by Mike Sharkey
Staff Writer
An ongoing dispute between Clerk of the Court Jim Fuller and the City became very public during Friday morning’s budget hearings.
In July of 2004, the State passed Revision 7 of Article 5 of the State Constitution. That revision, Fuller has contended all along because he claims to be more of a State agency than a City agency, requires the City to pay for certain expenses his office incurs as part of its budget.
Friday, those expenses came under fire from the City Council Finance Committee when Fuller questioned why the Council Auditor’s Office — which is headed by Council Auditor Kirk Sherman — recommended putting Courthouse costs into the recording line item of Fuller’s budget. Fuller pointed out the housing collapse has dramatically reduced the revenue produced by his recording department.
“You can lump the expenses into recording, but I can tell you there is not enough money in there. Those expenses should be spread over the whole court system,” said Fuller, who was also asked to reduce his salaries by 3 percent, the same reduction being asked of all City departments. “I can’t reduce my expenses with people anymore than I already have. You will be a million-five ($1.5 million) short if you vote for this. You want to lump it all one department. You wouldn’t do that in business, why do it here? You can vote and approve this, but the money is just not there.”
After nearly 45 minutes of discussion, the Finance Committee tentatively approved Fuller’s budget of $3.8 million, which is primarily funded by the State. However, much of the discussion and dispute revolved around Revision 7 of Article 5.
According to Fuller, the 2004 change to the State Statutes requires the City to pay for such things as rent, office equipment, offsite storage and communications. That’s his interpretation. The Office of General Counsel interprets the revision differently. As a result, Fuller and the City have battled over those costs every year. And, that battle may reach beyond City Council Chambers.
“Maybe we need to go to court and let a judge decide what you are supposed to pay for according to the State Statute,” said Fuller.
Peggy Sidman of the OGC explained how the duties — and thus costs — of the Clerk’s office are divided.
“This has been hotly contested over the years,” said Sidman. “Mr. Sherman is saying the records function is in the proper place.”
Fuller contends there’s no reason for an annual debate.
“We have the same argument every year,” said Fuller. “The State Statute spells out very clearly what the county is supposed to pay for. It’s black and white. The administration disagrees.”
Fuller was asked if he has sought the opinion of the State Attorney General. He said he hasn’t, but his lawyer’s opinion and the City’s opinion differ. There is even a Memorandum of Understanding between Fuller and the City, but that has failed to settle the dispute.
“The only way to resolve this is to do away with the Memorandum of Understanding and go to court and have a judge decide on the interpretation of the State Statute,” he said. “If that’s what you want to do, that’s fine with me.”
The Finance Committee also tentatively approved other court-related budgets:
• The City contribution to Jacksonville Area Legal Aid was reduced from $209,454 last year to $186,782.
• The City contribution of $1.25 million to the Public Defender’s Office was also approved. The rest of Public Defender Matt Shirk’s funding comes from the State.
• The City contribution of about $1 million was approved to help fund the State Attorney’s Office. The rest of State Attorney Angela Corey’s budget comes from the State.
• Because both the Public Defender and State Attorney are funded by the State, the Council’s Auditor’s recommendation that they both not be subject to the 3 percent cut was approved by the Finance Committee.
356-2466