County’s Checks and Balances Failed

The following guest column was published in the April 14th Dearborn County Register

County’s Checks and Balances Failed

I cannot decide if I’m disappointed in, embarrassed for, or ashamed of our County Council.
County government is set up to work as a check and balance system. Unfortunately our system seems to be failing, in part because of the large imbalance of political party power and in part because of the unwillingness of Council and Commissioners to publicly question certain officeholders.
As an example, at the December 14, 2010 meeting, Council approved a transfer of $25,000 for Prosecutor Aaron Negangard from an intern account to a professional (witness) fees account.
In the verbatim transcript Negangard stated: “ Umm, this is not uhh, an additional appropriation, as it turns out it is a transfer. There was additional monies left in- appropriated monies left, in uh- we had some additional money from the grant – some of the grants monies had been received for salaries and we were using some of this money for intern, but we’ll have about $30,000 left over- and we need to get $25,000 transferred to pay some – uh- attorney’s fees.”
Maynard Barrett questioned using grant money for legal defense but Negangard said this was not grant money, it was money appropriated but not having to be spent because of a grant.
Liz Morris said it was “just a transfer” and motioned to approve. Bill Ullrich seconded.
Before the vote, Tom Cheek asked what it was for again. Negangard said “attorney fees” for a “disciplinary grievance.” Cheek asked if that was “by a county employee” and Negangard answered, “yes.”
Some council members thought that this was for an employee issue, because a disciplinary grievance by a county employee usually means that an employee has been disciplined and filed a grievance against the county for it. Dennis Kraus, Sr, Bryan Messmore, Liz Morris, Bill Ullrich, Maynard Barrett, and Dan Lansing voted Aye. Tom Cheek was the lone Nay.
The final step in the checks and balances (or lack thereof) occurred when Commissioners Orschell and Hughes approved the claims at their final 2010 meeting -no questions were asked publicly.
The Prosecutor’s claim form in the Auditor’s office only shows page 4 of the bill paid to Indy law firm Bose, McKinney, and Evans, LLC for $23,828.53. And the minutes only show the vote and account numbers and titles for the transfer. There is no discussion or purpose noted. Though this is a legal way to do minutes, it is inadequate, when questions arise.
I emailed Aaron Negangard January 27-28 requesting the purpose of this transfer. In the third email he states that it was for a disciplinary grievance against him. Disciplinary grievances are filed with the Disciplinary Commission- an arm of the State Supreme Court, which is unrelated to the State Bar Association. Grievances are filed for alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. County Attorney Baudendistel later stated that this was for a complaint filed by the former County Attorney, G. Michael Witte. However, at the time Negangard requested the payment of attorney fees for his defense, grievances against him had been filed by three different people.
Because the prosecutor is a state employee it seemed like he should be covered by state laws, which indicate that the state does not pay for disciplinary actions against prosecutors or judges. I questioned the county taxpayers paying for this at the February 15, 2011 Commissioners meeting. Commissioners directed County Attorney Baudendistel to research it. One month later he produced an opinion that essentially said the county could invoke “Home Rule” to cover their actions noting, if it is not specifically forbidden, then it is at the complete discretion of the Council.
This brings us back to County Council. Council often asks detailed questions on expenditures for agencies, officeholders, highway engineer, etc. Why were they shy about the prosecutor’s requests? When questioned at the February 15th Commissioners meeting, they looked down at their feet and appeared unwilling, or perhaps unable, to defend their actions.
No one should get special treatment. The prosecutor may seem intimidating, but his requests still require scrutiny- like all others. The discussion should be open and honest so the public understands. Council members should state their reasons for approval or denial of requests to demonstrate accountability to the taxpayer.
When so many people are struggling to make ends meet, officials should also be displaying economic responsibility. Council members are the financial conscience of the county. When they decide to open the taxpayer’s coffers to cover ANY expense, they should be asking who, what, where, when and most importantly, why are they approving that expense.
Christine Brauer Mueller