Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
The Clerk of Court Office is once again facing questions from at least one commissioner over its practice of paying the full health insurance costs for its employees and their families, something that is said no other department does and that is inconsistent with county policy.
The health insurance issue arose during the Board of County Commissioners’ (BOCC) review of the Clerk of Court’s budget proposal for the coming fiscal year on Thursday evening, June 22. Commissioner Stephen Walker raised the matter.
In his presentation to the board, Charles Culp, the clerk’s finance director, reported that his office was not asking for any budget increases for the coming fiscal year, other than for adjustments to personnel salaries to reflect the three-percent cost of living increase that was anticipated that the county would give all employees.
Walker asked what percentage of the clerk’s employees’ health insurance coverage costs the county was paying, noting that the county policy was that it paid only a portion of an employee’s health insurance costs, and the employee paid the rest.
Culp reminded Walker that effective in late 2022, the policy had changed so that the county now also pays a percentage of an employee’s family health insurance coverage.
“Now we in the clerk’s office, our intention, or Clerk of Court Kirk Reams’ intention, is that we fund the entire policy,” Culp said. “So that whatever is not picked up by the county, our stateside budget picks it up.”
He went on to say that it was common practice all over Tallahassee for state and federal agencies to provide full health insurance coverage for their employees and families, a sweeping statement that Walker challenged and that a cursory review of the Florida Department of Management Services webpage on health insurance benefits for state employees appears also to contradict.
“My issue is that I like to have consistency throughout the county,” Walker said. “If we pay for the clerk’s, we should pay for the property appraiser’s people, the tax collector’s, and the county commissioners. Nobody should be above anybody else.”
Culp, however, offered that constitutionally elected officers, such as the Clerk of Court, “don’t have to stay within the confines of the county with any policy.”
“We choose to fund the entire policy,” he said, adding that as a constitutional office, the clerk had the right to spend state dollars on allowed state expenses.
“That’s paid by the state,” Reams agreed, referring to the portion of employees’ health insurance costs not covered by the county.
Noteworthily, in the clerk’s submitted draft budget for the 2023-24 fiscal year, under the heading “health insurance reimbursement,” it lists a zero amount in the state budget column for the current 2022-23 fiscal year, and it lists an ask of $32,804.09 for the coming 2023-24 fiscal year. It was never asked, nor was it explained, why the zero amount in the state budget column; and if not from the state, where did the health insurance reimbursement come from in 2022-23?
Walker remained adamant that the clerk’s practice was inconsistent with county policy and with the practice of organizations that he was familiar with; and he for one would not support it, he said. No person or group should be singled out for special exception, Walker said.
Commissioner Austin Hosford, who is relatively new to the commission, asked if the clerk’s office was different from other county departments.
Culp responded that the clerk’s office was funded about 70 percent by the state and 30 percent by the county, and Budget Officer Gus Rojas offered that the clerk’s was a fee office, governed by a different statute.
Walker, however, reiterated his point that one office funding 100 percent of the healthcare benefits for its employees when no other county department was doing it was neither right nor fair. It wouldn’t surprise him, he said, if other departments soon began demanding the same of the commission.
“We set a policy saying that we were going to fund so much per employee and so much for the family and the employees had to pay the rest of it,” he said, referring to the amended policy. “And the clerk’s employees not having to put in the least bit isn’t consistent with our policy or our intentions.”
Hosford asked if the other constitutional officers weren’t able to do likewise.
Reams’ response was that they could if they wanted to, but they weren’t asking for it from the county at present.
Culp added that it was his belief that the elections office also covered its employees’ health insurance coverage in full, including family.
This was another issue that he had planned to bring up, Walker said, noting that he had spoken with former Elections Supervisor Tyler McNeill and the latter had confirmed that he had indeed implemented the policy of paying employees’ full health insurance coverage, including family, at the election’s office. But McNeill’s predecessor, Marty Bishop, had not had such a policy, Walker noted. McNeill in fact worked in the clerk’s office prior to being appointed elections supervisor after Bishop’s resignation in midterm.
Commissioner J.T. Surles said he saw nothing wrong with the clerk’s practice if the office could get supplemental funding from elsewhere to cover its employees’ health insurance coverage.
Hosford agreed.
“The way I see it, we’re being equal,” he said. “We’re giving the same amounts to county and constitutional employees, and to me, if they are able to access state funds to give them these benefits to their employees, I see nothing wrong with that if it’s not costing taxpayers.”
He conceded however, that regardless of whether the money came from the county or state, taxpayers ultimately provided it.
Surles further noted that the board had done something similar for the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office when it had amended the policy to allow for the county to pay a portion of employees’ family health coverage to reduce turnover.
That wasn’t the same thing as the county paying employees’ full family coverage, Walker countered. But if the board was all right with the clerk’s practice, “why don’t we just fund 100 percent of everybody’s health insurance costs?” he said.
Whatever the policy though, he believed that all groups in an organization should be treated equally and fairly, he added.
“I just think what’s fair is fair,” Walker said. “If you work for Jefferson County, regardless of whether you work for the clerk's office, road department or county manager, the policy ought to be consistent and fair.”
He questioned next if the clerk’s office had paid back the $85,000 or so that it owed the BOCC for its past practice of using county funds to pay for employees’ family health insurance coverage without the knowledge or authorization of the board, as noted on the 2022 forensic audit report.
On page 45 of the report, it states: “The county has been paying for the basic coverage of health insurance for county and constitutional officers. Any additional coverage is required to be paid by the employee as a payroll deduction item.”
The report further states: “The clerk’s office, which operates the county’s human resources department, has not been deducting the cost of family coverage for any of the clerk’s employees, including the clerk. The office has also not been reimbursing the BOCC for the cost of the family coverage. This also includes the cost of family coverage on an independent contractor working for the clerk.”
It concludes: “The board’s general fund incurred expenses of over $85,000 in health insurance costs for the clerk’s office and did not provide this benefit to any other employees in the county.”
No one, however, was able to answer Walker’s question about whether the $85,000 and other owed amounts by the clerk’s office for previous years had been paid back. Chairman Chris Tuten instructed County Manager Shannon Metty to look into the matter and report to the board if any of the reimbursements had been made.
Property Appraiser Angela Gray next weighed in, saying that she was 100 percent on board with Walker’s comments. She encouraged the board to get clarification on what it was being told by the clerk’s office “because not all the clerks handle it in that way,” she said.
“Call over to Madison and ask them if they use state funds to pay for 100 percent of their employees’ health insurance benefits,” Gray said.
“They are going to tell you no,” she continued. “And if that’s the case, the county shouldn’t have to pay the individual portion that we’ve been paying all these years. Let the state pay it. It will save you all money to be able to supplement your employees more.”
ECB Publishing checked with Madison County Clerk of Court Billy Washington, who confirmed that he paid 100 percent of his employees’ health insurance coverage. The employees, however, were responsible for paying for any family coverage on their own, he said.
As a separate office, however, he could structure the health insurance anyway he wanted, Washington said, adding that to the best of his knowledge, he was permitted to use the state funding to pay for his employees’ health coverage, including family. He chose, however, to follow the county policy, he said.
Gray subsequently issued a letter of apology to the commission for her remarks, clarifying that she had not heard the entire discussion before making her comments because she had been in transit for part of the time. Consequently, she said, some of her comments had already been addressed and were redundant.
“Over the weekend and after some reflection and prayer, I must admit that my actions were out of character, unprofessional and certainly not representative of my Christian faith,” Gray wrote. “It is not my place to comment to the board members that were present in the manner I did and for this I ask that you accept my apology. It is not my role to call into question any other constitutional officer’s authority or actions unless they are directly related to my office, and I intend to only address concerns of those matters in the future.”
She added that she trusted that each commissioner was “willing and capable to be good stewards of the dollars that you manage on behalf of the citizens of our county.”