| Author | Post |
|---|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 01:21 pm |
|
Jody.Sweeney wrote:
I have only been on the Court for six months and before I asked for the information, wanted to ask HERE, from taxpayertoo, if the information had been provided BEFORE I came to Levy Court. I have a bit of a background in accounting, so I might know what to ask for. So instead of using this forum as your means to complain, HELP ME!
I would suggest sitting in on a pension committe meeting, read their minutes, read the quarterly report from the pension advisor. Ask for a copy of the paid invoices report from the comptroller, there are 3 per week and /or look through the invoices to get an idea of some of the expenses - they are all sent to the Levy Court office for review weekly. There is a general ledger updated daily showing money receipted, money withdrawn, etc. in the Finance department. There are records for review of pension calculations, medical trust payments etc. that may or may not be privy to all commissioners.
How did the 35 to 40 hour workweek change impact the county expenses? What are the numbers to justify the extended hours? because there weren't any numbers when the decision was hastily made. Who keeps track of when a commissioner tries to slide something by the taxpayers - like the time some of the commissioners tried to get a mininum of $1000 per month given to all elected officials in addition to the pensions of all elected officials? Or the time they illegally allowed the President and VP to take bonus' just for being P and VP? The County Administrator, Personnel Director and Finance Director didn't speak up. The Comptroller and a couple of people from the public spoke up. I guess having a Comptroller doesn't guarantee that things like that will be stopped or brought to light because it really depends on the person holding the office.
Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 01:02 pm by taxpayertoo
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 02:43 am |
|
| TPT, Thanks. PTG, me too.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 02:36 am |
|
| I want what is in the best interests of the taxpayers.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 01:33 am |
|
| All Commissioners have computers - just ask for inquiry access so that you can see whatever you want to see. I don't know why you think I am using this forum to complain - I live in Kent county and pay taxes. I have a right to question how the county spends the taxpayers' money. I can appreciate how many changes have come about - many because things were questioned by people or simply brought to the attention of the commissioners. The Commissioners can only make decisions based on information they have. When the Commissioners were advised that the costs for the pension fund were increasing at an alarming rate - rather than take a closer look for themselves, they just accepted what they were told by certain people that everything was fine- only to regret it later and make the changes they did. Some of the commissioners were unaware of many things such as longevity pay, medical expense appeals where the employee could received thousands in medical re-imbursements over and above the medical insurance, fully paid medical/dental insurance for employees retiring after only 5 years of service, etc., etc. If you eliminate the Comptroller's office you need to make sure that the Commissioners are fully informed of the costs of all the benefits and all the benefits that are provided, and how money is spent by the departments - I was glad to hear that purchases must NOW be pre-approved by the Finance department before a department can buy anything. I think the Levy Court is on the right track but it is important for the public to continue to give input and for the Commissioners to keep asking questions and require facts to backup the answers provided. We all just want what is in the best interests of the county. Last edited on Mon Jun 15th, 2009 01:38 am by taxpayertoo
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 01:09 am |
|
| You mean the Good ole Boys in the Row offices have computerized themselves?
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 05:25 pm |
|
| That's too funny, but, NO! If they want more people or claim they don't have the people to provide the information, then give me the computer access I need to gather the information myself.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 02:14 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote:
I would not only ask for, but demand monthly reports on what these row offices and departments do.
Whoa, PTG, be careful what you ask for. Making all those reports might mean we'd have to add another dozen employees to push all that paper! 
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 02:12 pm |
|
Demand is a strong word and I was hoping for a precedence, especially where the County was concerned. I want to work with other Commissioners (Eaby is Chair of the Finance Committee) and the Administration to make the best decisions. For that I need information.
I have taken steps to ask what my boundaries are. The Row offices are elected positions and I do not consider myself as above them in asking for information from them, but if the information is there to report on, someone must have access to it.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 12:36 pm |
|
If you as a Commissioner, are unable to ask for the information from the row offices, it proves the system is broken beyond repair. As taxpayers we are asking for full accountability from our government at all levels.
We have begun to get it from the State with the open meeting laws, but it is going to take some taxpayer lawsuits to convince the butt heads in Dover that laws are written to protect the citizens not the Legilators.
I would not only ask for, but demand monthly reports on what these row offices and departments do.
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 02:16 am |
|
Sorry, I did not mean to spark a debate about the usefulness of the Row Offices. Since I think they are going to be around, I was wondering if I was allowed to get information from them. We might as well have the information available to us. so regardless of age, how they go there, or what they have done in the past, because they have operated a certain way, does not mean that it is the way it has to continue. Tell me I am wrong and I will shut up.
I have only been on the Court for six months and before I asked for the information, wanted to ask HERE, from taxpayertoo, if the information had been provided BEFORE I came to Levy Court. I have a bit of a background in accounting, so I might know what to ask for. So instead of using this forum as your means to complain, HELP ME!
Maybe past Levy Court Commissioners made decisions based on their party. I do not work that way. I need information to make a justified decision.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 12:23 am |
|
| How useful can row offices be that are filled by 80 year old good ole boys and their wannabes?
|
Two Cents Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 12:12 am |
|
| I interpreted that Commissioner Sweeney was complaining that he doesn't have those financial details made available to him.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 12:05 am |
|
| 2C, I might be reading it wrong, but maybe Comm. Sweeney is saying that since that sort of information does not now come out of those row office organizations, they might not be all that essential for the financial management of the County. I would assume the Finance Dept could provide any of that data if it useful for the administration of the county finances. I would also assume the other Council forms of government, if they need that data, have ways of getting it out of their huge staffs, especially New Castle.
|
Two Cents Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 02:40 pm |
|
| Commissioner Sweeney, if you are not routinely (say monthly) being provided those financial details, and if the other commissioners do not receive those materials, this county needs new administration -- both elected and appointed. How do the members of the levy court propose to be able to govern without fundamental reports on the financial transactions of the county? If you have not demanded those reports be provided to you on a monthly basis, with all due respect, you sir, are part of the problem.
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:34 am |
|
| Who in the County Government has the responsibility for reporting financial position to the Levy Court Commissioners? Do the Commissioners have the right to ask for financial reports, such as Balance Sheets, Profit and Loss Statements, and other "normal" accounting statements or reports? If that is the responsibility of the Finance Department, what reporting do ANY of the Row Offices provide to the Commissioners? Should the Register of Wills report how many wills are registered and what fees are collected? Should the Sheriff report on how mony foreclosures occur each month? Should the Recorder of Deeds report on Deeds that are filed and fees collected? Should the Comptroller report on every check that is signed to be sent out? I have been on Levy Court for six months and have seen NOTHING like that!
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 02:01 pm |
|
| There's no need for "I told you so" - the question up for discussion is whether or not the comptroller's office should be eliminated. Commissioners need to be aware of what is going on and understand the future impact of the current policies and practices in place. Who better than someone that doesn't actually answer to the Levy Court or the County Administrator? Just an opinion - because it only works if the person in office is willing to do that. Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 08:37 pm by taxpayertoo
|
mishl Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 6th, 2009 03:33 am |
|
taxpayertoo wrote: And who do you think tried for years to get the commissioners to have the employees contribute to their pension, to review and make changes to the generous medical plan for people retiring after only 5 years, to rethink the longevity pay the county pays which was initially set up to offset the low salaries? Who tried to get the commissioners to look at the current pension beneficiary policy where an employee can designate ANYONE to be the beneficiary, who questioned the commissioners changing the employees hours from 35 to 40 overnight without looking at the impact and costing the county a huge increase in salary and pension costs, who questioned the employees using county vehicles for personal use, who questioned per diem payment for in-state seminars? Who warned the commissioners time and time again of the snowballing increase of county payment to the pension fund and post retirement benefit funds and the need for employee contribution? Who questioned the Rule of 70? Not until the budget showed a huge shortfall did the commissioners take the advice and make changes. The county taxpayers need someone to watch out for them - and speak up to the commissioners. So an effective Comptroller is a good thing, but only if the Comptroller is doing his/her job. Funny how the changes that have been made weren't made until after November's election. Obviously the commissioners were more concerned about getting re-elected than making business decisions.
Trying to say "I told you so," Peggy?
Last edited on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 03:34 am by mishl
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 11:03 pm |
|
And who do you think tried for years to get the commissioners to have the employees contribute to their pension, to review and make changes to the generous medical plan for people retiring after only 5 years, to rethink the longevity pay the county pays which was initially set up to offset the low salaries? Who tried to get the commissioners to look at the current pension beneficiary policy where an employee can designate ANYONE to be the beneficiary, who questioned the commissioners changing the employees hours from 35 to 40 overnight without looking at the impact and costing the county a huge increase in salary and pension costs, who questioned the employees using county vehicles for personal use, who questioned per diem payment for in-state seminars? Who warned the commissioners time and time again of the snowballing increase of county payment to the pension fund and post retirement benefit funds and the need for employee contribution? Who questioned the Rule of 70? Not until the budget showed a huge shortfall did the commissioners take the advice and make changes. The county taxpayers need someone to watch out for them - and speak up to the commissioners. So an effective Comptroller is a good thing, but only if the Comptroller is doing his/her job. Funny how the changes that have been made weren't made until after November's election. Obviously the commissioners were more concerned about getting re-elected than making business decisions.
Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 11:22 pm by taxpayertoo
|
mishl Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 02:43 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: Hot Flash wrote: Hartlyboy wrote: First, the elimination of the two row offices is what would save money. Ennis is NOT in favor of continuing Levy Court. He wants us to have a "Council ' like some of his New Castle County constituents do. I want Ennis to butt out and let us manage our county affairs to save us taxpayer money and not have to go through the hassle of setting up a County Council form of government when there is no clear reason to do so.
My question is how is it going to save money when the employees of the offices they want to eliminate will be employed in other offices. This was told to me by a Levy Court Commissioner. Where do they get saving $250,000.? How are they going to save when the employees will still be employed by the County?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Ask Buckson. He has the facts for you and isn't one of those Democrat Commissioners who wants to curry favor with people by not doing the right thing for the taxpayers, like adjusting the over-generous County pension plan. You do away with the both the elected row officer and their appointed deputy -- no salary, no paying of benefits, into pensions, etc.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 03:39 am |
|
Hot Flash wrote: Hartlyboy wrote: First, the elimination of the two row offices is what would save money. Ennis is NOT in favor of continuing Levy Court. He wants us to have a "Council ' like some of his New Castle County constituents do. I want Ennis to butt out and let us manage our county affairs to save us taxpayer money and not have to go through the hassle of setting up a County Council form of government when there is no clear reason to do so.
My question is how is it going to save money when the employees of the offices they want to eliminate will be employed in other offices. This was told to me by a Levy Court Commissioner. Where do they get saving $250,000.? How are they going to save when the employees will still be employed by the County?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Ask Buckson. He has the facts for you and isn't one of those Democrat Commissioners who wants to curry favor with people by not doing the right thing for the taxpayers, like adjusting the over-generous County pension plan.
|
Hot Flash Member

| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1507 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 03:14 am |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: First, the elimination of the two row offices is what would save money. Ennis is NOT in favor of continuing Levy Court. He wants us to have a "Council ' like some of his New Castle County constituents do. I want Ennis to butt out and let us manage our county affairs to save us taxpayer money and not have to go through the hassle of setting up a County Council form of government when there is no clear reason to do so.
My question is how is it going to save money when the employees of the offices they want to eliminate will be employed in other offices. This was told to me by a Levy Court Commissioner. Where do they get saving $250,000.? How are they going to save when the employees will still be employed by the County?
Inquiring minds want to know!
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:56 pm |
|
| First, the elimination of the two row offices is what would save money. Ennis is NOT in favor of continuing Levy Court. He wants us to have a "Council ' like some of his New Castle County constituents do. I want Ennis to butt out and let us manage our county affairs to save us taxpayer money and not have to go through the hassle of setting up a County Council form of government when there is no clear reason to do so.
|
Two Cents Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:05 pm |
|
rescue48 wrote: If changing to a council structure eliminates uneeded positions and saves money; then what in the world is taking so long to do it?
According to an article published in here by tspong for the state news, the idea's chief opponent is Sen. Bruce Ennis, of Clayton. He desires to continue to do things the way they are, because that's how it has always been done.
|
rescue48 Member

|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
I suppose I should've worded my question a little differently. I want to know what the major differences are with a levy court and a council. Am I off base in thinking that there are fundamental differences in the organizational structures of a levy court versus a council? If changing to a council structure eliminates uneeded positions and saves money; then what in the world is taking so long to do it? The levy court was created to levy taxes yes? Is that all it does? Or is it more like a council in governing the county? If nothing changes but the name, then of course that's silly.
Now don't get me wrong. I love tradition and history. I am a huge fan of keeping something working if it's not broken. I drive a ten year old Dodge pickup for crying out loud. But there also comes a time when you have to evaluate the situation and make some changes. If a council structure is better, then let's get it done.
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 01:08 pm |
|
I'm curious.....are there ANY supporters of the existing Row Offices? I'm as historical as the next person, but I don't see the value in preserving something called the "Levy Court" simply because it sounds unique.
The row offices should either be eliminated, or incorporated into existing offices. I get that we need a "Recorder of Deeds", but do we need it to be an elected office?
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 06:30 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
Levy Court’s request to downsize its government is logical and reasoned. Sussex County and New Castle County eliminated the position of Receiver of Taxes and Comptroller in the late 60s and early 70s. Professional studies paid for by Levy Court have identified these positions as redundant and unnecessary. No individuals will lose their jobs and departments will not suffer a loss in services.
The net result of this action will be an annual savings estimated to be approximately $250,000. This savings is equal to roughly 5 million dollars in annual state savings. With all due respect to those individuals that wish to see these traditions continue, this expense is one that Kent County can no longer afford.
Requiring Levy Court to change its name to County Council does not save money and in fact comes with an initial cost. However, if changing Levy Court’s name is what is required to save county tax payers $250,000 annually, I support drawing up the papers immediately. Finally, I have no desire to get into a power struggle with our state legislators. I fully recognize that is a fight I cannot win. I humbly request that we place politics aside on this decision and do what is right for tax payers in Delaware.
Eric Buckson
Camden
Levy Court Commissioner
4th District
|
Two Cents Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 05:29 pm |
|
The chief opponent of the Levy Court’s proposal, Sen. Bruce Ennis, D-Clayton, said Friday it makes more sense to restructure the county government — as was done with New Castle and Sussex counties — than reorganize a bit at a time.
"I just told them, ‘Why do you want to eliminate the offices?’ and they said because the other counties did the same thing," Sen. Ennis said. "And why do you think they don’t have them? Because they’re not Levy Courts."
In other words, this is how it's going to be, because this is how we have always done it. Typical forward thinking of Bruce Ennis and his beloved dumocrat party. Goodbye, Mr. Ennis at your next reelection bid. This is the kind of service the state and county doesn't need.
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 03:24 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Plan to eliminate row offices questioned
Legislator suggests Levy Court could be restructured instead
By Al Kemp
Delaware State News
DOVER — Kent County may someday switch to a "council" form of government, but don’t hold your breath.
"I don’t foresee that happening in my lifetime," said Kent County Levy Court President P. Brooks Banta. "We need to retain our heritage."
The issue coalesced last week when Levy Court proposed eliminating two row offices — comptroller and receiver of taxes — and the board of assessments as a cost-cutting measure.
The move met resistance in the General Assembly in part because Kent County’s governing body is deemed outmoded.
The chief opponent of the Levy Court’s proposal, Sen. Bruce Ennis, D-Clayton, said Friday it makes more sense to restructure the county government — as was done with New Castle and Sussex counties — than reorganize a bit at a time.
"I just told them, ‘Why do you want to eliminate the offices?’ and they said because the other counties did the same thing," Sen. Ennis said. "And why do you think they don’t have them? Because they’re not Levy Courts."
The General Assembly must sign off on any changes in Kent County government because the county structure is part of the Delaware Code.
Chapter 9 of the Delaware Code specifies that Kent County shall elect a receiver of taxes every four years (Chapter 41), appoint a three-member Board of Assessment every four years (Chapter 82), and elect a comptroller every for years (Chapter 93) to audit the county’s finances.
Levy Courts were created more than 300 years ago strictly to collect taxes from landowners in the regions that were to become Delaware’s three counties.
But times have changed. Kent County’s governing body is the last Levy Court in the United States.
Levy commissioners say they’re merely seeking ways to cut costs, the same as New Castle and Sussex counties.
New Castle County reorganized from a Levy Court into a "council" form of government in 1967, with Sussex County following in 1970.
In Sussex County, the position of prothonotary was absorbed by Delaware Superior Court in 1987, and the register in chancery was absorbed by the Delaware Chancery Court in 2002, according to spokesman Chip Guy.
Similarly, New Castle County eliminated its prothonotary office about 15 years ago, and its register in chancery was taken over by the state in 2002, according to spokesman C.R. McLeod.
"We were losing about $2,000 a year by operating that office," Mr. McLeod said.
Fourth District Levy Court Commissioner Eric L. Buckson, the sole Republican on the six-member panel, said that eliminating the positions would save the county about $250,000 a year.
Mr. Buckson is baffled that the state would make it so difficult to enact cost-cutting measures.
"If the state thinks [keeping the offices] is a good idea, tell ’em to cut us a check for a quarter-million dollars," he said.
Fifth District Levy Court Commissioner Jody Sweeney noted that comptroller Georgette Williams’ term doesn’t expire until 2012, and that receiver of taxes Joyce Melvin has already announced her plan to take advantage of the county’s early retirement incentive at the end of June.
"To me this is very much a long-term proposal," said Mr. Sweeney. "It’s not something we have to address right now. We’re looking at four or five years down the road."
Staff writer Al Kemp can be reached at akemp@newszap.com.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 02:32 pm |
|
rescue48 wrote: Interesting article in the paper today. Why is our county the last in the entire nation to change?
An equal question would be, why fix it if it isn't broken? What stellar achievments do we see out of New Castle County and Sussex because of their 'modern' form of government? They are both run for the benefit of developers and New castle has tax hikes on a regular basis. Sussex does a better job of spending control but is no better in protecting the quality of life of it's residents.
I think the Levy Court's efforts to reduce unneeded row office positions makes good sense and is part of a recent long line of good decisions [pension vote excepted] for our county. The State and Bruce Ennis should get out of the way and let us govern ourselves on this issue of cost control.
|
Two Cents Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 01:49 pm |
|
| Lower, Slower ...
|
rescue48 Member

|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 01:12 pm |
|
| Interesting article in the paper today. Why is our county the last in the entire nation to change?
|
 Current time is 11:29 am | |
|