by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
$295.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo County Supervisors' Forum. There was also a $515.00 Registration Fee for a NACo conference. This NACo conference also had an associated hotel bill of $1,245.59 from the Kimpton Carlyle Hotel in Dupont Circle in Washington DC. Meals for this conference were billed at $32.80. Another hotel bill for a different conference cost $233.51. The Omni in Hot Springs, VA charged $406.56.
Reimbursements
Parking fees of $159.30 were reimbursed for the NACo conference in DC.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
The total Omni bill was $1,626.24. While it appears to be common practice to charge a deposit of one quarter the total bill, the anomaly on this bill is that it was for two adults. Bueche would later repay the County $400.00 for the "spouse charge" of this VACo conference hotel bill. This repayment is not listed here or in the next six month period as it wasn't made until late February 2019. It is also $6.56 short of the actual amount owed.
$225.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo Annual Conference. The County paid $304.73 for the hotel for this conference. $73.24 was paid for a meal at the conference in Hot Springs, VA. $613.46 was paid for a VACo conference. $295.00 was paid for a VACo course called "2019 Virginia County Board Chairpersons' Institute."
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
Although the County paid $304.73 for the VACo conference hotel, there are no accompanying receipts. The County paid $613.46 for a "VACo Conference" but a note says they are "waiting for receipt." The cover sheet for the Chairpersons' Institute shows "C. Binder" but the receipt with it shows Jeff Bueche was the one registered.
Reimbursements totaled $159.30.
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Below is their unedited response.
* When it comes to the discussion and implementation of travel costs for the Board of Supervisors, how would you best explain it to a community member?
The Policy was born of Citizens reaching out to there Supervisors and on social media, raising questions of why the travel, how much does this cost, is there any oversight, etc. We looked at these concerns and realized the Supervisors did not have a policy.
After multiple drafts and one on one conversations with each of my colleagues on the Board, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a formal Travel Policy Amendment to provide full transparency and accountability to the Citizens of King George. See Below:
10. Board of Supervisors
a) Official travel subject to County funding by any member of the Board of Supervisors must be submitted via a spend plan to be approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors prior to the adoption of the operational budget. Each Supervisor will provide their spend plan to the Board for consideration, to include location, duration, purpose, benefit to the County and an estimated cost for each expected travel occurrence. The spend plans will be discussed for adoption or denial during a budget work session or regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. This process is to provide full transparency to the public on Supervisor travels for engagement with our local, regional, and national partners.
b) A Supervisor travel budget spending cap must be adopted by the BoS for each fiscal year. Should the cap be exhausted, any future travel subject to County funds must be previously approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors during a regular meeting of the Board. Justification of said travel shall be provided to the Board in a public forum for full transparency to the public. In the event travel is not pre-approved by the Board of Supervisors, said travel, if conducted, is not subject to reimbursement.
* How much of your job requires travel?
There is actually no requirement per say, however each Supervisor has "collateral" duties and serves on committees throughout the region which do have direct and indirect implications on King George County.
* What are the benefits of using county resources for travel to outside organizations?
Since the approval of our Travel Policy Amendment, I've been asked how can I justify to the taxpayer Section c) " The Board of Supervisors will also appoint an elected official to serve as a liaison to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) and the National Association of Counties (NACO). This position will require additional travel outside the region and additional costs incurred......"
It simply boils down to there are things NACO and VACO lobby for that I support and things I firmly stand against. They have positions that can benefit King George and positions that could possibly be detrimental to King George. I rather have a seat at the table and have a voice in support or opposition rather than just a wait, see and react stance. We can't be isolationists, especially in a Dillon Rule State.
* Would you say the new plan for travel reimbursements is a good working plan or should it be tweaked a bit more to allow for county growth and development or other reasons?
I think this plan is sufficient and transparent, but with all policies, we don't know what the future holds and can be amended. With that said, any amendment would take place in an open meeting of the BoS and fully transparent to the citizens.
* If any, what do you feel you have brought back to the county through your travels?
I can give bullets on information I brought back, but I can also speak to what I've contributed to discussions in my travels. Lessons learned from other localities are very useful. These types of things are discussed at NACO and VACO Conferences, Also, this is where we learn of alternate funding sources available to us... ie Grants, etc. It's these travels where we learned of a FEMA Grant which is what's serving as the primary funding source for the Fairview Beach Shoreline Restoration Project. It's travels and meetings that recently brought Grant possibilities for decommissioning project of the Service Authority to the attention of Ms. Brabo who just briefed the KGSA. There are many examples of things brought back to the County, but to summarize It's about building contacts and gaining resources, we are making regional connections. With all that said, there are many things placed upon us from other Govt entities, State and Federal. I personally have met with our State elected Officials in Richmond to discuss pending legislation and the unintended consequences to KG County and some that would greatly benefit the County. Just this past month, I traveled to Tappahannock to meet with Secretary Jennings and elected officials from the region to discuss the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the implementation of the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).
Below is the post report I made, which I feel conveys why I feel we must be engaged , which does take travel. From 10 April:
Good meeting this afternoon with the Tappahannock Region Local Government Rountable hosted by the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) whose purpose is to advise the Chesapeake Executive Council, on how to effectively implement projects and engage the support of local governments to achieve the goals of the Bay Agreement.
As our representatives for all things related to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the implementation of the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), I was vocal about my concerns of unintended consequences to King George County. I voiced my belief that there is a very fine line between appropriate and responsible regulation and over regulation. I am of the mindset that this WIP is straddling the line. I have concerns with the cost of implementation that will fall to us locally, the impact on all future economic development, impact to our agriculture community (farms) and the overall requirements to reach the "goals".
There was a time when the Chesapeake Bay needed intervention. I acknowledge the situation was dire. It was and is a major economic driver , HOWEVER, after years of Regulatory oversight and implementations, grasses in the bay are at a level not seen in decades and the blue crab is back thriving in its waters. This observation I shared was confirmed by Secretary Jennings. The initial Phases worked. Its then that I offered up that it is an appropriate time to take pause as current regulations have shown significant improvements to the Bay. I do not believe Phase III is necessary at this point and has many consequences to rural localities. In truth, I was in the minority with my opinion, BUT, everyone seemed to share the same concerns on cost to localities. More and more, financial burdens are being shifted from the Fed, the State and Regulatory Agencies such as the EPA with no oversight.
This was one of 10 such roundtables conducted throughout the State. I believe they are listening and have gained some insight to local concerns and am hopeful they will give proper consideration
* Do you have any comment on the concerns raised about the overall quantity of travel?
Some travel may or may have not been justifiable in the past, that's for each independently elected Supervisor to justify to their constituents. However, under the new policy, ALL travel with an associated cost to the County is pre-approved in the budget process by individual trip and with an estimated cost provided.
* Do you feel you travel too much, too little, or just enough?
Just enough. For transparency, my travel budget for next year is set not to exceed $2,750.
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
- July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
- January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
- July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Jeff Bueche was elected in November 2017 and didn't take office until January 1, 2018. Therefore, he is not going to show in the first six-month block of our three major time frames from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018.January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
Expenses$295.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo County Supervisors' Forum. There was also a $515.00 Registration Fee for a NACo conference. This NACo conference also had an associated hotel bill of $1,245.59 from the Kimpton Carlyle Hotel in Dupont Circle in Washington DC. Meals for this conference were billed at $32.80. Another hotel bill for a different conference cost $233.51. The Omni in Hot Springs, VA charged $406.56.
Reimbursements
Parking fees of $159.30 were reimbursed for the NACo conference in DC.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
The total Omni bill was $1,626.24. While it appears to be common practice to charge a deposit of one quarter the total bill, the anomaly on this bill is that it was for two adults. Bueche would later repay the County $400.00 for the "spouse charge" of this VACo conference hotel bill. This repayment is not listed here or in the next six month period as it wasn't made until late February 2019. It is also $6.56 short of the actual amount owed.
July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Expenses$225.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo Annual Conference. The County paid $304.73 for the hotel for this conference. $73.24 was paid for a meal at the conference in Hot Springs, VA. $613.46 was paid for a VACo conference. $295.00 was paid for a VACo course called "2019 Virginia County Board Chairpersons' Institute."
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
Although the County paid $304.73 for the VACo conference hotel, there are no accompanying receipts. The County paid $613.46 for a "VACo Conference" but a note says they are "waiting for receipt." The cover sheet for the Chairpersons' Institute shows "C. Binder" but the receipt with it shows Jeff Bueche was the one registered.
18 Month Grand Total
Expenses totaled $4,240.89.Reimbursements totaled $159.30.
Supervisor's Response
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Below is their unedited response.
* When it comes to the discussion and implementation of travel costs for the Board of Supervisors, how would you best explain it to a community member?
The Policy was born of Citizens reaching out to there Supervisors and on social media, raising questions of why the travel, how much does this cost, is there any oversight, etc. We looked at these concerns and realized the Supervisors did not have a policy.
After multiple drafts and one on one conversations with each of my colleagues on the Board, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a formal Travel Policy Amendment to provide full transparency and accountability to the Citizens of King George. See Below:
10. Board of Supervisors
a) Official travel subject to County funding by any member of the Board of Supervisors must be submitted via a spend plan to be approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors prior to the adoption of the operational budget. Each Supervisor will provide their spend plan to the Board for consideration, to include location, duration, purpose, benefit to the County and an estimated cost for each expected travel occurrence. The spend plans will be discussed for adoption or denial during a budget work session or regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. This process is to provide full transparency to the public on Supervisor travels for engagement with our local, regional, and national partners.
b) A Supervisor travel budget spending cap must be adopted by the BoS for each fiscal year. Should the cap be exhausted, any future travel subject to County funds must be previously approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors during a regular meeting of the Board. Justification of said travel shall be provided to the Board in a public forum for full transparency to the public. In the event travel is not pre-approved by the Board of Supervisors, said travel, if conducted, is not subject to reimbursement.
* How much of your job requires travel?
There is actually no requirement per say, however each Supervisor has "collateral" duties and serves on committees throughout the region which do have direct and indirect implications on King George County.
* What are the benefits of using county resources for travel to outside organizations?
Since the approval of our Travel Policy Amendment, I've been asked how can I justify to the taxpayer Section c) " The Board of Supervisors will also appoint an elected official to serve as a liaison to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) and the National Association of Counties (NACO). This position will require additional travel outside the region and additional costs incurred......"
It simply boils down to there are things NACO and VACO lobby for that I support and things I firmly stand against. They have positions that can benefit King George and positions that could possibly be detrimental to King George. I rather have a seat at the table and have a voice in support or opposition rather than just a wait, see and react stance. We can't be isolationists, especially in a Dillon Rule State.
* Would you say the new plan for travel reimbursements is a good working plan or should it be tweaked a bit more to allow for county growth and development or other reasons?
I think this plan is sufficient and transparent, but with all policies, we don't know what the future holds and can be amended. With that said, any amendment would take place in an open meeting of the BoS and fully transparent to the citizens.
* If any, what do you feel you have brought back to the county through your travels?
I can give bullets on information I brought back, but I can also speak to what I've contributed to discussions in my travels. Lessons learned from other localities are very useful. These types of things are discussed at NACO and VACO Conferences, Also, this is where we learn of alternate funding sources available to us... ie Grants, etc. It's these travels where we learned of a FEMA Grant which is what's serving as the primary funding source for the Fairview Beach Shoreline Restoration Project. It's travels and meetings that recently brought Grant possibilities for decommissioning project of the Service Authority to the attention of Ms. Brabo who just briefed the KGSA. There are many examples of things brought back to the County, but to summarize It's about building contacts and gaining resources, we are making regional connections. With all that said, there are many things placed upon us from other Govt entities, State and Federal. I personally have met with our State elected Officials in Richmond to discuss pending legislation and the unintended consequences to KG County and some that would greatly benefit the County. Just this past month, I traveled to Tappahannock to meet with Secretary Jennings and elected officials from the region to discuss the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the implementation of the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).
Below is the post report I made, which I feel conveys why I feel we must be engaged , which does take travel. From 10 April:
Good meeting this afternoon with the Tappahannock Region Local Government Rountable hosted by the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) whose purpose is to advise the Chesapeake Executive Council, on how to effectively implement projects and engage the support of local governments to achieve the goals of the Bay Agreement.
As our representatives for all things related to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the implementation of the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), I was vocal about my concerns of unintended consequences to King George County. I voiced my belief that there is a very fine line between appropriate and responsible regulation and over regulation. I am of the mindset that this WIP is straddling the line. I have concerns with the cost of implementation that will fall to us locally, the impact on all future economic development, impact to our agriculture community (farms) and the overall requirements to reach the "goals".
There was a time when the Chesapeake Bay needed intervention. I acknowledge the situation was dire. It was and is a major economic driver , HOWEVER, after years of Regulatory oversight and implementations, grasses in the bay are at a level not seen in decades and the blue crab is back thriving in its waters. This observation I shared was confirmed by Secretary Jennings. The initial Phases worked. Its then that I offered up that it is an appropriate time to take pause as current regulations have shown significant improvements to the Bay. I do not believe Phase III is necessary at this point and has many consequences to rural localities. In truth, I was in the minority with my opinion, BUT, everyone seemed to share the same concerns on cost to localities. More and more, financial burdens are being shifted from the Fed, the State and Regulatory Agencies such as the EPA with no oversight.
This was one of 10 such roundtables conducted throughout the State. I believe they are listening and have gained some insight to local concerns and am hopeful they will give proper consideration
* Do you have any comment on the concerns raised about the overall quantity of travel?
Some travel may or may have not been justifiable in the past, that's for each independently elected Supervisor to justify to their constituents. However, under the new policy, ALL travel with an associated cost to the County is pre-approved in the budget process by individual trip and with an estimated cost provided.
* Do you feel you travel too much, too little, or just enough?
Just enough. For transparency, my travel budget for next year is set not to exceed $2,750.
No comments:
Post a Comment