Court, Auditor Battle Over Expenditures
Ohio legislators continue to propose amendments to the massive 2020-21 fiscal budget bill as it barrels its way toward a June 30 due date.
Ohio legislators continue to propose amendments to the massive 2020-21 fiscal budget bill as it barrels its way toward a June 30 due date.
One amendment that could have a local impact, proposed by state Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), is a minor adjustment to the portion of the Ohio Revised Code that applies to county auditor oversight of payments county offices request.
The change would directly impact an ongoing conflict between Geauga County Juvenile and Probate Court Judge Tim Grendell and Geauga County Auditor Chuck Walder over court expenditures.
The law currently states the auditor shall issue warrants for payment “upon presentation of the proper order or voucher and evidentiary matter for the moneys.”
Evidentiary matter is defined as original invoices, receipts, bills and checks, and legible copies of contracts.
Seitz’s amendment would allow payments when the auditor receives either a voucher and evidentiary matter, or a court order attesting to the public purpose for the expenditure.
Kate Jacob, chief compliance officer at the Geauga County Auditor’s Office, said it would remove an essential safeguard that protects public funds.
“The (Geauga County) Commissioners would still have some say in terms of the appropriation process, but after that point, the amendment would severely inhibit county oversight over courts spending county money,” Jacob said.
In 2017, Seitz, a colleague of Grendell’s from their time together in the Ohio House, filed an amendment to the Ohio budget that would have given probate judges like Grendell more power over park districts. When that failed to gain traction, it was repurposed as a standalone bill, which also failed to pass out of the Committee on Government Accountability and Oversight.
County Conflict
Last fall, Robert Williams spent several days working at the juvenile court community garden in Hambden Township, pulling up plants and preparing the garden for winter.
Attorney David Welty worked the help desk, providing legal information to those representing themselves before the probate and juvenile court.
Attorney Michael Wagner worked as a guardian ad litem for the juvenile court.
However, as of early April, the three contractors had not been paid — an issue Geauga County Probate Juvenile Court Administrator Kim Laurie laid squarely at the feet of Walder.
“Over the past six months, Auditor Walder’s improper actions and unconstitutional demands are creating a bottleneck for the court’s financials,” Laurie wrote in an email to the Geauga County Maple Leaf.
The three contractors were represented in a lawsuit filed April 8 by Grendell’s son, Cincinnati attorney James Grendell, asking for a writ of mandamus ordering payment.
Laurie said the auditor’s office, which is granted oversight powers by Ohio Revised Code, delayed or denied payments to over 30 of the court’s vendors, totaling over 50 invoices. In the court’s view, all of the payments are for proper public purposes.
“Affected vendors include, but are not limited to: the local attorney who runs the court’s help center, which helps Geauga County residents who can’t afford an attorney navigate the court process; lawyers who protect people’s constitutional rights before the court; mileage reimbursement for visiting judges; a local nonprofit organization that provides prosocial services to juveniles; local business owners who provide services to support the Juvenile Community Service Garden, which teaches juveniles personal responsibility and provides food to local food banks, churches and senior centers; newspapers that publish statutory notices for court cases; mileage reimbursement for court bailiffs who serve case documents to case parties,” Laurie wrote.
She said nonpayment of invoices has created problems for some vendors and one has notified the court it would no longer provide a service that is statutorily required until it receives payment she claims is being improperly withheld by the auditor.
But Walder’s office says the real issue is the court’s filing of expenditures without following procedures laid out in the ORC.
In an email exchange with another vendor that was provided to the Maple Leaf, Walder explained a payment could not be approved because the expenditure was not properly submitted.
“Encumbrances are required to pre-date obligations except when encumbered under ‘Then and Now’ purchase orders and other specific cases,” the email said. “This information has been communicated to the court for their correction and re-submission … I do not believe that it is lawful for me to pay this invoice in its current submission form.”
Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz requested an opinion from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost in February to clarify the role of the auditor in determining whether an expenditure is proper. Yost’s answer came March 27 and it upholds the county auditor’s role under the law to require evidentiary matter supporting payments out of the county treasury.
“The auditor is empowered to question the validity of the payment even if it is within an available appropriation and a proper order or voucher with evidentiary support has been presented,” Yost wrote. “In the event the county auditor makes the determination that the expenditure should not be allowed, the public entity seeking payment is specifically authorized to seek a writ of mandamus directing the auditor to issue a payment warrant in spite of that officer’s concerns or objections.”
However, Yost’s opinion also states a county auditor “may not exercise the prerogatives of his or her office so as to unreasonably refuse to honor a proper and appropriate request of a court,” a section Laurie highlighted in her email response.
Yost wrote conflicts like the one between the auditor and the court must be determined on a case-by-case basis. A decision in the April 8 lawsuit, which the Ohio Supreme Court sent to mediation April 26, would apply only to those three vendors’ claims.
Although the lawsuit is still being mediated, Williams has since been paid, after the auditor’s office received further supporting documentation for the payments from the court. Welty and Wagner have not been paid in full because the auditor’s office has still not received evidentiary matter to support those expenditures.
Laurie said the court has no feud with Walder and does not expect a “blank check” from his office.
“The court consistently cooperates with the expenditure requirements legally defined by law, in the same manner that is has for 25 years without any problems under Judge Chip Henry and prior county auditors,” she said.
