Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harvey County treasurer cites Supreme Court ruling in dispute over motor-vehicle fund per diem deduction
Summary
Treasurer Becky Fields told commissioners that a Kansas Supreme Court decision prevents the commission from approving or modifying motor-vehicle fund expenditures after the board last week unapproved a $266 meal per diem. Commissioners said their concern was an extra hotel-night expense; no new legal steps were taken at the meeting.
Harvey County Treasurer Becky Fields told the Board of Commissioners on Aug. 5 that a recent Kansas Supreme Court decision means the commission lacks authority to approve, reject or modify expenditures from the motor-vehicle fund.
Fields said she resubmitted a claim for per diem after commissioners last week removed $266 related to meal reimbursement. She told the commission she would submit an additional reimbursement request for $208.09 that "will be coming through next week." She also said she had emailed commissioners a Supreme Court opinion in "Marshall County treasurer versus the Board of County Commissioners for Marshall County," and told the board: "It clearly states in here that there is nothing in statute giving the board any authority to approve, reject, or modify motor vehicle fund expenditures."
Commissioners responded that their prior concern was a hotel-night expense tied to the trip and that they viewed the amount as an additional taxpayer cost. A commissioner (unnamed in the record) said the board's concern was that the hotel night "was an additional expense to the taxpayer." Fields disputed describing motor-vehicle funds as taxpayer-levied money; she said the dollars are distributed from the state to operate the office and that "it is not taxpayer money." The exchange included sharp back-and-forth on the record.
Fields also mentioned a $300 training fee for a September treasurer training that she had included in the warrant checks; she said the training is recurring each fall.
Why it matters: The dispute concerns the county's internal control over funds that the treasurer receives and manages and raises legal and procedural questions about which expenditures the commission may review. Fields threatened to consult the county attorney if necessary and cited the court ruling as support for her position.
Next steps: No formal legal action was taken at the Aug. 5 meeting. Commissioners said they would "do what's right," and Fields indicated she would proceed with submitting her reimbursement requests and that she had provided the cited court opinion to commissioners by email.
