Shelby Co. (ECWd) –
The Shelby County Board passed a credit card policy during their last regular meeting. When board member Tim Brown questioned the reasoning for adopting the policy since they already had one, Chairman Mayhall indicated it was being done to align with the Clerk’s Office, which handles accounts payable.
I raised one question during public comment regarding the policy, which can be heard in the video. .
“Can you tell us whether or not the credit card policy includes a provision for County Board members to get credit cards?”
Chairman Mayhall took a brief pause and reviewed the policy and then responded, NO, as in there is no provision for County Board members to get credit cards.
Not surprisingly, his answer was not true. The policy clearly provides a mechanism for county board members to get a credit card.
“Requests for a credit card can be made by a department head, board member, agency head or at the request of the Finance Committee through the County Clerk’s Office by completing the Credit Card application/agreement form (see attached). A copy of this form will also be available on the county website under the County Clerk’s office.”
The only statutory provision for an elected board member to obtain a credit card that we have ever found is in the Community College Act ( 110 ILCS 805/3-7(e) ). Had the legislature intended for County Board members to have a credit card, they would have included it in the law just like they did for the CCA. The fact that they did not, created what is known as a statutory prohibition. Had I been provided an accurate response to my question, I would have explained it during the rest of my public comment.
Reading the policy, it is clear the people who created it have no clue of some of the most basic operations and authority of a county board.
“The cards should be used to eliminate the need for direct reimbursements when authorized by the respective department head, agency head or Shelby County Finance Committee.”
Considering the law indicates reimbursement for expenses is the mechanism for county board members to recoup such expenses and does not provide a mechanism for eliminating that process, the policy conflicts with the law. The reasoning for reimbursement as the mechanism for recovering expenses is that the law does not give board members the power to spend money independently of a county board vote.
Other concerns with this policy are the alleged power being given to a Finance Committee.
“Card privileges can be restored at the discretion of the Finance Committee after the 90-day suspension concludes.”
Committees are advisory to the county board, with one exception about allowing or disallowing claims to the county, which must be exercised through a resolution. A committee’s duties are to bring matters to the full board for approval. They can not be delegated powers that belong to the board, which is what this policy attempts to do.
“Purchases may be made at the direction of the Department head, agency head or authorized committee.”
While a county board has the power to make certain purchases, there is no provision for it to delegate that power to a committee. If a committee wishes to make certain purchases, they are to present that to the full board for a vote. The only exception to that is found in the Cook County Commissioner portion of the counties code (55 ILCS 5/2-6010). The fact that the legislature provided a provision to the Cook County Commissioners to delegate certain purchasing power and was silent on that subject for county board members creates a statutory prohibition on the county board.
Reading the newly adopted policy, we note it does not rescind or amend the prior policy, which means there are now two policies. Comparing the recently adopted policy to the credit card policy ordinance, it’s clear a whole lot of safeguards have been removed. The vast differences in the 2 policies, 2 pages vs 11, indicate to us that Mayhall’s evasive answer to Tim Brown during the meeting was not accurate.
After confirming the answer provided to my question during the meeting was not accurate, I asked Mayhall the following.
“Why would you say no when the second paragraph of the policy clearly includes a provision for County Members to get a credit card?”
His response is most telling.
“I overlooked the words “board member” in the section titled “How to obtain a card:”. I made a mistake and misread it on the spot.”
I asked another question.
“Who wrote the policy?”
Mayhall has chosen to ignore that question. How special.
I was told the policy was created by the legislative committee, which Mayhall is the chairman of.
How does one overlook board members and finance committee members, who are board members, getting a credit card when they were a party to the creation of that policy?
Mayhall provided other completely irrelevant diatribes to my simple question that once again tells the world why we continue to expose matters in Shelby County.
“Regardless of what I say to you, you will do your best to continue your attempts to change the perception of the good people in Shelby County. Take an objective look at how you lost your relevance here and in other communities. I have talked to people as recently as yesterday, who once believed you were trying to do good, and they have now completely disregarded anything you write. You can continue to write about me, in fact, I encourage it. It only makes the good people of Shelby County more relevant to those who live here, all the while, it continues to degrade your relevance.”
“Rather than continue to try and use negative writings to tear down good people, try focusing on the good things that have been done. That seems a little more in line with a charitable organization that is supposed to support community welfare. There are plenty of good topics, but being seasoned investigative reporters, I will let you do the investigative work on those.”
A key priority of any local government accountability organization is not to pat them on the back when they follow the law, but rather to expose them when they do not. Had my initial question been answered with a truthful response, I could have addressed the need to rescind the policy until numerous problems in it are properly addressed.
While Mayhall appears to believe our reporting is trying to use negative writings to tear down good people, he would be well advised to learn that good people provide honest and transparent answers to basic questions, which has not been the case with Mayhall.
Good people do not create justification or excuses for violating our laws. What did Mayhall say about the recent finding of violating our Open Meetings Act? “We were under some time pressure”, (Article here)
We will continue to report on matters in Shelby County because it is clear there is still a need for the truth to be reported.
No Comments