White River Township up close

This is the second of a three part discussion of township governments. The first , Township Government out of control, looked across the townships of Johnson County. Today the focus is on White River Township (WRT).

The “Merger study final tab should be $18,000” read the headline in the March 26, 2010 Daily Journal. (b) This amount is divided between Greenwood and White River Township about evenly, because our populations are nearly equal. In the article Township Trustee Jay Marks says he has not yet received a bill, but because no money had been budgeted for the reorganization so he wasn’t sure how it would be paid for.

This is an interesting response considering a review of invoices submitted to the WRT offices include about $20,000 in accounting consulting fees and another $4,500 for legal fees. It appears none of these fees were authorized by the Reorganization Committee. (c) Marks explains that he engaged these consultants in order to ensure the citizens of WRT were receiving accurate information. This is a great motive, but it’s not part of his job description. As Trustee he is responsible for attending to abandoned cemeteries and providing poor assistance. (There’s also some role to play in the elimination of noxious weeds.) Legal, financial and accounting fees have gone from about $3,500 in 2007 to nearly $39,000 in 2009, over ten times more! (d) This self-assumed extension of his responsibilities cost the taxpayer nearly $25,000.

Financial responsibility is at the core of public service. There are two measures: 1) How efficiently are the required services delivered and 2) Are the financial records accurate? According to information collected by three WRT residents, the township is the least efficient in the county. Forrest Mellott, John Griffin, and Mark DeVoe created the Township Government Budget Study. (a) There are good reasons to look more closely at how White River Township measures up.

What is efficiency? It’s a simple measure of how much of the budget goes to providing those essential services compared to the total budget. In the case of WRT the total budget for cemetery care and direct assistance for 2009 is $40,000. The eye-popping total budget is $404,800! Basically, for every $100 in the township budget about $10 goes for the essentials. Beyond salaries (about 25% in 2009) where does the rest go?

The records contain information about the township finances that seem to go well beyond the core responsibility of the Township. In 2009 the Trustee plans to spend about $160,000 on “machinery and equipment” In the 2008 budget this line item was $175,000 for a two-year total of $335,000 or 42% of the total budget! What did we get for that money? The County takes care of the roads and ditches. The Township outsources much of the cemetery maintenance. Did we buy a backhoe? If so, we should have rented. Is this how you want your tax dollars spent? Is this the level of accountability you want from your Township Trustee?

If the requested audit concluded that White River Township accounts are murky it would not be surprising. “Simple” investigation by citizens has found errors in the recording of receipts and the management of the cash. (e) The County distributed the township’s share of the property tax revenue on December 30, 2009 (f), but it was not recorded in the 2009 budget, effectively understating the cash available to the township.

There is also confusion on the handling of one or two $125,000 CDs. The interest and renewal of the CDs is not clearly recorded resulting discrepancies in the available cash. Additional details on these discrepancies can be found here (i) and here (j).

These might be thought of as relatively minor errors, the public requires a full an accurate accounting of its funds. It has to have total confidence in the trustee to manage the budget. As the Request for Audit (e) concludes the “errors and omissions suggests that … the total cash and investments for White River Township are significantly larger than stated in the 2009 report. “ The report concludes suggests Jay Marks, the White River Township Trustee, could have over $1.2-million at his disposal next year.

Marks also chose to give WRT funds to two county charities: Fast Track and Partnership of Healthy Johnson County. The total amount contributed to these two charities was $4,200. (a) After a bit of an internet search, I concluded these are worthy charities. However, it is not in the job description of the Trustee to make charitably contributions, certainly to organizations which operate outside of WRT. I can imagine how Mr. Marks may think this as part of his responsibility to care for those in need, but his focus needs to stay within White River Township.

Ironically, when it comes to direct assistance to those in need the WRT budget shows it provides the lowest benefits on a per person basis of any Johnson County township. Last year WRT budgeted $60 per person. Compare that to Union Township where they budgeted $369 per person or Needham at $188. (a)

There is very little oversight of any trustee’s finances. This means that within Johnson County alone there are nine township governments that display inefficiency to one degree or another, while serving a very limited purpose. Mobility and connectivity are no longer issues, as they were when township governments were formed. While I do think that holding government close to the people is very important, I also think it is important the government efficient and capable. Therefore, we would be better served if township government was dissolved and its responsibilities being divided between the county and cities.

This report was written by Dann Veldkamp and the choice of examples and opinions are his responsibility. You can find copies of the original document by following these links:

a) Township,Government Budget Study, November 2008

b) Merger study final tab should be $18,ooo

c) Invoices from accountant & lawyer for Merger Study – 2009

d) WRT accounting & legal fees 2007, 2008, 2009

e) WRT: Citizen Request Audit

f) WRT: Citizen Request: 2010 budget

g) WRT Trustee Financial Summary

h) Johnson County Tax Payment to WRT

i) WRT Financial Report Discrepancies, 2008 – 2009

j) WRT Tax Distributions

Related posts (Automatically generated):

1. Board budget cutting attempt results in more legal fees
2. Price to run for representative