Fiscal Court conducts special meeting; working session By JOE REDMON Meade County Judge Executive Harry Craycroft convened a special called business meeting of the Meade County Fiscal Court Feb. 27 with a three-item agenda, with plans for a follow-on working session. All members of Fiscal Court attended. Included in that agenda was consideration for the purchase of a desk for the county attorney, Margaret Matney. Magistrate Steve Wardrip made a motion to reconsider his tabled motion from the regular February session to purchase a desk for the county attorney, noting the desk would then become county property. Magistrate Herbie Chism reiterated his past objection to this request, noting there were funds available through a state-funded administration account, totaling $3,000 per year and asked Matney whether she could access those funds to purchase the desk. There then ensued a conversation about the operational workings of the county attorney’s office. Matney pointed out there was about $2,000 in that account when she took office, and that money was needed to purchase paper, stamps, scissors, as the office contained practically none of this when she assumed the duties of county attorney. She added none of the other county attorney accounts were available to her, as those accounts continue to be controlled by her predecessor, his reconciliation to Fiscal Court not being due until March 15, per KRS 64.830 (2). A question was then asked of Matney about her use of a computer. She responded the former county attorney owned his own computer and she was also using her own computer. Magistrate Tom Goddard noted this was unacceptable, as there now existed a computer with almost certainly sensitive county business on its hard drive, outside of county control. He further noted by using her personally-owned computer, this problematic activity was bound to continue in the future. Fiscal Court then voted 6-1 to authorize Matney to purchase a desk for her office. In explaining his objecting vote, Chism noted “this hasn’t been done in the past” and would “open a can of worms,” as other offices will now expect the county to purchase such equipment in the future. This reporter then asked Matney whether the former county attorney had met his statutory requirements dictated by KRS 64.830 (1) to “…deliver to his successor all books, papers, records, and other property held by virtue of his office.” She responded, “Clearly, no.” Following up later in the week, this reporter learned the county attorney has initiated new accounts, as she has been denied access to the office’s funds. Paragraph (2) of KRS 64.830 provides outgoing officials until March 15 to make a “final settlement with the Fiscal Court…” It isn’t entirely clear whether a “complete settlement of his accounts as county attorney,” described in paragraph one must wait for the “final settlement with Fiscal Court” described in paragraph two. What is clear is Matney thinks her predecessor hasn’t fulfilled his official duties since the election. When contacted, former county attorney Darren Sipes insisted he had fulfilled those obligations under the applicable KRS and added his successor would receive county attorney funds after a full accounting had been made to Fiscal Court, as he says is required. When Fiscal Court reconvened in a working session, it quickly skipped discussion on “solid waste management,” preferring to hold it until a future working session, and proceeded immediately into a discussion of a proposed animal control ordinance. Judge Craycroft carefully noted past work completed on this draft by members of the past Fiscal Court, Former Magistrates Don Callecod and Theresa Padgett, as well as many members of the general public. After pointing out his deletion of a provision for the animal control officer (ACO) to work directly for the Meade County Sheriff as a law enforcement official, Craycroft pointed out the ACO would continue to work for him, working closely with the sheriff, and opened the floor for discussion of the proposed ordinance. After clearing up matters referring to the breeding and boarding of domesticated animals, it became clear the court considered the proposal a model ordinance. Magistrate Hubbard called it a “well-written and enforceable ordinance” and thanked the committee of people who worked on it. Wardrip called it “clear” and echoed Hubbard’s thanks. Craycroft and Magistrate Tony Staples termed it a “fair, enforceable, and doable” ordinance. Judging from such comments, the new animal control ordinance appears on a fast track to approval. The next regularly scheduled Fiscal Court meeting is the second Tuesday of the month, March 13, at 7 p.m. at the county courthouse. Click Here to Go Back
|
