The Raging Controversy of The Allegany County Road Patrol, Part 3

The roaring flames seem to have subsided for now, but there is still plenty of smoke smoldering below the surface in regard to the contentions between the Allegany County Commissioners and Sheriff Goad over the county road patrol.

Today in this updated report from your diligent investigative reporter for the Appalachian Independent, you can read about the opinions on both sides of the aisle, as well as comments based on an independent inquiry.

As this is an issue that is going to be ongoing for quite some time and not likely to be settled until the next local election cycle in 2010, yours truly will continue to give you, Dear Readers, periodic updates as information becomes available.  Bookmark the Appalachian Independent on your computer, and you are cordially invited to submit your thoughts on this issue.

I would like to go on record and give a bountiful thank you to the County Commissioners and Sheriff Goad for being so kind to take their valuable time to talk at length about this controversial issue.  Being able to speak with them face to face has made me realize that they are to a person earnest and concerned, and while their opinions may be diametrically opposed, each side feels that they are doing what is best for Allegany County.  I have also had the opportunity to speak with the county financial officer, Mr. Jerry Frantz, and it was like a breath of fresh air.  Simply put, this man knows his stuff, and talking to him revealed to me that he should really be named Mr. Finance Franz.  Allegany County is fortunate to have him serving in his capacity.

Please refer to Parts 1 and 2 of The Raging Controversy of the County Road Patrol in this paper for more detailed background information, but as you are likely well aware, the controversy of which I speak refers to the County Commissioners' decision to transfer the county road patrol from the Sheriff's Department, where it had been for the past 35 years, to the newly created Bureau of Police, and as such, under the command of the recently formed Department of Homeland Security.

There are a number of assertions that have been made by each of the involved parties, and  my response based on objective research is provided below:

1)  The County Commissioners have repeatedly stated that the impetus for their actions is the budget deficit that is generated each year by the Sheriff's Department.  The fact of persistent and continued deficits is not a point of disagreement by either party.  The Commissioners contend that it can be and must be fixed, while the Sheriff says it really cannot be done under the present circumstances.  They both agree that the problem revolves around the predicament of overtime pay.

Facts/Comments:

The Allegany County road patrol is not alone in running deficits.  The Stottlemyer report, an audit done in 2005, indicated that overtime is a problem in other counties in Maryland as well.

The Sheriff has contended that he is not the Lone Ranger and that there are indeed other county departments over budget, citing as examples the Allegany County Nursing Home and the 911/Joint Communications Office.  Per Mr. Frantz's report, this is partially correct:  the nursing home is in the red, but no other departments.

2)  The Commissioners are adamant that the deficit for the road patrol can be eliminated.  Mr. Moore, head of the Dept. of Homeland Security, has stated emphatically that there will be no deficit at the end of the fiscal year.

Facts/Comments:

As reported in TheTimes-News, since the road patrol has been transferred to the Bureau of Police,  the budget has still been overspent by an average of $3,000 per pay period, which would mean an approximate deficit of $78,000 in a year's time.

In reviewing the revised Sheriff's budget for the remainder of fiscal year 08-09, it appears that the transition has resulted in an additional deficit of $600,000.   I will add a codicil:  interpreting the revised budget is a bit confusing, and due to pending lawsuits, Mr. Frantz is under instructions not to discuss any budget issues involving the Sheriff's Department.

3)  The Commissioners have authorized two audits of the Sheriff's office, one in 2005, the other in 2006; these are called the Stottlemyer Report and Lindsey Report, respectively.  The Commissioners have alleged that these reports "revealed overtime reporting irregularities," and "documented the fiscal mismanagement and lack of managerial supervision in the road patrol division."

Mr. Goad's response, as noted in Part 2 of this series, "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."

At this juncture, I would like to take a break and ask anyone in the reading audience to raise your hand if you have read either the Stottlemyer or Lindsey Reports.  Seeing no upraised hands, I will admit to having read both of them on two different occasions from start to finish, and I will be very glad to report on what I have ascertained.....in Part 4 of our series.  Plans are to keep this as an on-going project to keep the public informed.  Stay tuned for continuing developments, including current citizen and legislative actions.

Participate in the dialogue of democracy, contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it