Added to the problems the Webster County Commission will face in 2013 will be the issue over the lack of adequate office space for both the offices of the Prosecuting Attorney and the offices of the 911 Communications Center and Office of Emergency Services (OES).
This office space predicament has arisen since a hardship exemption previously granted by the West Virginia Ethics Commission will expire in less than 18 months. That exemption allowed Prosecuting Attorney Dwayne Vandevender to receive rent money from the County so that he could continue to operate the Prosecutor's offices out of Vandevender's privately owned office building located at 137 South Main Street in Webster Springs.
Ordinarily, both West Virginia law and an Advisory Opinion by the Ethics Commission makes it both a crime and an ethics violation for elected public officials like Vandevender from entering into contracts (such as a rental lease) with County Commissions in situations where the public official may have some influence or control over the Commission.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-11 (see link below), issued in September, 2006, specifically stated that a Prosecutor exercises "a voice, influence, or control" over a County Commission since the Prosecutor acts as the statutory lawyer for the Commission. As such, a Prosecutor can not rent out his privately owned office space to the County Commission unless the Ethics Commission grants a hardship exemption.
Even the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals back in 1949 recognized the dangers of a public official entering into contracts with a County Commission. The Court said that: "The purpose of the [law] is to protect public funds, and give official recognition to the fact that a person cannot properly represent the public in transacting business with himself. To permit such conduct would open the door to fraud. The [law] is designed to remove from public officers any and all temptation for personal advantage."
Even the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals back in 1949 recognized the dangers of a public official entering into contracts with a County Commission. The Court said that: "The purpose of the [law] is to protect public funds, and give official recognition to the fact that a person cannot properly represent the public in transacting business with himself. To permit such conduct would open the door to fraud. The [law] is designed to remove from public officers any and all temptation for personal advantage."Hardship exemptions have been previously granted at least three times to the Webster County Commission because of the lack of office space either owned by the County or because such space is not readily available to meet the needs of a Prosecutor's office. There is no room in the Courthouse or Courthouse Annex to suit the needs of a Prosecutor's office.
The first hardship exemption issued on July 10, 2008 was granted until January 1, 2010. The full opinion by the Ethics Commission on this exemption can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ethics.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF%20Contract%20Exemptions/CE%202008-09.pdf
That first exemption was later modified to be a three year exemption, effective until September 5, 2011. The full opinion on this modification can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ethics.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF%20Contract%20Exemptions/CE%202008-10.pdf
When this three year period was about to expire, the County Commission asked for another three year exemption. The Ethics Commission denied the three year request, but did grant a one year extension effective until January 15, 2012. The full opinion of this one year extension can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ethics.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF%20Contract%20Exemptions/CE%202011-03.pdf
Recently, the County Commission received another extension effective to July 1, 2014. When it granted this extension, the Ethics Commission noted that the County Commission voted at its February, 2012 meeting to approve a plan to buy land and build a new 911/OES Center, but that it would take about two years to complete that project. As such, the Ethics Commission granted the extension to July 1, 2014. The full opinion of this last extension can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ethics.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF%20Contract%20Exemptions/CE%202012-01.pdf
While there is still over a year and a half left on the exemption, Vandevender said "it is a pressing problem. They [the Commission] have a lot of work to do to move the 911/OES Center" and that time will expire quickly if they do not act now.
The first hardship exemption issued on July 10, 2008 was granted until January 1, 2010. The full opinion by the Ethics Commission on this exemption can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ethics.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF%20Contract%20Exemptions/CE%202008-09.pdf
That first exemption was later modified to be a three year exemption, effective until September 5, 2011. The full opinion on this modification can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ethics.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF%20Contract%20Exemptions/CE%202008-10.pdf
When this three year period was about to expire, the County Commission asked for another three year exemption. The Ethics Commission denied the three year request, but did grant a one year extension effective until January 15, 2012. The full opinion of this one year extension can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ethics.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF%20Contract%20Exemptions/CE%202011-03.pdf
Recently, the County Commission received another extension effective to July 1, 2014. When it granted this extension, the Ethics Commission noted that the County Commission voted at its February, 2012 meeting to approve a plan to buy land and build a new 911/OES Center, but that it would take about two years to complete that project. As such, the Ethics Commission granted the extension to July 1, 2014. The full opinion of this last extension can be accessed at this link:
http://www.ethics.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF%20Contract%20Exemptions/CE%202012-01.pdf
While there is still over a year and a half left on the exemption, Vandevender said "it is a pressing problem. They [the Commission] have a lot of work to do to move the 911/OES Center" and that time will expire quickly if they do not act now.
One option being considered is to relocate the Prosecutor's office to the offices of the current 911/OES Center, since that building previously served as a Prosecutor's office when the late E.V. "Jack" Morton, Jr. served as Prosecutor. The County purchased the building in the early 2000's from Morton to house the current 911/OES Center. Obviously, if this option is exercised, a new building for the 911/OES Center would be needed.
The reason this option is being considered is because the 911/OES Center in it current location is antiquated and does not fit the ever evolving needs of a modern 911/OES operation. 911/OES Director Richard Rose recently discussed the problems with the current offices and the possible relocation.
Rose said that the current location is totally out of space, which problem is aggravated any time the County has an emergency, such as twice this year. He said that the technology and equipment space for the 911 center has overwhelmed the offices. Rose also noted that the building is not particularly secure, and that OES equipment is unsecured on the outside premises.
In the video at the end of this article, Rose discusses the options being considered for a new 911/OES Center as well as the costs. He expects a public hearing on these issues in the near future. While he is aware of the office space problems with the Prosecutor's office which might cause a relocation of the Prosecutor's office to the 911/OES offices, Rose said there are independent reasons for building a new 911/OES Center.
In the video at the end of this article, Rose discusses the options being considered for a new 911/OES Center as well as the costs. He expects a public hearing on these issues in the near future. While he is aware of the office space problems with the Prosecutor's office which might cause a relocation of the Prosecutor's office to the 911/OES offices, Rose said there are independent reasons for building a new 911/OES Center.
Since 2000, when he was first elected as Webster's Prosecutor, Vandevender has used his private office building at 137 South Main Street as the offices of the Prosecuting Attorney. From 2000 until 2008, Vandevender was by law a part-time Prosecutor and he conducted a private practice of law at his office building in addition to using his office as the Prosecutor's office. During this time period, he received no rental money from the County.
In 2008, the law changed making Vandevender a full-time Prosecutor. Since then, Vandevender has continued to operate the Prosecutor's offices out of his private building. The Commission currently pays Vandevender $500.00 per month to cover the added utilities incurred by the operation of the Prosecutor's office. Vandevender said he makes no significant profit from that rental agreement. "I might make $50.00 a month and some months I lose money, depending on the costs of utilities in any month," Vandevender said.
In addition to the Prosecutor's offices, his building leases out space for dentist Kevin Lucky, and Vandevender has three rental units in the building of which he is the landlord. Vandevender said because of his income from those other leases, he does not desire to sell his office building to the County, at least at a price the County could afford considering the value of those additional income generating sources.
In addition to the Prosecutor's offices, his building leases out space for dentist Kevin Lucky, and Vandevender has three rental units in the building of which he is the landlord. Vandevender said because of his income from those other leases, he does not desire to sell his office building to the County, at least at a price the County could afford considering the value of those additional income generating sources.
To read the full Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-11, please click on this link:
To read the full WV law allowing a County Commission to seek a hardship exemption from the above ethics opinion, please click on these links:
--read WV Code 6B-2-5(d): http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/ChapterEntire.cfm?chap=06b&art=2§ion=5#02
--read WV Code 61-10-15(h): http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/ChapterEntire.cfm?chap=61&art=10§ion=15#10#10
The video below is part of an interview with OES/911 Director Richard Rose concerning the possible relocation of the OES/911 offices:
I am familiar with the layout of the 911/OES office. The upstairs could be redone into the 911 section, which would be more secure, and bunk rooms for National Guard, etc could be incorporated into the downstairs.
ReplyDelete