As the former sheriff prior to Dennis Spruell, I wanted to correct Pat Requena’s assumptions in her recent letter. It surprised me that a former CPA would publish financial-based business assumptions without first obtaining the facts.
For those who did not see that letter (published Tuesday, July 30), I ask you to review it as it attempted to distract blame for Mr. Spruell’s continuing problems by saying that everything he did was inherited. I couldn’t disagree more and am forced to respond to correct that misinformation.
In March 2005, after being sworn in, I went through every budget line item at the agency and discovered some glaring problems including an illegal issue with the Community Corrections Program.
We made significant changes to the agency operations and the policy and procedures manual. There were a number of changes including additional checks and balances instituted on how the agency handled individual and multiple financial transactions. It didn’t cost the county any money; in fact it saved the county in many ways.
It is the responsibility of any sheriff or CEO to confirm the financial health of their organization upon entering office and to work to improve the agency for the benefit of the community and their staff.
It should be noted that the county administration office sends the sheriff a report each and every month that lists all detailed expenditures along with percentage of the budget year to date. It is certainly not difficult to decipher and it is key to managing the organization, as long as one chooses to utilize it.
When Mr. Spruell won the election, I offered to spend time with him explaining how all the systems operated to provide a smooth transition for the employees and the community, especially as he had publicly stated he wanted to continue the work that we had started. He declined that invitation.
Not long after Mr. Spruell was in office, I read where he had spent Law Enforcement Authority (LEA) funding on an item for the jail. I am not questioning the need for that item, but I did question using LEA funds to pay for it which was wrong, because those LEA funds cannot be used to supplant general fund dollars. The tax measure was sold to voters with that intention, and that is how we managed those funds to the letter.
Hoping that Mr. Spruell had just had made an oversight I sent him an email explaining the importance of the LEA. His response was that he was the Sheriff and he would spend money as he saw fit.
If I was still a property owner in the unincorporated area of the county, I would be furious that my tax dollars are still being used today to supplant the county general fund and therefore those property owners are not receiving the services that those dollars were designated for.
Lastly, the sheriff should explain about the bank account he opened with county contract funds that were already included into the sheriff’s office general fund budget at the beginning of the year. According to his own audit that account is still active.
His popular stance against federal oversight is nothing new. I and other sheriffs have fought this battle for a long time. We just chose to do it in a more professional dialogue.
In closing, I had truly hoped for success for Mr. Spruell, as the staff and the community needed him to succeed for the benefit of everyone, but unfortunately, he continues to isolate himself and hence the community by default.
Gerald Wallace preceded Dennis Spruell as Montezuma County sheriff.