Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Djf Diversion Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators question diversion funding routed through First Circuit; call for ethics checks and redistribution
Summary
After staff invoices suggested funds routed through the First Circuit solicitor’s office were paid to a nonprofit connected to a state representative, senators moved to reallocate the $350,000 and asked staff to check disclosure filings and refer the matter to ethics and investigatory authorities if warranted.
A Senate subcommittee confronted a budget line in the juvenile justice packet that has long funded diversionary services in the First Circuit and questioned whether some of those dollars were being routed to a nonprofit tied to Representative Gilda Cobb Hunter.
Sen. Goldfinch told the panel staff had reviewed invoices and that the nonprofit in question appeared to be receiving approximately $8,800 per month from state dollars routed through the First Circuit solicitor’s office. “It looks like Representative Hunter is being paid approximately $8,800 a month from state dollars that are appropriated through this budget,” Goldfinch said and proposed striking the personnel expense allocation to the First Circuit and redistributing the money equally across judicial circuits (S13).
Lawmakers stressed the services funded by the proviso—juvenile diversion, counseling and related supports—are important, and several members said they did not want to cut proven services. But they also said the arrangement raised transparency questions: who requested the earmark; whether the payments and pass‑through were disclosed on statements of economic interest (SEIs); and whether the solicitor’s office and the legislator followed recusal and disclosure rules.
Several senators asked staff to check SEIs and recommended referrals to the appropriate investigatory bodies if the review produced evidence of undisclosed conflicts or unlawful conduct. One senator urged a referral to the State Ethics Commission or the House Ethics Committee given that a House member is implicated; others said the panel did not itself have jurisdiction to decide criminal probable cause but could forward evidence.
The committee adopted an amendment to redistribute the $350,000 among circuits rather than leave it tied to the First Circuit solicitor’s office; members also asked DJJ and staff to provide documentation and committed to follow-up oversight, including potential referrals.
Next steps: staff will check SEIs and the committee directed the relevant ethics and oversight authorities be notified if the review finds probable cause for further investigation.
