LETTER: Attorney defends lawsuit against board

By Rodney Wetovick

I found last week's letter by the Nance County Board of Supervisors to be very disconcerting, and I am compelled to respond. The Board's letter is a classic example of political spin-doctoring. It almost sounded as though they declared victory. While supposedly trying to clear up misconceptions, they set about to create several more.

Here are the facts:

1.) After both parties had their day in court, and extensive briefs (in lieu of closing argument) were considered, the Court made the following factual finding: "the action of the plaintiff in requiring full-time assistance was reasonable, and that the decision of the defendant board to require such employment to be part-time was unreasonable."

2.) The Board says that despite the Court's ruling it continues to believe that a full time assistant is not needed. The Board failed to offer any evidence to support its position. The Court specifically found, "It is evident from the testimony of the parties' witnesses that there is no disagreement as to whether or not clerical staff should be available to the plaintiff and general public during all hours that the courthouse is open to the public."

3.)  The Board is correct in stating that I asked for a full-time assistant. By County policy full-time personnel receive insurance benefits. I agree that the full-time wage and benefits would cost the County about $8,000 per year more than the budget adopted by the Board . The key fact omitted is that the County Attorney's office has brought in more state reimbursement to the County than the County had previously been receiving. This was enough to cover the $8,000.

4.) The Board is correct that I also asked for $5,000 in the lawsuit for more part-time help. The Board is well aware of my position that currently the time devoted to Child Support is inadequate. Adding a one day per week person would free up time to be spent on collection efforts. The  Board omits this fact: That by spending extra time on Child Support, the people get better service and the part-time position could be entirely paid for with additional State reimbursement funds.

5.) I did ask that the Child Support reimbursement funds be deposited in the County attorney's budget in accordance with State Statute. It is disingenuous of the Board to claim that this would cost $17,000 per year for each of the next four years. I have never advocated that this happen at any cost to the taxpayers. In fact, prior to publication of their letter, the Board was aware that I had acknowledged to the Court in my brief that if the Court granted this relief, the Board would adjust my budget to reflect the reimbursement amounts being available to fund Child Support collection. I believe this distortion of facts was done knowingly and purposefully to cast me in a bad light and to justify the Board's unreasonable actions.

6.) The Court adopted my argument and ruled in my favor on the key issues. While the Board is technically correct that the Court dismissed the second cause of action seeking a writ, it was only because in the first cause of action, the Court had already ordered the Board to do exactly what the writ was seeking. If the Board believes this is a victory, it is a hollow victory indeed. The Board was ordered to approve the budget I submitted regarding full-time employment and the Court ruled I had the authority to decide staffing issues.

I have had numerous discussions with the Board. A great deal of information was shared with the Board leading up to the 2007 budget hearing. The Board members had consulted an attorney in August, and deliberately chose in September 2007 to take the position they outlined in their letter. The Court has ruled that the position they took was unreasonable. In light of that, I openly challenge the Board to publicly disclose the amount they have paid to the law firm of Spencer Fane from August 1, 2007 to the present time (including any fees incurred, but as yet unpaid). Just the truth and nothing more. Armed with that information, the public can decide whether the Board was justified in taking its position and whether it was in the County's long-term best interest. I am confident that a great deal of money was spent to find out what I told the Board in December of 2006, that they do not have the authority to dictate what other elected officials do in terms of staff.

This case boils down to the authority of County Officials to make decisions regarding salary and terms of employment for their various offices, and to the issue of fairness in who does and who does not receive County benefits. I believe that health insurance benefits ought to be offered to key personnel whose stable employment is essential to the functioning of the respective department or office.

I believe that the part-time personnel who work 30 hours per week for the County ought to be offered benefits long before benefits should be offered to the County Supervisors. When the cost of the benefits package exceeds the pay, that should be an indicator that the issue likely needs to be reviewed and addressed. One incumbent Supervisor has served 20 years and another 36 years, and little change has occurred in this regard. I have no confidence that the current Board members who receive benefits ( there are two who do not) will cut their own benefits in order to offer them to deserving employees. Cutting wages and benefits for a deserving employee is what precipitated this lawsuit in the first place.  If the Board was truly motivated to save money, the Board should have looked at their own budget first.

As an elected official and fellow taxpayer, I believe I owe my considered judgment to the public in the exercise of my duties. If I didn't believe that the County Attorney's budget needed to be increased, I would not have asked the Board to do so. I don't desire by my actions to create any more of a tax burden on anyone than already exists. In fact, I've been instrumental in helping the Board implement changes that resulted in substantial savings to the taxpayers.

It is my considered judgment that the proposals at issue in the lawsuit represent positive changes that are essentially revenue neutral.  The Board has spent a small fortune of our tax money to oppose these positive changes, and they should divulge exactly how much. It is my firm conviction that the Board's action in this matter is not in  Nance County's long-term best interest! 



Rodney Wetovick is the Nance County Attorney and lives  in Fullerton.