Cities: No on inspector general funds
Stand at joint meeting leaves county as the sole source for office.
WELLINGTON — Municipal officials on Wednesday strongly rebuffed Palm Beach County’s effort to have them join in paying for the Office of Inspector General, whose funding was the subject of a recent, protracted legal battle.
During a joint meeting between the Palm Beach County League of Cities and the County Commission in Wellington, mayors and council members from the county’s cities threw cold water on the idea of directing some of their funding to the inspector general’s office, arguing that their citizens, as county taxpayers, already contribute to the office’s funding.
Unless it’s changed — and there was no indication Wednesday that municipal officials were interested in considering the county’s request — their stand leaves the county as the sole source of funding for an office which, by law, must provide services to the county and all 39 of its municipal governments.
The county has so far rejected a request from the inspector general for more money for additional staff members, hoping, instead, that municipalities would agree to help foot that bill.
Wednesday’s meeting was the county’s first opportunity to broach the subject in a faceto-face meeting with city officials since the county lost its legal battle to force payment from the cities. It was like sticking its hand in a badger hole.
“This is an effort that is countywide,” Robert Gebbia, vice mayor of North Palm Beach, said of the OIG. “I understand that they’re short on money, but, guess what, 39 municipalities are short on money, too.”
Wellington Mayor Anne Gerwig added that it would be difficult “to take my city dollars and direct it to them.”
“Haven’t we already paid?” she asked.
The OIG provides auditing, fraud investigation and contract review services to the county and municipalities.
Following the recommendations of a grand jury that had been convened to examine fraud, the county established an Office of Inspector General whose initial coverage area only included the county.
After the county and cities established a joint plan to pay for the office, voters in 2010 passed a referendum expanding its reach
to include the cities.
That referendum won a majority in the county as a whole and in each of the 38 municipalities that then existed. (The 39th, Westlake, was incorporated only last year.) The referendum required an “independent Inspector General funded by the County Commission and all other governmental entities subject to the authority of the Inspector General.”
But 15 cities sued in 2011, arguing that the county should not be allowed to compel the cities to pay.
Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Catherine Brunson ruled for the county in 2015, but Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal overturned Brunson in December, ruling for the cities.
The county chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court, but county officials had hoped that cities would voluntarily contribute to funding the inspector general’s office.
“I am asking that cities come to the table and share in this cost,” County Administrator Verdenia Baker said. “We all reap a benefit from it. We should all share in it.”
West Palm Beach had been particularly vocal in fighting a requirement to pay for the inspector general. City Commissioner Keith James said the city has no interest in paying for an office over which it has no control.
“We don’t have any input in how large his staff is, what’s in his budget,” James said.
County Commissioner Hal Valeche said the answer to how best to fund the office now might lie in Tallahassee — if lawmakers there would pass legislation underscoring the office’s independence and providing it with a dedicated source of funding.
That would take the financial burden off the county, Valeche said, and allow municipalities to opt in or out of inspector general oversight at their choosing.
“It would be a fee for service arrangement, which would be much cleaner,” Valeche said.
But Rebecca De La Rosa, the county’s legislative affairs director, chilled those hopes, noting that state lawmakers would likely take a dim view of anything that required them to impose a tax on residents.