The Raging Controversy of the Allegany County Road Patrol,

Part 2.

A truism says that there are always two sides to any story, and Dear Readers, this most assuredly is the case when it comes to the heated disagreement between the Allegany County Commissioners and the Sheriff of Allegany County. They have been embroiled in fiery battle over the transfer of the road patrol from the Sheriff's Department to the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and Public Safety (under the command of Mr. Gary Moore, who answers, in the chain of command, to the Commissioners).

Please refer to a prior article in The Appalachian Independent to read the opinion expressed by the Commissioners as to their rationale for their actions on this topic. Part 2 in your community internet newspaper presents the opposing viewpoint of Sheriff David Goad, who was gracious in giving of his off-duty time in order to discuss this topic that has obviously generated a tremendous outpouring of emotion and opinion from the citizens of Allegany County.

At the start of our discussion, Mr. Goad acknowledged that under the legislative powers of Code Home Rule, it was within the legal right of the commissioners to enact the transfer of the road patrol.

As repeatedly emphasized during this turmoil, it has been the contention of the Commissioners that the transfer was predicated solely on the basis of budgetary red ink, given the fact that for every year in the past eight or more years, the Sheriff has spent more than what was allocated to his department's budget.

Mr. Goad is willing to concede that he has consistently spent beyond his budget, but he is adamant that the reason for this occurring is a result of him being put in a situation commonly known as a "Catch-22." He acknowledges that he is not supposed to spend more money than allocated, but he counters that it is actually impossible to do so, as he alleges that the fiscal needs of the road patrol are never fully funded by the commissioners,

We proceeded to look over the individual line items in the budget of the road patrol, and it was evident that a large percentage of the outlay is fixed: salaries, benefits, training, maintenance, etc. In the past there had been a significant issue of radio dispatching costs, but that was resolved when all of the emergency response systems in Allegany County were consolidated. The one obstinate factor that never seemed to be corrected was that of overtime pay.

In my mind the next logical question to be posed was, "Why not just eliminate overtime, and the problem is solved?" No more arguments with the commissioners, no more conflicts over needing more money, and peace and harmony would arrive at last in the mountains of the Allegany's.

It turns out that it is not quite so easy to wave a magic wand and to end all overtime in order to accomplish the goal of copasetic relations with the county Commissioners. "The majority of overtime," according to the Sheriff, "is brought about by the cat-eye shift, for the union contract that is in force with the deputies requires that there be at least two officers on road duty during each shift, as this is deemed to be an important safety issue for the protection of the officers."

But why would this shift end up causing overtime to be necessary? One factor is the contract and safety requirement for two officers on the shift, as previously explained. And, according to Mr. Goad, "Each year there are circumstances that are out of my control that cause the department to run out of money before the start of a new fiscal year." One of the examples he provided was that of salaries which are legally required to be paid, even though the officer/s are not actually on the road performing the normal duties of the patrol. He has one officer who has been on administrative leave for two years while awaiting the results of an investigation, and at any point in time there will be other officers off work for things like illness, injury, or training. As he explained, in a recent two year period there were anywhere from four to six officers off the job during some point in time, but they were still being paid out of his budget. If there is not enough manpower available to be put on the road for each and every shift, the officers remaining will thus inevitably accrue overtime hours. Another budgetary requirement discussed that results in the flow of red ink includes intermittent expenditures for severance pay (when an officer retires and is paid for accrued sick leave, vacation, etc.) Sheriff Goad said that he has asked the Commissioners to factor into the budget an average yearly amount that would cover for this periodic extra funding, but always to no avail.

If the justification is true that the Sheriff's Department is chronically under-funded, why not just do what is fiscally responsible and take whatever measures are necessary to cut spending and to get through to the next budget year? If the primary source of overtime is the cat-eye shift, then it would seem that a simple, logical measure would be to eliminate that shift and to curtail services. He explained that this is precisely what happened in February, when the Commissioners informed him that his budget would be frozen until the overtime issue was fixed. Given that most of the overtime involved the third shift, he eliminated it completely. Subsequently, the Maryland State Police assumed this duty on a temporary basis, but it is the contention of the Sheriff that very soon after implementing the change, both the MSP and Commissioners communicated to him that they wanted a resumption of the road patrol night shift.

In addition, the Sheriff has his own emphatically held viewpoint of the county budget process. Each year in January all of the county departments submit what might be called their "wish-lists" to the finance department and commissioners. His assertion is that at every follow-up meeting to discuss his budget proposal, there is no offer of discussion or compromise, but instead he is simply given the Commissioners' decision on the budget with no real opportunity to negotiate what he maintains is required to provide for the safety of the community. Mr. Goad described the budget process as "the commissioners always turn a deaf ear to me."

One previous overtime issue that the sheriff readily admitted was a difficult problem to defend involved how much was paid for an officer appearing in court. He granted that, according to the terms of their contract, they were being paid a substantial amount even if they were actually in the courthouse for only a very short period of time. Evidently this concern has recently been rectified, and justifiably so.

While the Sheriff stated that there is no realistic possibility of not going over his budget, he claimed that his is not the only department facing this dilemma. He cited the example of the county nursing home as always being awash in red ink as well. "Would it not be fair," he queried, "to expect the same fiscal responsibility by the administration for the nursing home and for them to cut services when you come to the end of your money?" But of course no one expects the Commissioners to leave the infirm elderly to make it on their own, and by the same token, Sheriff Goad made the case that the safety of Allegany County citizens is just as important and needs to be properly funded.

The Commissioners have had two audits done by out of town groups (the Stottlemyer report, as well as the Lindsay and Associates report, completed in 2006) and make the claim that they reported "fiscal mismanagement and lack of managerial supervision in the road patrol division," and "overtime reporting irregularities." (Quoted from a letter-to-the-editor by the Commissioners in The Times-News.) Mr. Goad asserted that the essence of these reports faulted only the type of form used and the lack of full information collected, and that this amounted to a reporting issue that had no consequence on the basic issue of need for overtime, and that it really had nothing to do with fiscal or supervisory management. In fact, he declared that the majority of the county road patrols in the state of Maryland are over budget, precisely because of the same issue of overtime.

The sheriff pointed out that he had on more than one occasion asked for a review by an accounting firm that is chosen by neither the Commissioners nor the Sheriff, but was consistently denied that request. He also expressed dismay that when the Commissioners contracted for the first audit, they initially attempted to pay for the cost out of his budget, when it was initiated on behalf of the Commissioners.

He further recalled that on one occasion the Commissioners agreed to an extra $125,000 for overtime, but turned around and arbitrarily cut $61,000 from other parts of his budget, with them making the decision as to what line items to eliminate. He certainly perceived that as an effort, contrary to their opinion, to micro-manage his department.

There is no question whatsoever that Sheriff Goad sees this situation as having gone on for so many years, with no satisfactory resolution, that it has clearly degenerated to become a personal issue between the two factions. Their opposing contentions unfortunately have come to the point that there is essentially no communication between the two sides. When I offered an outsider's insight that this might resemble quarrelling between two children, he was in basic agreement that the state of affairs had reached a point of absurdity, whereby two county entities cannot sit down as responsible adults and resolve the problems. As he was very confident of his position on these issues, I inquired if he would have been open to binding arbitration by a neutral mediator. He readily affirmed a willingness to abide by the recommendations of an arbitrator, and reported that this had been a topic of discussion with the Governor recently, but nothing came of it. The sheriff himself did not convey such a proposal to the Commissioners, but then again, it appears that they are no longer on speaking terms.

As you are undoubtedly well aware, the transfer of the jurisdiction of the road patrol is indeed a done deed. In fact, it appears to be well within the legal right of the Commissioners to do so. Nonetheless, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Sheriff, and an August meeting with the judge took place to resolve the question of how to divvy-up the money in the Sheriff's budget remaining for this fiscal year. I have looked at the numbers in the revised budget, and in my mind there are certainly questions raised of major importance in regard to the assertion by the Commissioners as to their philosophy of fiscal responsibility and no deficit:

The fiscal year 2009 budget available to distribute for the Sheriff's Department as of the date of the court agreement was 1.8 million dollars (all figures for the purpose of this article are rounded off). It was agreed that the Bureau of Police would receive 2/3 of this, and the Sheriff would retain 1/3, so as to provide for the costs of the other obligations of his department (court security, serving papers). This gives $1.2 million to the Bureau of Police, and $580,000 to the Sheriff. In addition, as part of the court agreement, the Sheriff also has been provided an additional five deputies until the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2009), in order to perform the required duties of the office, at a cost of $680,000. When you add in these extra expenditures, you come up with a total revised sheriff budget through the end of this fiscal year of $1.3 million. Making the calculation of $1.2 million for the Bureau and $1.3 million for the sheriff gives you a grand total of $2.5 million, and now you are talking about red ink to the tune of a whopping $700,000. ($2.5 million revised minus $1.8 million budgeted = $700,000 deficit)

If there was so much animosity generated over prior budget deficits, the Commissioners seemingly went considerable overboard in agreeing to allow such a sizeable shortfall at this point in time. It certainly raises legitimate questions when your alleged philosophy of fiscal responsibility is not adhered to in a consistent fashion.

The final topic discussed was what the future might bring as far as a resolution to this issue, and since it was a fairly extended dialogue, it seems best to save it for: Part 3 of the continuing saga of The Raging Controversy of the Allegany County Road Patrol. In the final installation, Dear Readers, I also will report on my own reading and interpretation of the previously mentioned audits, as there are obviously disparate versions expressed by the Commissioners and the Sheriff. In addition, look forward an account of legislative strategies in the works, spear-headed by Delegate Kevin Kelly.

To be found only in The Appalachian Independent. Spread the word.

For comments, contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it