Funding of Constitutional Officers - Virginia Joint Legislative Audit ...
Funding of Constitutional Officers - Virginia Joint Legislative Audit ...
Funding of Constitutional Officers - Virginia Joint Legislative Audit ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
It is a common misconception that the Compensation Board funds<br />
all non-personnel costs for Sheriffs, Commonwealth Atcorneys and<br />
Clerks, and 50% <strong>of</strong> Office Expenses and Mileage and 33% <strong>of</strong> capital<br />
costs for Treasurers and Commissioners. This misconception is<br />
furthered by the JLARC report Table 5, page 26 which contains this<br />
information. The JLARC report is technically correct because it<br />
states "approved" costs; what is not stated is that the Compensation<br />
Board is not funded to provide anywhere near 100% <strong>of</strong> che actual<br />
non-personnel costs for all but the smallest <strong>of</strong>fices. In a recent<br />
court case, testimony by the Finance Director <strong>of</strong> Stafford County<br />
revealed that the County paid 45.19% <strong>of</strong> costs for the Sheriffs<br />
Department, 83.64% <strong>of</strong> the Commissioners costs, 41.18% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Commonwealth Attorneys costs and 80.37% <strong>of</strong> the Treasurers costs.<br />
This is by no means unusual or an extreme example. Consequently, it<br />
would appear essential to determine "need" before consideration is<br />
given to the method <strong>of</strong> disbursement.<br />
The adoption <strong>of</strong> a grant/prepayment process would have an adverse<br />
fiscal impact on many localities because <strong>of</strong> level funding <strong>of</strong><br />
non-personnel costs over the years. A grant/prepayment process<br />
should include a "hold-harmless" provision. A grant/prepayment<br />
process is a less conservative approach to funding than the current<br />
reimbursement process for a number <strong>of</strong> reasons. Under a grant<br />
process, there are only limited assurances that funds have been<br />
properly spent for the items requested unless exhaustive auditing is<br />
required. Also, no provision has been made for reverting unspent<br />
funds to the state at year end.<br />
The staff recommendation does not address two specific areas <strong>of</strong><br />
concern to the Compensation Board. The question <strong>of</strong> who would have<br />
final approval <strong>of</strong> the procedures developed for any grant/prepayment<br />
method is not addressed, and the recommendation does not mention a<br />
specific requirement for a local match. Both <strong>of</strong> these points should<br />
be addressed.<br />
The Compensation Board DISAGREES with any grant approach to<br />
funding <strong>of</strong> constitutional <strong>of</strong>ficer non-personnel costs. Currently,<br />
the Compensation Board allocates non-personnel dollars (within the<br />
constraints <strong>of</strong> level funding) on the basis <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>ficer's request<br />
and demonstrated need. Comparisons between <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> similar size<br />
are made and consideration is given to any unusual circumstances<br />
which would require a change in level funding. Also, consideration<br />
is given to the level <strong>of</strong> funding (if any) provided by the local<br />
government. Once the budget is set, the Compensation Board<br />
reimburses the locality for expenses incurred by the <strong>Constitutional</strong><br />
Officer and paid by the locality Erovided that funds are available<br />
and the expense is incurred for the budgeted category. JLARC<br />
assertions to the contrary, this level <strong>of</strong> fiscal control exceeds<br />
88