Budget Information in Friday's Paper

Did yall read all of this?

Its funny to me. They are substantially increasing the budges for the sheriffs department who has already spent a TON since Kirby took office. On top of that they want to increase other departments that isn't truly needed.

How do they make up for it? LOL By cutting budgets in what little public organizations we have. DFACS, Library, Arts Associaition....

But hell, I guess as long as Simonds and Kirby's pockets are lined in gold its all good huh?

what paper?

News Observer - Today's Edition (Friday)

Confused wrote:

Did yall read all of this?
Its funny to me. They are substantially increasing the budges for the sheriffs department who has already spent a TON since Kirby took office. On top of that they want to increase other departments that isn't truly needed.
How do they make up for it? LOL By cutting budgets in what little public organizations we have. DFACS, Library, Arts Associaition....
But hell, I guess as long as Simonds and Kirby's pockets are lined in gold its all good huh?

Im with you I thought that was BULL SHIT!!!!!!!!!

Kirby is having to make up for the years George ran the department and his men in the ground to make himself look good to the voters, he ran that dept on a shoe string budget costing citizens more in the long run, and officers never having what they needed to do the job or training or the pay they deserved. These men where out risking their lives and making less than most of the personnel in the court house., now that was a disgrace. Keep up the good work Kirby!!

and Kudos to Simmonds for backing Kirby!!!

patrol needed raises. I don't doubt that. I believe they had to be the lowest paid in the south. I also believe that they need job training and equipment but not so sure I like the thought of them caring Taisers. Cutting the budget of DFAC's is not wise period!! I like how Kerby put a second in charge after he said he would not after letting CR go. Not sure I like the idea of his girlfriend mixed all of this.Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate. Thought they were going to hire an accountant. What happened with that? An accountant would be a better choice least of all legitimate and no one would have to questions qualifications of ethics.

Confused wrote:

Did yall read all of this?
Its funny to me. They are substantially increasing the budges for the sheriffs department who has already spent a TON since Kirby took office. On top of that they want to increase other departments that isn't truly needed.
How do they make up for it? LOL By cutting budgets in what little public organizations we have. DFACS, Library, Arts Associaition....
But hell, I guess as long as Simonds and Kirby's pockets are lined in gold its all good huh?

I'm sure a lot of money can be cut in other places. Someone needs to check out credit card, cell phone, and travel expenditures. All are public record. Also, retreats (retreat from WHAT???) and unnecessary and duplicated training classes can be cut out. There is always a good place at home where meetings can be held at anytime and convenient for taxpayers' attendance. This is one reason all those new buildings were built. It is not fair to the taxpayers and no reason for ANY body of government to go on an expensive so-called retreat (non-accessible by the home folks) so far away to discuss issues on which the taxpayers cannot be there to make comments. The weekend retreat meeting usually last only one day, then the rest of the time is spent enjoying taxpayers' money, i.e. meals and mileage cost spent sightseeing. Also, while you're checking records, how many take their families and don't reimburse the county for their expenses? Start digging, folks, and you'll find out a lot of "secrets" that will curl your hair!!!! Happy Hunting!!!

Confused wrote:

Did yall read all of this?
Its funny to me. They are substantially increasing the budges for the sheriffs department who has already spent a TON since Kirby took office. On top of that they want to increase other departments that isn't truly needed.

Remember, the 2009 budget was actually passed in 2008, which was an election year. The 2009 budget for the sheriff's department (and some others) was substantially lower than the 2008 budget. So Kirby has to make that amount up.
Also, the county gave the News-Observer preliminary and inaccurate figures for 2009. The final 2009 budget has increases for a number of departments, most notably the sheriff's department. Glenda Schaly distributed a paper with the correct figures at a county commission meeting, and I believe the Sentinel had the correct figures.
And, yes, Kirby is spending a ton of money. Were the cruisers all in such bad shape that he had to replace or add 9 of them (7 in 2009, 2 in 2010)?
But there were some things he did that I really applaud. For example, the county purchased guns for all the deputies. Before, they had to buy their own and so, they weren't standard.
The county also purchased uniforms for all deputies, because a number of them were running around the county with no identification. I had a nasty run-in with one such jerk, so I appreciate the change. Now, at least, I can report the deputies by name. I think I read this in the Sentinel if you want to look it up. I don't know what week it was though.
I would love to see the sheriff and jail budgets, but Kirby pretty much has a good explanation for everything, so I don't think you'd find anything without some inside info.
Some departments didn't use their entire budget this year, so it went back into the general fund. Others, like the the board of elections, are going to need a lot more in 2010, because there was one election in 2009, but there will be four in 2010.
Simonds, who's a good businessman, really went over the budget to trim anything he could. Of course, you can tell how he was rewarded: Webb and Morris voted all the funding, except for DFCS and BMAA, back. It's not like all that money returned to the library and Family Connection is coming out of thin air. I'm betting someone's going to end up losing his nice county job over it.

IsNotSuprised wrote:

Not sure I like the idea of his girlfriend mixed all of this.Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate. Thought they were going to hire an accountant. What happened with that? An accountant would be a better choice least of all legitimate and no one would have to questions qualifications of ethics.

Steve Morris said the county pretty much had to fund the sheriff's departments according to its needs, so I don't think Rita Davis had anything to do with it. She seems pretty competent, but people are going to challenge her because she's Kirby's girlfriend.
Most county governments bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Fannin seems a little more incestuous than most, because I see the same names in top positions. It could just be that relatives and friends of county workers are more aware of county jobs opening up.