Funding of Constitutional Officers - Virginia Joint Legislative Audit ...

The Compensation Board AGREES with the staff finding that the
"... Compensation Board has inadequate resources to Leview more than
six hundred local office budgets, ... " This comment is in general
agreement with the findings of HD 29 (1988 Session) which
recommended 3 additional staff positions for the Compensation Board.
House Document 29 was prepared by staff of the House Appropriation
Committee and Senate Finance Committee.
The Compensation Board AGREES with the staff finding that
" .•. the current process does not recognize differences in the timing
for approval of State and local budgets." This situation could be
alleviated by a far simpler method than adopting the staff
recommendations. For example, constitutional officer budget
requests could be tied into the current state biennial budget
process by requiring the submission of requests to the Compensation
Board by May 1, with the Compensation Board submission of its
Financial Proposal to DPB on September 1 with funding to be
effective July 1 of the next year.
The Compensation Board DISAGREES with the staff finding that the
" ••. current funding process does not recognize the essentially local
nature of the services provided by the constitutional officers. By
requiring approval of positions and budgets at the State level,
decision making has been removed from the local level, which is the
level of government responsible for the provision of services."
(page 60 & 61). One of the key factors of the study is the effort
to assign state/local responsibility for services. The staff
statement that the services provided are essentially local in nature
is contradicted by the staffs own findings with regard to Sheriffs,
Commonwealth Attorneys and Clerks of Circuit Courts. The
compensation Board DISAGREES further that decision making has been
removed from local governments by requiring position approval at the
State level. First, the local government has always had the
authority to approve additional positions for constitutional
officers. Secondly, as long as the State is paying for positions,
the Compensation Board should have the authority to approve or
disapprove positions (funds permitting) for constitutional
officers. The fundamental issue here seems to be a misunderstanding
by the JLARC staff concerning the provisions in the Constitution of
virginia (Article VII, §4) for Constitutional Officers. These
officers do not report to the local governing bodies. The Supreme
Court of virginia has upheld on numerous occasions that
constitutional officers serve independently of municipal or county
governments (Sherman v. City of Richmond, Narrows Grocery v. Bailey,
Whited v. Fields, Hilton v. Amburgery). While the Compensation
Board AGREES that local governments should bear certain costs of
constitutional officers, funding by local governments should not
result in the local government having operational control of the
constitutional officers through the budget process. JLARC staff
recommendations appear to result in local governments gaining a
greater share of fiscal and operational control of constitutional
officers.
91