Pubdate: Sun, 05 Dec 2004
Source: Kansas City Star (MO)
Copyright: 2004 The Kansas City Star
Contact:  http://www.kcstar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/221
Author: Benita Y. Williams
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/dare.htm (D.A.R.E.)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/corrupt.htm (Corruption - United States)

Catching up on COMBAT

Trying to follow what's going on with Jackson County's anti-drug tax, but 
having trouble following all the twists and turns?

What began with questions about how proceeds from the anti-drug tax had 
been spent has moved into other areas, including a wide-ranging federal 
grand jury investigation and a controversy over missing records.

The maze of issues involves scores of county officials, auditors and 
anti-drug programs.

Here is a primer to help sort it out:

Q. What is COMBAT?

A. The Community-Backed Anti-Drug Tax, known as COMBAT, is a quarter-cent 
sales tax that generates money for law enforcement, drug treatment and 
drug-use prevention programs. It is expected to raise about $19.5 million 
this year. Voters approved the tax in 1989, and it went into effect in 
April 1990. Voters renewed the tax in 1995 and in 2003.

Q. Who is in charge of COMBAT?

A. The COMBAT Commission oversees portions of the tax going to drug 
treatment, prevention and Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) programs. 
Other COMBAT money goes to courts, prosecutors, the county jail and other 
anti-drug-related uses. Revenue is allocated according to guidelines the 
Jackson County Legislature adopted in 1995.

Q. How did the current controversy over COMBAT begin?

A. In February, Jackson County Prosecutor Mike Sanders called for an audit 
of COMBAT. He and some law enforcement officials were upset that programs, 
including DARE, received less money this year than they had received in 
2003 and much less than they had requested.

County Executive Katheryn Shields said the allocations, which were approved 
by the Jackson County Legislature, had been based on projected COMBAT 
revenue for 2004. Meanwhile, about $10 million sat in the COMBAT surplus fund.

Sanders, the law enforcement officials and some legislators said they did 
not know about the surplus or were unaware of the amount. DARE funding was 
restored to its 2003 levels, but officers continued to complain about 
surplus money going to other areas, such as computers and jail 
improvements. Shields said the spending was COMBAT-related.

Eventually Sanders, the Legislature and Shields agreed to an independent 
audit of COMBAT. The Legislature then selected Cochran Head and Co. to 
audit COMBAT under a $90,000 contract that since has been increased.

Q. What caused the COMBAT surplus?

A. The surplus dated from the early years of tax collections, when there 
were few programs to finance. In addition, more money came in than 
expected. In the mid-1990s, the Legislature agreed to spend about $20 
million of the surplus to build and staff the county's new jail annex. The 
Legislature adopted guidelines in 1995, setting percentages for how 
surpluses should be spent. Some former county officials say that should 
have depleted the surplus.

Q. Then why does the surplus continue to exist?

A. Shields said those spending instructions applied only to surplus fund 
expenditures through about 2001, although she acknowledged that the 
guidelines had not been followed before 2001 either. She also said that the 
guidelines represented the intent of the Legislature, but they were not a 
funding mandate.

A resolution to re-establish the guidelines and to allow some money for 
related administration costs is pending before the Legislature.

Q. What about the COMBAT audit?

A. Cochran Head and Co. completed its work and gave a draft audit to county 
legislators. But the report includes disclaimers saying that not all of the 
records needed for the audit were available.

Q. Why are some COMBAT records missing?

A. When the Legislature hired Cochran Head in June, finance director Troy 
Thomas said some invoices and other COMBAT financial records from 1997 and 
1998 had been destroyed last year in the routine purging of records. The 
county allows department heads to destroy records based on their 
interpretation of guidelines from the Missouri secretary of state.

The 1997 and 1998 records were not first transferred to microfilm or 
microfiche, as had been done in previous years. In July, Thomas said 
failing to microfilm the records was a mistake. However, Shields said 
recently that she discovered the county had stopped microfilming invoices 
in 1993, three years before she took office.

Q. Is there a criminal investigation into the missing COMBAT records?

A. Sanders won't confirm or deny it, but a grand jury has issued subpoenas 
for several county employees to testify or produce documents about records 
destruction.

Q. What prompted the investigation?

A. The trouble began in late October when county staff members told Cochran 
Head that some 1996 COMBAT records - which the staff earlier said existed - 
had been purged and not kept on microfilm.

Shields said a mislabeled box mistakenly had led a staff member to think 
the records existed. At that same time, there was an anonymous allegation 
that additional records were being moved or destroyed.

Q. Then what's the fuss about records being locked in a jail cell?

A. Shields in November hired another financial firm to secure and inventory 
the records. That second firm locked records in a conference room and in 
the old county jail atop the downtown courthouse.

Cochran Head then complained it was being kept away from the records. 
Shields denied the allegation, blaming miscommunication. Cochran Head 
eventually got access to the records and completed its work. However, it 
said the findings in the draft audit might change depending on the outcome 
of the investigation.

Q. How is the federal grand jury investigation related to COMBAT?

A. In March, both Sanders and Shields said federal investigators were 
looking into COMBAT. Sanders accused Shields of misspending the COMBAT 
surplus. Shields denied the allegations. Sanders also denied Shields' 
allegations that he had tried to influence COMBAT contracts. Each alleged 
that the other was the target of the federal investigation.

U.S. Attorney Todd Graves issued a news release saying Sanders and his 
office were not being investigated.

On March 10, federal grand jury subpoenas were issued to five Jackson 
County officials. Subpoenas issued to Shields and Thomas requested 
thousands of county records, including no-bid contracts issued by Shields 
and records related to COMBAT. Some county officials said investigators and 
grand jurors had questioned them about COMBAT.

Last month the grand jury indicted county lobbyist and former County 
Executive Bill Waris on charges of obstructing justice and lying to the 
grand jury about whether an unidentified county official had offered a 
woman a $12,000 professional services fund-raising contract as inducement 
for her husband to withdraw his application to serve on the sports 
authority. However, those charges are unrelated to COMBAT. Waris has 
pleaded not guilty. 
- ---