A majority of the Shelby County Board continues to vote on moving towards outsourcing all of the county's payroll processing. A smaller number continue to reiterate that this may not be legal to do. Following is the information that I think clearly outlines why this against the law. Let's start with multiple statutes that read almost identical for various departments. It would then be reasonable to ascertain that any AG opinion or case laws on the details of one statute wouldn't be any different for other departments. The duties assigned by law for the treasurer, auditor, states attorney, & county clerk are all nearly identical, with those sections highlighted in blue. So any Attorney General opinion on the details of one of these offices will specifically relate to the others.
55 ILCS 5/3-10005.1 - Internal operations of office. The treasurer shall control the internal operations of his office and procure necessary equipment, materials and services to perform the duties of his office.
55 ILCS 5/3-1004 - Internal operations of office. The county auditor shall control the internal operations of the office and procure equipment, materials and services necessary to perform the duties of the office, subject to the budgetary limitations established by the county board.
55 ILCS 5/3-9006 - Internal operations of the office. The State's Attorney shall control the internal operations of the State's Attorney's office and procure the necessary equipment, materials, and services to perform the duties of that office.
55 ILCS 5/3-2003.2 - Internal operations of office. The county clerk shall have the right to control the internal operations of the clerk's office and to procure necessary equipment, materials and services to perform the duties of the clerk's office.
--------------------------------------
And now onto the Attorney General Opinions related to any of these matters.
The 1st question asked was if the county board could require the treasurer, recorder, or states attorney to make purchases of equipment, materials, or services through the purchasing dept. And answer was because those offices had the authority to make those purchases, they were not bound by a county ordinance which required competitive bidding on all county contracts. Other departments are not granted that authority by statute.
The 4th question asked was if "equipment, materials, and services" include data processing services. The AG's opinion was that it "clearly includes contracts for data processing services."
It was asked if a county board can use its budgetary authority to circumvent the internal control of the auditor over their office, and if the county could delegate part of that departments responsibilities to another department. Although the scenario is reversed here, they were trying to delegate power from the auditor to the treasurer. In the case of Shelby County, they are trying to delegate powers from the treasurer to a third party payroll processing company. The AG opinion goes on to say that county boards cannot attempt to exercise control over these departments which have authorities delegated to them by state laws, and says that "both schemes were rejected as impermissible attempts to circumvent internal control provisions." It references the above statutes and reiterates that the duties cannot be delegated to anyone outside of that office, when a duty has been specifically imposed upon an office by law. The AG opinion references the following statute, and states that any ordinance attempting to reallocate specific duties would be void and ineffective.
55 ILCS 5/5-1087 - Alteration of duties, powers and functions of county officers. No county board may alter the duties, powers and functions of county officers that are specifically imposed by law. A county board may alter any other duties, powers or functions or impose additional duties, powers and functions upon county officers. In the event of a conflict State law prevails over county ordinance.
The AG opinion goes onto to explain more details on the office of the auditor, commenting on the intentions of such laws. Firstly, it was designed to provided a uniform set of responsibilities. And secondly, to "provide a means to ensure that the county funds are spent in accordance with law and to guarantee against the possibility of fraud." The AG opinion also states the board cannot alter the statutory duties and that the county board may not delegate fuctions that are statutorily delegated to an office.
The AG references the case of Heller V. County Board of Jackson County where the county board was interfering with the operation of his office by removing from his direction and supervision his statutorily imposed duties and responsibilities; by establishing job descriptions for the employees of his office without his consent; by hiring employees for his office without his consent and directing them in the minutiae of their employment; by purchasing supplies for his office without his consent; and by generally relegating him to the status of an employee in his office.
Keep in mind the phrase "purchasing supplies without consent" when you read
55 ILCS 5/3-10005.1 - Internal operations of office. The treasurer shall control the internal operations of his office and procure necessary equipment, materials and services to perform the duties of his office.
Complaint #8 in this case was "Ordered supplies and equipment for the office directly, without following uniform standard practices set up by the Board for all County Officers, which require requests by approval and written purchase orders from Heller."
The ruling for complaint #8 was "The same may be said of purchasing supplies and equipment for the supervisor's office. While it is clear that the board may establish uniform procedures governing the purchase of supplies and equipment, the trial court found that here the board departed from the established procedure as part of its effort to remove from the duly appointed supervisor his statutory functions and duties."
And for the final nail in the coffin, it was asked if a county board has the power to contract with a private firm for county payroll checks. This was asked for the position of the county clerk at the time, but keep in mind the statutes for treasurer or clerk are the same. The AG's opinion was that it would "violate the clerks right to procure the necessary equipment, materials, and services to perform the duties of his office."
Any questions?
My question is aside from being illegal to outsource payroll, what other problems might it cause?
The current system you have in place now is the county employees turn their time cards, hours, & vacation times into their department heads (checkpoint #1). The department heads are supposed to verify those hours, and the turn into the treasurer's office to process the payroll (checkpoint #2). If this is outsourced, you have no checkpoints against fraud, and no elected officials to hold accountable for that fraud. What could go wrong?