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

government operations. This is explained detail on pages 19~23 of this report.
benefits ofthe service are only considered ifthe responsibility for the service is shared.
The example ofa sheriffs office writing tickets on a local ordinance is covered
under the framework developed for this study. The enforcement oflocal ordinances is
a part of normal local government operations as described on page 20 of this report.
Because the law enforcement function of sheriffs' offices includes enforcement ofboth
State law and local ordinances it should be considered a shared cost responsibility (as
described on pages 21~22).
RECOMMENDATION (7).
No additional comment.
RECOMMENDATION (8) AND RECOMMENDATION (9).
The Compensation Board response states that this report is contradictory in
finding that many services are State mandated, but that they are local in nature.
These findings are not contradictory. While many of the services provided by the
constitutional officers are governed by State requirements, the jurisdiction of the
officers is locaL JLARC staffrecognize that constitutional officers serve independently
ofthe local governing bodies, but the Constitution defines the constitutional officers as
"county and city officers" (Article VII, Section 4). Thus the constitutional officers are
officers of the counties and cities, although they do not report to the city or county
governing bodies.
To the extent that the State makes decisions with regard to the operations of
the offices, it removes decision making from the local leveL Itis important for the State
to ensure that the funds it provides are used for intended purposes. However, the
State can provide the necessary accountability for State funds by adopting appropriate
staffing standards and by auditing expenditures ofthe offices. By eliminating require~
ments for approval oflocal budgets, the State can enhance the ability oflocal constitutional
officers to manage their offices in a manner appropriate to local needs and
circumstances.
The pre~paymentsystem proposed in this report would provide greater flexibility
to the constitutional officers in the. operation oftheir offices. Because the State
funds would be targeted for expenditure by the constitutional offices and the local
match would be mandated by law, operational control of the constitutional offices
would not be transferred from the officers to the local governments.
Finally, with regard to flexibility in funding, the General Assembly could
provide for a reserve fund for emergency funding of special or unpredictable staffing
requirements. Such a fund would not be inconsistent with the proposed staffing
standards or the system offunding recommended by JLARC staff.