Robert Query is a Republican running for 2nd District Commissioner in the upcoming election. Here are a few interview questions with his answers.

 1. Please tell readers a little bit about yourself and your background.

Born and raised in Fort Scott. Auto mechanic, road construction and self employed since 1981. Bourbon county commissioner for 8 years, over the asphalt program the last 3 years of my term and also worked on the 400 highway project.

  2. Why are you running for office?

I am running because the last 8 years we have had business men with no road construction knowledge or background making decisions on road projects wasting tax dollars on road work using the wrong rock and oil, costing more than twice as much because the labor and material is wasted doing the job twice instead of once the right way. These mistakes don’t need to be made which would save taxes. Having 8 years of experience as county commissioner means “NO ON THE JOB TRAINING MISTAKES” where someone new would be learning the job!

 3. What do you feel is the single most important issue facing the county?

Keeping the tax base affordable so the businesses and home owners can afford to stay in Bourbon county.

  4. Why do you think you are a better choice for voters than the incumbent? (If you are the incumbent, why do you think you are a better choice than others who are running?)

Already having 8 years experience on county commission gives me the knowledge to not make the mistakes of a new inexperienced candidate, which saves tax dollars from day 1 in office. Also having road construction experience by owning and operating dozers, dump trucks and other heavy equipment for many years lets me know when road work is done right the first time so it doesn’t have to be redone two or three times. That saves tax dollars which saves the tax payers money since almost one third of your taxes are spent on road and bridge projects.

  5. What is the single most important skill you would bring to the office?

Being a business owner I have had to make decisions based on the income and net profit, and not getting a paycheck handed to me on payday whether there is a profit or not. I have been successful in doing that since 1981.

 6. If elected, what would your top priority be during your first 90 days?

 I would address the concerns of the citizens on issues brought to my attention starting with the road problems and the high taxes.

 7. Health insurance is one of the fastest growing expenses the county is facing. What are some ways you’d recommend the county deal with this issue?

One would be to do away with the health insurance for the county commissioners because their job is part time and no other part time jobs get health insurance. That alone would save over 16,000 per year base at 450 per month x 3 commissioners. The other would be to look at what the county could afford even if it meant having the employees pay a percentage of their health insurance to maintain the coverage they have and not reduce it to make it affordable for the county as well as the tax payers.

A Candidate Forum will be held on July 31 in the Theater of the Ellis Fine Arts Center on the Campus of Fort Scott Community College.  Forum begins at 6 pm. Doors open at 5:30.  The Public is encouraged to attend.  This event is sponsored by the Fort Scott Area Chamber of Commerce.

Be sure to vote on August 7!

Some readers have asked if KSA 19-548 would make the County Treasurer liable for fines for leaving names and addresses off the newspaper publications.

Should any county treasurer neglect or refuse to make and publish the statement provided for in this act, he shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each and every day he shall refuse or neglect to make such publication, to be recovered by an action at law against said treasurer, said action to be brought in the name of the board of county commissioners of the proper county. (KSA 19-548)

The language of this statute appears to refer to the neglect or refusal to make the publication at all. Other statutes appear to address situations where properties were left off of the publication.

Since delinquent properties were published in the paper–even though they were incomplete–this statute probably doesn’t apply.

The only way it could apply would be look at KSA 19-547:

 In addition to the duties required by K.S.A. 79-2101, and amendments thereto, each county treasurer, within 10 days after October 1 of each year, shall cause a statement to be published with respect to unpaid or partially unpaid delinquent personal property tax returns made by the sheriff as of October 1. Such statement shall be published once each week for three consecutive weeks in the official county newspaper or in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 64-101, and amendments thereto. The statement shall show the name of each delinquent or partially delinquent taxpayer, listed alphabetically, appearing on such returns, followed by the taxpayer’s last known address and by the total amount of unpaid taxes, penalties and costs. The cost of such publication shall be paid from the general fund of such county, and $15 shall be added to the tax due as part of the costs of collection, to be collected in the same manner as provided by law for the collection of the delinquent tax. (KSA 19-547)

One might be able to argue that if the publication wasn’t made according to KSA 19-547, it doesn’t count. However, that would probably be a bit of a stretch. Other statute talk about how the even leaving a property off of the publication doesn’t invalidate it.

According to the eMissourian, Paul House of Harvest Ministries and his wife were both sentenced to three years probation and ordered to pay over $80,000 in restitution for Social Security fraud.

The sentence means the House’s avoided the expected jail term.

Harvest Ministries owns the old Western buildings down town where the planned to put in a television studio and medical testing facility.

You can read more details in our previous story about Harvest Ministries and the building.

The buildings have enough unpaid taxes that they should be listed on the upcoming tax sale. However, since they were not published in the past, they will have to wait to be sold until they have been published for three years.

 

There is a scholarship  available from the Kansas County Clerk’s and Election Officials’ association. Details from the press release follow:

February 15, 2012

NEWS RELEASE: SCHOLARSHIP INFORMATION

The Kansas County Cler’s and Election Officials’ Association is taking scholarship applications from those students that are majoring in Journalism, Political Science or Communications. The scholarships are available to High School Seniors or College Freshmen or Sophomores.

The monies from these scholarships are made available by the effort put forth by local Election Officials and Supervising judges of the State of Kansas. Each is asked to call a toll free number and report to the Voter News Service, specified races in the General Election.

The Voters News Service collects and tabulates a single, accurate set of election returns for broadcast and publication throughout the nation and abroad for the Associated Press, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and United Press International.

Due to joint efforts of the County Clerks, Secretary of State’s Office and the Voters News Service, the Scholarship Committee will be awarding 10 scholarships in the amount of $500.00 each.

Applications may be picked up at your school or at the County Clerk’s Office and all applications must be returned to your local county clerk or mailed to Inge Luntsford, 130 N. Spruce, Kingman, KS 67068, on or before April 3, 2012.

The scholarship winners will be announced at the County Clerk’s and Election Officials’ Association Seminar in May. The County Clerk from the recipient’s county will award them a their local school awards assembly.

The BOCO Review is a new weekly newspaper that will start publishing next month. They have launched their website at www.thebocoreview.com. You can subscribe to the paper from their website. Local residents pay $38.50 for 52 issues of the paper with slightly higher rates for non-local subscriptions. Subscriptions to the online paper can be had for as little as $25 per year.

Roads

The heavy rains have shut down one road in the county that has become impassible due to mud. The Commissioner’s discussed TWorks funds and how to best make use of the funding that is available. There are $270,000 available and Bourbon County has plans for $100,000 of it.

The commissioners went into Executive session to discuss non-elected personel with Marty. No action was taken.

John Wonderly from Fulton

Asked if they could get a white line on old 69 high way from 54 to the county line.  He also said that there was a big bump in one of the bridges and wondered if it could be fixed. Chairman Coleman said that the cost of adding a line would be very expensive and at this time the county doesn’t have the funds to add lines to that road.

He was also concerned that the Fulton City Attorney (Valorie Lebanc) was requesting more funds for an assistant. He doesn’t understand how she can work for both the county of Bourbon County and the City of Fulton and wanted to make sure that she wasn’t spending time she is being paid for Bourbon County to do work for the Fulton City Court.

He was recently served a summons from the City of Fulton due to farm equipment and trash and said that he would have preferred if someone had just have come to talk to him about it.

Mr. & Mrs. Robert Schweikert

They were concerned about a creek that had sticks and tree limbs clogging it up. The Chairman said that they would probably need to talk to the State of Kansas about it.

There was also concern about the planned walking trail along the Marmaton River. They said that there was land that would come back to them from the vacated railroads and they had heard that the property was going to the trail instead of coming back to them. Mr. Endicott said that he had heard the railroad was going to be using that area again. The Scheweikert’s said they would prefer to have trains using the property rather than a trail because she doesn’t want four wheelers in that area. She was also concerned that the trail would push out the wildlife.

Mr. Endicott said that the Riverfront Authority was running into some problems securing some of the property they need for the trail so he said they didn’t need to be concerned about it for awhile.

 

The commissioners were asked why they requested $5,335.67 from the Treasurer’s bond through KCAMP and not the additional $1,130 that was mentioned in the audit. They said that since the $1,130 wasn’t directly from the period being audited, they didn’t feel they could pursue it based on the audit.

KCAMP has stated that they intend to pursue reimbursement from Susan Quick (County Treasurer).

The county was not clear if collecting on the bond would change the Treasurer’s ability to run for office. However, it appears that it doesn’t.  People running for public office are not required to be bondable to run, but certain positions must be bonded to serve. The county pays the fee for bonds for elected officials. It appears that pretty much anyone will be bondable but the cost may be much greater depending on the risk. It is unclear if the county would be responsible for the bond at any cost or if there there is a limit to the amount the county will pay.

The county attorney came to see the commissioners to ask what they intended to do with the check the received from KCAMP. Susan Quick (County Treasurer) previously asked the commissioners to send the check back to KCAMP. She suggested that the money could be paid from the Treasurer’s office budget or that the Treasurer’s office could attempt to recover the funds from the companies and individuals the underpaid.

Susan Quick (Treasurer) had told the Terri Johnson (County Attorney) that the commissioners had told her that they were required to go after the bond. Terri Johnson said there was no specific statute requiring them to go after the bond, but an argument could be made that they would not be fulfilling their duty to the county if they didn’t pursue it.

Chairman Coleman brought up the fact that Susan Quick said that these were errors from the computer. The commissioners said they wanted to be careful that they aren’t overstepping their bounds in making the claim and they also want to make sure they aren’t picking on an individual. After some discussion, they decided it was within their responsibilities and voted to go ahead and cash the check.

KCAMP told Terri Johnson that it is very rare that a claim against a bond comes in.

Angie Timi requested a speed limit on East Kansas RD because of the high speed of vehicles on that road. She was concerned about how fast people drive down the road and that there would be an accident. The commissioners voted to put in a speed limit sign on that road.

There was some discussion about properties that were annexed by the city, but feel that they have not been provided the promised city services and would like to be de-annexed. Terri Johnson has requested documents from the city showing how the properties were originally annexed to see what options they may have.

Marty found out that TWORKS would pay for the sign that was part of the request for a sign and flashing light over at Uniontown.

Brian Snyder presented a signed petition to close Willow at 135th street to try to keep people from driving out in his fields to go “off roading.”

On March 15th, the Bourbon County Commissioners received a letter and check for $5,335.67 from KCAMP in payment for lost tax interest revenue from the Treasurer’s office.  According to the letter, KCAMP is now requesting payment from the Treasurer for $5,335.67. A copy of the letter can be seen here.

As discussed previously, the law appears to require that a suit be filed to recover money from bonds. The commissioner’s decision to pursue the matter directly from KCAMP allowed them to recover the fund without the cost of of a lawsuit.

On April 10th, there will be a tax sale in Bourbon County  and up to 29 properties will be sold.  If you want to see a list of the properties that may be sold, the properties that have been redeemed and the properties that have unpaid taxes and will not be sold in the first sale, you can view this pdf from the county website.

To bid on property, you must register for a bidding number with the Bourbon County Treasurer. You can do this as early as April 2nd.

According to the the March 5th Commission Minutes the Commissioners voted to write a letter to KCAMP (the county’s insurance company) and request that the county be reimbursed for $5,335.67 from the Treasurer’s $25,000 bond.  It appears that this amount is the amount that was underpaid by Klein Products (plus additional) interest in Terry Sercer’s report details. We previously discussed this underpayment and pointed out that if it was a computer error, there may be difficulties recovering this from the bond. It isn’t clear (at least to us) whether or not a computer mistake in calculating interest could actually be recovered from the Treasurer’s bond.

If you read  KSA 79-1703 it says:

Except as provided in subsection (b) or as otherwise provided by law, no board of county commissioners or other officer of any county shall have power to release, discharge, remit or commute any portion of the taxes assessed or levied against any person or property within their respective jurisdictions for any reason whatever.

To recover money from the bond the county will need to show that the Treasurer “released, discharged, remitted or commuted” a portion of the taxes levied against the property. What isn’t clear is whether or not an error–particularly if that error can be shown to be caused by a computer–would fall under any of those categories. It is possible that there are other laws that come into play here as well that the county is basing their action on.

However, there was $1,130 that was “forgiven” by the Treasurer on property in order to help a real estate transaction proceed. This definitely falls within the definition of KSA 79-1703, but it doesn’t appear that this amount is being included in the request for a payout from the bond. (It is possible that the requested amount includes a portion of the miscalculated interest from Klein Product as well as the full $1,130 amount, but that seems unlikely.)

Further, the law seems to indicate that the process to recover money from the bond requires a lawsuit:

Any taxes so discharged, released, remitted or commuted may be recovered by civil action from the members of the board of county commissioners or such other officer and the sureties of their official bonds at the suit of the attorney general, the county attorney, or of any citizen of the county or the board of education of any school district a part of the territory of which is in such county, as the case may be, and when collected shall be paid into the county treasury to be properly apportioned and paid to the county, municipalities, school districts and other taxing subdivisions entitled thereto

This suggests that if the county or a citizen were to sue the Treasurer to recover the $1,130 and win then the fund would be able to be recovered from the bonds. However, if such a lawsuit were to succeed, a more likely scenario would be that the Treasurer would simply pay the $1,130. In fact, if a lawsuit were filed, it might make sense to simply pay the $1,130 unless the Treasurer thought it was reasonable to expect the lawsuit to fail. Our understanding of the public bond is not that it offers a type of insurance so the public (in this case the county) can quickly recover their fund through the bond. The bonding company still has the right to recover the fund from the person bonded.

If a bonding company has to pay out for someone once, it stands to reason that it may be very difficult to get another bond on the same individual. If someone can’t be bonded, it appears that this would prohibit them from being able to occupy a public office that required a surety bond.

According the the commission minutes, the county is not suing the Treasurer. They are writing a letter to KCAMP requesting funds from the bond directly. It is possible that there is an agreement in the bond that allows this in order to prevent expensive legal proceedings, but it appears to be a different procedure than outlined in the law quoted above.

 

 

According to the report by Terry Sercer, a number of individuals overpaid their taxes–(including the County Treasurer by $346.32 in 2006) because of problems in the way the interest was calculated.  The report said that a number of individuals overpaid by around $800. (It wasn’t clear if this is the sum of all overpayments or an average per person.) These individuals should be receiving a refund in the coming weeks.

Mr. Sercer has provided a summary of his findings from his audit. FortScott.biz has requested the details from Bourbon County, but at first they were not available under Kansas Open Records Act because the Commissioners had yet to request them. Since the Kansas Attorney General hasn’t indicated that their investigation is complete, the Commissioners didn’t originally want to request this information (and thus make it public) in case it would damage the Attorney General’s efforts. After weeks of not hearing anything from the Attorney General’s office, the commissioners decided that the importance of getting the refunds made outweighed any potential benefit to the Attorney General and went ahead and requested the details which we published here.

When it comes to interest that should have been charged, but not paid it turns out that there are provisions in the law for this.

If you look at this opinion by the Attorney General, it talks about payment plans and makes it clear that neither the Commissioners nor any other officer of the county can change the amount of tax due or interest charges.

Thus, except for very limited exceptions, no board of county commissioners or other officer of the county has the authority to release, discharge, remit or commute any portion of taxes that have been levied or assessed against a person or property.

The exceptions have to do with bankruptcy and a situation where there was a very specific program established by law for Wyandotte County.

The law cited is KSA 79-1703 which says:

Except as provided in subsection (b) or as otherwise provided by law, no board of county commissioners or other officer of any county shall have power to release, discharge, remit or commute any portion of the taxes assessed or levied against any person or property within their respective jurisdictions for any reason whatever.

So if you owe taxes, no one can change what you owe other than changing the actual assessment. So what happens if Commissioners or another elected official does “release, discharge, remit or commute” a portion of the taxes?  For example, what happens if they mark the taxes and interest as paid when the proper amount was not collected? There is a provision for that.

Any taxes so discharged, released, remitted or commuted may be recovered by civil action from the members of the board of county commissioners or such other officer and the sureties of their official bonds at the suit of the attorney general, the county attorney, or of any citizen of the county or the board of education of any school district a part of the territory of which is in such county, as the case may be, and when collected shall be paid into the county treasury to be properly apportioned and paid to the county, municipalities, school districts and other taxing subdivisions entitled thereto

So basically if any commissioner or official releases a tax payer from paying taxes, they become liable for them personally and they can be sued by the Kansas Attorney General, County Attorney, any citizen of the county, or the board of education. This provision means that trivial amounts, while they can’t technically be written off, are unlikely to be something that will incur a lawsuit. If someone owes $0.32 on their taxes and a county official decides it isn’t worth pursuing and marks it as paid, someone could sue that person to recover the $0.32, but it would be a whole lot of effort for very little.

Notice that the wording of the law refers to “taxes assessed or levied.” It doesn’t specifically say that interest on unpaid taxes gets the same treatment.  However, the Attorney General’s opinion concludes with:

However, K.S.A. 79-2024 does not authorize the county treasurer to abate or forgive delinquent tax or interest on tax debts, which remains prohibited by K.S.A. 79-1703.

79-1703 doesn’t mention the word interest. The Attorney General appears to assume that the interest on taxes is treated the same way as the taxes themselves and cannot be changed.

It appears that if  a county official released someone from their tax obligation by marking it as paid when they hadn’t paid the proper amount, the county official becomes liable for the amount that wasn’t paid. The law says that the funds may be recovered from them and the sureties of their official bonds by civil action. I called the County Clerks office and asked if Bourbon County Officials are bonded. They are and here is the bonded amount for a few of them.

• $5,000 – County Commissioners
• $10,000 – County Clerk
• $25,000 – County Treasurer

Bonds are basically a type of insurance so that funds can be recovered if an elected official acts inappropriately. The county pays a premium for elected officials to be bonded.  This helps remove some of the risk for the county of an official making off with county money. If that were to happen, the bond company would pay the claim up to the amount of the bond and then it would be up to the bond company to track down and collect from the public official. So basically a bond allows the county to get its money quickly if something goes wrong without depending on whether or not an elected official has the means to pay.

So is a the bond company that insures Bourbon County elected officials on the hook for interest that was not collected? It may depend on the circumstances.

According to Mr. Sercer’s audit report, there was one individual who had their taxes marked paid even though they underpaid by around $5,000 for a two year period. If it could be proven that an official in the county marked the amount as paid even though it was too little, then it appears that the official would be liable to pay back the $5,000 that was not paid.

However, if it could be shown that the computer system incorrectly calculated the interest, it might be a bit more complicated because it might be hard to actually win a civil suit against the county official. The computer company might have some liability, but in Bourbon County, it appears that the system that was producing incorrect numbers was no longer under any type of maintenance plan which would likely remove the company from having any liability since they stopped updating the software when the maintenance plan lapsed. On the other hand, there may possibly be some liability if a county official signs off on something that has obvious error–regardless of what computer system generated them.

While it is not clear how the larger amounts might be treated in court if a civil suit were to be filed, the audit report mentions one instance where $1,130 in interest was not paid. According to Mr. Sercer’s report, it was written off based on a belief that the money probably wouldn’t be recovered in a tax sale. Based on KSA 79-1703 it appears that the official who wrote of the $1,130 could be compelled to pay that money back to the county (in which case their bond would probably be the mechanism that the county would be paid).