State audit focuses on Whitley courthouse, jail

A recent state audit of Whitley County books, calls into question how much money the jailer should be making the last several years, where proceeds from prisoner use of jail phones should go, and the immediate future of a courthouse annex project at the old post office.
However, Whitley County officials say they disagree with some of the audits findings and conclusions.
Auditors noted in their report that they felt the jailer’s salary should be set in accordance with the Governor’s Office for Local Development guidelines, and contend that for the calendar year 2002, the jailer received a salary overpayment in the amount of $7,691.
“The jailer was paid $61,056 for calendar year 2002. Since the Governor’s Office For Local Development salary limit for the jailer was set at $53,365, this caused an overpayment to occur,” the audit stated. “Because of this overpayment, we examined the jailer’s payroll records beginning with his first year in office.
“Beginning with calendar year 1999, we found that the jailer had been overpaid each year that he had been in office. The jailer was overpaid a total salary of $34,966 from calendar year 1999 to calendar year 2002.”
Both Whitley County Judge-Executive Mike Patrick and Jailer Jerry Taylor dispute this figure.
Taylor contends that rather than making too much money, he is making too little money.
“I am make at least $10,000 less than Judge Patrick. When the legislature changed the law in reference to salaries for employees, the jailer, the judge, the sheriff, and the clerk – I think there are about five of us – the salaries are supposed to be the same,” Taylor said.
“When I was county judge, as Mike Patrick acknowledges, he received the same monies that I did. I went out of my way to make sure that he got that money. The law says that I receive the same salary that the county judge does, however, he hasn’t deemed it necessary to put that money in the county budget for me.”
Taylor said this is an issue that the fiscal court will have to address eventually because it is money that he is allowed.
“As far as the auditor referring I have been overpaid, that is a joke because I haven’t received the amount of money that I am supposed to be receiving,” Taylor said. “The auditors, when they are handpicked, and told exactly what to do when they come, you are not going to get satisfaction out of them. I told them I would see them farther down the road if they wanted to pursue it.”
Taylor contends the auditors presented him with the audit, they kept the front page covered, which stated that since he became jailer he had been overpaid.
“The law, the constitution of the state of Kentucky, says you cannot change a salary once it has been set. Judge Leroy Gilbert set the salary of the jailer before he went out of office,” Taylor said. “Therefore, when I came into office that salary had already previously been set. I didn’t set it. It had been previously set, and at that time, Judge Patrick attempted to cut my salary $10,000.
“When I finally showed him the state constitution, the law of the state of Kentucky, he put it back in the budget. He knows that I have not been overpaid, and the state auditors know that I have not been overpaid, yet they have wrote it up in their audit.”
Taylor took office as jailer on Jan. 1, 1999.
Whitley County Judge-Executive Mike Patrick said Taylor’s salary was set by a prior fiscal court on March 31, 1998 based on a new law passed by the state legislature earlier that year, which set out a formula for how much the jailer should make based on factors such as county population, and years of experience.
The salary was set based on Whitley County operating as a full service jail.
However, Patrick said the state department of corrections changed the jail’s status from a full service jail to a life safety facility effective Sept. 1, 1998.
Patrick said the state’s formula bases the pay for a jailer running a life safety facility at less than what a full service jailer makes.
Patrick said he agrees with Taylor that once an official’s salary is set, it can’t be lowered.
Because of this, Patrick said he has worked with state officials to show that Taylor should have continued making the salary set by the previous fiscal court, which was based on the jail being a full service jail, even though during part of that time, Taylor was only running a jail classified as a life safety facility, which would dictate a lower pay rate.
Patrick said he is still debating the issue with state officials.
In reference to Taylor’s claim that he should be making the same thing as the judge-executive, sheriff, and county clerk, Patrick said the 1998 law dictated the jailer’s salary.
“The old law set the salary for the county judge, county court clerk, and the county sheriff. At the discretion of the fiscal court with a vote of the court, the jailer could make that same salary. I don’t believe there was a law that said those four people make the same. There was a law that said three of them make the same, and the jailer could if the fiscal court agreed,” Patrick said.
During the nine years Patrick was jailer, he concedes the fiscal court always set his salary equal with the judge-executive made.

Jail telephone commissions
Another audit finding noted that for the fiscal year, which ended on June 30, 2003, telephone commissions at the jail totaling $21,197 were deposited into the jail canteen account.
“These receipts should have been deposited into the jail fund. Therefore, the jail fund is due $21,197 from the jail canteen fund,” the audit stated.
Taylor said he is used to this finding.
“They do this write up every year in reference to the phone monies. As I told the auditors, if they will make every jailer in the state of Kentucky, which they are aware of, turn their phone monies over to the fiscal court, then I will. Until they do that, I am not going to,” Taylor said.
The current phone service for prisoners is being provided through a company called Evercom out of Louisville, Taylor said.
“I am the one, who found the lady that is providing that phone service here,” Taylor said. “At that time when I became jailer, the county wasn’t receiving a dime and hadn’t for four or five years for the phone company that was serving the jail. The phone company money is being used. It is used properly, which the audit cannot say otherwise.
“Other jailers throughout the state, I’d say the majority of them, are using the telephone monies at the jail, and that is exactly what I intend to do.”
Patrick said the issue on the telephone commissions has come up with Taylor at prior fiscal court meetings, but that Taylor hasn’t expressed a willingness to turn the funds over to the fiscal court.
“We will have to figure out what the appropriate steps are to be taken,” Patrick said.
Patrick said he is attempting to get up with County Attorney Paul Winchester to discuss what the next steps should be.
Patrick, who served as county jailer for nine years, said when he ran the jail, it received revenues for telephone commissions. The jail then wrote the fiscal court a check for that amount to document their use.
“They did come back to the county. I believe that is the proper thing to do, and I believe that is what is done in most counties,” Patrick said.

Courthouse annex
The audit noted that on July 3, 2003,the fiscal court entered into a lease agreement to renovate the old post office for use as a courthouse annex for the circuit court clerk’s office, and that $605,000 in bond funding was set aside for the project.
A portion of the lease proceeds was used to retire a $245,000 lease obtained for interim financing for the project.
“The remaining proceeds were deposited into the court facilities project bank account to be used to renovate a building for use as court facilities. On January 20, 2004, $170,000 of the lease proceeds were transferred to the general fund and $160,000 was transferred to the jail fund. As of end of fieldwork, these cash transfers had not been repaid to the court facilities project
bank account,” the audit noted.
Patrick said the project came to a halt about 18 months ago, after the contractor requested nearly $100,000 in additional revenues for labor costs.
“We had been put on notice that they thought they would go into litigation with us because we wouldn’t sign the change order, so we just stopped everything,” Patrick said.
He said this was essentially a case of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul as the old expression goes.
“We moved some money over from that account into this one. If you will recall, we were having some cash flow problems at that time, and that is what we did. I couldn’t see borrowing other money, when I was already paying on money that was sitting there,” Patrick said.
He said the courthouse annex project is still at a standstill.
“Hopefully, one of these days, we will get around and get it completed, but I really don’t know at this particular point how much further we can go with it right now,” Patrick said.
Patrick said he doesn’t know when the fiscal court will be able to transfer the money back over to that account.