Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission directs audit committee to review Election Commission overages and benchmarking
Summary
Facing an election-office budget overage and repeated annual overruns, the Sumner County General Operations Committee voted to send questions about the Election Commission’s costs and repeated budget overruns to the audit committee for further study.
Committee members spent extensive time on March 24 reviewing Election Commission budget lines after staff reported the office was over budget in several lines and had an elevated overtime exposure.
Commissioners discussed figures shown in the transfer and budget reports: staff said the election workers line showed an overage of roughly $52,000 and that the election office had requested about $22,000 in additional overtime. Commissioners voiced concern about recurring overruns and the county’s obligation under state law not to exceed budget lines.
“...it just seems like every year, the election commission, we go through the budget process. They get their budget, and it seems like on the surface, they don’t really give any type of effort to stay within their budget,” one commissioner said during the debate.
The committee voted to refer two specific questions to the audit committee: (1) why the Election Commission appears more expensive on benchmarking compared with like counties; and (2) why the Commission has gone over budget this year. The motion directs the audit committee to develop audit options and return recommendations, including whether a financial or performance audit is authorized and warranted.
Committee members debated whether the audit should be a routine financial review or a broader performance audit that would evaluate staffing, cost structure and efficiency. Some members cautioned the county attorney or other counsel should confirm whether a performance audit of an independent election office is statutorily authorized before commissioning one.
Separately, commissioners debated interim appropriations for the election office. One commissioner proposed an immediate $10,000 appropriation to give the election office a buffer; another argued against ad hoc midyear bailouts and warned that routinely covering overruns reduces accountability. The committee also approved a motion to refer possible irregularities and benchmarking questions to the audit committee, which will return options and cost estimates.
The committee did not adopt a large midyear appropriation at the meeting; members emphasized that staff will continue pre-audit procedures on invoices and payroll and that any necessary transfers or appropriations would be considered with recommendations from audit and finance staff.
Speakers from the election office were not quoted directly during the committee’s decision; multiple commissioners and finance staff participated in the discussion and will supply benchmarking data and further documentation to the audit committee.
