JEFFERSONVILLE — I might suggest that the recent discussion about two audits of the Clark County alcohol and drug fund be measured in the context of the law. Maybe it’s time to get to reality about the issues at hand.

Conspiracies or political reasons for a state agency questioning the one man in control of nearly $1 million? County Council President Barb Hollis suggesting her board feared some mandate order to approve some requests?

I respectfully suggest that everyone get back to the law, get calm and maybe all involved can improve our system of justice as we move forward.

In all that has been written about this topic a significant point seems to have been overlooked. The extra money charged in those other years that former Judge Steven Fleece wrote about belonged to citizens, some from this county who might have been issued a ticket on Interstate 65. It cost them to come up with that extra money. Perhaps this was in the minds of legislators when they provided specific spending functions of this fund. If someone’s plan was that other things were to be done to keep the money “local,” that’s a good thought. But the law must be followed as the first threshold to cross on any case.

It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Indiana State Board of Accounts — charged with auditing 92 counties in Indiana, all cities, towns, libraries, water districts, fire districts and so on — would drop all of that workload elsewhere to form some kind of political or personal action here. On the other hand, it might be useful to simply face the problems squarely, deal with their audits and put new repair mechanisms into place so that more write-ups will not occur. There have been two specific write-ups reports in two years on this subject. The system of justice can get better if we, perhaps, learn from what has occurred.

Successor Judge Joe Weber has said he has cut down on some of the Fleece-era spending. That’s a ray of hope. The best analysis of all of this may be to follow the law, identify the sources of the funds, the uses of the funds, address the state auditors’ concerns, correct problems and move into the future.

This entire topic involves “public money.” It is the regular practice for the board of accounts to routinely conduct audits and raise questions about public money, whether at this spending level or otherwise. It is no surprise to anyone that local government offices across Indiana (here, too) are subject to periodic audits by this agency. It is also the law that all Clark courts are unified for some operations. This law creates a Board of Judges to act collectively. Our new board can participate in curing these kinds of problems to avoid write-ups and move our system forward. This can be a very positive change.

On the local scene, services like Jerry Westmoreland’s recovery services, Bliss House, the Drug Courts (adult and juvenile) and the like are proper uses of this alcohol and drug fund money. Families in need due to a member having an addiction that affects all of them seem appropriate beneficiaries, too.

Given the hundreds of tickets written on the local interstate system, it seems reasonable to also have contributed to the traffic bureau for operational funds to facilitate management of citations flow and services. The audit board disagreed with this last point, but maybe there is room for respectful dialogue there. This alcohol and drug fund has supported such positive needs to date and these are surely local in nature and location.

Also, the ladies in the traffic bureau are a hard-working, dedicated staff. The volume of tickets they manage is always enormous and they are a credit to public service. In contrast, nothing in this law would appear to allow discretionary photo media giveaways of this money, or other excessive payouts, after citizen payments increased the fund balance. Many of the important benefits supported by that fund run a risk of being overshadowed until the audit questions get answered.

The state auditors made a practical, objective study of what is documented on paper and in canceled checks. The second board of accounts report was issued March 22. That was more detailed than the first report and spoke to very precise problems of money management and spending. Such serious questions must be answered. So, the best course to help improve the system would seem to begin by addressing, in detail, the write-ups so problems do not occur again.

The board of accounts’ auditors are public servants and citizens too, doing their job as they see it needs to be done. Some have lived “local” and are a far cry from participating in some conspiracy. They are a “check” on public spending. It’s part of our American system to have “checks and balances.” Continuing to criticize the board of accounts will not move the problem further toward solution.

New Chief Probation Officer Henry Ford is a talented man with impressive credentials. He was asked to look at the first board of accounts report in November as court unification approached. He was asked to review what appeared to be excessive fringe benefits, reports of charges and (nonlocal) Las Vegas and New York trips before 2009. Ford has demonstrated he is the right man to supervise repairs and changes with the best interest in mind.

We can improve the administration of justice with his skilled assistance in, at least, the following ways:

(a) Money in that fund should only be spent for a legal purposes defined within the statute; (b) Stop the pamphlet practice; (c) No sign-offs at gas stations (to fill up a tank on employee vehicles) except for legitimate alcohol or drug related services, approved by Ford; (d) Abide by the board of accounts reports to stop excessive use of alcohol and drug money to pay for more than 20 cell phones; (e) stop the free, undocumented use of public vehicles for a select few; and (f) other changes Ford could recommend.

The 2012 Board of Judges — Dan Moore, Jerry Jacobi, Vicki Carmichael and Joe Weber, under the new Unified Court law — collectively, have the capacity to create a new sound money management system with Ford’s assistance. The questions in the reports and subject area from past years need to be formally addressed and answered. Those in charge in prior times may have to provide more details. But this is part of the process too.

Then we need to start rebuilding. Fleece retired four years ago. Let’s wish him well. The new 2012 court system here holds great promise to fix things. The future is where our legal and justice focus should be.

— Daniel E. Moore is the Clark Circuit Court No. 1 judge.