Florence Citizens in Action

The Florence County Citizens In Action is a nonpartisan volunteer watchdog group that promotes more open government. This press conference is twofold. It is about public information that was not made public and it is about the difficulty in receiving this information through the Freedom of Information Act. I’ll cut right to the chase - Florence County Council gave themselves substantial pay raises and never discussed these raises at a public meeting. The councilmen received a 25% two-part raise and the county Chairman received a 40% two-part raise. These raises were inserted into the 2006/2007 budget. Council received the first part of the raise in January 2006 and will receive the second part January 2008.

Prior to adopting the 2006/2007 budget, County Council stated that due to budget restraints, Florence County employees would not receive a cost of living raise. However, the county employees would be given a $500 bonus for Christmas 2006.

The 2007/2008 budget has recently been passed and County Council has still not publicly discussed the pay raises received in January 2007 or the upcoming raises for January 2008. If the public was never informed, how did FCCIA find out about the raises? One of our members received an anonymous tip. He was told that the council members received substantial raises and that these raises had been inserted into the budget. This very limited information precipitated five FOIA letters to the county administrator. The first FOIA letter was written April 10, 2007 and the last was written July 15. I received my last response from the administrator on August 2, 2007.

Most of my questions were not answered. After almost four months and five FOIA request, we learned that council member’s salaries increased from $12,049 to $15,049. This amount does not include full-time retirement and health benefits. We learned that the chairman’s salary increased from $12,404 to $17,404, not including full-time retirement and health benefits. We learned that at the second reading of the 2006/2007 budget, two documents (Memo A-5 and Spreadsheet A-6) were introduced by the administrator as his recommendation for the council members’ salary increases. Actually this is about all we were able to learn about the salary raises through the FOIA request.

Shortly before writing my third FOIA letter, I got an anonymous tip, telling me that the councilmen had received the same $500 bonus for Christmas 2006 that the county employees received. Since there had been no public discussion of this, the only way to confirm it was through a FOIA request. The tip turned out to be true. All information concerning the bonus issue is included in your packet.

We are not saying that the county chairman does not deserve a 40% salary increase and we are not saying that the council members do not deserve a 25% salary increase. Evidently the councilmen thought they deserved a salary raise because a line item of the budget was amended to include the raise. We are saying that in the interest of open government, the public should know. When councilmen use the tax money or appropriate additional tax money for personal reasons, such as raising their own salaries, there should be public discussion.

We are not here today to say that the councilmen did not deserve a $500 Christmas bonus. We are saying in the interest of open government, the public should know. Once again this tax money was appropriated for personal use and once again in the interest of open government, we think public discussion should have preceded this decision. By the way, Dr. Morris Anderson refused the Christmas bonus and we commend him for his decision.

Recently the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that an upstate school district violated the FOIA by not disclosing information requested under the FOIA. In the unanimous decision, Justice Costa Pleicones stated, “FOIA must be constructed so as to make it possible for citizens to learn and report fully the activities of public officials.” Unfortunately, not all questions we asked in the five FOIA letters were answered or not directly answered. Repeated questions were not answered or not directly answered. The written responses to these letters were often cryptic, ambiguous, and verbose. Public information belongs to the public. We agree with Justice Pleicones and think responses to direct and uncomplicated FOIA request should be straightforward and concise.

As we said, this press conference is about two open government issues. The public was not told by Florence County Council that they gave themselves 25% and 40% pay raises at a time when County employees did not receive a raise. They did not disclose the fact that they also received a $500 Christmas bonus. We are not saying that they did not deserve the raises and the bonus. We are saying that they should have discussed these financial benefits at a public meeting.

The other open government issue concerns disclosure under FOIA. “FOIA must be constructed so as to make it possible for citizens to learn and report fully the activities of public officials.”

Several issues should be addressed at this point. The original study to adjust the salaries of countywide elected officials was requested by the treasurer, probate judge, and sheriff, who felt that their salaries were below the state averages. The original request did not refer to members of county council who are not elected countywide. At some point the study expanded to include all elected officials. We do not know the circumstance as to how this evolved. It should also be noted that we are not certain that the information (atch: Salaries Recap) enclosed in Mr. Starks’ letter of April 12, 2007, stating that council members have not received a pay raise in twenty-five years is correct. The first page of the Archer Report states that the company was hired to conduct a comparative salary study by the county of Florence. Mr. Starks states in his June 25, 2007 letter that Archer was not used as a basis of recommendations. Numerous FOIA requests have not been able to establish the identity of the comparison study that was used.

While writing this press release, I received a tip. The county employees received a 2.5 % cost of living increase beginning July 1, 2007 and they will also receive a $100 Christmas bonus. The tipster says that County Council granted themselves the same raise and bonus. I didn’t have time to write a FOIA letter prior to this press conference, but based on the 07/08 budget of $142,142 for Council salaries, this is the case. With this additional increase, the Chairman’s salary will increase by 42.5 % and the councilmen will receive a 27.5 % increase. We are not saying the Florence County Council members do not deserve these benefits, we are saying that open government denotes public disclosure. As the executive branch of county government, if County Council, in the span of twelve months, voted to increase their own salaries three times and voted to give themselves two bonuses, we think public discussion should have proceeded these decisions. Public information belongs to the public, not to politicians. Tax money belongs to the taxpayers, not to politicians.

Because so many details are involved in the FOIA aspect of this news conference, we have provided an outline with copies of all letters and enclosures. We feel that this issue is very important and is best understood by reading this information. We will be glad to answer questions now and after you have had time to read the material.

———————————————————————————————————————-

The FOIA Letters - Outline of Questions and Answers

1. FOIA LETTER, APRIL 10, 2007
The Letter:
The first FOIA request was delivered April 11, 2007, to Richard Starks. I asked for the amounts of council’s salary increases, policies pertaining to council’s salary increase and because there had never been public discussion, I asked who was responsible for the decision to increase salaries by inserting the increases into the county budget.

The Response:
Mr. Starks responded (letter dated April 12) with a spreadsheet indicating that the council chairman’s salary increased from $12,405 to $17,405 and the Council member’s salaries increased from $12,049 to $15,495. He said there were no policies pertaining to salary increases for elected officials. He said Council members Ard and O’Bryan did not vote for the third ordinance reading of the budget.

2. FOIA LETTER MAY 2, 2007
The Letter:
I wrote my second FOIA (May 2, 2007) request because my question as to the person or persons responsible for the decision to insert the salary increase into the budget was not answered. I repeated this request.

Mr. Starks stated in his April 12 response that salary increases of all elected officials were “conveyed to council and incorporated into the budget process for consideration via the budget ordinance.” Because County Council had never publicly discussed receiving this information, I asked how this information was conveyed.

Based on the fact that there was never public discussion of the council salary raises, I asked if Mr. Starks and his staff acted in isolation in the decision to insert the salary increase into the budget.

I asked for written documentation including e-mails pertaining to the salary increases and if council members outside a public meeting discussed the issue.

Because his response indicated a comparison analysis with other counties, I asked for a copy of the comparison study on which the salary increases were based.

The Response:
Mr. Starks responded in a letter dated May 16, 2007. There were four sentences in the letter totaling 363 words. The final sentence was 182 words long. His verbosity was impressive but unfortunately, I got no direct answers to my direct questions. If I deciphered his response correctly, he states that the budget process is complex and that he is enclosing two documents: Memorandum A-5 and Spreadsheet A-6. He indicates that these were budget changes and he submitted them on May 4, 2006 at the 2nd budget reading. He states that these documents were his recommendations for elected officials’ salary increases.

The A-5 Memo referred to the Archer Comparative County report and the spreadsheet included info from the Archer report. I assumed this was the comparison study used, but Mr. Starks did not directly answer my question and he did not include the requested copy of the comparison study. He made no response to my request for e-mails or other documents pertaining to the decision to increase salaries. In fact, he chose not to answer any of the direct questions I asked under the FOIA including the question as to whether he acted in isolation in the decision to insert the salary increase in the budget.
Remember Justice Costa Pleicones’ opinion, “FOIA must be constructed so as to make it possible for citizens to learn and report fully the activities of public officials.”

3. FOIA Letter May 26, 2007
The letter:
Under the FOIA, I had previously asked (April 10 FOIA & May 2 FOIA) who was responsible for inserting council’s salary increases into the 2006/2007 budget. My question was not answered and for this reason, in my May 26 FOIA letter to Mr. Starks, I stated that based on the information I had received from him, I had concluded that he was responsible for inserting the salary increases and that he made this decision in isolation, without input from council. Mr. Starks said in his May 16 response that he had submitted Memorandum A-5 and Spreadsheet A-6 as his recommendation for elected officials’ salary increases. Mr. Starks has not responded to this assumption and this question remains unanswered.

Under the FOIA, I had asked for written documentation, including e-mails, from the councilmen relating to the salary increases. This request had gone unanswered. In my May 26 letter I asked for the same information after May 4, 2007. There has been no response to this FOIA request.

I made my second request under FOIA for a copy of the comparison study (which I thought might be the Archer Report).

A couple of days before writing the (FOIA May 26, 2007) letter. I got an anonymous tip, telling me that the councilmen had received the same $500 bonus that county employees received. The tipster told me that the checks for the councilmen had been cut about a week after the county employees received their checks because this was a last minute decision.

Since there had been no public discussion of the councilmen receiving a Christmas bonus, I didn’t know how accurate the tip was, but the only way to confirm it was through a FOIA request. In view of the fact that so many of my questions had gone unanswered, I decided to ask for copies of the canceled checks. I also asked for other documentation relating to the Christmas bonus. Because the tipster told me it was a last minute decision, I stated in my FOIA that the decision was made after the budget process was completed.

The Response:
Mr. Starks responded in a letter dated May 30, 2007. As it turned out all request in FOIA letter (dated May 26, 2007) were ignored (I was told that I had received all
documents previously requested), with the exception of the Christmas bonus issue. I was
informed that my assumptions and statements concerning the Christmas bonus were incorrect. I was told that all county employees were authorized to receive a Christmas bonus and that included members of council, as county employees. I was told that the bonus was included in the budget according to state law. I was told that I would receive copies of the canceled checks along with a bill. He said the checks were cut late to give council members an opportunity to decline the check. He said there was a history of occasional declinations. He said not issuing declined checks would be a small but prudent savings of the taxpayers money. It was also interesting to learn that council members are classified as elected officials when county employees are not given a pay raise, but are reclassified as county employees when a Christmas bonus is authorized.

My assumption that he was responsible for the decision to insert the salary increases into the budget was ignored, The assumption that he made this decision in isolation, was ignored. The request for e-mails and written documentation was ignored. My request for a copy of the comparison study was ignored.

Remember Justice Costa Pleicones’ opinion, “FOIA must be constructed so as to make it possible for citizens to learn and report fully the activities of public officials.”

The Checks - June 12, 2007

I received copies of eight canceled checks. The cost was $2.00. There was not a check for Morris Anderson. It appears that Dr. Anderson declined his check. Dr. Anderson’s decision was a generous and he should be commended.

4. FOIA Letter June 15, 2007
The Letter:
I made my third request for a copy of the comparison study. I said that spreadsheet A-6 referred to an Archer document and I assumed that this was the document in question. I said, “If I have not deciphered your responses correctly, please let me know.”

I asked to see the original copy of the Archer document and to make copies of it. I asked for any recommendations pertaining to salary increases derived form this document.

I ask for the page and line item in the budget pertaining to the Christmas bonus for the council members.

The Response:
Mr. Starks responded in a letter dated June 25, 2007. He said that the Archer document was available for me to copy. He also said that the Archer document was not used as the recommendations for salary increases. Mr. Starks did not disclose what information was used as a comparison study.

Since spreadsheet A-6 used information from the Archer document, I decided to make a copy of it. By appointment, on June 28 I made a copy of a copy of the Archer document. I was not allowed to see the original document. The copy I was allowed to see was not the complete document.

Pertaining to the Christmas bonus, Mr. Starks referenced these pages from the 2006/2007 county budget; page i, second paragraph, page xi, section 8, item c and page 8 line 100. This information is included in your packet. When I realized that the $500 bonus was included in the salary and wages, it solved a problem. I had added up the new 2007 salaries but money was left over and now it made mathematical sense.

If a hypothetical citizen had access to a copy of the budget, Page 8, line 100 would be the only existing documentation pertaining to the pay increase and Christmas bonus received by County Council. It is unlikely that this citizen would understand that the last total in the column pertained to separate raises for the council members and that a Christmas bonus was also included. Outside of county employees, how many citizens of Florence County have a copy of the budget? Less than 10 people would be my guess. This is the only public notification of the salary raise and the Christmas bonus. Public information belongs to the public, not to politicians.

So here is what has happened. County Council got a substantial pay raise and a Christmas bonus by inserting the totals into line 100, page 8 the 105-page budget. Strangely enough there was no public discussion of this at any budget session or council meeting. The only paper trail is Memo A-5 and Spreadsheet A-6, which were submitted by the administrator at the second reading of the budget. It was passed at the third reading. All of this came about when the county employees were denied a raise due to budget restrains. Based on the responses received from our FOIA letters, there is no confirmation that council publicly discussed their salary raise and Christmas bonus. The voters and citizens of Florence County were never told that their tax money was being spent on raises and Christmas bonus for the people they had elected. We are not opposed to pay raises or Christmas bonuses. We are opposed to elected officials not telling the people they voted themselves a raise with taxpayers’ money. This is not open government. Public information belongs to the public, not to politicians.
Tax money belongs to the taxpayers and not to politicians.

5. FOIA Letter July 15, 2007
The Letter:
I wrote a final FOIA letter dated July 15, 2007. Mr. Starks had stated that the Archer document was not the comparison study. I made my fourth and final FOIA request for the comparison study.

The Response:
He waited a long time to reply. The letter was dated July 30 and I received it August 2. If I translated his letter correctly, he said he had previously provided me with spreadsheet A-6.

Why was this FOIA letter and the other FOIA letters answered with cryptic and ambiguous language? Why weren’t all of our questions answered? We don’t know. However, we strongly believe that public information belongs to the public. We strongly agree that, “FOIA must be constructed so as to make it possible for citizens to learn and report fully the activities of public officials.”

This entry was posted on Friday, August 24th, 2007 at 11:51 am and is filed under County Council, FOIA, Press Conference. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.