Veterans Service budget debate continues

Rarely, but on occasion, there's an almost compelling reason to publish an anonymous letter.

In the unlikely hope of getting public officials to speak out on the Veterans Service Commission's proposed budget for 2013, I'll share the contents of this week's correspondence delivered via the USPS, the author of which demands in judicial language: "Let the whole truth be told."

I'd be happy to, pal.

Here's the letter, picked up at the Hillsboro Post Office on Friday.

Rory,

Sorry about the anonymity and the delay in commenting on your article "Something rotten in Denmark?"

There are a number of less than factual things I want to bring to your attention. The error is probably not all yours. I believe whomever you got your information from was heavily influenced by how they would like things to be. As a result, you may have been led off on a tangent a bit. I offer the following for your consideration.

You stated that ORC 5901.11 mandates the County Veterans Service Office be funded at .5 mills of the county's millage. (In some counties that is several million dollars. In Highland County that is about $320,000.)

As you can read in enclosure 1 (a copy of Ohio Revised Code 5901.11), the budget responsibility lies in the hands of the Veterans Service Commission and not the employees of the Veterans Service Office. It goes on to say the commission will meet and determine the needs of the Veterans Service Office and submit the budget to the county Board of Commissioners. The board will then fund it not to exceed .5 mills of the assessed property value in the county. If a full .5 mills were mandated annually, there would be no need for a budget process. Fortunately, for the taxpayer, there is a required process.

This brings me to what you referred to as a past practice of appropriating a high amount with the understanding the VSO would not spend it all. Highland County records show the following: In 2010, appropriations were $234,733 and expenditures were $153,703; in 2011 appropriations were $252,284 and expenditures were $196,306; and in 2012, appropriations were $216,741 and expenditures were $92,000 (approximately, through the end of May).

I would submit to you that the Veterans Service Commissioners have made an attempt to request what they need even though they have historically turned money back to the county. This is probably due to the difficulty in forecasting the number of veterans applying for assistance. What concerns me more is the possibility that the VSO would have to ask for additional money (up to the .5 mills) half way (sic) through the year and be denied because the county had obligated the balance to county needs since it was not requested in the budget. It is my understanding that this is what happened in the Gallia County case you mentioned.

Lastly, you may want to check and see if Mr. Kisamore's request for counsel to represent the Veterans Service Commission in a dispute with the county commissioners is a valid request. He may have acted as alone (sic) and without the approval of the Veterans Service Commission. There is no record of a vote to seek counsel that I have been able to find. I would think one would be required.

Let the whole truth be told.

* * *

Anonymity aside, the author certainly brings up a number of valid points – any of which could have been made through conversations I have had with the state of Ohio, Highland County commissioners (both past and present), and the Veterans Service director.

Mr./Ms. Anonymous claims: "You stated that ORC 5901.11 mandates the County Veterans Service Office be funded at .5 mills of the county's millage."

Here's what I wrote:

After speaking with the Ohio Department of Veterans Services, here's what I know to be true.

• The Ohio Revised Code 5901.11 and the Ohio Supreme Court (Lynch, et al, Gallia County Veterans Services vs. Gallia County Commissioners) mandate that Ohio county Veterans Services offices are funded at .5 mills of the county's millage.

• When I spoke with the Ohio Department of Veterans Services, I was told the county commissioners have no other option but to approve the local VSC budget according to the .5 mills statute. In all fairness, the state also stressed that it is best for the county commissioners and VSC to "work together" on the budget. But the law is what it is.

Since the publication of this column, I have had at least one present county commissioner and one past county commissioner tell me the .5 mills is correct.

There's a similar debate in Hancock County as reported by the Findlay Courier (http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2012/May/16/ar_news_051612_story1.asp?…).

Mr./Ms. Anonymous claims: The budget responsibility lies in the hands of the Veterans Service Commission and not the employees of the Veterans Service Office.

We reported just that.

According to Mr. Kisamore and Director Brown, the proposed 2013 budget was passed by the VSC Board on May 15 at their monthly meeting with a majority vote of 4-0.

If Mr./Ms. Anonymous knows something to the contrary, he/she has every right – if not public duty – to speak out.

Mr./Ms. Anonymous claims: "This brings me to what you referred to as a past practice of appropriating a high amount with the understanding the VSO would not spend it all."

Mr./Ms. Anonymous then goes on to write: "Highland County records show the following: In 2010, appropriations were $234,733 and expenditures were $153,703; in 2011 appropriations were $252,284 and expenditures were $196,306; and in 2012, appropriations were $216,741 and expenditures were $92,000 (approximately, through the end of May)."

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but that certainly looks like a practice of appropriating a high number and spending a lower number.

Mr./Ms. Anonymous further states: "What concerns me more is the possibility that the VSO would have to ask for additional money (up to the .5 mills) half way (sic) through the year and be denied because the county had obligated the balance to county needs since it was not requested in the budget."

That's a valid point. However, according to records provided by the Veterans Service Office, in the years from 2008-12, based on total allowable millage for Highland County veterans, more than $800,000 was returned to the county. (That's a considerable amount of money for outreach programs and related services for local veterans.)

Mr./Ms. Anonymous concludes: "Lastly, you may want to check and see if Mr. Kisamore's request for counsel to represent the Veterans Service Commission in a dispute with the county commissioners is a valid request. He may have acted as alone (sic) and without the approval of the Veterans Service Commission."

To that point, this is what I wrote based on conversations with public officials: Just prior to submitting his letter of resignation, Richard Kisamore, the former president of the Highland County Veterans Service Commission, requested to the Highland County Board of Commissioners and the Highland County prosecutor that a special legal counsel be appointed and a hearing be scheduled regarding an alleged budget dispute. Mr. Kisamore had served on the Veterans Service Commission for 20 years. Despite traditional practice, the Highland County Board of Commissioners did not list Mr. Kisamore's May 24 letter on its recent meeting agenda. When I first became aware of the letter and requested a copy, my request was answered with a measure of obfuscation.

The fact of the matter is this: Had the commissioners placed Mr. Kisamore's letter on their agenda as is common practice, the column in question most likely wouldn't have been written.

While Mr./Ms. Anonymous apparently prefers less than the .5 mill funding formula for Highland County Veterans Services, he/she obviously missed this point in my column: Should there be some common ground between the 2011 expenditures and the 2013 requests? Absolutely. Should both sides sit down – in an open meeting – and discuss what's best for local veterans? Yes.

And if any public officials would like to publicly state – without the cover of anonymity – that the Veterans Service Office should receive less funding, we'll be happy to publish those sentiments.

Thus far, county commissioner Jeremy Shaffer has offered his opinion on the matter and made a quick retraction on his statement that "I believe that the Relief Allowance item should be increased before any other line item in the budget, due its nature of directly helping a veteran. In the recently submitted budget proposal by the Veterans Service Commission, this line item was decreased to a mere $5,000, while wages and benefits for employees were drastically increased."

Director Robin Brown contorted that she proposed a raise in financial assistance from $60,000 this year to $85,000 next year. "Our board has the final say-so, and approved $55,000," she said. Still a long way from the alleged $5,000 for veterans' relief funding.

Here's a novel approach for all public officials involved in this fiscal debate: show up at the June 19 Veterans Service Board meeting and state your opinions on the record. Voters and taxpayers deserve nothing less.

And America's veterans deserve a lot more than to be at the center of this confrontation. Let's work it out.

Rory Ryan is publisher of The Highland County Press.