Budget was catalyst behind move, Iola city councilman says
Of Jim Kilby’s 34 years as an Iola city employee, 29 came with Judy Brigham as a colleague — he in the Iola Police Department; she at first in the utilities office, then as city clerk and finally as city administrator.
Kilby, who retired in 2008, was elected this spring as one of eight newly minted Iola City Council members.
He had been a vocal supporter of Brigham when the council hunkered down in July to discuss the 2012 budget.
“I trust our city staff,” he said at the council’s July 19 workshop.
Six weeks later, Kilby cast one of six council votes to terminate Brigham’s employment, 2½ weeks before she was to retire after 32 years with the city.
Kilby cast the vote, he said, with tears in his eyes.
Kilby declined to comment publicly about other specifics of Brigham’s termination, saying only “the budget was the catalyst.”
The city’s 2012 budget was approved by council members Tuesday night — minutes after Brigham was fired — but not before they had rejected a similar budget eight days earlier.
The budget ultimately approved by the council was nearly identical to the one rejected eight days earlier, the only difference being a $14,000 reduction in general fund spending authority — necessary to keep the city’s property tax levy virtually identical to this year.
The primary difference for the council came after looking at the official cash on hand ledgers for the city as opposed to the budget worksheets Brigham and other city workers had prepared.
The worksheets contained a number of discrepancies that were discussed extensively when councilmen approved the budget for publication July 25 — giving the public an opportunity to look over the spending plan — and what was approved this week.
IT SHOULD be noted that the budget process will change in future, but not because of the personnel change.
Budget planners in the future will use an INCODE budgeting software that differs from the existing worksheets.
The thought is that the new worksheets will more closely correspond to the general ledger reports submitted to the state.
City Administrator Carl Slaugh noted at the council’s Aug. 22 meeting that the budget worksheets council members had been using to develop their spending plan are completely independent of what is submitted to the state.
The council, it should be noted, wound up not using the worksheets when it approved the budget Tuesday, but rather worked from an amended worksheet listing true fund balances compiled by City Administrator Carl Slaugh and City Clerk Roxanne Hutton.
BRIGHAM’S FATE may have been sealed Monday evening, after it was learned that the city had apparently been listing $4 million in an electric equipment reserve in one worksheet that is not there.
Again, the $4 million was not included in the official budget, but in a worksheet that is used more as a guide.
The worksheets presented to council members, and former city commission members for that matter, indicated the city had been setting aside $1 million annually since 2008 for the eventual replacement of the city’s Wartsila generators.
There is no money in that account, according to the city’s updated ledgers, nor had there been any transfers into or out of the fund.
Brigham acknowledged this morning that the reserve fund does not exist, and that the annual $1 million “contribution” was a part of the automated worksheet program she and the other budget planners used.
The budget was set each year with the hopes that the $1 million could be set aside for the generators, Brigham explained — and was entered into the worksheet as such — but then was used for other purposes.
But in each subsequent budget worksheet, the $1 million “hoped for” contribution was automatically added to the still-empty reserve fund.
It’s not that the money went missing. It was just never there.
In subsequent conversations with commissioners, none have accused Brigham of malfeasance in regards to the budget.
Hutton explained that the budget was arrived at as a group effort including herself, about a dozen department heads, Corey Schinstock, assistant city administrator, and Brigham.
Councilman Ken Rowe, who also declined to speak about the specifics of Brigham’s firing, said he hoped to be able to speak publicly in order to give the community a full explanation.
“I’m sincere in saying that I thought the council made the right decision,” Rowe said.
IT’S ALSO not yet known how Brigham’s early termination will affect her retirement benefits.
She estimated Wednesday that the early firing could cost her as much as $40,000 — $18,000 in accrued sick leave pay, loss of access to the city’s health insurance program and a smaller pension from the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS).
“We’re still waiting on some verification on that,” Ken Hunt, Iola’s human resource manager, said Wednesday.
Mayor Bill Shirley said at the time of Brigham’s dismissal that he did not know if her benefits would be affected.
City Attorney Chuck Apt, declining to talk about Brigham specifically, said retirement benefits for terminated employees can be affected if the employee is terminated and not considered bona fide retired.
Brigham said she had fielded several phone calls in the aftermath of her firing.
“I had to recharge my phone at midday,” she said, “and I learned there is apparently a maximum number of text messages my phone can hold, because it was filled. The response was overwhelming.”
AS AN aside, the Register reported Wednesday that part of Brigham’s job duties since the new council was elected in April was to report daily to Shirley.
“It wasn’t for her to give her daily accomplishments,” Shirley said. “It was just to update me on anything going on around the city. Since the buck stops at the mayor’s doorstep now, I just wanted to be aware of what was happening.”
Shirley said he had asked Slaugh to provide the same daily reports.
