The Porter County Council majority took the stand again that they do not want County Auditor Robert Wichlinski spending out of his non-reverting fund without their approval.
And this time it’s no ifs, ands, or buts.
All seven Council members were present for a special meeting Wednesday after Council member Dan Whitten, D-At Large, requested that the board meet to reduce the allocation for the non-reverting fund to $0. This follows an earlier vote on March 11 when five members of the Council voted to put $606,710 in an unallocated fund.
The same five voted Wednesday to minimize appropriations of about $583,000 in the non-reverting fund to $0. They were Whitten and Council members Sylvia Graham, D-At Large, Karen Conover, R-3rd, Jeremy Rivas, D-2nd, and president Robert Poparad, D-At-Large. Members voting against were Jim Biggs, R-1st, and Jim Polarek, R-4th.
The non-reverting fund was set up to recoup homestead credit violations for the County and to ensure more efficient taxpayer service as a team effort between the auditor, assessor, treasurer and recorder known as the total quality management (TQM) program.
The balance had reached over $1.6 million which prompted the Council to seek a better understanding of how the money was being spent.
But Wichlinski argued that the Council’s March 11 vote to transfer monies to an unallocated fund was improper because the unallocated non-reverting fund did not exist, and he said that if the Council wanted to squelch the fund then it should have decided to advertise for a reduction of the allocation.
The Council decided that it would go that route if that meant stopping Wichlinski from making any subsequent expenditures and prevented the situation from escalating into a legal battle.
There was a difference of legal opinion between the auditor’s office and the County Council’s attorney Scott McClure. McClure said he is confident that the Council acted correctly the first time because the state statute does not refer to any method to de-appropriate money. When that happens, the Council has the authority to execute home rule which would have allowed the hold be put on the fund.
“Home rule says we have the power to do so,” McClure said.
But since there was a clash in legal arguments, McClure advised the Council to go ahead with a second vote.
...
See the full article here:
