Finance Director Resolution
To fellow commissioners, Administrator Jim Dyer, and Treasurer John Gallagher,
I have been reviewing and contemplating the proposed finance director resolution since our last meeting.
I’ve come to the conclusion to vote “no” on the resolution.
The reason has nothing to do with proposals to modernize and improve financial and budgeting digital programs used by Leelanau County, which I support. As you may recall, I discussed with our former finance director, Cathy Hartesvelt, at open meetings the need to move toward a system that would provide real-time financial data not only to commissioners but also to the public through our website. I know of no one who opposes those improvements, within or outside of county government.
Unfortunately, little progress has been made over the past several months. The resignation of the assistant finance director last fall, a poorly timed hiring freeze approved by a split vote of the County Board, the firing of Ms. Hartesvelt, and the resignation of the last remaining clerk in the finance department are recent factors. High turnover has plagued the department, which now falls under the purview of the administrator.
I recognize the finance department resolution as an attempt to right that ship, a laudable goal. I appreciate Mr. Dyer’s attempt to move in that direction.
My major concern has to do with the authority given to what is termed the “County Finance Team,” which would be comprised of the county treasurer, an elected position, and the unelected positions of county administrator and finance director. No commissioners would have a seat.
I agree with the premise that many of the tasks that would be transferred to the team are essential to the future of Leelanau County. However, there is no need to form a new body and assign the team unchecked authority to implement them. Working with the County Board, the administration already has the authority to move ahead. Purchases have been budgeted or placed on the CIP for software changes. Neither a lack of authority nor a lack of support has slowed progress.
Some changes proposed would remove County Board involvement in county finances, which worries me. For instance, the new “budget process” envisioned by the resolution could be implemented without review or consent of the County Board. Commissioners should participate in the development of the budget process — and should certainly have a vote in its implementation. Approval of a county budget is perhaps commissioners’ most important responsibility; we should have a say in the system used to formulate the budget.
The finance team would be authorized to “take all other steps and to implement internal departmental financial policies and develop standard operating procedures, as may be suggested by the Michigan Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act, and best practices recommended by the Michigan Department of Treasury, and the County’s audit firm.” As written, the clause provides carte blanche authority to the team in financial policy and practice. Simply changing the phrase “as may be suggested ...” to “as are identified” puts bumper guards on the team’s power.
One of the biggest responsibilities of the County Board is to develop county policies. I fully support the administration recommending new policies; it’s the responsibility of commissioners to review and approve them. To approve the resolution as written would constitute absolving ourselves of an important responsibility that comes with the job of being a commissioner. Policy changes should come before the board.
The resolution as written represents a step toward restructuring county government. We would be moving in practice, if not in title, toward a “county controller” type of governing, something most, if not all, commissioners have stated that they oppose.
My final reason for opposing creation of the finance team as proposed deals with a level of hypocrisy in its makeup. The most powerful reason given for removing authority in 2021 from the clerk’s office for payroll and accounts payable was that the clerk serves in an elected position with limited statutory duties.
While Leelanau has been blessed with very little turnover in clerkships over the past 50 or so years (only two clerks), the odds are bound to catch up. Should a new clerk be elected who did not want to take on the non-statutory duties assigned for decades to his or her office, county finances would be caught in a tenable situation. While the County Board–approved decision made five years ago was given limited public discussion, little consideration toward implication, and no post-mortem opportunity for input from Clerk Michelle Crocker (the longest actively serving county clerk in the state of Michigan), the change was likely inevitable at some point.
Now comes a proposal that assigns the county treasurer financial responsibilities that go far beyond the statutory requirements of his office. I reviewed those duties as recognized by a MAC report written by MSU Extension. From my seat, it looks like we as a county stripped non-essential responsibility from one elected officer to avoid the potential for financial vulnerability, only to add non-essential financial responsibility to another elected officer. Good governance is not based on popularity.
Those are some reasons for my reaction to the resolution before us. The functioning parts of the proposal can be implemented without usurping County Board participation and oversight. More input from the Treasurer’s Office in financial decisions involving county funds, of which he is the gatekeeper, is only a short walk down the hall from the Finance Department and the Administrator’s Office. I would also welcome more input from Mr. Gallagher at our meetings.
(My thoughts are not meant to be confrontational. They come with no disrespect toward Mr. Dyer or Mr. Gallagher. The voicing of opinion in an open forum is an essential part of reaching resolution on important issues.)
Alan Campbell
Leelanau County Commissioner
District No. 5
