Last week District Judge Mike Norman ordered members of the excise board to adopt the estimate of needs as prepared by the county commissioners, a decision not affecting the 2003-4 budget year, but providing the guidelines for the 2004-5 budget year.
The conflict stemmed from the excise board's decision last year to change the budget that the commissioners submitted and cut $214,000 in funding for the operation of the Sequoyah County Jail. The board noted that the jail authority had about $1 million in reserve, which was generated by one-third of a half-cent sales tax approved by voters, to operate the jail and did not need to be funded through the county budget.
Commissioners Cleon Harrell, Lewis Warren, and Bruce Tabor filed a protest last year against the excise board members, which include Dan Shamblin, Bill Burgess, and Sloan, after they learned that the budget they signed was changed by the excise board before it was sent to the state auditor's office. They also included Donna Jamison, county clerk, in the suit.
Commissioners argued jail operation reserve money will be exhausted as the new jail began operation. The commissioners also protested the excise board's deletion of $45,000 in funding for the Sequoyah County 911 system.
The excise board also restored over $200,000 in funding to the sheriff's office in order for the sheriff to hire three additional deputies. The commissioners said they took that money away from the sheriff because the sheriff was no longer running the jail.
Ben Loring, Ottawa County assistant district attorney who represented the excise board, said Monday that he was going to start the appeal process by first filing a notice of intent to appeal.
"There's a predicament in an attorney questioning a judge's ruling," Loring said.
Loring said basically the judge has adopted an estimate of needs from the county commissioners that doesn't exist yet.
"What are we adopting?" Loring asked. "And why Donna Jamison is even in this lawsuit is beyond me."
Loring noted that the excise board actually won the decision in a backhanded way.
"The budget for this year is the excise board's budget," Loring said.
Loring hopes to have an appeals court clarify the board's roles and responsibilities in the budget-making process.
Loring said it is his understanding that the board's obligation is to make sure the constitutional offices are adequately funded first, and then make sure the statutory offices are adequately funded. Loring said the jail authority and 911 board are statutory offices.
"Beyond that they don't have a lot of say-so," Loring said.
Nathan Young III, attorney for the commissioners, said he expected no less than an appeal.
"They have a free lawyer," Young said about the excise board. "What do they have to lose? They don't have to stand for re-election or answer to the voters."
Young said he thinks the conflict is about personalities.
"I guess it's about, 'Who's the big dog in this deal?'" Young said.
Young said the excise board should be more interested in late fees being added to county bills, but instead are more interested in a "tug-of-war" with the commissioners.
Young said the excise board's interpretation of the ruling is "absurd," and does not mean that the board has to adopt a budget no matter what.
"If the commissioners submit an estimate of needs in excess of the revenue, the excise board can reduce those needs," Young said.
Young blames the problem on a lack of communication, and the fact that the excise board is altering the budget without consulting the county commissioners.
"There's always unhappy county officials," Young said. "When there's a limited amount of revenue, they (the excise board) serve as a checks and balances.
"My interpretation of the ruling is what the law says. If the estimate of needs submitted by the commissioners does not exceed the revenue, they (excise board) shall approve," Young said.
Young said it is true that the constitutional offices, such as the county treasurer and the sheriff, should be funded first, and the statutory offices are funded second, but that doesn't mean that one office can take all the funding and not have any left over for the statutory offices.
"If we are going to run the county by lawsuits, we're doing a great disservice to taxpayers," Young said.
Sloan said there was no reason to include Donna Jamison's name in that lawsuit.
"She had no input in our decisions whatsoever," Sloan said.
Sloan said the excise board is in place as checks and balances organization. He said their job is to examine the estimate of needs and make sure all are lawful and none are in excess. Sloan said if the budget is out of line, they are given the authority to adjust the budget.
Sloan said the excise board is supposed to get the final say. He noted that if the offices are funded within budget and everything is lawful and nothing is in excess of needs, then the excise board is supposed to certify it and send it on to the state auditor. Sloan said they have to see that county officers are well funded.
"We look at this (order) and say that puts us between a rock and a hard place," Sloan said.
Sloan said they received no paperwork from the jail authority or 911 for the 2003-4 budget year, and had no histories on either one so excise board members felt like it was unlawful to take funding away from other county offices to fund the jail or 911, which are both self-funded through either a sales tax or a surcharge to customers. Sloan added that it is also improper to fund the 911 on the west end of the county and not fund the 911 system on the east end of the county.
Sloan and the other excise board members' interpretation of the ruling is that the excise board is supposed to approve an estimate of needs for the 2004-5 fiscal year that hasn't been made yet.
"They can't tie the excise board's hands," Sloan said. "There's no reason to have an excise board."
Sloan said the excise board meets with county offices informally in June and talks to them about staffing changes they may need to make and their estimate of needs. After that, the county commissioners speak to the county officers, prepare the estimate of needs, and then send the paperwork to the budgetmaker. When the estimate comes back from the budgetmaker, it's given to the excise board.
"It's supposed to be in our hands Aug. 17," Sloan said about the estimate of needs.
Sloan said last year they did not get the estimate of needs from the commissioners until October.
