Comanche County Commissioners discuss funding DA’s office

Comanche County Commissioners have indicated they will adjust the county’s Estimate of Needs to identify funding for the District Attorney’s Office.

Commissioners are moving closer to approving the county’s Estimate of Needs, the planning document that allows the County Excise Board to set the 2023-2024 budget. Preliminary estimates — still being discussed, commissioners say — envision a $10,486,500 budget for next fiscal year, comparable to the $10.06 million put into place this fiscal year but about $682,000 less than what county department heads sought.

Central District Commissioner Johnny Owens wants one adjustment made to preliminary figures, one that he, County Clerk Carrie Tubbs and County Treasurer Rhonda Brantley are willing to finance: give the $38,000 allocation to the District Attorney’s Office that the current fiscal year made.

“They asked for $75,000 this year, but it has been suggested they not get anything,” Owens said of the Estimate of Needs presented to commissioners Tuesday, adding he opposes that lack of funding.

Owens said the District Attorney’s Office does work for commissioners, to include contract reviews and attending commissioner meetings to answer questions. And, he said while the office has suggested that commissioners and others obtain private representation on some legal matters, that typically occurs when the District Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest or because it is short-handed.

Owens said his suggestion is to fund the District Attorney’s Office at the same level as the current year, taking those funds from another location if necessary (a decision that would keep the total Estimate of Needs the same).

District 3 Commissioner Josh Powers questioned why commissioners need to pay both the District Attorney’s Office and outside legal firms for services. Noting that state statues require district attorney offices to represent boards of commissioners, Powers said he asked whether the District Attorney’s Office could guarantee legal representation if it receives the full $75,000 officials want this year (Powers didn’t say if he received an answer).

Powers said part of his problem is that three times this year he has waited weeks for a response on legal requests he made, explaining commissioners don’t always have the freedom to wait that long. He said if commissioners are told to obtain outside legal counsel, they have to pay that firm a fee when they already are paying the District Attorney’s Office $38,000.

“Almost every lawsuit is referred to outside counsel,” he said.

Owens said while he doesn’t agree with designating the full $75,000 request, he believes $38,000 “is suitable.” Tubbs agreed, saying her office will be affected by the commissioner’s decision because of her office’s routine involvement with the District Attorney’s Office on issues such as Open Record requests and bid contracts. She doesn’t have the money in her budget for outside legal counsel.

“I am willing to sacrifice part of my budget,” Tubbs said of her willingness to reallocate some County Clerk funding toward the District Attorney’s allocation. “The first office that will have an issue is probably going to be mine.”

Owens and Brantley said they also are willing to reallocate some of their funding.

“Your call,” said Excise Board Chairman J.P. Richard, about the decision to revise budgets allocations to give $38,000 to the District Attorney’s Office.

The commissioners’ vote on the Estimate of Needs will be made at next week’s meeting, enough time to allow the Excise Board to finalize the county budget by the end of September.

Under Oklahoma statute, about half of the annual funding for district attorney offices across Oklahoma comes from funds appropriated by the Oklahoma Legislature. The remainder of their budgets typically come from special court fees, probation and supervision programs, forfeiture of cash and property, and fees on bogus check cases.