Judges respond to funding flak from state

JEFFERSONVILLE — Editor's note: This is part one of a two-part series on Clark County Alcohol and Drug Services funding. Read part two in Monday’s News and Tribune.

The spending habits of Clark County Superior Court No. 3 caught the attention of the State Board of Accounts in a recent report, which stated it improperly used funds from the Clark County Alcohol and Drug Services fund.

The court, which has been renamed Clark County Circuit Court No. 3, operated the fund for more than 20 years without being cited by the state. During that time, money collected through a fee of $18 to $50 on all moving violations in the county paid a variety of expenses, including sponsoring local Little Leagues, paying for new carpet for the Clark County Courts and paying for blacktop for the 4-H Fairgrounds.

The money spent — $2.5 million over a five-year period — came from the traffic tickets, but were not always related to cases where substance abuse had been a factor, according to the Indiana State Board of Accounts.

Agree to disagree

In a response to the State Board of Accounts, former Superior Court No. 3 Judge Steve Fleece, who was the steward of the funds from 1995 through 2008, defended his actions.

“The dispute boils down to a difference of opinion over what activities of local government and allied nonprofit institutions can be financed by Alcohol and Drug Services funds,” Fleece wrote in a response letter.

The State Board of Accounts contended that the proper uses for the Alcohol and Drug Fee Funds were limited to individuals that have “legal obligations due to alcohol and/or drug use.”

“I think the State Board of Accounts has gone off the theory if it’s not specifically authorized it’s forbidden,” Fleece said. “And I go on the theory that if it’s not specifically prohibited, then it’s allowable.”

He said in the response letter that Indiana Code allowed for the alcohol and drug program funds to be used for “accompanying services.” The accompanying services he used the funds for were often directly related to alcohol and drug programs.

“There are some where I’m just astounded that they would say they’re not related to drug and alcohol services, because I think they’re clearly and obviously related to alcohol and drug services,” Fleece said.

Examples of directly linked expenses that were questioned by the State Board of Accounts included payments the court made for the county’s prosecutor in the drug court or funding given to the area halfway houses. Fleece defended money used to pay expenses at Bliss House — a halfway house for women; Jerry’s House — a halfway house for men; and Childplace — a facility with residential accommodations for teenagers battling alcohol and drug addiction, which has treatment programs for individuals that may have multiple, but nonviolent drug-related convictions.

“In effect, [the halfway houses] are taking people we’d otherwise be expending tax money on in jail, and they’re not only housing them and feeding them at their expense with no subsidy from government, but they are saving the government the cost of incarceration,” he said.

However, Fleece agreed that there may have been expenses the alcohol and drug fund covered that were outside the scope of the what and how the money should have been used.

“There were some things there that I would say were outliers,” he said. “There were times, maybe in retrospect, maybe I should’ve said ‘no.’”

Fleece offered as an example a request made by the Clark County Building Authority to pay for carpeting for the second floor in the Clark County Government Building. The request by building authority was made because it did not have the money to pay to recarpet the area, and it turned to the court because of a glut of money.

“For something like that, maybe I was too easy a touch,” Fleece conceded. “[If] the public thinks they’re all like that, that’s completely untrue,” he added, referring to the expenses cited by the State Board of Accounts. “Those are the outliers that are questionable to reasonable minds. But things like paying for sheriff’s cars and other things like that to me — their definition of what is related to alcohol and drug services is just way too narrow.”

Fees versus fines

One issue raised by Fleece, and even his detractors, was questioning why did the State Board of Accounts not issue an opinion earlier.

“The same types of ‘financial activity [allegedly] unrelated to the alcohol and drug services program’ have been going on for 20 years,” Fleece wrote in his response.

When asked why the State Board of Accounts cited the court so long after the alleged improper expenditures occurred, Fleece said it was because the state wanted the funds the county was collecting.

“I think they want the money,” he said. “I think it’s all a matter of they want the money to flow to Indianapolis. And that’s why [there’s] the distinction between fines and fees. If it’s a fine it has to go up there; if it’s a fee it gets to stay here.”

Fleece explained that because the county was offering a service, in the way of a pamphlet, the money charged on a ticket was construed as a fee and a change in the distinction is the biggest change in affecting the county.

Along with the redirection of the funds being collected, the implementation of a new financial management system in June 2010 helped to eliminate the practice of collecting fees on nonalcohol related offenses in the county.

“For some two decades prior to my tenure ... Clark County Drug and Alcohol Services have been funded by retaining a portion of each traffic infraction fine collected,” Clark County Circuit Court No. 3 Judge Joseph Weber wrote in a response to the SBOA. “The statutory premise for this arrangement was predicated on the stipulation that the court, by way of its probation department, was providing drug and alcohol assessment and treatment upon request.”

With the State Board of Accounts review, the procedure changed. But Weber said the same amount of money is still being collected; it is just being sent to a different place.

“The difference is the approximately $33 that was staying in Clark County, which also helped to pay the clerical help to process 30,000 tickets a year, is now going to Indianapolis,” he said. “So, for the infraction violator, there is no difference in what it is going to cost them getting a traffic ticket.”

Fleece reiterated that’s what he believed was the motivation behind the change.

“I think that’s really the main thing is they’re concerned that I captured the money,” he said. “But then on the other end of it, they also have concerns about ways that the money was used.”

Spending in 2008

The last year of Fleece’s tenure serving as Clark County Superior Court No. 3 Judge is also the year that the largest amount of expenditures were made out of the alcohol and drug fund. In 2008, spending out of the fund exceeded $1.4 million.

Among those were payments to Carriage Ford for two cars for Superior Court No. 3, one car for each of the other three county courts and four cars for the Clark County Health Department totaling $145,211. In addition, payments out of the fund bought new carpet for the judicial offices totaling $37,600; benches for the hallways in the judicial wing of the Clark County Government Building totaling $12,000; donations to various other state and local governments that totaled $147,433; to various county funds that totaled $130,440; and donations to other outside organizations including band boosters, parent teacher organizations, soccer associations and the Boy Scouts that totaled $127,240.

“If we had not captured so much money, there never would have been the ability or any consideration with assisting with youth programs,” Fleece said. “There wouldn’t have even been any money to consider assisting prosecutor, or health department or other things within county government.”

But the State Board of Accounts cited the use of the funds going to other governmental offices as improper.

“Governmental funds should not be donated or given to other organizations, individuals or governmental units unless specifically authorized by statute,” according to the report.

Another group of payments that was cited as an improper use of the funds were several salaries, or a portion of salaries, for three traffic bureau clerks and three superior court clerks that totaled $58,550.

“Payment of the above salaries is the responsibility of the county general fund,” according to the state board of accounts report.

Fleece disagreed with that assessment.

“There are several clerks in Clark County that do nothing but handle traffic tickets,” he said. “If the state had their way, the state gets all the money that those clerks process and the county picks up the entire tab for their wages and benefits. And it seemed reasonable to me that should come out of the traffic ticket money.”

Another payment out of the fund that Fleece defended was payment made for Little League and Clark County 4-H Fair programs.

He said the county formerly had programs sponsored through the Clark County Youth Coalition, which supported drug free activities for youth designed to steer kids away from drugs.

“The time came when they didn’t have very much money and we started doing those types of things,” Fleece said.

The requests then came to the court requesting funds, and Fleece said he donated money out of the alcohol and drug fund based on the precedent for all drug and alcohol programs throughout the state.

“I would defend all the things that we did for the youth organizations,” he said. “You don’t want to be a dog in the manger. We’ve got so much money and it’s coming in so fast, OK I’ll do it. That’s the kind of thing that in retrospect maybe I should have said, ‘no’ to that.”

Clark County

Search Results

Alcohol and Drug Fee fund by the numbers

Related Photos

Discussion

Judges respond to funding flak from state

Steven Fleece says his interpretation differs from SBOA's on spending

Site Map

Contact Us