News

By Dan Moffett
    
    Sometime in the next couple of months, Circuit Judge Catherine Brunson is expected to settle a three-year legal battle between Palm Beach County and 14 municipalities when she rules on how taxpayers should pay for the Inspector General’s Office.
    Around the town hall water coolers and at the commission daises, from Boca Raton to Gulf Stream to Jupiter, the case has raised more than its share of issues and hyperbole — about home rule, the will of the voters, overreaching governance, power grabbing, corruption deterrence, ethical vigilance, illegal taxation and plain old political intrigue.
    Former Boca Raton Mayor Susan Whelchel went so far as to describe the case as the county engaging in “double taxation without representation.”
    County attorneys and commissioners, meanwhile, have countered that nothing less than the moral foundation of government itself hangs in the balance with Brunson’s ruling. It’s about “democracy and government by the people,” Assistant County Attorney Helene Hvizd argued in court in August.
    It all started in 2009 when the County Commission endorsed the creation of an inspector general’s office, and then county voters overwhelmingly approved it in the 2010 election. It was a warranted response to a historic run of embarrassing disgrace during which three county commissioners and two West Palm Beach city commissioners wound up behind bars for abuses in office.
    While voters spoke clearly on having an inspector general, they weren’t asked to decide how to pay the $3 million it would cost each year.
    So, county officials met with municipal officials and came up with a formula: The county charged itself about $2 million and then sent each of the 38 municipalities a bill for a proportionate share of the remainder — ranging from about $95 for Cloud Lake, $3,800 for Manalapan, $125,000 for Delray Beach, $149,000 for Boca Raton and $381,000 for West Palm Beach.
    Local officials screamed foul. They complained they were not consulted, never mind the meetings the county called. They argued that the county imposed the charges unilaterally and arbitrarily. They said the county should negotiate more and sign interlocal agreements with each municipality if it wants to dip into local coffers.
    Perhaps worse, local officials argued that their residents were victims of double-taxation — paying once as county residents, and then again through their cities and towns. And, moreover, a small community might go years without even benefiting from the inspector general’s services, opponents claimed.
    In 2011, 15 municipalities joined together and sued the county (Wellington subsequently withdrew from the group).
    “It’s not a challenge to the inspector general itself,” said Boca Raton City Attorney Diana Grub Frieser. “It’s about the funding.”
    Gulf Stream Town Attorney John Randolph, who’s played a leading role on the plaintiffs’ legal team, says the suit does not question the legitimacy of the inspector general. “That’s water over the dam. We have an inspector general.” But the suit does question the fairness of the county’s implementation of the voters’ will through a “tax that is disguised as a fee.”
    Several attempts to reach a settlement with a new funding plan more to the municipalities’ liking have run aground. County commissioners have argued that changing the current method would weaken the inspector general’s office and diminish its autonomy.
    Brunson said she will begin deliberating the non-jury case after attorneys present final written proposals for resolution on Sept. 2.
    The 14 plaintiffs are West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Gulf Stream, Manalapan, Riviera Beach, Lake Park, Jupiter, Palm Beach Gardens, Highland Beach, Ocean Ridge, Tequesta, Palm Beach Shores and Mangonia Park.