Franklin Co. thought a dispute between 2 elected officials was fixed. Sheriff disagrees
Franklin County commissioners believed the reimbursement fight between two elected officials that prompted a $25,000 legal claim had been resolved but the sheriff doesn’t agree.
County Administrator Mike Gonzalez announced Thursday that the county commissioners had brokered a tentative agreement to reactivate Sheriff Jim Raymond’s purchasing card, or Pcard, and to review county audit policies for using the card. Pcards are similar to a corporate credit card used for travel expenses.
But the sheriff responded publicly that the update on the dispute was misleading, and he’s prepared to escalate the matter further if his concerns aren’t addressed.
Raymond is demanding a higher legal review of the issue.
The trouble between the sheriff and the auditor’s office escalated when auditors told the sheriff he needed to pay back a $21 difference between what he spent on two dinners using his Pcard and the county’s per diem rules.
The sheriff had not used the per diem reimbursement in the past, instead using a PCard and providing receipts, with a note in an “exceptions” box on the reimbursement form.
The policy on paying for meals was changed in 2020 but the forms were never updated, and Raymond was not flagged about the changes until earlier this year.
He has publicly shared emails and records showing this was his standard practice since taking office nearly a decade ago.
That led to a very public dispute between Raymond and Auditor Matt Beaton in which Beaton released a series of emails showing arguments between his staff and the sheriff that included threats to turn off the sheriff’s purchasing card and to take money from his paycheck.
Raymond then filed a claim against the county for alleged violations of his First and 14th Amendment rights.
Since the dispute erupted a courthouse firestorm a month ago, several community members have offered to pay the disputed $21 difference, but Raymond has said he wants a full legal review from the Washington Attorney General’s Office.
His claim could be a precursor to a formal lawsuit. If an agreement is reached, Raymond would need to withdraw the claim.
Typically there is a 60-day period in which the county can settle a claim before the person can sue the county.
Gonzalez told the Herald that the county does not intend to formally respond to the claim, so Raymond must withdraw it or escalate it to a lawsuit once that period is over.
In his response to the announcement that a tentative agreement had been reached, Raymond said that he had only agreed to hold off until the state legal review can be done.
In a Friday news release sent to the Herald, Raymond said he believes that commission Chairman Clint Didier has been working with Beaton to delay the PCard being turned back on and that as of Thursday afternoon Beaton continued to refuse to reactivate the card.
Raymond said he was approached by Gonzalez who offered for the county to reactivate the Pcard, pay back the money in dispute and work to revise and clarify travel policies if Raymond would agree to follow the updated policies.
“My reply was that I HAVE BEEN following the county policy and would continue to do so but following the Auditor’s additional rules that are often changing (even retroactively) are burdensome to the orderly operation of the Sheriff’s Office and has the potential to cause financial claims from bargaining units within the Sheriff’s Office,” Raymond wrote.
“I reiterated several times that the Commissioners need to show leadership and clarify how they want their policy to be enforced so that every employee knows what rules to follow,” he said.
Raymond said that his office’s financial officer, not Beaton, already had reactivated the card.
“To be clear, nobody from the Auditor’s Office ever reactivated my purchasing card. After this was made known, a hastily composed press release was sent out by the Commissioner’s Office,” Raymond said his own news release, accusing Didier of going to great lengths “to protect (Beaton) and shield his actions from public view ....”
Raymond said that the matter is not resolved because there are still outstanding issues related to his claim and the alleged constitutional violations.
“It has become obvious the Chairman Didier would rather see a lot of taxpayer dollars go towards litigating this issue in the courts instead of showing leadership, addressing the concerns in an open transparent way, and involving his two fellow commissioners instead of acting on their behalf behind closed doors,” Raymond wrote.
