ROBERT PIERCE

   • Leader & Times

Typically, items in the consent agenda are quickly approved with one motion at most commission meetings, but recent concerns about an employee in one department being paid from another department have raised more than a few eyebrows from Seward County leaders and constituents.

At Monday’s meeting, commissioners would later address and fix that situation, and another of the items in the consent agenda was taken care of prior to that.

After a discussion of about 10 minutes, voted to accept, not approve, two registers from Treasurer Mary Rose, one from June 8 through June 21 in the amount of $36,161.06 and the other from June 1 to July 5 in the amount of $79,720.99.

“I requested these items be pulled off because we had not received a detailed check register,” Commission Chairman Steve Helm said.

Initially, Helm said commissioners had not received a detailed check register, adding they were approving more than $100,000 with the use of the money not being known.

Vice Chairman Todd Stanton asked if Rose could explain what commissioners were getting and not getting.

“She explained to me one time they are confidential checks,” Helm said. “I’m here to say there’s no check the county writes that is a confidential check.”

Rose suggested commissioners take that matter up with the Kansas Department of Revenue, and she is statutorily obligated to produce a check register but not with details.

“I sent that to you guys in an e-mail explaining why you would not be getting details because of the confidentiality of that,” she said. “All of those checks that are run through the office for the treasurer’s register are for taxes, refunds on motor vehicle and refunds for property taxes.”

“You’re merely following the statute as you understand it,” Stanton said.

Rose said 90 percent of the checks are for motor vehicle transactions, and that information cannot be given out.

“That is not information that can be given out, so a total has been given to you every single time in the book,” she said.

“Is this the first time there’s been an issue?” Stanton said. “How often do we see this particular register? Is it monthly?”

“It’s been in there since it was requested I believe since the end of May,” Rose said. “We started putting that in there. I also sent out e-mails letting them know the total amounts.”

Treasurer’s office staff recently generated numerous refunds checks for county property owners when the budget was returned to the Revenue Neutral Rate, and Rose said that check register was detailed because those taxes were done under RNR.

“That entire check register was in there because it was taxes,” she said. “It also had the total for the motor vehicle for the register that was done through the treasurer’s checking. This is the first time historically we’ve had any issues with it. We have tried to abide by the rules you have asked for. The problem is the confidentiality of the motor vehicle part.”

Rose said the remaining 10 percent of checks were considered tax refunds.

“If somebody comes in does an escape, the treasurer issues tax checks for that and also for distribution,” she said. “All of that is statutory. None of this is to withhold or say I’m doing something illegal. Taxes pay for taxes, so if they’re coming in with a motor vehicle, that stuff is confidential. If it was for taxes, that is not confidential, but because it’s coming from the same check register, I cannot decipher between those two.”

Rose emphasized issuing checks is her statutory duty.

“I don’t have to have your approval to refund the taxes to the taxpayer,” she said. “That’s what I’m here to do.”

Commissioners and staff asked County Counsel Forrest Rhodes for an opinion on the matter, but he said without looking at the registers, he did not have an opinion on what was being represented as to what could and could not be shared.

“We could find that out,” he said. “My understanding is you’re being asked to essentially accept what’s already occurred. You’re not approving something prospectively. If you want to table it until next month, you could table it until next month. I don’t know there’s any harm unless the treasurer thinks there is in not doing something.”

With these transactions being done daily, Rose said commission approval is not needed.

“This is what’s supposed to happen in my office,” she said. “This is what I was elected to do. I am elected to handle the taxes to the taxpayers and issue those refunds to them as well as distribution. All of this is done out of my office per statutory obligation. It doesn’t need your approval. It is being transparent, showing you what has been done.”

Rhodes asked Helm if he wanted to know if he was getting all of the information he could and if more information is being kept confidential than should be.

“We can figure that out,” Rhodes said. “I don’t know the answer to that question off the top of my head. If that’s your question, we can figure it out before the next meeting, but I don’t want to speak for you if that’s not the question.”

County Clerk Stacia Long said one reason the issue was brought is Rose had been paying purchase orders out the account, and that is no longer being done.

“They were not seeing your purchase orders because they’re all coming through payables,” Long said. “They’re not paid for out of that checking account.”

Rose said she believed commissioners had confused the treasurer’s fund with the treasurer’s check.

“The treasurer’s fund is what we call in the office a 510 account the treasurer has statutory obligation and has 100 percent control over,” she said. “That is where we’re sending that through with the payables through the clerk’s office to pay that. You guys are seeing that’s being transparent. The treasurer’s check is coming through my office for the statutory obligation I have for taxes to the citizens of Seward County.”

Helm asked if the commission wanted to table the item until the board’s next meeting scheduled for Aug. 3 to allow Rhodes to give a legal opinion. Rose said the transactions in the register could not be undone.

“This is stuff that has to be done by date every day,” Rose said. “If you’re asking about the treasurer’s fund, that’s something completely different, but you’re coming into a fine line between statutory duties and what you want to approve to come through the treasurer’s office. You can’t do that.”

Rhodes said Rose’s remarks suggested to him the commission was seeking to approve expenditures rather than trying to understand what was already made.

“Are you asking for me to simply look into the volume of information you’re getting about those expenditures and whether you’re getting the right amount of information, or am I misunderstanding?” Rhodes said. “I just want to make sure I understand the question.”

“They’re on our agenda under the consent agenda, so we are affectively approving those checks,” Helm said.

Rhodes said he did not know if commissioners were approving the register or accepting Rose’s report into the record of what happened in the treasurer’s office.

“Having not seen that report or looked into what can and cannot be confidential, I’m not in a position to tell you tonight whether that report is right, as complete as it could be for what information you’re seeking, but I would agree with what Mary said,” Rhodes said. “You’re not being asked to approve the expenditures. You’re simply being made aware of what has occurred, but I don’t know whether the amount of information you’re getting is as much as you’re entitled to or as you might want.”

Administrator April Warden said when commissioners get their general ledger report each for the 510 account Rose was referring to, they can look at the expenditures in the ledger report that shows what is being spent.

“As Mary explained and Stacia explained, since it was brought to her attention and she’s trying to be more transparent, she is now sending purchase orders through for office supplies, meals, travel expense reimbursements that were originally being paid out of the 510 account,” Warden said. “She is now putting those through payables so they are hitting the check register so you guys are seeing them on the check register you are approving.”

To help with concerns, Rhodes suggested phrasing the motion to accept what had been presented rather than approve it.

Stanton made the motion to accept was presented in the treasurer’s register in the two periods, but he said he would still like to get a legal opinion from Rhodes.

“It sounds like some of this stuff is confidential,” Stanton said. “You don’t have a way to separate it.”

Commissioners voted 4-0, with Commissioner John Mettlen absent, to approve the motion.