3 ms·

I think you're trying to be overly clever in your definition of the words. The sheriff gets to keep the budget surplus. It's his personal money now. That's what

I think you're trying to be overly clever in your definition of the words. The sheriff gets to keep the budget surplus. It's his personal money now. That's what keep and retain means in this context: that it's his money, no ifs, ands or buts. Yes, he is following the letter of the law, like it or not. I think it's crummy and the incentives to shortchange inmates and tax payers seems obvious to me. Alabamers, if they get sick of it, can legislate change if they want... it's on them.

blattimwind 9y ago
> The sheriff gets to keep the budget surplus. It's his personal money now. How on earth is it possible for taxpayer money to legally end up in an official's pocket?
- RandallBrown 9y ago
  It was probably written to incentivize the sheriff to lower spending. To prevent abuse, the sheriff has to personally cover any budget shortfalls. What probably happened was people abused the law as way of giving the sheriff a raise without actually giving him a raise.
  - soundwave106 9y ago
    From what I see in Alabama's laws (https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2009/Title14/Chapter6/Chapter6.html https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2009/Title14/Chapter6/C...), it's more that there is a severe lack of "who watches the watchmen" set up in the laws, leading to what I see as the corruption described in the article. There is a section that says that yes, the sheriff has the duty to feed the prisoners. There is a section that dictates the amount per capita. There is a brief section on supervision (14-6-41 -- the Board of Corrections and county commission in theory should supervise the feeding). There is no section that I see so far that says the sheriff is supposed to pocket the change. There is, however, a section in 14-6-41 dictating that the sheriff doesn't have to create a daily record of food, though. So there's no audit trail. Basically, it's a system that is very loose, the state gives the sheriff money, and that's it. Thus if the Board of Corrections and county commission "look the other way" on this sort of setup, the sheriff could easily pocket "cost savings". Alabama is not exactly known for its lack of corruption in government, so this story doesn't surprise me. (Added pet peeve note: I really dislike media articles that reference "the law" without even providing a fleeting reference to what "the law" is. It's possible I missed a statute that more toes to the NPR story, but NPR sure isn't helping me look up what they are talking about with that article.)
- zaarn 9y ago
  Badly written laws, that's how.
- Brockenstein 9y ago
  Well all government wages are taxpayer money... but to answer your question. The original intention of the law may have been one thing, but enterprising people are always looking for loopholes. Life hacking is the original hacking after all. And some folks are more ambitious on the scale they're willing to go. At this point the status quo is so traditional, you get to do this if you become sheriff. If managed "right", it's quite a nice perk and people aren't willingly going to give up perks when their number comes up. I mean in the story this sheriff had to take out $150,000 loan because when the last sheriff died his estate got to keep the budget. The new sheriff probably didn't mind all that much, because he knew long term he could pay that loan off and make hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars if he could hold on to the office long term.

blattimwind 9y ago

> The sheriff gets to keep the budget surplus. It's his personal money now. How on earth is it possible for taxpayer money to legally end up in an official's pocket?

RandallBrown 9y ago
It was probably written to incentivize the sheriff to lower spending. To prevent abuse, the sheriff has to personally cover any budget shortfalls. What probably happened was people abused the law as way of giving the sheriff a raise without actually giving him a raise.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  From what I see in Alabama's laws (https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2009/Title14/Chapter6/Chapter6.html https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2009/Title14/Chapter6/C...), it's more that there is a severe lack of "who watches the watchmen" set up in the laws, leading to what I see as the corruption described in the article. There is a section that says that yes, the sheriff has the duty to feed the prisoners. There is a section that dictates the amount per capita. There is a brief section on supervision (14-6-41 -- the Board of Corrections and county commission in theory should supervise the feeding). There is no section that I see so far that says the sheriff is supposed to pocket the change. There is, however, a section in 14-6-41 dictating that the sheriff doesn't have to create a daily record of food, though. So there's no audit trail. Basically, it's a system that is very loose, the state gives the sheriff money, and that's it. Thus if the Board of Corrections and county commission "look the other way" on this sort of setup, the sheriff could easily pocket "cost savings". Alabama is not exactly known for its lack of corruption in government, so this story doesn't surprise me. (Added pet peeve note: I really dislike media articles that reference "the law" without even providing a fleeting reference to what "the law" is. It's possible I missed a statute that more toes to the NPR story, but NPR sure isn't helping me look up what they are talking about with that article.)
zaarn 9y ago
Badly written laws, that's how.
Brockenstein 9y ago
Well all government wages are taxpayer money... but to answer your question. The original intention of the law may have been one thing, but enterprising people are always looking for loopholes. Life hacking is the original hacking after all. And some folks are more ambitious on the scale they're willing to go. At this point the status quo is so traditional, you get to do this if you become sheriff. If managed "right", it's quite a nice perk and people aren't willingly going to give up perks when their number comes up. I mean in the story this sheriff had to take out $150,000 loan because when the last sheriff died his estate got to keep the budget. The new sheriff probably didn't mind all that much, because he knew long term he could pay that loan off and make hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars if he could hold on to the office long term.