Franklin sheriff files $25k claim against auditor, county over $21 meal dispute
The Franklin County sheriff has filed a $25,000 claim against the county over an ongoing dispute with the auditor’s office.
The dispute is centered on a conflict over a charge for a meal while Sheriff Jim Raymond was attending a state Criminal Justice Training Commission hearing in the Seattle area.
The auditor’s office wanted him to pay back $21, and when he refused because he did not believe that policy applied to elected officials, they threatened to shut off his charge card and took the money out of his check.
The dispute escalated to a point that Raymond filed a claim for damages against the county and Franklin County Auditor Matt Beaton. Claims typically serve as a precursor to a civil lawsuit.
Raymond told the Herald he does intend to take the claim to court if the damages are not resolved. He believes it is about much more than just a $21 bill.
If he sues, Raymond would be footing his own bill and the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office would defend county employees and other elected officials who are implicated by their official duties, Prosecutor Shawn Sant told the Herald.
What happened?
Raymond uses what is referred to as a “P Card,” or purchasing card, which is essentially a corporate credit card for travel expenses and typically submits a receipt after use.
In these instances he charged $51.66 and $41.81, including the tips, for two dinners, resulting in what the auditor’s office said was a $21.47 overage.
According to the form filled out, the allowable per diem was $36 for dinner, including tips (which cannot exceed 15%). The combined daily total for allowable meals was listed as $79 on the form.
That was a sum for the costs of breakfast, lunch and dinner. Raymond only charged the two dinners over a two-day period and did not stay in a hotel, instead opting to drive back to avoid the cost.
The sheriff wrote in an “Exceptions” box on the form what the charges were for.
Raymond, who has been in office since 2015, has said this is how he has always handled his meals. He uses the card, writes the totals on the form and what they were for in exceptions and attaches receipts when requested. It’s unclear why this wasn’t addressed before now.
Beaton said his staff brought him the issue when they first discovered it. He says though that he doesn’t “direct” staff, but he does back them up. He said the state laws surrounding the county credit card are RCW 42.24.115.
He also said County Administrator Mike Gonzalez tried to set up a meeting Raymond about the travel policy, but Raymond refused to attend.
The sheriff is an “enormously powerful” position, Beaton said.
“In the normal and routine administration of the travel policy, we have an elected official that has defamed and harassed staff from another elected official’s office,” he said “It’s concerning and inappropriate.”
During the back and forth, an employee in the auditor’s office acknowledged the form in question was outdated and that while the exceptions policy had been updated in 2020, the auditor’s office had failed to update forms to reflect the changes.
That policy had previously allowed for exceptions to the per diem structure to be written in the box. The new policy, they said, does not allow for exceptions.
It’s unclear why this was not brought up in the nearly two years since the policy was updated, and Raymond has requested records to show he was never challenged on it before. Beaton called the records request a malicious attempt to get his way, and said Raymond does not respect the auditor’s office or their role.
A review from the prosecutor’s office found that while the auditor’s office had the ability to withdraw the money, they cautioned against turning off Raymond’s card. The two sides seemed to believe that the prosecutor’s review favored their arguments.
Last week the matter became public when Raymond posted about it on the sheriff’s Facebook page. Beaton responded by uploading a 101-page document, which included emails regarding the matter.
Meal dispute
When the auditor’s office reviewed his monthly statement in May, they sent Raymond an email telling him he had exceeded his per diem rate of $36 for a dinner, according to documents made public in the post on Beaton’s blog.
Some members of Raymond’s staff submitted charges for per diem, but Raymond submitted the receipts for his P Card.
In an email with the subject line “Per diem or actual receipts” Raymond sent a photo of himself holding a wine bottle while sitting at dinner with several other men, and just the words “you choose.”
It’s unclear if he was responding to a specific email. Raymond said this is a photo of an unrelated dinner with his command staff, and was not charged to the county or taxpayers.
About 10 days after the initial contact, the employee sent Raymond a “friendly reminder” email to pay the $21.47
“Not happening. No need to send me friendly reminders. All my travel and meals is done by receipt not per diem,” Raymond responded in an email.
The employee responded, asking Raymond what policy he was referring to, and informed Raymond that use of receipts was fine as long as they were within the allowable per diem amount. They told the sheriff if he did not pay the difference, they would have to cut off his P Card.
“Again I don’t care about the county policy. I submitted actual receipts. The county policy covers per diems not actual business receipts. I’m done with this nonsense. Do what you have to do and I’ll react to your move. Although kinda foolish. I didn’t put in for per diem. I submitted actual business receipts. Just you and others trying to pound a square peg in a round hole. Maybe you can talk Beaton into (taking) on your cause to the commissioners.”
At this point another auditor’s office employee said, “He has stated his intentions. I think we can stop with the back and forth and proceed as necessary (e.g., go to Commissioners).”
An email was then sent to all three Franklin County commissioners asking how to proceed. The Herald has requested more information to determine what response was given. Beaton and Raymond were also copied on the email.
Raymond responded by saying, “Commissioners I suggest you leave this one alone. By the way (auditor’s office employee) I don’t work for the commissioners nor your boss.”
No response from any of the commissioners was included in the emails uploaded. This does not necessarily mean the email chain is incomplete, the matter could have been addressed in person or over the phone.
The next email in the chain came three weeks later when the auditor’s office notified Raymond that the $21.47 was set to be taken out of his check. They said his P Card would remain active this way, or that he could pay by check.
During this time the two had also been at odds over an audit that resulted in jail employees being told they should be taxed for their uniform allotments. The Herald has requested documents related to that audit.
Raymond had made comments about the audit and auditor’s office employees during a Franklin County Commission meeting.
After the money was set to be deducted from Raymond’s check, the matter seemed to escalate.
Escalation
On June 15 when the auditor’s office informed Raymond they intended to have the money taken from his check, he told them they had no right to do so and said he would file a complaint if they did.
“You will not. It is unlawful for you to do so without my consent. I will file a civil complaint against you and the county. No one is authorized to pull anything out of my wages without my consent,” Raymond wrote.
Shortly after, the auditor’s office appears to have checked to see if they could legally have the money taken from Raymond’s check before doing so.
In an email from Daniel Stovern, the county’s chief civil deputy, he stated that he spoke to the sheriff and that the withdrawal is allowable under Washington law, but cautioned the auditor’s office against cutting off Raymond’s P Card if they were to do so or if the charge had already been paid.
Around the same time, Raymond sent another email demanding to know who authorized the auditor’s office employees to make the withdrawal. He reiterated that they did not have his permission to do so.
“Silly malicious games by the auditor office are foolish. Understand that I have nearly nine years of documents showing the malicious and unlawful attacks upon the Office (of the) Sheriff concerning this topic. But again just another attack by fools,” Raymond ended the email.
Later that day a public records request from a member of the sheriff’s command staff was sent asking for records of emails to and from the auditor’s office including the terms “per diem, reimbursement, receipt(s), travel, training, GSA” from 2015 through June 15, 2023.
The next day Raymond sent an email to Gonzalez about the funds being withdrawn, and asked for a legal review.
“In fact I insist that you get a court order blocking these malicious and (rogue) actions being undertaken by the Franklin County Auditor and his agents. If it’s too much for you all. Send the mess to the Attorney General’s Office for review,” Raymond wrote.
Sant said that in this instance, the county did not have a legal obligation to initiate a lawsuit, as Raymond had requested. Sant pointed out the ruling in Judges of Benton and Franklin Counties v. Killian, in which a similar request was made of the prosecutor’s office to initiate a lawsuit.
In another email, a sheriff’s office employee seems to have found an exception to the per diem policy that was not brought to their attention, letting Raymond know they have the option of filing it as an “exception” because it was the most appropriate restaurant within a reasonable distance.
Raymond said he was aware of it, but people were blinded by an attempt to get him.
“I’m a elected official (who conducts) business on behalf of the people. Not a book worm or bean counter. Not subject to county employee policy. We will explain it in small claims court.”
This is the policy which the auditor’s office should have updated, and was originally filled out by Raymond on the form.
On the evening of June 15 Raymond made the matter public in a post to his Facebook page. In that post he accused Beaton and his office of trying to take control of the sheriff’s office.
“The Auditors Office is simply trying to control the Office of the Sheriff through dollars allocated to the Sheriff Office. (Obstructionist) actions undertaken by the auditors office all while executing the business of the Office of the Sheriff.”
He said Beaton’s office was wasting taxpayer money and doing so against the advice of the county prosecutor’s office.
“Let me be clear. I will not be controlled by the malicious actions, being undertaken by (rogue) out of control Franklin County Auditor. I work for the people of this county not other elected or their Agents. I think it’s time to start replacing our County Auditor.”
In another post, Raymond quoted a community member who had shared the original message, attributed to a Stephen Kent.
“I gotta tell you, for years I have observed that — across the board — ‘Auditors’ in Washington State are among the most self-righteous, punitive bullies I have ever met. I maintain, ‘If you want to run the Sheriff’s Office then run for Sheriff ... otherwise, stay the hell out of it.’ To have one elected official overtly attempt to undermine the authority and position of another elected official is not a sustainable business model and does not serve the best interests of the People of Franklin County.”
In response Beaton later posted the PDF of the emails and policies in question to his blog.
“His attempts to conflate his personal liability no matter how small with his official duties is not legitimate just because he keeps saying it over and over,” Beaton wrote in the post.
Claim against county
The claim filed by Raymond accuses Beaton and the county commissioners of undertaking efforts to obstruct the sheriff’s office.
Raymond’s claim says they violated his 14th Amendment rights by seizure of tangible property without due process. It also accuses Beaton of violating Raymond’s 1st Amendment rights by restricting his “ability to speak on matters of public concern” when Beaton turned off public commenting on his Facebook post about the matter.
The claim accuses Beaton, the county and employees of the auditor’s office of turning off his P Card as a “punitive act thereby interfering with the duties, responsibilities, and statutory authority of an independently elected official of Franklin County.”
The claim says that Beaton used the Facebook post to disparage Raymond as both a citizen and elected official, and intentionally took steps to restrict the ability to refute the claims. The claims states that because the Facebook profile is used as both a campaign site and for his elected office, he cannot stifle constituent’s abilities to respond.
In addition to the separate issue with the jailer uniforms, Beaton is also at odds with Commissioner Brad Peck over a benefits-pay conversion issue that came from an interpretation of a post by the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) that Beaton saw in January.
