COURT COSTS

Let me preface the rest of this blog with a disclaimer this is not a personal attack on any office holder it is simply an attempt to clarify what has been said several times by one of our local elected officials.  I am not sure whether it is intentional or simply a misstatement of the facts.

The latest mention of what I am referring to came in the County Judge's article of December 17, 2014.  The article titled Fine Collection Report states,"...This is only the amounts retained in the county; another 80% of this amount that they also collect we're required to send to the state of Texas as well."  The statement caught my eye as I have heard this said in Commissioners Court and at the time thought it was simply a misstatement.

The reality is that 0% of a fine in County or Justice Court is sent to the state.  If the fine in a court case is $2,000 every penny of it goes into the general fund.  However, the Judge might have been referring to court costs which are also a part of any judgement in a court case, and are in fact a much more complicated matter.  Court costs differ by court, and by case. 

The State Comptroller's web site has some good information on court costs and when and where they apply  There are many many court cost categories and some court costs are only applicable in certain counties.  Kind of a strange deal when you think about it.  

Court costs are used to fund many different areas of the court at the state and local level.  Some of the court costs do in fact remain in the county, but are dedicated to be used only in certain areas.  For instance the record maintenance fee is to be used by the county clerk to maintain court records.

A speeding ticket for ten miles over in Milam County Justice Court will cost you $155.00.  Of that $54.90 is the fine and that goes to the county.  According to an example receipt I obtained from a local JP the rest goes to court costs.  Some of the court costs areas include the MVF moving violation fine, IDF indigent defense fund, TFC local traffic fund, CHS courthouse security, SJRF jury fund, JCTF justice court technology fund, STF state traffic fine and CCC consolidate court costs.

As you can see there are a lot of different court costs, and those above are just in Justice Court. Out of the 155.00 traffic ticket I mentioned above a total of 75.90 goes to benefit the local government.  While some of the total is initially sent to Austin it is eventually returned to the local level.  

For instance the IDF or Indigent Defense Fund court cost goes to pay for indigent defense costs incurred by the county, and CHS Courthouse Security Fund goes to provide for local courthouse security.  So, while initially the fine, or 35.5% stays in the county a part of the 64.5% sent to the state does comes back to the county in some form or fashion.

At the county court level a typical court judgement could involve a fine of 0 to 4,000 dollars and up to 750 dollars in court costs.  Again the county would retain the entire fine and some of the court costs would go to fund local programs.  

Court costs are set and mandated by those in Austin the local courts just collect them.  By the way, the county also receives a percentage for "administrative costs" for collecting court costs for the state.

Now with all this being said I held off publishing this for awhile because it really did not, to my satisfaction, tell the whole story on court costs.  However, my determination paid off.  With the help of Nicole in Representative Farney's office I came across a publication titled, Study of the Necessity of Certain Court Costs and Fees in Texas.

This is an excellent 155 page report published in September of 2014 and gives the reader an excellent review of court costs and fees and where they came from and where they go.  Definitely worth the read if you are interested in anything there is to know about court costs and fees in Texas Courts.

You can access the report in pdf form via the following link:

http://www.txcourts.gov/media/495634/SB1908-Report-FINAL.pdf

...

RAISES FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES

Happy New Year to everyone. I hope that your start to 2015 was a good one. I know that Milam County employees have been looking to the new year to see just how the raise passed by the Commissioners Court will be affecting their paycheck in the coming year.

A raise is always a good thing, right? Well maybe yes maybe no. I guess you could say that a raise is always a good thing because it means that you are moving up the pay scale. However, it does not necessarily mean that you will be putting more cash in the bank.

Historically Milam County has been an entity that gave across the board raises. While I was in office the Commissioners Court instituted a merit based raise system that allowed the department heads to reward employees based on performance rather that just occupying a chair. For whatever reason the current leadership rescinded that policy upon taking office in 2011.

Personally I have always been opposed to across the board raises. Common sense tells me that an across the board raise treats all employees equally. Those that are outstanding employees receive the same reward for their efforts as the employees that are simply filling a chair. That cannot do anything to help morale or encourage improvement in employee performance within the ranks.

Now back to the raise is always a good thing comment. All Milam County employees received a 2.75% raise. All elected officials, except the County Judge, also received the increase. Not sure why the Judge opted out of the raise except that it might be some sort of a symbolic move to help balance the budget. Personally I believe he deserved the increase too.
 

The current entry level salary for Milam County is 21,500 dollars per year. It is higher for some skilled positions. Top salary paid by Milam County goes to the District Court Reporter. She receives $62,400 per year. Salary differences is one thing that I believe makes the across the board raise a bad idea. The bigger the salary the bigger the raise. Not always the right thing to do.

On the low end of the scale the person making 21,500 gets an annual raise of $591.25 before taxes. With the county paying every two weeks that means 26 pay periods for the year and a gain of $22.74 per pay check before taxes.  On the other end of the spectrum a $60,000 dollar a year employee receives a $1650 per year raise or $63.46 per pay check.  Neither one that big of an increase.

I am not sure that this has happened to any county employees as a result of this pay raise, but an increase could move some folks into a higher tax bracket.  Of course this would result in higher withholding of income tax and social security.  If the increase in withholding surpasses the pay increase a net loss results in take home pay.  

Can't happen you say?  I certainly hope that it doesn't, but I can attest to the fact it can.  Happened to me when I was working for the Extension Service.  I know this was not the intention of the Commissioners Court when they approved the raise, but it is one of those unintended things that could happen as a result of good intentions.

All that being said, the real reason someone should get a raise is because of performance.  Yes, cost of living should be considered, but even then the lower paid individuals should not receive the same percentage increase the top paid employees do. 

If you are going to give across the board raises perhaps an amount should be considered rather than a percentage.  That way everyone truly gets the same amount.  Bottom line for me is that employees need to be paid based on performance.  If they do a good job they deserve to be rewarded for it.  When those that do not perform do not get a raise they should be told why and then get the boot if they do not change their ways.

I constantly hear comments from the general public that  government should be run more like a business.  In the real world employees are considered for raises based on their performance.  Department heads are better able to judge job performance of their employees and better able to identify those that need raises and those that do not.  

The Judge and Commissioners do not have the day to day contact with employees in other departments and can not tell you whether they do a good job or not.  The court should allow those that hire and fire their employees determine what if any increase in pay is warranted for their employees, and provide a mechanism for merit increases to keep the good employees working for Milam County.    

WHY COMMUNICATE?

A lot has been going on in Milam County since my last blog, and I've been pretty busy myself.  Been working on this blog since the first of September, but have had to do one of those write it, set it aside, read it then rewrite it several times.  I want to communicate the real issues here.  It is what it is.

I read with interest The Judge's September 3^rd column on communication, or "Why Communicate."

Webster defines communication as; "the act or process of using words, sounds, signs, or behaviors to express or exchange information or to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc., to someone else."  The key part here is, "…to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc., to someone else."

Good communication is a very difficult process to achieve. Courses are taught everyday on effective communication skills.  Our own biases naturally enter into any communication we attempt, or a spin is placed on the communicated information to send the messages we want to be sent.  Take for instance FOX news or one of the liberal news media sources.  Give them the same story or information and you will see it communicated in two totally diametric styles.

Communication as many of you already know is a skill that we all use to get our point across.  Take sales of any product.  The advertisements for that product communicate the wonderful benefits that particular product will give you if you pay the price plus shipping.  Guaranteed or your money back, but wait if you order now…you all know the rest of the story.  This is an excellent example of communication being used to sway your opinion and get your money.  Unfortunately we see a lot of the same thing in all levels of government.

Not picking on Dave here, but he states in his column, "The fact is these hearings and notices are not even required if the proposed rate is not increased above the effective tax rate…"  However, according to the truth in taxation publication from the State Comptroller's Office, "After publishing the required notice, taxing units must hold two public hearings."  

 Now I am sure Dave meant he did not have to hold the Community Communication Meetings, but the reality is the county is required to hold two public meetings regardless of which way the tax rate goes.

My last blog predicted an increase in taxes for the taxpayers of Milam County, and as you can see I was right.  Judge Barkemeyer had several items on his personal agenda when running for the office.  One of which was increasing the county reserve to one million dollars.  Here is where the communication issue comes up.

Before finalizing the budget and during his community meetings he repeatedly painted a picture of county finances that would indicate a need for a tax increase to keep the county from going broke.  He notes in his communications several times the use of the 600,000 dollar reserve to balance the budget.  As a matter of fact if you look at the 2015 budget you will see there is no reserve on the expense side. 

However, if you look at media articles and listen to the Judge's monthly financial updates the county will wind up 2014 with over an 800,000 dollar reserve.  So if this is true why raise taxes on the people when you have the money to balance the budget?  If you will study the budget you will see the reserve tucked away in areas with the primary goal of communicating a need for a tax increase.

It is bad enough when our state and national leaders tell us one thing when they mean another, but for it to happen at the local level kind of makes you wonder just what is our country coming to.  The Judge is right, why communicate if you are not going to give us the whole picture?  Maybe all our elected officials need a course in effective communication.

BUDGET TIME AGAIN

It is budget time again for Milam County, and as always it will be a difficult task for Commissioners Court to determine the final figures.  Forget what you may have learned about budgeting in the real world of business.  Budgeting for county government is a horse of a different color.  Not because county officials want it that way, but because the state constitution and legislature have made it that way.

By law the Commissioners Court during the budget process must attempt to determine exactly how much revenue the county will receive and how much it will spend to the nearest penny during January 1 through December 31, 2015.  Mind you they have to do that before the end of September, or the 2014 budget and tax rate will automatically be adopted for 2015.  It's the law.

We all know how volatile our economy is.  Somebody shoots someone in an oil producing country halfway around the world and gasoline prices in Texas jump ten cents.  I can tell you from experience it is extremely hard to predict what things are going to be like in 2015 at this point in time.  I can tell you from experience that predicting the future is not an exact science.

There will be a lot of options for the Judge and Commissioners to consider this year just as there were last year.  The Judge chose the option of raising taxes in spite of the fact that Commissioners offered several different options during the budget hearings to avoid the tax increase.  Two Commissioners, Muege and Fisher, even voted against the 2014 budget because they felt there were options to raising taxes.

One thing that we need to see during the budget process is consistency.  Judge Barkemeyer has been quoted in the various media outlets in the county discussing the uncertainty of the revenue situation for 2015.  He has stated that the loss in valuation of Luminant of close to 70 million dollars will be offset by a 30 million dollar increase in mineral values for this year.  Then he is quoted saying it will be offset by the 20 million dollar increase in mineral valuation.

It is hard for me to understand why the chief financial officer for the county would not be aware of the real figures.  Actual figures for the certified appraised values for 2014 used to figure the 2015 budget show an increase in mineral values for Milam County at just over 12 million dollars.  Close to eight million less that the Judge has stated to the media.  These same figures are available to him and I sure hope he refigures mineral values to reflect the real increase.

Another area that I have been watching is the Judge's monthly financial reports for the county.  Hard to tell what is really going on when you compare what is said in Commissioners Court and then what is said in the media.  His court report for July seemed to be predicting doom and gloom.  Sales tax revenue down, income from housing prisoners off and other area of county income below projections.  However, he did indicate expenditures were about 10 percent below budget and this would help make up the lost revenue.

Then it is printed in the local papers that at the current pace the county could wind up adding 220,000 dollars to the general reserve.  What gives here?  For the last couple of years the Judge has praised the department heads for coming in under budget.  Question here is are they coming in under budget, or are they over budgeting for the departments?  From my experience I would say over budgeting.  It is just the nature of the beast.  The restrictions placed on the budgeting for counties forces courts to err a little on the plus side to insure that the budget makes it through the end of the year.

Lastly, the Judge has referred to an 800,000 dollar plus reserve we currently have, and that we will add another 200,000 plus to it this year.  So his personal agenda of building a reserve of a million dollars is in view.  Now the question is does he continue on his personal agenda and raise taxes again, or does he look at other options such as using some of the some of the reserve to balance the budget.  In his reelection campaign he promised four more years of the same, so I bet we see another tax increase.

The final word as to whether or not the tax payers will help achieve the Judge's personal agenda lies with the Commissioners.  If you are concerned talk to your commissioner and let them know what you think.  One thing that is consistent is that three always beats two in commissioners court.

  

TRANSPARENCY IS AN OPINION

Transparency is one of those warm and fuzzy words that all levels of government like to toss about.  Just what is transparency?  I would say that it all depends on who you are talking to.  Should every little thing be out in public view?  Are there some things that perhaps the general public just does not need to know?  Again, it all depends on your perspective.

There are some micro-managing type A folks that probably would like to see a second by second accounting of what our government officials do.  I disagree with that thought.  We elect individuals to conduct the day to day business of our government and we need to let them do just that.  On the other hand letting government officials decide what we the public needs to know or not know brings on situations like crashed hard drives and the current IRS issues going on in Washington DC.

Locally we have situations where we are allowed to know only a part of the story.  For instance several months ago Judge Barkemeyer gave the Bryant Station Bridge to a local individual who had requested ownership of the bridge so that it could be moved to another location.  While being warned that there might be issues that needed to be looked into Judge Barkemeyer said he did not care this is what he wanted to do and the bridge was going to be given to the individual making the request.

If you do not know the rest of the story you do not know that the County Attorney advised the Judge that it was illegal to give away county real property.  It had to be put out for bid or auctioned off according to the law.  True transparency would have required the Judge to come back to court and put in the minutes that what he had done was cancelled because it was against the law and he did not have the authority to do it.

Another example of transparency issues arises with personnel.  As Judge I had an instance where an audit of a department showed the department head was not doing their job and was setting the county up for some real trouble.  Since this individual served at the pleasure of the court they were offered the opportunity to retire, resign or be fired.  The individual opted to retire so we left it at that.  Should the options the court had given the individual have been made public?  Was it necessary to inform the public the person was doing such a poor job that they would be fired if they did not elect to retire?  In my opinion no, but others probably disagree.

What about Executive Sessions?  The law allows for the Commissioners Court to go into Executive Session under certain circumstances.  The circumstance under which the court retires to the Executive Session is made public but their discussion of the particulars of the issue that enabled the Executive Session is not.  Transparency?

There are some things that the general public might not need to know, but how do you separate the plethora of information that occurs everyday at the local, state and federal level.  It is utterly impossible to meet everyone's level of transparency and define what's important and what's not.  For President Obama it is whatever he thinks is important, and for Judge Barkemeyer it is the same.  Bottom line is that it depends on your opinion and like noses we all have one.