Boone County Sheriff Office Management

Watchdog Indiana Home Page Watchdog Lebanon Home Page Boone County Police Departments 

Background

Aaron Smith, Watchdog Indiana Founder, expressed “aggravation” during the public comment portion of the March 11, 2014, Boone County Council meeting at what appeared to be repeated “gotcha” questions on a multitude of topics that Boone County Councilman Gene Thompson asked Sheriff Ken Campbell at each and every County Council meeting. To Mr. Smith, the questioning seemed to be crossing a line of how County Council meetings should be properly conducted. 

In response to Mr. Smith's opinion, Mr. Thompson E-mailed to Mr. Smith late the afternoon of March 11, 2014, five comments expressing what appears to be reservations about how Sheriff Campbell managed the Boone County Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Smith forwarded Mr. Thompson’s comments by E-mail to Sheriff Campbell on March 12, 2014. Sheriff Campbell responded to the comments by E-mail on March 14, 2014.

In an attempt to put to rest what seemed to him to be improper repeated gotcha questions, Mr. Smith is endeavoring – entirely on his own initiative – to understand and evaluate, one-by-one and from a Taxpayer Friendly standpoint, each of the five comments made by Mr. Thompson. Mr. Smith encourages all interested and concerned citizens to undertake their own evaluations.

Responses to the first two comments, regarding small reimbursement additional appropriations and an inmate medical encumbrance, were provided by Sheriff Campbell and evaluated prior to his retirement. The Taxpayer Friendly Evaluations of Comment #1 and Comment #2 are listed below on this web page.

Acting Sheriff Mike Nielsen will be asked to respond to the final three comments.

This web page includes the following unedited information from the E-mails sent to Mr. Smith by Mr. Thompson and Sheriff Campbell: opening statements, the five submitted comments and responses, closing statements. Unedited responses provided by Acting Sheriff Mike Nielsen for the final three comments are likewise included. Also, the Taxpayer Friendly Evaluations of the five submitted comments and responses are included.

Opening Statements

Mr. Thompson

I was surprised and disappointed by your “gotcha” comment today regarding the Sheriff. I did not feel it warranted a public response.

Because of your dedication and extraordinary effort on the part of taxpayers, I am happy to provide you these comments.

Sheriff Campbell

Thank you for the opportunity to see and respond to appropriately to the comments offered by Mr. Thompson.

It is a shame Mr. Thompson did not find it appropriate to answer you in public yet will via email. I find it ironic that he finds it appropriate to do the same to elected officials and department heads yet he chides you for doing to him.

Please contact me if you need further clarification.

Comment #1: Small Reimbursement Additional Appropriations

Mr. Thompson

Additional appropriations for small reimbursements … The Sheriff’s budget requests for 2014 have been fully funded through our public budget process. The Sheriff has repeatedly requested to add miscellaneous amounts collected back into the budget lines which then allows for additional spending as an amended budget. These transactions are a waste of staff time to process because if the sheriff needs additional funds toward the end of the year, he could simply request it one time. All other departments and elected officials collect reimbursements and fees for copies, maps, engineering fees and other items that are deposited into County General as Miscellaneous Revenue and not put back into their budget lines.

Sheriff Campbell

The “Additional Appropriation” requests I make are legal and appropriate as the County Attorney, County Auditor and State Board of Accounts has told Mr. Thompson. As we are no longer required to advertise the itemized additional requests, there is little to no expense to make this request. The transactions are done electronically in the Auditor’s Office. The over $29,000 I have voluntarily collected as your Sheriff in inmate medical costs alone are much more than “miscellaneous amounts” to me. Further, saying that it allows “additional spending” is a farce. The Inmate Medical line has not been re-appropriated from and is solely used for inmate medical expenses. Alluding that I do other than that adds insult to injury.

If Mr. Thompson wishes to speak of waste of staff time, please calculate the hourly rate he and the other Council member are making (include the county benefit package he and three others receive) as well as the hourly rate of elected officials, department heads and other employees are making during his continued arguing of this matter.

Mr. Thompson would relish for me to run out of funds and ask for more money at the end of the year so he could make an issue of my improper management of the monies. I’d much rather collect the monies due and return them to the fund from whence they came.

The fees that other county agencies receive are mandated by the state. These fees collected by other Offices and Departments for copy costs, etc. are nothing near the reimbursements we voluntarily charge the inmates. I have chosen to voluntarily (and legally) collect these reimbursements from the inmates and reduced per capita inmate medical expenses 63% as your Sheriff. The savings is projected in the millions of dollars. Once again, these funds are returned to their appropriate lines and not used for other lines. Frankly, it makes one want to not collect these voluntary funds when they cannot be returned to the appropriate lines. (But as Councilor Rogers pointed out to me in a meeting in my Office: “We know you won’t do that.” It is sad that my “taxpayer friendly attitude” is used against me by the Council.

If you back into one of my patrol cars, we make the repair. When your insurance company reimburses us for the repair, those monies automatically go back in my Repairs line. Why is inmate medical, postage and damages to jail property any different?

Taxpayer Friendly Evaluation (April 9, 2014)

Deanna Wilhoite, Boone County Auditor, was gracious enough to meet with Mr. Smith the morning of April 3, 2014, to answer some questions regarding the topic of “Small Reimbursement Additional Appropriations.” The questions and answers are listed next.

1. At the March 11, 2014, meeting of our Boone County Council, Sheriff Ken Campbell requested that $62.10 collected for Inmate Supplies be approved as an additional appropriation to County Corrections Fund 0526-061-2000.70. Our County Council failed to approved this additional appropriation request by a 3-3 vote. How has the Boone County Auditor’s Office accounted for the $62.10 collected for Inmate Supplies? ANSWER: The $62.10 collected for Inmate Supplies was deposited as Miscellaneous Revenue into the County Corrections Fund (the prior number for this fund was 0576, and the current number is 4926). With each additional request that Sheriff Campbell makes, where he is requesting to reimburse a county fund, there is a quietus (receipt) for that request attached as proof and documentation that the money has in fact been received by the Auditor’s Office.

2. Do miscellaneous amounts collected back into budget lines allow for additional spending as an amended budget? ANSWER: Yes.

3. Do all county departments and elected officials other than Sheriff Campbell deposit into County General as Miscellaneous Revenue their reimbursements and fees for copies, maps, engineering, and other items (and do not add these receipts back into their budget lines)? ANSWER: Some offices request budgetary additionals with reimbursements and others may not. Not every situation is the same and not every office operates the same. It may depend on the officeholder’s preference. Many of the offices receive miscellaneous funds for such things as copies. Generally, no office will request an additional to reimburse for copies, because these are usually included in the offices’ original budget request. However, either practice is acceptable and legal. Sheriff Campbell is not the only officeholder to make such requests. The Auditor’s Office supports Sheriff Campbell in how he chooses to track his office’s finances, spending, and reimbursements. Auditor Wilhoite states that Sheriff Campbell “is meticulous in the procedures.”

4. Does it take about the same amount of time in the Boone County Auditor’s Office to account for miscellaneous receipts into County General as Miscellaneous Revenue as it does to account for miscellaneous receipts into other budget lines? ANSWER: Absolutely. There is no difference. The Auditor’s Office processed 2,233 quietuses in 2012 and 2,178 in 2013. Whether Sheriff Campbell requests an additional appropriation to place reimbursed monies back into a line or not, the money would still have to be receipted into a fund after collection.

5. Has the State Board of Accounts expressed a preference as to whether or not miscellaneous receipts should be accounted for in County General as Miscellaneous Revenue or in other budget lines? ANSWER: The State Board of Accounts has no preference as long as the county is following statutory procedures, whether through the budgetary process or the additional appropriation process.

6. Is the Boone County Council required to publish notices for additional appropriations? ANSWER: Yes, in accordance with Indiana Code 6-1.1-18-5 and 5-3-1-2(b).

7. Does an additional appropriations public notice with more lines cost more to publish than an additional appropriations public notice with fewer lines? ANSWER: Yes. The estimated price per line is $1.32. So, if Sheriff Campbell requests one additional for reimbursement per month, the cost would be $1.32. If Sheriff Campbell requests three additionals within a month for reimbursements, the cost would be $3.96.

On April 7, 2014, Sheriff Campbell answered the following question: During your term as our Sheriff, have you ever exceeded your annual budgeted amount for Medical & Hospital? ANSWER: No. We have worked diligently to work within the budget allocated by the county council and have not exceeded our annual budget. Having said that, as we all know, major medical costs are unpredictable, especially with some of the people that we have incarcerated. (Higher risk medical issues.) We continue to find it prudent to require the inmates to make a co-pay for their medical services as you and I do. This also slows down the “field trips” from the cell to the medical office and unnecessary medical visits. As these monies come from inmates as a result of their requested medical services, we believe the funds should be used to replenish the medical line, decreasing my chance of needing a true additional appropriation.

As of April 9, 2014, Mr. Thompson had not answered the following question: Do you believe that dealing with inmate medical expense reimbursements as additional appropriations could result in the Sheriff’s Office unexpectedly exceeding its annual budgeted amount for Medical & Hospital and thereby create financial difficulty for the county?

Comment #1 Taxpayer Friendly Evaluation: The only cause for concern from a Taxpayer Friendly standpoint regarding the topic of Small Reimbursement Additional Appropriations is whether or not dealing with inmate medical expense reimbursements as additional appropriations could result in the Sheriff’s Office unexpectedly exceeding its annual budgeted amount for Medical & Hospital and thereby create financial difficulty for the county.

For the period ending December 31, 2013, the year-to-date actual spending for Account 1000.0005.430.431.0.0532 was $159,008.93. Unless there were some hefty encumbrances carried over into 2014, it appears that the $200,000.00 budget for 2013 Medical & Hospital was not exceeded. Sheriff Campbell reports that the annual budgeted amount for Medical & Hospital has not been exceeded during any year of his term as Sheriff.

There is only just so much that the Sheriff's Office can do to manage inmate Medical & Hospital expenses. Two or three serious inmate medical conditions during a year could result in Medical & Hospital expenses exceeding the budgeted amount. The County Council does not have the option to disapprove an additional appropriation should serious inmate medical conditions result in Medical & Hospital expenses that exceed the budgeted amount. The County Council has the responsibility to maintain adequate reserves so financial difficulty is not created for the county should there be Medical & Hospital expenses that exceed the budgeted amount.

It is Taxpayer Friendly that Sheriff Campbell requires the inmates to make a co-pay for their medical services to help reduce the number of unnecessary medical visits. This requirement also limits unsafe “field trips” from the cell to the medical office. It is Sheriff Campbell's preference that inmate medical expense reimbursements be credited back to the Medical & Hospital budget line item through additional appropriations. The County Council recently began disapproving Sheriff Campbell's additional appropriations, resulting in the reimbursements being deposited as Miscellaneous Revenue into the County Corrections Fund. The County Council meeting minutes document the reimbursement amounts received by the Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Thompson's repeated and repetitive questions regarding Sheriff Campbell's small reimbursement additional appropriations serve no Taxpayer Friendly purpose. To Mr. Thompson's credit, he did not repeat his questioning of Sheriff Campbell's small reimbursement additional appropriations during the April 8, 2014, County Council meeting.

Comment #2: Inmate Medical Encumbrance

Mr. Thompson

Inmate Medical encumbrance of $209,986.18. This was 100% of the remaining balance in this account on 12-31-2013 and was encumbered by the Auditor in error since we are now paying these expenses from COIT funds. The Sheriff has routinely encumbered any unspent money despite not having a contract that matches the funding. The state only allows us to encumber the exact amount of the contract obligation, and not the remaining budget balance. I mentioned this to the Sheriff at the Commissioners meeting in early February so it wasn’t any surprise to him (no gotcha).

Sheriff Campbell

Mr. Thompson approached me after a Commissioner Meeting and began a questioning session with me. Because of the adversarial relationship he has with elected Officials and Department Heads, I am guarded at best in my responses. (Sadly, I let my anger with him speak out.) However, I checked with the County Attorney after Mr. Thompson’s questions and was advised that my encumbrance is legal and proper. Mr. Thompson has issues with state laws and regulations that he does not like and continues to make issues of them regardless. He also fails to mention that the Council reduced my Inmate Medical line for 2014 as they know I legally and properly encumber funds. It isn’t as if the funds are used improperly, they are used for inmate medical care. Again, I go back to the fact that he would love for me to come and ask for an Additional Appropriation and be forced to go through the “inquisition” that Boone County elected officials dread.

As to any error by the Auditor, I defer to her. However, you were present and heard her explanation that this occurred as a result of the Council moving many funds from County General to COIT and she explained that it has to be done for the line in which the amount was budgeted in 2013. There was no error. Mr. Thompson chooses to point fingers as opposed to work with other Elected Officials once again.

Taxpayer Friendly Evaluation (May 4, 2014)

The staff in the Boone County Auditor's office helped provide the information summarized next regarding the topic of “Inmate Medical Encumbrance.”

A. The Accounting and Uniform Compliance Guidelines Manual for County Auditors of Indiana that was reissued 2002 by the State Board of Accounts can be found online at http://www.in.gov/sboa/files/coaudtoc.pdf. Chapter VIII of this Manual on the subject of Budgets and Appropriations includes the following (listed in italics):

"SECTION U - APPROPRIATIONS CARRIED FORWARD

Appropriations may be carried forward to the following year if any of the following conditions exist:

1. A lawful contract has been entered into with a vendor or contractor on or before December 31 and all or a part of the contract has not been paid.

2. A purchase order has been issued on or before December 31, entered as an encumbrance against an existing appropriation, and is unpaid as of December 31.

3. Proceeds of a bond issue have been duly appropriated and remain unexpended as of December 31.

4. Appropriations which are obligated by a contract or agreement executed on or before December 31, between the county and any federal or state agency, such as a criminal justice planning grant, local road and street project, or federal grant requiring local matching funds.

Only the amount required to meet the balance due on a contract or purchase order may be carried forward; the amount remaining in the appropriation account shall revert to fund from which appropriated."

B. The balance in the inmate medical fund on December 31, 2013, was $209,986.18. In an April 28, 2014, E-mail Boone County Auditor Deanna Wilhoite stated that after again reviewing the inmate medical contract it was determined that the entire $209,986.18 was encumbered in error and will be adjusted.

C. The amount budgeted by the County Council for the inmate medical fund in 2014 was lowered to $100,000 from $200,000 in 2013. 

D. If the 2014 inmate medical expenses exceed the budgeted amount, an additional appropriation will have to be approved by the County Council from the inmate medical fund cash balance.

E. The actual total amount spent on inmate medical expenses for the five-year time period 2009 through 2013 was $945,401.02.

Comment #2 Taxpayer Friendly Evaluation: Mr. Thompson contends that the Inmate Medical Encumbrance of $209,986.18 was encumbered by the Auditor in error since this amount (which was all of the remaining cash balance in the inmate medical fund on December 31, 2013) is more than what is required to meet the balance due on the portion of the inmate medical services contract that extends into 2014. Mr. Thompson is correct because the Accounting and Uniform Compliance Guidelines Manual for County Auditors of Indiana states, “Only the amount required to meet the balance due on a contract or purchase order may be carried forward; the amount remaining in the appropriation account shall revert to fund from which appropriated.” In an April 28, 2014, E-mail Boone County Auditor Deanna Wilhoite stated that after again reviewing the inmate medical services contract it was determined that the entire $209,986.18 was encumbered in error and will be adjusted.

Of more Taxpayer Friendly significance is the County Council’s decision to lower the amount budgeted by the County Council for the inmate medical fund from $200,000 in 2013 to $100,000 in 2014.

The actual total amount spent on inmate medical expenses for the five-year time period 2009 through 2013 was $945,401.02 – an average of almost $190,000 per year. Because only two or three serious inmate medical conditions during a year could result in inmate medical expenses exceeding the budgeted amount, it is prudent for the combination of inmate medical fund budgeted amount and inmate medical fund cash balance to be 50 percent more than the historical inmate medical expenses average. Since the historical inmate medical expenses annual average is about $190,000, the combination of inmate medical fund budgeted amount and inmate medical fund cash balance should be $285,000 (50 percent more than $190,000). However, the 2014 combination of inmate medical fund budgeted amount ($100,000) and inmate medical fund cash balance ($209,986.18) is almost $310,000. Therefore, the inmate medical fund has a cash balance that is currently $25,000 more than is prudently needed. (NOTE #1: The 50 percent reserve amount that is prudent for the inmate medical fund would not be prudent for other county funds where spending needs are not subject to unmanageable fluctuations.) (NOTE #2: Some might disagree with the Watchdog Indiana conclusion that a 50 percent reserve amount is prudent for the inmate medical fund.)

Because the $100,000 budgeted for the 2014 inmate medical fund is $90,000 less than the $190,000 historical inmate medical expenses annual average, it is anticipated that the County Council will need to approve an additional request of $90,000 for inmate medical expenses this year – thereby reducing the inmate medical fund cash balance from about $210,000 to $120,000. This would mean that, in order to maintain the combination of inmate medical fund budgeted amount and inmate medical fund cash balance at $285,000, the 2015 inmate medical fund budgeted amount should be increased to $165,000. The bottom line is that properly taking into account the fund’s cash balance when budgeting for the inmate medical fund will keep the fund’s cash balance from being more than is prudently needed – this is Taxpayer Friendly.

Mr. Thompson also contends that Sheriff Campbell “has routinely encumbered any unspent money despite not having a contract that matches the funding.” It is not certain if this contention is accurate. However, Mr. Thompson’s efforts to insist that the inmate medical fund encumbrances be properly calculated – together with his part in the County Council’s decision to decrease the 2014 inmate medical fund budget so as to reduce the fund’s cash balance to a prudent level – are Taxpayer Friendly. It is hoped the Taxpayer Friendly approaches taken regarding the inmate medical fund are consistently applied to all county operations and not just the Sheriff’s office.

Comment #3: Commissary Fund

Mr. Thompson

Commissary Fund … State law requires the Sheriff to provide semi-annual reports to the fiscal body. The Sheriff gives these to the Auditor’s staff instead of the Council. The sheriff continues to report a brief summary of activity in this account which I feel lacks adequate disclosure and is very taxpayer unfriendly. I think you would agree if you reviewed the account details that are kept from the public view. The summary he provides has been routinely understated by the omission of a $40,000 investment holding.

Sheriff Campbell

To quote Ronald Reagan: “There you go again.” The report I provided to the County Council’s secretary (The County Auditor and Staff) for distribution to the County Council is the report form that the State Board of Accounts provides for Sheriff’s to use. We routinely provide documents to the Auditor for distribution to the Council. Again, I have told this to Mr. Thompson on more than one occasion and he chooses to disregard that and try to chastise me publicly. So, if he feels it so taxpayer unfriendly, I would suggest he lobby the legislature for changes as opposed to his continued haranguing of this Office. I admit that I forgot to add the additional approximate $40,000 I have in a CD in a local bank to the report (as there is no blank for it on the report) as I told the Council last meeting. “Routinely understated?” That is a deceptive comment. The Council also receives the annual report from the State Board of Accounts that includes that amount. So his plea of me trying to hide the monies is rude and inflammatory.

Acting Sheriff Nielsen (July 3, 2014)

I have requested a State Board of Accounts audit on the commissary account for the last four years. That audit was completed June 27, 2014. They are currently auditing the cash book account, inmate trust, and the Sheriff’s Pension fund. I would like to wait until these are completed and I can get an official audit exit interview before responding in detail.

I also have met with a local CPA firm to take control over the Commissary account. My goal is to have the “check register” put into QuickBooks and have a detailed ledger for the account from 1/1/14 until present date. Both myself and the CPA firm would like to wait until the audit is complete to work on the new management of the account. The management fee to manage this account will be paid from commissary and is a legitimate expense per state statue.

I am very open about handling this account and any other information that this office deals with. Please call me or email me if you have any questions!

Taxpayer Friendly Evaluation (July 22, 2014)

The pertinent Indiana Code citation is listed next.

IC 36-8-10-21
Application to certain counties; jail commissary fund; disposition of money from commissary sales; record of receipts and disbursements
    (e) The sheriff shall maintain a record of the fund's receipts and disbursements. The state board of accounts shall prescribe the form for this record. The sheriff shall semiannually provide a copy of this record of receipts and disbursements to the county fiscal body. The semiannual reports are due on July 1 and December 31 of each year.

Information from the Boone County Auditor shows that a Commissary Fund CD with the State Bank of Lizton had a balance of $40,149.79 when the CD renewed on May 17, 2013 (with a new maturity date of November 15, 2013). The Commissary Fund CD is included in the “Cash and investments” beginning and ending lines on Page 32 for the Sheriff’s Commissary fund in the October 9, 2013, Financial Statement and Federal Single Audit Report of Boone County Indiana for January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012.

The following spreadsheet presents information from the last four County Sheriff’s Reports of Receipts and Disbursements of the Jail Commissary Fund: 

Listed next is Information about each of the three irregularities highlighted in red on the preceding spreadsheet.

(1) The January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012, Report lists an “Error Correction” of $1,400.00.

(2) The ending balance on the July 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, Report is $1,339.54 less than the beginning balance on the January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013, Report.

(3) June 30, 2013, is the end date for the January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013, Report. However, instead of beginning the next Report on July 1, 2013, the beginning date for the next Report is June 1, 2013. There is a $5,955.33 discrepancy between the balance as of June 30, 2013, and the balance ending May 31, 2013.

Comment #3 Taxpayer Friendly Evaluation: The State Board of Accounts audit and the contract with the local CPA firm to manage the Commissary Fund should satisfactorily reconcile any past irregularities and minimize any future irregularities. Acting Sheriff Nielsen plans to personally present detailed Commissary Fund reports directly to the Boone County Council every quarter.

Comment #4: Jail Staffing

Mr. Thompson

Jail Staffing … At the end of the last Council meeting the Sheriff “gave us notice” of a possible liability due to understaffing. As I said, Ken does a great job running the jail and has received wonderful reports from the State and I felt his comments and the news coverage left the impression that we have problems at the jail. We do not.

Sheriff Campbell

Would Mr. Thompson prefer I not share important reports such as that with the Council and then when we are successfully sued, have them learn of the issues? Would he rather I hide the report from the public? We have been fortunate that the understaffing of the jail, enforcement division and courthouse have not been major issues as yet.

As to the newspaper and what they write, he should be pleased that the Zionsville paper routinely fails to print stories that can be perceived as indicating his negative attitudes that the Lebanon paper prints. An example is his negativism about providing pauper legal counsel, proper medical care and inmate programming at the jail. I’m certain his District constituents would be proud of his lack of leadership, foresight and inability to work with other elected officials and department heads.

Taxpayer Friendly Evaluation (not yet completed) 

Sheriff Campbell promptly responded to a public records request on March 3, 2014, and provided an electronic copy of the December 2013 "Jail Staffing Analysis" report prepared by Jail Services for the Boone County Sheriff's Office. An electronic copy of this report can be provided via reply to an E-mail sent to taxless3@comcast.net. The report will be evaluated partly from the standpoint of whether or not the recommendations represent "solution overkill." 

Comment #5: Inmate Calling Services

Mr. Thompson

Inmate Calling Services … The Sheriff has a contract with a private vendor to pay the commissary fund a 51 % commission on inmate call revenue. As I mentioned, the commissary report showed inmate call revenue of about $37,000 for the last six months of 2013. For the three year contract period that would be about $222,000 profits from the inmates on charges to them of about $435,294 from the vendor. The FCC (see article attached) believes that prisons and jails are charging excessive rates to inmates and my question to the Sheriff was … does he think his revenue will decrease to the commissary fund. If it does, he will have to ask the Council for more taxpayer support or have to stop doing some of the things now supported by the commissions. I personally find the practice of profiting off the inmates as unfair and don’t think it should be allowed. We are really collected the commissions from their families!

Sheriff Campbell

As your Sheriff, and an active member of the National Sheriff’s Association and President of the Indiana Sheriff’s Association, I am fully aware of the FCC and their issues with prisons and jails and telephone calls. It is interesting that the cite he offered is a newspaper article. If Mr. Thompson wanted the actual information, I have the documents from the FCC. Unfortunately, Mr. Thompson is not aware of all the facts and again chooses to try to interject himself in issues he has no experience in. His questioning of me about this at the last meeting is another example of his attempts to “gotcha” me as you point out.

The FCC is another government regulatory agency that can do many things with little elected over-site. The Indiana Sheriff’s Association and the National Sheriff’s Association continue to lobby with Congress to get them to step in on this matter. Jails are not the same as prisons yet are being treated the same by the FCC.

We do make profit from telephone calls and commissary items. We also receive valuable technology that aids in our criminal investigations and reduced staffing needs for the jail a part of our inmate telephone contract negotiations. (Mr. Thompson again failed to make any reasonable inquiries of me on this and comes to his rash conclusions as a result.) This is nothing new and is legal.

The commissary account is scrutinized very closely by the State Board of Accounts and is regulated by statute. As has been pointed out in Council meetings by the County Attorney and the Council President, we also have a county ordinance that is more stringent than state statute. (Mr. Thompson tried to change this ordinance so he could attempt to micro-manage this Office further and did not receive a “second” on his motion.) This is another example of a law that Mr. Thompson does not care for and tries to work around.

My commissary audits from the State Board of Accounts are available and we have had no issues. (I was $82 long in 2012.) Please take the time to review the SBA audits of my predecessor if you want to see mismanagement. Mr. Thompson has told me that what my predecessor did is not of consideration.

If my commissary revenue is decreased will we need more county monies? Of course we would. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that. Again, Mr. Thompson was merely trying to “show off” and try to catch me up in something. He should be concerned that the Council will need to find additional monies if we lose these monies.

My cost of calls is “in the middle” for the State of Indiana. Again, Mr. Thompson failed to inquire in his repeated attempts to make the Sheriff’s Office look bad. The telephone contract is negotiated by the Sheriff as it occurs within the walls of the jail. Again, it is the way the law is written.

Taxpayer Friendly Evaluation (not yet completed) 

An electronic copy of the article referenced by Mr. Thompson report can be provided via reply to an E-mail sent to taxless3@comcast.net. 

Closing Statements

Mr. Thompson

Before I vote to spend the people’s money, I will ask questions about the process, the need and the availability of funds. In the interest of harmony, I will seek clarification of some issues out of the public view.

I really see no benefit in commenting on the Sheriff Campbell’s long and opinionated email. If you should have a specific question, just ask me … either by email or in a public meeting.

Sheriff Campbell

I appreciate your comments during the meeting. Please know that other Elected Officials, Department Heads, county employees and citizens are frustrated beyond belief with Mr. Thompson and his pompous, belittling attitude toward us. Many feel as you do and your public comments were appreciated by me and these many others. I might also add that Mr. Thompson agreed with me some time ago, in the parking lot of the Hussey Library in Zionsville, that he would provide me with questions prior to the meetings. (I had expressed my on –going frustration with him.) You have experienced how that worked out.

My record as a Township Board member, County Council member and your Sheriff stands for itself. To somehow insinuate that I am less than prudent with taxpayer monies and mismanage the Office of Sheriff is insulting at best and I am tired of it. Mr. Thompson seems to think that I am a Department Head that serves at his pleasure. Rather, I am the elected Sheriff and I serve at the will of the electorate. He doesn’t appreciate it when I point out that I have lost four (4) precincts total in my four (4) elections (and led the ticket most times) as Sheriff. Apparently the voters of Boone County seem to think the Office of Sheriff is managed properly and they appreciate the level of Public Safety we have been able to offer.

I’d also point out that many of the County Council members up for re-election last year noted many savings that this Office brought to them in budget hearings during public debates. I appreciate that they touted these savings, but we should have been included in this as we brought it to the table. (I specifically recall this during the debate in Thorntown you were a part of as a candidate.)

If Mr. Thompson believes he is the best at being the Auditor, Clerk, Sheriff, County Health Officer and others, then I suggest that he run for those positions or get appointed to them. Instead, the pompous, condescending, obstructionist attitude projected to this Office, other elected officials, department heads, employees and others by Mr. Thompson and a few other Council members impedes efficient and effective operation of county government.

Watchdog Indiana Home Page Watchdog Lebanon Home Page Boone County Police Departments  

This page was last updated on 07/27/16 .