pokie, are you saying that govt should not be supporting the arts, the libraries, organizations that help the citizens and add to the quality of life?
If you are saying that, then I strongly disagree. Perhaps we need to agree on the definition of charity.
Slow,
I am a big believer in private public partnerships. Churches and other places of worship often provide critical needs for people. but the bulk of what they do is privately funded. If a non profit helps enough citizens or provides a service that helps the community function, then I think tax payer dollars are well invested. Its the process that is lacking here in my opinion.
@The Sheriff of Nottingham
Why thank you kind sir! My hope is that the Board, given all the renewed attention from citizens like yourself, will finally start working towards fixing this problem.
I’d like to see the BOCS twist the arms of the other jurisdictions whose residents benefit from Rainbow Riding before they ask PWC taxpayers to contribute more. I wonder what the cost per client actually is.
Are Libraries Charities? No. The arts…No government, thank you. Art will still exist if the government doesn’t sponsor it. If it’s not a government matter, they shouldn’t be talking our money for it. If you like a little of it, you like a lot of it.
I think most civilized societies collectively…there’s that word….sponsor the arts whether its a painter or a musician, ballet, choir, or what have you. It has gone on for centuries. Were it not for governments or rulers sponsoring such things, we would have little to show for it. Part of this commissioning makes sure that the common man can afford a little culture.
As for charity, I am less inclined to have govt dabbling in charity than arts. Charity can be handled by organizations, churches and people as they see fit. Furthermore, there is a sort of blackmail involved with charity. If you oppose $100k going to Rainbow Riding, for example, then it becomes translated as you have something against horses or special needs folks rather than you that is too much taxpayer money going to an organization that serves 60 or so people. I believe private individuals should be funding something like that or the Red cross or whatever. Its too easy to assign guilty or do finger pointing.
There are no easy answers here. I like the idea of grants within subgroups myself.
It seems like there are folks on the dark side willing to put aside partisanship, I am happy to report. It also seems that there are those who are not willing to accept business as usual and who are trying to put a serious stop to misuse of public funds.
Question: should all discretionary funds be done away with? What would replace them/? How would supervisors have money to run offices, pay staff etc?
Is there ever a time for discretionary spending?
One justification of discretionary funds is that the supervisors know where funds are needed in PWC. Is that justification or not?
Is there ever a time for discretionary – better language is “not identified directly in the budget” – and the answer would be “yes”. Those times would be, for lack of a better phrase, an “Act of God” as in flooding, tornados, fire…times of extreme incidents when local organziations such as those who run shelters, provide aid just do not have sufficient funding to provide the emergency service.
I see part of the core issue within the discretionary spending of the Supervisor District Office Fund to be a repeated pattern of providing addtitional funding to organizations already identified as a Contributing Agency or Community Partner, and through the year they receive additional funding. Regardless of it being ARC, B&G Club, PMAH, etc etc….each already received funding, and now receive more – and the Sheriff has listed many of them. I have provided before the link to the FY2013 Budget showing the Contributing Agencies, and also the link to the analaysis of how much is given to those Agencies through the yearly budget process. For those who want to look, both are up are on the County Budget’s Page.
Down in Fauquier County, every Contributing Organization is part of their budget process ONLY and must, must, must an aspect of their Comprehensive Plan. Now, in the PWC Annual Budget Process, the Contributing Agencies also are required to meet elements of the PWC Strategic Plan. That is where the funding should be, and no more to those groups.
What has bothered me about the list of receiving agencies from the District Funds has been several of them being nonprofits already receive the other budgeted money, and then on top of that receive more. Take the Library System for example – it has a fund raising arm through the Friends Foundation. $1000 for wireless at a library should have been a major push by that Foundation, and yet, the quick answer was a Supervisor.
“One justification of discretionary funds is that the supervisors know where funds are needed in PWC. Is that justification or not?” No, it is not. What is the process through which an organization can request funding? Answer: no written publish policy exists. And without an application process detailing the needs, just how are each of the BOCS to know where it is. I can list several organizations doing worthing things in the various districts which have not received funding. Again, look at the pattern the Sheriff has put up and then, to borrow a friend’s phrase, “connect the dots”.
Take the Volunteer Fire Companies – annual funding is provided, the taxpayers of PWC do that on top of those times the PWC backs loans made for purchase of equipment and apparatus. Excellent example of when Government should fund. But additional discretionary funding should not occur – those VFCs should be doing whatever in their areas to raise the funding.
There is a time and a place for government funding – the budget process which also allows, through a quarterly review and analysis, supplemental requests at that time. But the process in the news of just announcing and voting is the part which needs to disappear.
Couldn’t rainy day’ funds take care of ‘not covered in the budget’ types of emergencies?
@Moon-howler
“Question: should all discretionary funds be done away with? What would replace them/? How would supervisors have money to run offices, pay staff etc?”
The point that seems to have been missed in all of this is that the so called “discretionary funds” are MONIES LEFT OVER EVERY YEAR FROM WHAT HAS BEEN BUDGETED TO RUN EACH SUPERVISOR’S OFFICE. Instead of that money being returned to the county’s coffers, it is squirreled away by each supervisory as “DISCRETIONARY FUNDS” to be doled out as they see fit. Essentially they are buying votes with those funds when they give them out to their favorite charities. Although I have not delved into the county’s budget process, I suspect county offices/agencies/etc receive X dollars each fiscal year based on their requests and the review of those requests. They must live within whatever amount of dollars they are provided AND if any monies are left at the end of the year, they must be returned to the county. State and federal governments works this way. In the federal government, there is usually a call put out in the latter part of the third quarter of the fiscal year or certainly by the middle of the fourth quarter for agencies to review their spending, If they are going to have funds left over, they are required to report them and sometimes the parent agency will simply go around and take funds from subordinate agencies and redistribute those funds. Often there are restrictions on spending excess funds haphazardly just so they won’t confiscated by the parent organization. Anything short of this on the part of overseeing the budgets of the supervisors will only invite further abuses by the supervisors.
There is no reason that the offices of the BOCS should be treated any differently. They should be required to submit a budget and then live within that budget. Quarterly reviews of spending should be done and funds should be recouped and redistributed before the end of the fiscal year.
That and “rainy day funds” will handle shortfalls for most of the time.
Further, I believe in those instances where the “generous gifts” of supervisors have been memorialized with a such things as theater seats, sidewalk or wall bricks or plaques (pointed out by the Sheriff of Nottingham) should be investigated by an impartial body, perhaps a noted auditing firm, to determine if, in fact, tax dollars (discretionary funds) were used to provide that gift. If it is determined that tax dollars (discretionary funds) were used, the supervisor should be given the opportunity to reimburse the county or their names should be removed from the memorial. If supervisors want to give money to charities and such things as the Boys and Girls Club “Steak and Stake” dinner, let them dig into their own pockets just like the rest of us ordinary citizens must do. Perhaps consideration should be given to not allowing the supervisors to serve on the boards of charities while they are in office. Such a prohibition might also extend to members of their family but I suspect the constitutionality of that would have to be checked out.
@George, I have often wondered about those charities and organizations that have BOCS members and/or family members. Should those organizations be exempt from receiving county funds because of conflict of interest?
I think that the public money has been unaccounted for over such a long period of time in PWC that people have lost their sense of propriety. It seems that almost anything can be justified.
Conflict of interest no longer jumps out and hits people simply because they are used to itl. is the word I am looking for, “desensitized?”
Is anyone planning to go to the BOCS meeting tomorrow?
Question: How should the county handle little incidentals? For example, what if some kid at Potomac HS wins the environmental science award for the school. Can the county give said kid a $500 scholarship?
What about sending flowers to a volunteer who has been in a wreck? The volunteer has logged in over 500 hours of county time?
These are examples that might be known to the supervisor of that district…..I see some good coming from discretionary funds also. I don’t see this as just a black or white issue. There is a bunch of gray squeezed in there.
We also have to acknowledge that supervisors do not make a great deal of money. they can’t be expected to contribute to every worthwhile cause that comes down the pike. The supervisors are always cutting their job short….there is no way to avoid it.
Before we start hollering off with their heads, we need to bring the human element into the equation.
There needs to be a process for a great deal of this. Psssssssssssssst: Listen to Elena.
@Moon-howler
I hope to go and you have seen the e-mail I sent to the BOCS. I plan to say basically the same thing.
I would caution making exceptions to the use of “discretionary funds”–the goal here is do do away with the whole concept. Why is it that every other county has done away with discretionary funds? Exceptions simply become the camel’s nose under the tent flap and exceptions lead to corruption.
If the county wants to give scholarship funds to someone, then there should be a pot of money BUDGETED for such things and those gifts should be subject to public review and comment. The same with flowers, etc to a volunteer who has been in a wreck, is sick, or has decided to retire from volunteering.
PLANNED BUDGETING and PUBLIC REVIEW are the keystones to reducing/preventing corruption.
“Before we start hollering off with their heads, we need to bring the human element into the equation.” Keep in mind it is the “human element” that has created the problem here.
As to the question whether organizations that have BOCS members (or perhaps BOCS family members) on their boards being exempt from receiving discretionary fund “gifts”–if there are not discretionary funds, there is no problem. Alternatively, I believe BOCS members and perhaps members of their families should not be permitted to serve the board of any NGO that gets money from the county through the legitimate budget process. Then there is no conflict of interest–period.
“We also have to acknowledge that supervisors do not make a great deal of money. they can’t be expected to contribute to every worthwhile cause that comes down the pike. The supervisors are always cutting their job short….there is no way to avoid it.”
Why are supervisors any different than any of the rest of us when it comes to giving to charities/NGOs? Remember the money they are “giving” is your tax dollar. And remember these “gifts” are more often than not memorialized with the name of the supervisor or a family member on a theater seat, a brick, a plaque, etc. Our tax dollars are not are not a private bank account for the supervisors to use as they see fit. The law and common sense require public review of the dispensing of government funds. IF the supervisors were “cutting their jobs short”, there would be no discretionary funds. Discretionary funds are funds left over that the supervisor[s] did not spend and are allowed to squirrel away to be used, with very little public review, as they see fit.
Some of my questions are to stimulate discussion rather than to voice an opinion.
As for personal opinion, I do feel that Peter Candland in his resolution has provided a way to take a little heat off of the supervisors. You can’t pay someone $35k a year and expect them to show up at 25 different functions that require admission fees of a sort. By the same token, friends and family shouldn’t be admitted on the county dime.
I do not see this as a black or white issue. We all come to the table with different experiences. I think we need to make it work for us. I tend to agree that there should be a petty cash fund that allows for little scholarships, flowers to volunteers, etc. Here comes the next question–how do we guard the integrity of that fund?
My wish would be a plan that falls between what we do now which is very close to being legal nepotism or cronyism and just coming across looking like a cheap bastard. Neither is a desirable place to be.
I don’t believe supervisors should sit on boards that receive county funding, as a general rule. I would have to think about that though because I know of some very good cases where that happens.
Yes I have read your letter George, I just haven’t had time to respond. I am having a bad hair day. It is full moon and trust me, all the things you have heard about full moon have come to pass…starting with ….no, I won’t say it. The only good news is I am not in labor like I was this day many years ago.
(however I found out today the little BE-otch got a tattoo.)