In Your Corner

Martin County government is spending a huge amount of money

fighting lawsuits. This is money that would be better spent on projects

and services benefiting the taxpayers. In the past two years alone, more

than one million dollars has been paid to outside consultant attorneys

who supplement the work of our six-lawyer staff. Of further concern is

the matter of controlling and reporting of these litigation.

The County Attorney wanted outside litigation reported separately

and not in his budget citing as a reason that his department does not

‘control’ these expenses, therefore, his department cannot be

responsible for them. In one respect, he is correct. Litigation costs

are rarely created by the legal department, but more by the actions of

the commission or staff involving land use decisions. In that sense,

those costs are difficult, if not impossible for the County Attorney to

forecast.

On the other hand, the County Attorney currently exercises more

control over the litigation process than any other government entity. He

estimates that 40% (roughly $800,000) of his department’s efforts are

directed toward litigation matters, and he assigns work to in-house

attorneys or consultant attorneys based upon availability of in-house

capacity or expertise to do the job. He is responsible to both the staff

and the commission to forewarn of any legal problems associated with

pending legislation or land development decisions. Once litigation has

been initiated, he reviews progress of specific cases in executive

(private) session with the commissioners. It is his responsibility to

periodically report progress and costs on a case-by-case basis, and to

hopefully provide guidance, such as a cost-versus-benefits analysis of

the merits of continuing litigation.

The costs of all litigation, in-house and consultant, should be

easily determined from the Legal Department’s budget. Unfortunately,

this has not the case. Outside litigation is currently reported

separately, and we have excellent records of their costs. However, no

detailed accounting has been done of in-house work. We are happy to

report that the County Attorney has proposed an acceptable compromise.

The legal staff will begin to keep time/cost records while performing

litigation work in-house.

In a review of our neighboring counties to the north, it was

revealed that Indian River and St. Lucie counties also do not keep

detailed time and expense records of litigation work performed in-house.

When asked why, they responded pretty much alike...it wasn’t worth

their while, as the expenses were not all that significant. Our long

term goal is to be in that position. The comparison of 1999 Actual

budgets points out the disparity in legal costs between these counties.

Population Legal Dept. Budget

Outside Legal

Martin County 120,000 $1,013,522

$386,679

St. Lucie 183,000

764,428 included

Indian River 105,000

495,536 Less than 100,000

When questioned regarding his department’s low cost, the Indian

River County’s Attorney replied that the primary reason they have

generally avoided law suits is that "the commissioners are very

reasonable and receptive to the county attorney’s evaluation of

situations".

Surely taxpayers don’t hold the Martin County Attorney responsible

for the proliferation of litigation, but we do relay on him and his

staff to exercise all possible measures within the scope of their job

descriptions and authority to control these costs through their good

counsel and oversight. Then we can only hope someone is listening

***.

All divisions of government operate on a fiscal year basis, the

year begins on the first day of October. We conducted extensive

interviews with the Sheriff’s Office to not only clarify our ideas

regarding the sheriff’s budget for fiscal year 2000-2001, but to give

our readers a first-hand look into the planning and development of the

budget. The sheriff’s budget process must present certain information

required by the State of Florida, but can be in any form as long as it

meets these simple requirements.

The Taxpayers’ Association for years has recommended "zero-based’

budgeting as the most efficient method of determining how our tax

dollars should be allocated and spent. In simple terms, we are not in

favor of establishing a budget based on what the prior year’s budget was

and then adding a percentage of increase based on some cost of living

index. We feel that knowing exactly what the needs of government are,

starting at zero, and fully justifying each penny requested is

necessary. Although we have generally found the Sheriffs budget to be

resonably tight, We have always felt that a format that permitted

effective outside review is best for taxpayers; so far the sheriff has

not agreed.

The department has approximately 508 employees and the budget will

consume $28,547,253.00 in this fiscal year, a 5.24% increase over the

previous year. Of that amount, more than 86% is salaries, F.I.C.A.,

retirement, health insurance and workers compensation, all commonly

known as personal services. Twelve percent goes to operating expenses,

2% to capital outlay (major capital expenditures are financed by the

county government), and less than 1% to contingency needs.

Salaries of individuals are determined by a salary matrix that

takes into consideration an employees’ capabilities, experience,

training andcertifications. The sheriff himself determines who gets

raises based on recommendations through his chain of command, from chief

to colonel to 3 majors and on down. Generally speaking, Martin County

personnel are paid less than Palm Beach County personnel to the south

and St Lucie County to the north, and face less violence.

The ongoing budget process for the next year, 2000-2001, began as

soon as the fiscal year began. Four seminars were conducted in November

affording all employees an opportunity to know exactly how to plan their

budget requests for the following year. Literally,hundreds of budget

request forms were made available for these people to describe their

needs, cost of same and justification. Each major is responsible for

assembling budget request forms by the end of January, and after review

and discussion either approves or disapproves the request. He must be

abundantly aware of all of the facts behind the request because, once he

approves it, it is his approval that is then scrutinized in several

steps to follow. By February 18, all compilations of budget requests are

due to the comptroller.

The comptroller and his staff carefully review the requests they

have on hand and then assemble the Budget Review Committee (BRC). None

of the majors have a place on the BRC because it is their requests that

are being scrutinized and the only individual making up the BRC outside

of the comptroller and his assistant is the colonel. No later than

February 23 comes the request from the BRC to the majors for more

information. Between the middle of March and the end of March, the BRC

will interpret all of the data and prepare the first print-out for

review; an occasion the whole hierarchy of command is anxious to view.

The BRC and the Sheriff now meet. Depending upon what the first review

reveals in terms of possible excessiveness, more cutting is done.

By the beginning of April, the BRC meets with all three majors once

again. More reviews and cuts are certain to follow in the next two

weeks. The sheriff must now make final decisions, knowing that he can’t

provide everything the troops are requesting while still presenting a

budget that will make sense to a growing county at a palatable cost. His

budget will be ready for presentation to the Martin County Commission on

May 1, 2000. As in the past, we will review this document, it would be

nice if it were in a format that permits easier outside review.