official oppression – Representative Mike Sylvia

As the ink was still drying on the 2017 Belknap county budget a crisis arose which would require dipping into the county’s contingency fund.

If you want to get Pravda on Winnipesaukee to write some serious fear porn just find a way to put nursing home residents in “danger.” This was clearly contrived to demonstrate the dire ‘lack of funding’ in the budget. It was rejected, and not another peep has been heard in the following years. Sprinkler systems need routine maintenance.

A mere month later the Convention was assembled to hear a request from the county commissioners for a supplemental appropriation. The request for $229,500 failed on a 7-7 tie vote.

On August 8, 2017 the Convention again gathered to hear another request for a supplemental appropriation. The extra $256,852 was approved. At the year-end we would find this exercise was unnecessary and $900,000 would be returned to the county’s fund balance. The time, money and effort that went into getting the supplemental appropriation was not a benefit to the citizens of the county, rather it went to make managing the budget a very simple process – just spend what you have, there is plenty. It’s hard to understand how that can even be considered management.

If you go back through the records you will find that the commissioners hired two law firms to assist in their pursuit of additional funding. They spent $6,540.05 in their zeal to grasp control of appropriating authority. None of that money benefited the citizens of the county, it simply made the commissioners’ job easier. Do you recall this one: 643:1 Official Oppression. – A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another.

Each time they get away with this sort of behavior, they become bolder in their disregard for the law. Bear in mind as the years roll by that we have differing members of the board of commissioners. One might want to put a bit of thought into why it is that the commissioners continue to act in the same way despite the change in elected officials.

2018 will be a banner year for corruption in the county, we’ll get into that next time…

All the pieces in this series:

Just a couple of weeks after the judge made his ruling, as we saw in the last post, the county Executive Committee met to review the county budget. Not that anyone would expect an instant turnabout, and the commissioners were busy spending more taxpayer money in legal fees to challenge the court order, the Executive Committee found spending beyond what had been appropriated.

September 15, 2014 Executive Committee budget review.

And the legal bills would come to the Executive Committee in the form of a transfer request February 17, 2015. Note the comment of the newly appointed (Republican) commissioner Hunter Taylor.

February 17, 2015 Executive Committee meeting.

The Convention in 2015 set a line-item transfer limit of $800, an increase from $300 in 2014, allowing the commissioners more flexibility in moving money between lines in the budget.

In 2016 that limit was increase to $1,000. By the summer of 2016 we would start to see signs of problems ahead.

There is a word that describes spending beyond that which is appropriated; misappropriation. Perhaps you recall the earlier statement by commissioner Taylor?

24:15 Exceeding Appropriations. –
I. No county commissioner, or elected or appointed county officer, shall pay, or agree to pay, or incur any liability for the payment of, any sum of money for which the county convention has made no appropriation, or in excess of any appropriation so made except for the payment of judgments rendered against the county.
II. In the case of an emergency, the county commissioners, or an elected or appointed county officer, may apply to the executive committee, which, after a public hearing, may grant to the county commissioners or officer authority in writing to make such emergency payment.

IV. If any county commissioner, or elected or appointed county officer, is found in a prosecution for violation of RSA 643:1 to have paid or incurred any liability for the payment of any sum of money contrary to this section, it shall be prima facie evidence that such county commissioner or officer has knowingly refrained from performing a duty imposed by law.

We can clearly see that funds had been spent beyond appropriations in August of 2016 but we can not say who is responsible for the misappropriation. That would have required an investigation and prosecution.

643:1 Official Oppression. – A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

We can see in this November 22, 2016 Executive Committee meeting that the county administrator is aware of the issue, yet the commissioners deny knowledge.

At this point you might start asking yourself why I don’t grab a mirror and have a look at my responsibility for allowing this to continue. Good point. While there will be more in the next installment, I’ll give you a glimpse of the past when I previously brought up the need for an investigation. From January 12, 2015, you can get a sense of the cool reception.

We will come to see there is little appetite in government to hold ourselves accountable, but I will not stop so easily. More to come…

All the pieces in this series:

Tag: official oppression

Supplemental Appropriation; Another Bite At the Apple

It Is Overspent