Thank goodness the Constitution means what it says. Below are the results of the long-awaited but
not surprising to this Auditor, results of the Washington State Attorney
General's review of Franklin County, WA Commissioners' practice of declining
health benefits and using the cost of those benefits as a price point to
distribute cash payments to themselves and others. The practice of the
Legislative Authority taking additional cash payments and increasing said
payments during their term is unconstitutional.
The state Constitution is the foundation and guiding
document that all elected officials in Washington State swear in their OATH OF
OFFICE.
“ I_________ do solemnly swear that I am a Citizen of the
United States, and of the State of Washington; that I will support the
Constitution and Laws of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the
State of Washington…
Unfortunately, the practice was reviewed and supported by
the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney (PA). A note of appreciation to MRSC for providing an
independent and general review of the Constitution that allowed a creditable
challenge of the practice by County Auditing staff.
Several documents
have been included to illustrate that in my first year in office it was clear
that practice was “additional income.” Only
over the years did legal opinion and support of the unconstitutional practice
change. It should be noted that two of
the commissioners, Mr. Didier and Mr. Mullen, were not part of creating or
voting for the policy but were adversely impacted by the policy that was in
place when they took office. They both made payments as soon as they were aware
of the situation. In county government,
the entity and its elected officials rely on the PA to review and ensure the
official actions are compliant with the State Constitution.
CLICK on the following items to view the PDF document:
1. AGO2. Calculation of the potential total impact with supporting documentation. It appears from the opinion that all the cash payments are unconstitutional and should be recovered, as the salaries were advertised at the beginning of each term. I suggest the public read the opinion and see what you think. Note: It will be up to the counties legal representation to determine based on the law and timing of the “additional income”.
3. 2011 email of the still elected PA stating the obvious, that policy did create “additional income”.
4. A local media editorial criticizes of Auditor for raising the issue. I was never interviewed. Note: MRSC service has” lawyers” and provides general considerations for the government in Washington State.
5. A social media post by an elected official that has been aggressively critical of the Auditor Department and our role in accounting for public dollars and reporting situations that need to be reviewed for potential action.
