by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: One of our core principles at Project94 is that "All published pieces, except for opinion pieces, must strive for multiple perspectives, work to be unbiased, and contain the common goal of community cohesion." Sometimes our efforts to build that sense of community runs afoul of our mission to increase citizen awareness and knowledge. While we do not want to skew the reader's opinions before all of the information is published, we feel that a word of caution is necessary up front. We also encourage readers to read ALL of the articles in this series before coming to a conclusion.
On February 16, 2019, Project94 submitted a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request asking for information on the travel expenses incurred by the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, we asked for travel expenses as well as reimbursements from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. That’s one fiscal year for King George County. Unlike other community members, we did not focus on just one Supervisor but instead focused on all of those in office during that time frame. That meant the following seven individuals were included in our request:
The purpose of the request was not to pick on any particular person in office, past or present. It was simply an effort to put to rest the questions being asked by citizens and an effort to hopefully build some unity among those in the community by getting all of the information out in the open. It also serves as an effort to educate voters on the spending habits and trends of their elected representatives.
For clarity, the full text of our request was:
Shortly after reviewing the data, we determined that there were more questions than answers in the information at hand. Our biggest issue was the lack of information regarding reimbursements. As it was worded in the request, we realized the County assumed we meant reimbursement payments made from the County to the Supervisors. In fact, we were asking for reimbursement payments from the Supervisors to the County. After several clarifying discussions with the County, we realized our original request was understood, there were just not as many reimbursements as we expected.
We also realized that because travel had become such a hot topic lately, we needed to include a larger time frame. So on March 11, 2019, nearly a month after the first request, we submitted a second FOIA request. Our request was similar to the one above but with a new date range of July 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019.
With the information from two different FOIA requests with the County in our hands, we began to crunch the numbers and review the data. As we began our review of the data, we were sent additional information from various community members from their own FOIA requests. While these additional FOIA documents came unsolicited, and were shared off the record, the information they contained matched the data we already had on hand.
So what did we find? Well, we found a lot. But before we share our final analysis, we encourage you to read all of the articles on all of the Supervisors. Each article will be linked below and at the bottom of each individual article in the series. Meanwhile, here's a glimpse of what we totaled up.
Expenses - These are the expenses the Supervisors recorded. These amounts were paid for directly by the County, typically through a County issued credit card.
Reimbursements - These are the expenses the Supervisors incurred personally and then asked for the County to reimburse them. In other words, the County paid the Supervisors these amounts.
Repayments - These are the amounts that were repaid to the County by the Supervisors and the National Association of Counties (NACo). For various reasons, the Supervisors paid the County back. These repayments were originally recorded as either Expenses or Reimbursements.
Continue reading:
Editor's Note: One of our core principles at Project94 is that "All published pieces, except for opinion pieces, must strive for multiple perspectives, work to be unbiased, and contain the common goal of community cohesion." Sometimes our efforts to build that sense of community runs afoul of our mission to increase citizen awareness and knowledge. While we do not want to skew the reader's opinions before all of the information is published, we feel that a word of caution is necessary up front. We also encourage readers to read ALL of the articles in this series before coming to a conclusion.
On February 16, 2019, Project94 submitted a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request asking for information on the travel expenses incurred by the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, we asked for travel expenses as well as reimbursements from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. That’s one fiscal year for King George County. Unlike other community members, we did not focus on just one Supervisor but instead focused on all of those in office during that time frame. That meant the following seven individuals were included in our request:
- Cathy Binder
- Ruby Brabo
- Cedell Brooks, Jr.
- Jeffrey "Jeff" Bueche
- Richard Granger
- James "Jim" Howard
- John Jenkins, Jr.
The purpose of the request was not to pick on any particular person in office, past or present. It was simply an effort to put to rest the questions being asked by citizens and an effort to hopefully build some unity among those in the community by getting all of the information out in the open. It also serves as an effort to educate voters on the spending habits and trends of their elected representatives.
For clarity, the full text of our request was:
“I am requesting an opportunity to obtain copies of public records that show: - expenses paid for travel - revenue or reimbursement received for travel expenses During the following date range: - July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 For the following people: - Cathy Binder - Ruby Brabo - Cedell Brooks, Jr. - Jeffrey "Jeff" Bueche - Richard Granger - James "Jim" Howard - John Jenkins, Jr. If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $20. However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of travel expenses incurred by local elected officials and what expenses were reimbursed by other organizations or entities. As a member of the news media, this request is related to news gathering purposes and is not being sought for commercial purposes.”
Shortly after reviewing the data, we determined that there were more questions than answers in the information at hand. Our biggest issue was the lack of information regarding reimbursements. As it was worded in the request, we realized the County assumed we meant reimbursement payments made from the County to the Supervisors. In fact, we were asking for reimbursement payments from the Supervisors to the County. After several clarifying discussions with the County, we realized our original request was understood, there were just not as many reimbursements as we expected.
We also realized that because travel had become such a hot topic lately, we needed to include a larger time frame. So on March 11, 2019, nearly a month after the first request, we submitted a second FOIA request. Our request was similar to the one above but with a new date range of July 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019.
With the information from two different FOIA requests with the County in our hands, we began to crunch the numbers and review the data. As we began our review of the data, we were sent additional information from various community members from their own FOIA requests. While these additional FOIA documents came unsolicited, and were shared off the record, the information they contained matched the data we already had on hand.
So what did we find? Well, we found a lot. But before we share our final analysis, we encourage you to read all of the articles on all of the Supervisors. Each article will be linked below and at the bottom of each individual article in the series. Meanwhile, here's a glimpse of what we totaled up.
Expenses - These are the expenses the Supervisors recorded. These amounts were paid for directly by the County, typically through a County issued credit card.
Reimbursements - These are the expenses the Supervisors incurred personally and then asked for the County to reimburse them. In other words, the County paid the Supervisors these amounts.
Repayments - These are the amounts that were repaid to the County by the Supervisors and the National Association of Counties (NACo). For various reasons, the Supervisors paid the County back. These repayments were originally recorded as either Expenses or Reimbursements.
Continue reading:
I appreciate our members of the Board getting out and representing the county at a variety of meetings. Thanks for this valuable series to help us understand and appreciate their efforts. On a side note, it is important to realize that the time spent is their own time: they're not "on the clock" so to speak, so a double reason for our appreciation.
ReplyDeleteI assume that the subsequent parts will discuss what was accomplished with the trips that were taken in addition to the expenses incurred.
ReplyDeleteNo, I won't be covering what they accomplished or brought back from their trips. It's incredibly labor intensive and nearly impossible to quantify or assign a value to since they typically bring back ideas or information, neither of which can have a specific price tag assigned to them.
Delete