Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges behavioral-health funds used to buy TruNarc; county says purchase came from state deflection grant
Summary
At the Polk County Board of Commissioners meeting June 11, a resident accused county officials of using behavioral-health funds to buy a drug analyzer; county officials said the purchase was allowed under a state grant to set up a deflection program and defended a $25 records fee as an administrative charge.
A Polk County resident told the Board of Commissioners on June 11 that county funds intended for behavioral health were used to buy a TruNarc drug analyzer, and criticized the sheriff's office for withholding records and charging for body-camera footage.
The allegation came during the public-comment period, when resident Robert Greenway said he had requested information and been charged $25 to obtain video related to an assault. Greenway also alleged the county had used behavioral-health funds to buy a drug analyzer rather than spending the money on behavioral-health services.
County officials responded during the meeting. A presiding county official said the county received a state grant to establish a Polk County deflection program and that the grant permitted purchase of TruNarc machines for law enforcement. The official told the board, “We got a grant from the state to set up Polk County deflection. So with that money, that was allowed for us to buy the TruNarc machines for police officers. So it wasn't out of behavioral health.”
Greenway said he had asked for the county's policies and procedures and that he had not received adequate responses. "If you ask them a question about their policies and procedures or SOPs, you get — they won't answer the questions, simple questions," he said. He also said a county employee named Morgan asked him to pay $25 to obtain video, which he described as a "shake down." The presiding official noted that charges for records requests can include administrative fees to recover costs.
No formal investigation, audit, or further action on the allegations was recorded in the meeting minutes. The board did not vote on the funding source or on any records-request policy at the June 11 meeting. The public-comment exchange, the county's explanation about the grant, and the mention of administrative record fees were the substantive items on the record related to these concerns.
The meeting continued with routine business after public comment, including approval of the amended agenda, minutes and the consent calendar.
