The Cochise County Board of Supervisors has joined the effort to oppose proposed Senate Bill 1017, which seeks to remove oversight by the supervisors of elected officials' budgets and require the departments to be paid in one lump sum.
"This really troubles me," said Supervisor Ann English. "There's a fracas in one of the counties and now we all are being drawn into it."
She's referring to the war declared by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and Maricopa County Attorney's Office against the county Board of Supervisors and the county administrator over budget cuts.
English said, "We have checks and balances in place, and I'm concerned with maintaining our policies in watching taxpayer money. The bill is ill-designed and it's just a playground fight that we all have to be in now."
Supervisor Pat Call said, "We have a governor that understands the downside of this issue as a former county supervisor."
Brewer could veto it, but Call said the governor indicated in a private talk with him that she wants it "dead" before it reaches her desk.
English said the board couldn't just give money without seeing where it's going. Since the supervisors hold responsibility for spending taxpayer dollars appropriately, they need to know what it's being spent on. Then there's the concern that the lump sum wouldn't really cover all the department's needs without some oversight.
"What happens if they don't make it through the year," asked English. "I think it's upsetting the whole apple cart. We work as a team in Cochise County and this would eliminate that teamwork."
With the hiring of Dave Seward as procurement officer, the county has been able to save money by combining purchasing power for all departments, English added. If each department goes back to purchasing their own supplies and equipment, that will cut those savings.
"Right now, we're getting the most out of every dollar we spend," added English.
Supervisor Richard Searle said the bill quashes all the checks and balances that have been instituted over the past 100 years. "There's no reason to throw out a system that works because of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the county supervisors."
If the bill were to pass, Searle said the county would "probably not" be able to require departments to follow the established county-wide purchasing policy.
"As a part of the current checks and balances between elected offices, the only oversight the board has on elected officials is their budget, and if the board does not have the ability to say how the funds are spent, they would not have the ability to require them to follow any consistent policies," added Searle.
The county also has a human resources officer who sets parameters for wages and salaries in the various job fields. If elected officials are permitted to hire on their own, there's the possibility for problems in wages and salaries, English said.
Searle commented, "Elected officials do the hiring for their departments now. Because the board approves the funding, we can also require them to go through HR so as to make sure that all county hires meet legal requirements and that salaries meet predetermined levels. This does not prevent an elected official from hiring a friend, but it makes sure that it is done in a legal manner and that salaries are not out of line."
Searle continued, "The current system promotes cooperation between elected officials and the board. Change it this way, and you are opening a Pandora's box of possible unintended consequences. If the system is not working, let's open the discussion and ask why we have so many different elected county officials."
English added, "I'm afraid what the unintended consequences could be. It's still in our hands to set the budget and run the county departments fairly. There needs to be that oversight."
County Administrator Mike Ortega suggested there could be difficulties due to county mandated-services which must be funded. Without a submitted budget for expenses, the supervisors will not know if those obligations have been met.
Ortega added that Sheriff Larry Dever is content with things the way they are and would support the supervisors in their opposition.
Call contacted state Reps. Patricia Fleming, David Gowan and David Stevens, but only received a response from Fleming. Fleming has offered her support in opposition to the bill.
"We need to contact our legislators and let them know where we stand," added
Call. "And we need to let residents know how expensive this bill could be."
As expected, most county boards of supervisors are against the bill, added Call.
See the bill online
For a complete look at SB1017, visit the state site at: http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1017
Just The Facts
State Rep. Patricia Fleming's response
Do you think the bill makes managing county business any easier?
SB 1017 appears to make managing county business more complicated. The Board of Supervisors hires a professional finance staff to assist in the preparation of the annual operating budget. The staff works with the elected officers to develop their budgets. With this bill, elected officers will have to hire someone to act as their financial advisors. This would be a duplication, and if there is a budget shortfall because of an error in budget projections during the year, the Board would have to go back again to re-allocate these funds. Then it would be unlikely for elected officers to receive more money to provide their mandated functions because of the error.
Elected officers also would have authority to not only hire staff as they see fit, but pay them as they see fit. This would cause the counties to have positions responsible for the exact same jobs earning different salaries. This could make counties subject to expensive lawsuits and possible sanctions from the U.S. Dept. of Labor.
Will this bill cost taxpayers more money?
If elected officers are able to enter into contracts with outside vendors using whatever methods they choose, again, this would open counties to expensive lawsuits in defending claims of alleged inappropriate awarding of contracts. Also, if they decide not to take advantage of already negotiated pricing contracts for the county, it could cost taxpayers more money.
State Sen. Manny Alvarez, District 25
He did not respond to the questions, but said he would offer comments after the bill meets in committee and he receives information on the stance of Arizona counties.
State Representative David Stevens did not respond to the questions.
|
