ROBERT PIERCE

   • Leader & Times

Seward County leaders and constituents have recently expressed concern over the existence of the position of assistant county administrator and the person currently occupying that position being paid from a fund from another department.

Monday, Commission Vice Chair Todd Stanton brought the issue to light, and he said the problem is being discussed in public and encompasses policy and procedure questions for the commission and the county he felt needed to be addressed.

“As this is a policy issue, it does not meet criteria for an executive session,” he said. “It encompasses the authorization and funding for a position, but does not encompass any aspect of non-elected personnel, which qualify for an executive session. I’m raising this as a budget control, position authority, county control and restricted fund issue.”

Stanton said the question is not whether an employee should be paid for work already performed, but whether the position is currently authorized by the adopted amended budget, whether the county’s accounting program, CIC, reflects the budget the board adopted and whether the fund being charged is legally allowed to pay for the duties being performed.

Stanton outlined what he saw as four board level issues.

“First is whether the assistant county administrator position remains authorized after adoption of the amended budget,” he said. “Second is whether any payment charged to landfill is supported by actual landfill duties and a documented allocation. Third is whether the adopted budget has been fully entered into the CIC accounting system and matches the board’s legal budget authority, and lastly is whether the board should continue including a position in executive sessions where there continue to be questions about the position’s authority and the amended budget authorization for it.”

With this, Stanton said, comes a series of questions.

“One, what position does the assistant administrator currently occupy?” he said. “Second, what fund is paying the position? Third, if landfill is paying, what landfill work supports this? Fourth, is the adopted amended budget active in CIC accounting system, and fifth, should a person whose position authority is in question be continuing to attend executive sessions?”

Stanton said current records, including responses obtained under the Kansas Open Records Act and a job description, made by the public identify a position called assistant administrator.

“One item in the job description states there’s oversight of the landfill,” he said. “I found and noted eight or 10 citations from meeting minutes where the position is identified as assistant administrator, including multiple inclusions in executive sessions. Payroll records in 2026, which have been obtained through various KORA requests, with the exception of February, do not show an assistant administrator paid from the administrative budget. They show a person being paid from landfill.”

Stanton said the primary expenditure authority for the board of county commission is found in KSA 19-229.

“The practical meaning of this  is the board is entitled to require staff to identify the position authority, adoptive budget authority, fund coding and legal basis for payroll charges,” he said.

Stanton said a second set of two statutes and two attorney general opinions deal specifically with landfill or solid waste hauling funds being used for administrative pay.

“These are discussed in KSA 65-3405, 65-3410 and two AG opinions,” he said. “Each of those references, in a specific way, relates to the situation the board of commissioners here face. Then you have your basic budget controls, which are covered in KSA 79-2929A, 79-2934 and 79-2935.”

Stanton said while CIC is the county’s accounting tool, legal control of the budget comes through the recently adopted and filed amended budget.

“If CIC does not match the adopted amended budget, the board should and must require reconciliation,” he said.

Stanton then asked a series of questions regarding the budget and the assistant administrator position. The first question was if the amended Fiscal Year 2026 budget had been entered into CIC at this time. Administrator April Warden said it had not.

“It takes a line item journal entry for every line item in the budget,” Warden said. “I also can’t have an outstanding journal entry out there when the clerk’s office or treasurer’s office is trying to close a month end budget.”

Because the CIC system cannot provide accurate reports at this time, Warden said she provides Excel spreadsheets for commissioners with the corrected budget and the expenses and revenues of where the county is at the current time.

Stanton asked if the assistant administrator position, currently occupied by former Landfill and Road and Bridge Supervisor Brock Theiner, had been eliminated in the amended budget process. He cited minutes from the commission’s Feb. 2 meeting where the issue had been discussed, and Warden said it had been discussed at other meetings as well.

Next, Stanton said what fund, department or cost center was paying Theiner’s wages and benefits.

“The landfill,” Warden said. “It’s no secret.”

“There had been a response to one of the KORA requests that there was nothing to support a percentage allocation. Is that correct?” Stanton said.

“That is correct,” Warden said. “It takes a while to figure out what percentage of time, and it’s certainly not going to be the same week after week.”

“Is there an accounting basis supporting this charge to the landfill or a portion of it, or that’s just where it is?” Stanton said.

“Right now, that’s where it’s at,” Warden said. “I will let the other commissioners, if you don’t have a recollection of it as to how we talked about funding that this year.”

Stanton then made a series of six motions, all of which died from lack of a second, in an attempt to address the problem. The motions included:

• The commission direct the county administrator, county clerk, treasurer, human resources and financial staff to provide a written report identifying Theiner’s current job title, position number if available, department assignment, fund, department code, cost center and the object code and the commission’s action or adopted budget line authorizing the position after adoption of the amended 2026 budget.

“I also include this report to be provided to the commission no later than the Thursday prior to the next commission meeting,” Stanton said.

• The commission direct the county administrator, clerk, treasurer and finance staff to provide a written reconciliation showing whether the commission’s adopted amended 2026 budget had been entered into CIC.

“We’ve been told it hasn’t been, so I’ll modify this to say since the active CIC budget version is not the amended budget, the parties should provide a fund by fund and department object code comparison to the adopted amended budget,” Stanton said.

• No payroll benefits, payroll taxes, KPERS, insurance, workers comp, vehicle benefits, PTO, longevity sell back PTO or related compensation for an assistant county administrator position be charged to the landfill  unless and until the board receives and approves a written legal basis showing the actual duties performed, the percentage allocated and the statutory authority to do this.

“I’m just making sure everyone’s aware that violates state statute,” he said after that motion died.

• Staff identify any payroll or benefit charges inconsistent with the adopted amended budget or restricted fund requirements and returned proposed correcting journal entries, interfund reimbursements or other corrective accounting actions to the commission for a review.

“This motion is not intended to withhold wages owed to any employee for work performed,” Stanton said. “The report should be provided to the commission no later than the Thursday prior to the next commission  meeting.”

• The commission request a written opinion from county counsel or if necessary independent counsel or the county auditor addressing whether landfill funds may lawfully pay any portion of an administration or an assistant county administrator position under the following statutes and opinions – KSA 65-3405, KSA 65-3410, AG opinion 2015-7 and 1997-55 – and any other Kansas budget or fund control statutes that would be relevant.

• Before Theiner is included in further executive sessions, the commission identify for the record the current commission-authorized position he holds, the fund and department paying for that position, whether the position exists in the adopted amended budget and state the necessity of his presence in announced executive sessions.

After the motions died, Stanton said he found it extremely troubling motions which are necessary for transparency to correct something where it appears unfunded positions are being continued against actions by this very board get no second or failed to carry.

“To me, this indicates a grievous governance issue in the face of what I see as probable failure to comply with multiple state statutes,” he said. “This is an election year. Keep this in mind gentlemen.”

Other commissioners, including Clay Louderback and Jairo Vazquez, said Stanton should have given them more notice to research the issue, as paperwork was delivered to them at Monday’s meeting.

“For us to be more prepared for this, we need to know beforehand other than putting us on the spot,” Louderback said.

“You literally dropped this on us,” Vazquez said. “How are we supposed to do any research on any of the things you’re asking us to vote on? That’s irresponsible.”

Stanton offered to have the motions tabled until the commission’s next meeting June 15. Vazquez said he would be willing to do that, but he still felt more transparency was needed.

“This wasn’t ready to go until today,” Stanton  said. “This needs to come forward. It’s out in the public being talked about, and these are serious issues.”

“You asked for this to be on the agenda, so obviously, you knew some of it, but you didn’t give us any information to do research and have a proper vote,” Vazquez said. “Is it responsible to make a vote if we haven’t done any research?”

“I don’t think these are difficult issues,” Stanton said. “This is a topic we’ve been talking about in executive session. This commission has multiple instances of things coming before it with very little to no notice. I would be happy to give you a list tomorrow morning. Would you like that?”

“I’m asking for the same courtesy to be able to have time to research this,” Vazquez said.

Warden suggested commissioners get an opinion from County Counsel Forrest Rhodes on tabling a motion. Stanton said he could bring the motions back at the June 15 meeting and provide background on each of them as well as the issue itself.

“The issue before the commission is what appears to be using restricted funds to pay for something it can’t be used to pay for, and it is something we have to address and have to deal with,” Stanton said. “It gets kicked around in executive session and not dealt with.”

Vazquez said he found the whole situation very frustrating.

“I like to do my research when I have any vote in any of this,” he said. “I spend hours outside of this meeting preparing for every single vote I take, so for you to just spring this on us is just frustrating. I expect more from you, but I’m a little disappointed right now.”

According to Stanton, the issue was not new.