Roadman

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 8 p.m.

"...and a final report is expected to be available on Monday." Oops! Now its going to be available in January.

Roadman

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 12:46 p.m.

Thank you, Tom, for verifying my point. Very hard to prove, especially in a court proceeding where the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The money should be paid back under a restitution theory of mutual mistake, plus interest. That way the cash is returned to the county and the offending commissioner can save face. I notice that you do not mention all the Democrats who sit on the County Commission who Larry Kestenbaum also felt received clearly inappropriate compensation. Is it "hard to say" that those Democratic commissioners "could be convicted" as well? I am sure you want and need to avoid that question. Given that Pam Byrnes got 62% of the general election vote in that 2008 State House race and your buddy, Mrs. Green, only received 49% of the 2010 vote against Mark Ouimet is evidence the electorate did not buy into your claim of a "scandal". You and I both believe the money should be returned and per diems should be eliminated, so keep up your appearances before the Board.

Tom Wieder

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.

Basic Bob- All this accounting discussion is a meaningless (and, I suspect, intentional) distraction. A Commissioner would receive a W-2 or 1099 for the salary and per diem compensation paid, and the expense reimbursements would not be reported as income. No problem for the Commissioner or his or her accountant. And I'm certain that the County, like any employer, can easily handle payment to an employee that is compensation and that which is expense reimbursement, even if both come out of the same budget line-item (flex accounts). Roadman - Could scienter ever be proven? Yes, but I'm not suggesting it's easy. But that isn't the point. The fact that a crime can't be proven in a given circumstance doesn't mean that it didn't occur. I believe that Mark Ouimet knew that meeting with the Editorial Board of The Ann Arbor News didn't qualify for a per diem under the rules he voted for that only allow them for meetings of county bodies to which he was appointed by the Board or its Chair. Similarly,I believe that Jessica Ping knew that meeting with some constituents or with a subdivision association didn't satisfy the rules, either. Could either be convicted? Hard to say, and we'll probably never know, but I'm fairly certain that they got the County to pay them money they knew they weren't really entitled to.

Roadman

Sun, Dec 19, 2010 : 11:19 p.m.

@Tom Wieder: Do you really believe the scienter element of obtaining money under false pretenses could ever be proven against any commissioner?

Basic Bob

Sun, Dec 19, 2010 : 7:41 p.m.

@Tom Wieder, I am talking about the commissioners' flex spending account. Some is taxable, some is not. This is an accountant's worst nightmare.

Tom Wieder

Sun, Dec 19, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.

Basic Bob - Talk about "spin"! You're doing 100 revolutions per second. I don't know what "account" or accounts the per diems and travel expenses are paid from, and I doubt that you do, either, and what does that have to do with the issue of Commissioners getting paid per diems for things that don't qualify? And once again, you're equating per diem compensation with travel reimbursement. Of course, Ouimet (and every other Commissioner) had/has to pay taxes on such compensation. Reimbursement for travel expenses is not taxable income, since it replaces out-of-pocket expenditures. You may believe that all Commissioner participation is conferences, etc. is wasteful junketing, but the policies of the Board allow it. The policies of the Board do not allow payment of many of the per diems received by Ouimet and others. One is authorized, but you don't like it; the other is simply improper.

Basic Bob

Sun, Dec 19, 2010 : 12:19 a.m.

This really confuses me that the commissioners are mixing taxable earnings (per diems and travel from home) and nontaxable travel expenses (conference registration and out of town travel) in the same account. This is not good tax practice. While Mr. Ouimet paid payroll taxes on his extra earnings, Ms. Judge gets 100% of her junket money tax-free. Transparency is just a spin when you use it to only present part of the facts.

Cash

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 5:39 p.m.

Kristin Judge, "Financial controls are the responsibility of the controller. That is the County Administrator. Our new County Administrator is taking that role very seriously, and we are moving in the right direction." Isn't the County Administrator hired/appointed by the Commission? And she is also responsible for the controller/financial side of administration? This would seem to be a conflict of interest. Is she expected to deny claims from people who hired her? Also you say that this commissioner is "taking that role very seriously". Didn't she work for the previous administrator? Did he take the job seriously? Also, you say that there will be an internal audit this year. Does the county have an internal auditor? If so did they never audit before? Or is this a new position?

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 5:02 p.m.

When I traveled for work and recieved per diems, my coworkers and I knew exactly what was allowed to be reimbursed and what was not. We also had a supervisor or clerk reviewing the submitted expense reports for errors that happen. If the county did not have anyone reviewing the submitted expense reports than shame on them. If Ouimet, Ping and others were intentially taking advantage of the flawed system than shame on them. I do recall during the elections, Mr. Ouimet offering to pay the monies back to the county if errors were found. Mr. Ouimet the errors were found. Is the offer still good? How about the rest of you? Are you credible enough people to repay the monies that were mistakenly paid to you?

Tom Wieder

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 5:01 p.m.

Basic Bob - You are correct that the term "per diem" usually means a daily amount that an employee is allotted to pay for meals, lodging, etc. while on job-related business, usually travel away from the normal workplace. That would not be compensation. The term "per diem" for attending meetings is really a misnomer. I have no idea why that term came to be used for what are really meeting attendance fees. There are no expenses involved here, except mileage reimbursement, which is separately authorized and paid. These are meetings held here in Washtenaw County, with no reimbursable meals or lodging expenses incurred as a result. The IRS doesn't care what you label it. If it's payment in lieu of legitimate, itemized expense reimbursement, it wouldn't be taxable. If its payment for services, it's taxable compensation. This is the latter, payment for attending and participating in a meeting.

Kristin Judge

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 4:53 p.m.

@John, "I want all the expense reports public!!! We have to many outta work people to look them over offer a 10k bounty on any real dishonesty..." They are all now public John. Commissioner Prater and I brought the Transparency Initiative called Open Book eWashtenaw to the county last year. The staff has been very supportive of this effort, and you can now see every penny spent by commissioners online at: http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/boc/open-book/open-book Unfortunately, a few of the commissioners said in a public meeting that the transparency site is not worth the staff time. Commissioner Prater and I along with the amazing staff team will continue to increase the amount of information on this site. By February, we hope to have the credit card statements and salaries for county positions online. It is important to remember that the per diem problem of "lack of financial controls" has been changed thanks to a board rule that Commissioner Prater and I wrote last year. As of January 1, 2010, all per diem payments need to be approved by the Clerk's office. We are also going to have an internal financial audit this year. Financial controls are the responsibility of the controller. That is the County Administrator. Our new County Administrator is taking that role very seriously, and we are moving in the right direction.

Kristin Judge

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 4:43 p.m.

@Roadman "Commissioner Judge represented in a blog post that she would be repaying the amount cited in the Kestenbaum report. Why has she not done so?" There is a question about the amount I owe. It is either $25 or $56. I was appointed to one of the committees that I received $25 to, but the minutes need to be confirmed.

Ron Granger

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 10:58 a.m.

@dading: "who's responsible for reviewing these expense reports? seems all responsibility should be held to that individual." Life isn't about "what we can get away with". Your comment suggests that cheating on taxes is fine if the IRS does not catch you, and you aren't responsible. Feel free to swap taxes/IRS for other appropriate examples.

Basic Bob

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 10:51 a.m.

@Tom Wieder, "A per diem is compensation, a fee of $25, paid to a Commissioner for attending a meeting." Please elaborate on how this is reported to the IRS. My understanding of "per diem" is as reimbursement for expenses in lieu of itemizing actual costs. If it is not reported to the IRS as a wage, it is not compensation.

John

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 5:04 a.m.

I want all the expense reports public!!! We have to many outta work people to look them over offer a 10k bounty on any real dishonesty...

Tom Wieder

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 12:54 a.m.

Roadman- You have been participating in these discussions for two-and-a-half months, but you keep trotting out previously debunked claims and ignore any facts that you dont like. (See below.) Since you hide behind an alias, I cant be sure, but Im guessing that youre not a lawyer. I am, and before I suggested that a false pretenses charge could be brought against one or more Commissioners, I researched the law. I stand by my previous comment that such charges might be supportable, but I doubted that they will be brought. Under the circumstances here, a Commissioner who submitted a per diem claim for attending a meeting he or she knew wasnt covered by the rules would be making the false representation that he or she was entitled to the per diem payment. Under the rules in effect before 2010, the county employees who processed those claims were simply required to pay them; they had no authority to approve or disapprove them. They were instructed to rely on what the Commissioners presented and pay them. A leading case in Michigan on this subject is People v. Schieda, 99 Mich.App. 420 (1980) Michigan Court of Appeals. In that case, a contractor had a contract with a city to install 13 sewer lines. He completed only 9, but billed the city for all 13. City employees did not question the validity of the bill and paid it. The city actually had employed an outside engineering firm to inspect the sewer work and make sure that it was completed. The firm had evidence in its files that the 13 projects were not completed. The defendant contractor asserted that, because the citys own firm had evidence that his bill wasnt accurate, it couldnt claim that it relied on his submission of the bill. The trial court rejected this claim, and the Court of Appeals upheld the contractors conviction under the false pretenses statute. The Court said that, while the employees who paid the bill could have checked with the engineering firm, they didnt. They relied on the submission be the contractor, and this was enough to sustain the conviction. In this case, County employees relied on whatever Commissioners submitted. They had no authority to do anything else. To get a conviction, it would have to be proven that a Commissioner knew that some of the claims for per diems werent valid. This is difficult, but not impossible, to prove. Juries are given a lot of leeway to decide such issues, based on all the facts and circumstances. But, I doubt that the Prosecutor would take this on, especially if there is repayment, given the difficulties and the political nature of it. But that doesnt mean that the elements of the crime are not present. Some of your other points: I fail to see how fraud could occur if the same county personnel approved similar per diems payments time-after-time, year-after-year. The county personnel had no authority to refuse payment. Finding that no one caught them the first time would embolden the Commissioner to repeat the inappropriate claims. And how can a single commissioner approve his/her own per diem? Thats how the system worked. Commissioners submitted them, and employees paid whatever was submitted. The Commissioners run the County; there is no one above them. Were commissioners made aware of the specific strictures of what counted as a properly payable per diem? The rules for payment were created by the Commissioners and adopted and re-adopted each and every year. The big story here that has never been told are (sic) are who are the morons who authorized and allowed this flawed reimbursement system in the first place. The lions share of blame lies with these in competent bureaucratic bungers and their identities should be revealed. Youve been told this again and again. The system was not created by any unrevealed bureaucrats. It was created, and repeatedly approved, by the Commissioners, themselves. Mark Ouimet voted for the rules every year for six years.

Sarah Daman

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 11:51 p.m.

I would think as adults, most would realize that their actions have consequences. I think there is too much of a discrepancy between Mr. Ouimet and the other Commissioners to call it an oversite or poor judgement. Sometimes it seems like our politicians in general take advantage of their positions. I personally believe the Commissioners do not need the per diem benefit of their position. They recently voted to keep the per diem when it was brought before them. The days of free trips and all the other extras are over. Most of, if not all the cities in Michigan and many other states are going bankrupt. The per diems

Roadman

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:15 p.m.

@Tom Wieder: False Pretenses? What misrepresentations were made, who made them, who relied upon them, and who made knowing misrepresentations? These are all elements of actionable criminal fraud. I fail to see how fraud could occur if the same county personnel approved similar per diem payments time-afer-time, year-after-year. And how can a single commissioner approve his/her own per diem? Is there a rule that supersedes the general principle that the County Commission must act as a body, not as a single commissioner? Were commissioners made aware of the specific strictures of what counted as a properly payable per diem? Yeah, let's prosecute all of them, except Ronnie Peterson, and send them to jail. If all commissioners except the one who never took any per diems received them in an inappropriate or questionable manner, then did you ever think, Tom, that the system was broken in the first place, led to confusion among the commissioners where the line was to be drawn. and the real problem lies with those who oversaw the whole reimbursement process for not educating the commissioners properly and not ensuring that proper procedures were in place to avoid the issuances of questionable or inappropriate per diem reimbursement. Your insinuations of "false pretenses" have gone too far, Tom. Why don't you call Prosecutor Mackie and see how hard he laughs if you suggest he investigate the County Commission for criminal charges? The County Commission should heed the advice of two of the most respected voices in county politics - Vivienne Armentrout and Larry Kestenbaum - and eliminate per diems entirely. Would the County Commission have to authorize a lawsuit against its own members to recoup overpayments or could the county executive do so on her own? Would she if it was warranted or would this lead to political repercussions? The big story here that has never been told are who are the morons who authorized and allowed this flawed reimbursemnt system in the first place. No checks and balances whatsoever! The lion's share of blame lies with these incompetent bureaucratic bunglers and their identities should be revealed.

Roadman

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 4:44 p.m.

"....Commissioner Leah Gunn is the only commisioner who has repaid the county so far". Really. Commissioner Judge represented in a blog post that she would be repaying the amount cited in the Kestenbaum report. Why has she not done so? Commissioner Bergman has also made the same promise in a blog post. Let's keep an eye on her to see what she will do. If I held a commissioner position I would be running down to Larry Kestenbaum with my checkbook and making a public announcement that I have repaid the questioned expenses as Leah Gunn has. No excuses for dawdling when public confidence in the County Commission continues to erode over this non-ending story.

Tom Wieder

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 4:09 p.m.

Lugemachine - I don't think the embezzlement statute applies. It applies if the public official has received public funds and inappropriately gives them to himself or others. In this case, the Commissioners did not have the public funds and dispurse them to themselves. They asked to be paid, and other county employees gave them the funds. There might be a criminal charge that could be brought, however, probably "obtaining money under false pretenses." The likelihood that any of them will be prosecuted, especially if they return the money, is probably nil.

Mick52

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 4:08 p.m.

To point to Ouimet and Ping are guilty or corrupt because they claimed more is silly. Anyone who requested unauthorized payments is equally at fault. Perhaps their refunds were higher because they did more for their constituents. And Dave is using "honor system." Nobody with any brains relies on that when it comes to controlling funds especially with public funds. If you do, you eventually get burned, like the youth hockey club. I am sure they trusted that woman too. These reimbursements should end as well as the travel reimbursements to vacation spots and elsewhere. I prefer reps who do not need to be "trained" on how to do their job.

David Briegel

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.

Grandpabob, If I borrow/steal $17,000 from you that would be ok? I'll just keep it till ya catch me. OK? Then I'll pay ya back. I promise!

a2baggagehandler

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 1:21 p.m.

Are most criminals allowed to pay it back when they get caught to avoid consequences?

lugemachine

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 12:49 p.m.

From the website of the State of Michigan Legislature: "750.175 Embezzlement by public officer, agent or servant: Any person holding any public office in this state, or the agent or servant of any such person, who knowingly and unlawfully appropriates to his own use,or to the use of any other person, the money or property received by him in his official capacity or employment, of the value of 50 dollars or upwards, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years or by fine of not more than 5,000 dollars."

loves_fall

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.

This really is a procedural problem. Clearly there was a lack of education on what could and couldn't be claimed, and a lack of oversight on expense reports. There is no reason each of these errant reimbursements shouldn't have been caught before it was paid out before spending a lot of money going back to double check it. It's not that hard -- have rules and follow them at the time when they are easiest to enforce.

janejane

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.

hmmmm...Ouimet's "expenses" do not surprise me. He thinks rather highly of himself and his self-worth it appears. Community service is for the good of the community not for accolades or self-promotion, right? Maybe there is more ego involved than I thought...after all, Ouimet has quite a bit of that.

Gemini27200

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 11:40 a.m.

@ Judge: Why does it take multiple news articles, the Clerk's audit and finally an independent audit for you to finally say you'll vote to end this nonsense? Seems you have had ample opportunities over the last year, and even had some behind the scenes "discussions" brought forward, particularly from Cm. Gunn. Do we need to quote you and your financial / job comments from the past two years again on these forums? I think you owe Pittsfield some straight answers, not the same old lip service.

Chase Ingersoll

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 11:05 a.m.

There are a lot of people in a number of representative and volunteer positions (formal and informal) who not only give time but also pay their own out of pocket expenses. I'd like to see an open minded analysis/discussion of the pro/cons of having unpaid commissioners and no reimbursement of expenses.

Arno B

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:59 a.m.

This fiasco is just another Detroit escapade in miniature. We hear about the famous Detroit squanderings via credit cards. Washtenaw now is abuzz about their Meeting per diems. I wish someone would report on the Ann Arbor City Hall expense re-imbursement policy. Simply put, expenses have not been submitted for approval. No wonder they are running amok. Before I retired, EVERY Expense Report had to be submitted and approved. It mattered not if some of these expenses were covered by credit cards, if expenses were paid in advance by the employee, or were submitted for a policy re-imbursement. The whole mess simply boils down to incompetent supervision! I can see again why Mark Twain - over 120 year ago - called our elected officials "Our native-born criminal class!"

Tom Wieder

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.

There's virtually nothing "real" about anything "Let's Get Real" said. Most of the improperly received funds were NOT expenses. A per diem is compensation, a fee of $25, paid to a Commissioner for attending a meeting. In addition, a Commissioner may be paid mileage reimbursement to go to and from the meeting. The rules are not "unclear," except, apparently, to Ouimet and Ping, who accounted for 80% of the improper payments. Ouimet wasn't singled out for criticism because he's a Republican, but because he accounted for 62% of the questioned payments for 11 Commissioners over a 5-year period! No one "trains" the incoming Commissioners? How much training does it take to understand the following language: "Attendance for a committee, subcommittee meeting or Working Session of the Board, when the member has been properly appointed to that committee or subcommittee... Attendance at a meeting of a non-Board committee, subcommittee, commission, board...when the member of the Board serves by appointment of the Board of Commissioners or the Chair of the Board." Unless it's a meeting of one of the specified bodies, and you were appointed to that body by the Board or the Chair, it doesn't qualify, period. So many of Ouimet's and Ping's payments didn't come close to meeting this test.

MjC

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:31 a.m.

"McDaniel has said she plans to present commissioners with a revised process for submitting per diems and mileage reimbursements" No kidding! And I think a mandatory online training session should be set up so current and future commissioners understand what is and isn't an acceptable per dium. The good news is that the audit report was completed and highlighted errors in judgment. Imagine if this nonsense had continued to go on.

GRANDPABOB

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.

Mark said from the beginning if the money he got for per deims wasn't right he would pay it back.

Forever27

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.

@Ace, I would say that it does matter whether it's $1 or $1 million. Especially when it comes to reporting per diem payments. The small amounts lend themselves to the possibility of a simple misunderstanding. However, when someone is grossly over charging the county to the tune of $16,000 it becomes a question of criminal intent. You can look at the report and see that some of the items charged under the per diem were obviously not eligible.

C6

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.

I'd rather see the headline on this story say "...WILL be asked...".

Ace Ventura

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.

A crook is a crook it dosn't matter if its 1 dollar or a 1 million dollars. All these politicians got caught with there hands in the cookie jar.

resnonverba

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.

go blue - your neighbors didn't necessarily vote Ouimet in to office. In my opinion they instead did not vote his opponent in to office. Of the two final canditidates, maybe Ouimet was the lessor of two evils? I say the same about other recent elections including Obama vs. McCain and Steele vs. Dingell. I think in many cases the final outcome would have better served the people if from the primary the top two candidates from each party moved on to the general election. A certain level of scrutiny doesn't occur for the primary that does for the general election.

David Briegel

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 8:43 a.m.

Lets Get Real, It was basically an Honor System. That is a very fine way to discover who is Honorable. We certainly found out! Sounds like your only reason for posting was to defend Mark and the Republican Party.

Lets Get Real

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 8:33 a.m.

Let's Get Real here - if the "rules" are not clear and no one "trains" the incoming commissioners - what do you expect. If its out of pocket expense, why wouldn't someone submit it? If expenses are submitted and are not normal and expected, why were they approved and paid? Whose job is this anyway: the commission's head, the county treasurer, a clerk, anyone? Does that person(s) know the "rules"? Sounds like another example of more government waste and ineffeciency. Yours and my dollars being squandered with no accountability, for anyone minding the store. No party is free of blame here. I love the finger pointing Mark Ouimet because he is a Republician. Any consideration that the leadership in this part of the world is prdominately run by the Democratic Party? And the only reason any of this surfaced is because "they" were desperate to discredit the opposition candidate because it appeared he was going to win. If repayment is the decision, who will cry the most, and who will step up and do what is deemed right? Let's watch and see.

Forever27

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 8:11 a.m.

So where will Quimet come up with that 16 grand? If it comes from his campaign fund I'm sure his voters/donators will be thrilled.

GoblueBeatOSU

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:57 a.m.

"more than $16,600 belonged to Commissioner Mark Ouimet, R-Scio Township" and to think the majority of the voters, my neighbors, voted this guy into a higher office. Why? I know I didn't vote for him.

d2ina2

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.

I find it ironic that two main offenders are both affiliated with the Republican party, the supposed "defenders" of responsible government and fiscal restraint.

Kristin Judge

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:28 a.m.

@ Tom, "said he hopes steps are taken to make sure commissioners no longer can collect per diems for Ways and Means Committee meetings, agenda sessions and working sessions of the board. He says those are part of commissioners' regular duties what they're each paid $15,500 a year to do and it shouldn't involve additional compensation." I could not agree more Tom! I will bring that to the board for a vote when we determine eligible meetings. There should be no argument.

dading dont delete me bro

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 6:43 a.m.

first! yeah, good luck with that. who's responsible for reviewing these expense reports? seems all responsibility should be held to that individual. if there isn't one, all these incorrect expenditures could pay for an employee to look them over...no?