Review and Response to the DeKalb Report of Special Investigators

In April of this year, Interim CEO Lee May took unilateral action under questionable authority to hire Mike Bowers, without a contract or budget, to serve as “Special Investigator” for DeKalb. Insofar as the County Attorney supported his authority to take this action, and given swirling scandals, I, with you awaited the results of Bowers’ investigation.

Now Bowers’ report is in, and I’m in it (as are all members of the Commission with over a year’s service). My first reaction was sticker shock ($885,000 or $22,700 per double-spaced page!) and disappointment in some sloppy errors and lack of consistent documentation. As a consequence, I’ll wait for the dust to settle on his conclusions about others. The Governor has announced a review by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that will provide some perspective, which based on his tone, I think Mr. Bowers has lost.

As it relates to me, I was offended by the tone and sweeping conclusion that working with non-profits to deliver services to DeKalb residents is evidence of corruption. With a government as dysfunctional as ours, partnering with public service organizations are often the only way we can serve residents. Below, you will find facts that refute Bowers’ assertion that my expenditures to non-profits are “gratuities”.

But I also I took a step back and explored the underlying law, and agree that we need better controls to differentiate between permissible and impermissible use of public funds; rules that if in place, would prevent the abuse that now overshadows DeKalb’s government. Because the legislature this year newly empowered the County to adopt enforceable laws governing procurement and contracting, that power is in hand, though the Administration has delayed a draft of a new purchasing code since the new law’s July 1 effective date. Also, with accusations of improper activity extending into the District Attorney’s office, now is the time to formally request an outside taskforce empowered with subpoena authority to take over the investigation.

As for the specifics of my expenditures over a six year period challenged by Bowers, each one materially advanced a tangible interest of DeKalb County, and was made within the budget for my office approved by the Governing Authority. Over the past few years, my Commission District expenditures have been scrutinized by the media, the DeKalb Ethics Board, its legal counsel and outside investigators; our annual audit, an outside special auditor, and the County Finance Department’s own Internal Audit staff. None have previously suggested anything improper in these expenditures, and I believe they stand on their own merits. It is significant that Bowers and his investigators never asked any questions about the material he received from our office, and as detailed below, made errors in the interpretation of the documents.

With those caveats, here are more details: Fully two-thirds of the cited expenditures went to entities that have existing formal relationships with DeKalb to provide contracted services and/or, supplement County operations. For instance, Senior Connections contracts with DeKalb to provide Meals on Wheels, and operates senior centers, with my expenditures increasing that service delivery in response to federal budget cuts. Park Pride contracts with DeKalb, is paid to support Friends of Parks citizen organizations and also makes grants from other sources to improve DeKalb parks. My expenditures supplemented neighborhood contributions and Park Pride grants to make improvements. Eighty-six percent of my expenditures were for specific work products with tangible deliverables – a fee for service. For instance, the DeKalb History Center produced a survey of Ranch House subdivisions, a popular architectural form now eligible for County historic district designation. Eleven percent was for membership in organizations that provided my office valuable information and technical support on issues critical to constituents like pedestrian safety and watershed protection, or for registration at events where the topic was relevant to DeKalb, like the Georgia state budget. That leaves three percent of the questionable expense for things like youth athletics or police life insurance. While there wasn’t a quid-pro-quo return, your money delivered direct and incremental benefit towards a public purpose.

Finally, Bowers excerpted a finding of the Plunkett and Company Audit of Commission Office Expenditures that noted only 77% of my P-card transactions had supporting documentation. The fact that the undocumented transactions were over five years old and were purged in compliance with DeKalb’s Document Retention Policy was noted in my response to that audit, but Bowers failed to acknowlege that exception. Comm. Gannon and I sponsored the resolution instituting the outside audit he cites.