What Happened to the Forfeiture Funds?

BACKGROUND: The Code of Virginia, § 19.2-386.22, states that "…all money and property used in substantial connection with the … illegal narcotics can be seized by a law enforcement agency."  The Forfeited Asset Sharing Program is governed by § 19.23-386.1-14 and the instructions for the receipt, management, and expenditure of Forfeited Asset Funds (FAF) are contained in the "Forfeited Asset Sharing Program Manual" published by the Department of Criminal Justice Services ( www.dcjs.virginia.gov ).  The funds described above are restricted in use and may only be used to enhance law enforcement activities and services.  Those funds MAY NOT be used to fund normal operating expenses of Law Enforcement Departments.

  

During the period of 2004 through July 2013 the Essex County Sherriff's Department had received approximately $90,000 in forfeited funds.  Over the past several years the Sheriff and his staff had made numerous requests for a reconciliation of the fund balance but had NOT BEEN GIVEN THE INFORMATION. THEY REQUESTED.

THE STORY: ESO first asked the Acting County Administrator, Bill Pennell, to include the Forfeiture Fund Account (FAF) including balance, receipts, and expenditures as a topic for the external auditor to examine.  The Auditor's Report did not include any specific details pertaining to the FAF.

ESO next inquired about the status inquired about the status of the Forfeited Asset funds on March 13, 2013 with a FOIA Request to the County Administrator, Reese Peck.  As this was in the midst of the Annual Budget development cycle, an extension for a reply was granted.  The initial balance report was in the low 5 figures.  The County Administrator directed a preliminary inquiry be made and when the significant issues were recognized, he further directed that a comprehensive review be conducted and requested additional time for a final FOIA reply.

In late June the review was completed and discussions with the Sheriff were initiated to reconcile and review the findings.  This was completed and in August a letter of agreement was signed stipulating the correct current balance available in the account was in the upper 5 figures or approximately $90,000.  The County Administrator also took corrective measures to ensure that the FAF were recorded as a separate RESTRICTED ACCOUNT in the County Financial Records and that all obligations of those funds required the Sheriff's approval and were to comply with the uses authorized in the Code of Virginia and the Program Manual.

The outcome of this one small excursion though the Essex County Financial management procedures (sic) (extremely weak, poorly followed, and not supporting public safety) identified roughly $60,000 that is now available to support enhanced law enforcement, professional training, and increased public safety.  It also led to the publication of new Financial Management Procedures that provide significantly stronger internal controls and better management data.  The FAF were removed from the general fund category and are now fully open and transparent to Essex County Government and to our citizen.  The Sheriff's long and persistent efforts to account for law enforcement funding was successful.

Finally, it was proven, once again, how letting a little sunshine into government will result in greater openness and transparency.   In this case it also corrected bad decisions, errors, and a failure to comply with the Code of Virginia.

John R. Clickener, Publisher

End note:  The development of this article was mentioned in the 12 August 2013 Blog "The Former Deputy County Administrator."  It is ESO's understanding that the DCA was also the County Financial Officer.

 

Is Election Fraud Really a Problem?

 A sign near Mechanicsville states "VOTER FRAUD IS REAL   VOTER SUPPRESSION IS BALONEY."  This is an interesting claim and many states, including Virginia, have been enacting legislation which is supposed to prevent fraud.  Is Election Fraud really a problem?

ESO filed a FOIA request with the Virginia State Board of Elections to gain a perspective on the magnitude of the alleged issue.  Their response, summarized, was that:

1.     Between 10/26/2008 and 11/10/2011 their Internet based complaint system recorded 73 Voter-Fraud incidents.

2.     They had investigated actions by Acorn in 2005.

3.     They do not collect statistics on voter fraud complaints.  Voter-Fraud complaints are immediately reported to appropriate law enforcement authorities…

We are puzzled and question why the state agency which conducts our elections doesn't maintain records on allegations, complaints, and actual incidents of voter fraud.  They maintain extensive files on every voter demographic in every election.  Perhaps the lack of a reliable database is the reason why there's an absence of specific facts (numbers) to support legislation which makes it more difficult to vote or which prevents voter fraud. 

Because ESO focuses on Essex County we decided to let other open government and transparency advocates pursue the reasons why there are no hard numbers to support either point of view.  We chose to use a very simple test of voting history in the Middle Peninsula and the Northern Neck.

We contacted the General Registrars in each of the 10 counties and asked (no FOIA requests were made) each to provide a summary of any annual data they had for the period 2008 through 2012 of both Registration Fraud Incidents and Voting/Ballot Fraud Incidents within their counties.  Three Counties, Gloucester, Mathews, and Middlesex, did not reply to our requests for information.  The other seven counties provided the data which is shown in the table below: 

We leave the interpretation you, our readers.  It appears that in our region, the General Registrars, the county boards of election, and the district voting officials have been doing an outstanding job by preventing both Registration Fraud and Ballot Fraud.

In our opinion the recent efforts, both in Virginia and nationally, to make it more difficult for citizens to vote is misdirected.  Unfortunately, the TYPICAL low voter turnout will be exacerbated by many of the new misguided laws which were enacted without any proof of significant instances of voter fraud.  Denying our eligible citizens, particularly the elderly and the rural, the right to vote through complex laws and difficult processes is a greater attack on our freedom than the potential harm a few unproven fraudulent votes.  WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS?  WHO HAS BEEN PROPERLY CHARGED AND PROSECUTED?

We would welcome comments from the State Board of Elections and our local Boards of Elections and General Registrars.

John Clickener, Publisher

The Former Deputy County Administrator

 

            ESO has been quietly working on a number of projects over the past four months.  More importantly, our Essex County Government, our School System, and our Airport Authority have been very busy opening some of the shutters, cleaning windows, and starting to open the blinds. 

 

The sudden retirement of the Deputy County Administrator and the subsequent announcement of an investigation by the State Police may have been connected to articles and enquiries by ESO.  The ESO Publisher addressed a freedom of speech and civil discourse issue which was directed at the former Deputy County Administrator.  The subsequent public discussion appeared in the local newspapers.  All of these activities are connected to previous articles which appeared in this blog.  Therefore, our readers and the citizens of Essex County deserve a brief explanation in the spirit of openness which we strive to provide.

 

            First, the ESO team has been collecting information and working with local agencies in resolving issues.  Articles which will soon be published include:  The Forfeiture Fund Problems and Its Resolution, Concealed Carry Permits, Voter Fraud, Animal Control Issues, LaGrange Industrial Park Status, Fire Safety, and updates on previous reports.

 

            Second, local government bodies have made significant progress in providing easy access to essential information.  Transparency has improved and a number of essential longer term projects have been approved.  Future articles will provide the details.

 

            Finally, ESO does not know what specifically prompted the retirement, what are the specific actions or acts being investigated or who initiated the request which led the State Police to conduct an ongoing investigation.  We believe that some of the issues raised in ESO articles identified areas which warranted a full investigation. The temporary employment of a very experienced Acting County Administrator led to the identification of several concerns and resulted in several new procedures being established. The recent selection and employment of a new County Administrator created additional occasions for existing practices to be examined and the apparent absence of administrative and financial controls to be questioned.

 

            What we do believe with absolute certainty is that there is a distinct difference between disagreeing with a government official and a deliberate personal attack on that individual.  An allegation of possible misconduct or criminal acts is best addressed by law enforcement professionals and the judicial process. It is not a matter to be resolved by an abusive personal attack on an individual. 

 

            Any private person has the right to loudly and repeatedly object to bad public policies, to complain about failures to provide information, to make accusations of waste, fraud, and abuse of office, and to speak, write, or post signs about any number of perceived issues.  A deliberate public attack of a personal nature is, in my opinion, an attack on society and civil discourse.  Unless the person(s) who placed the sign are government officials it isn't a Constitutional issue (Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I Amendment, IV Amendment, and IX Amendment).  It was just an instance of poor taste, bad manners, and mean-spirited behavior.

 

John R. Clickener - Publisher