Posted: 1/8/03

Temte's job on the line in Wyoming

Alice Pickering
Wyoming Area Reporter

Mike Temteís tenure as police chief in Wyoming could be decided when city council conducts a special workshop next Monday night. The meeting was set following a meeting Monday where the personnel committee delivered a recommendation to dismiss the 22-year veteran.

The meeting this Monday Jan. 6 attracted more than 50 residents plus city officials. A first order of business was to swear in Mayor Vern Haag before he began his second term. In turn, Haag swore in new council members Martin English and Ted Phillips.

An open meeting was held to consider the recommendation of the personnel committee regarding an insubordination charge against Temte. The legal basis for the meeting was explained. City Administrator Dennis Coryell read a report of complaint against Temte, presenting supporting documents.

Temte presented his testimony about the charges, AFSME union representative Dean Tharp and others were allowed to speak as witnesses on his behalf. Council member Sandy Standridge read the report of the personnel committee including its preliminary findings and recommendation for dismissal.

Temteís job description, recently negotiated by Paul Ness, but in effect since his hiring by the city, December 1980, is that he answers to the city council, makes recommendations for budget and capital purchases within his department.

Key provisions of the purchasing policy include safeguards for purchases and accounting for ìevery expenditure of city funds,î prewritten quotations for proposed purchases.

In an interview with Temte, Dec. 5, with Tharp in attendance, Coryell concluded Temte did not follow direct orders because he disagreed with them. He had not consulted with legal or financial professionals.

Temte issues

One of the complaints against Temte was failure to turn over to council control a bank account maintained by the police department, repository of forfeiture funds, despite a direct order from the city to do so. He finally turned over the account book when verbally ordered to, once he had a guarantee that the money would be used for police purchases, officials said.

In a personal interview, Temte maintains in his opinion he would have broken the law by doing that. In summary, the law defines property seized by the ìappropriate agencyî (a law enforcement agency) for a designated offense can be declared forfeit (Minnesota Statues 2002, Chapter 169A.63 Subdivision 1b). When sold, ì70 percent of the proceeds must be forwarded to the appropriate agency for deposit as a supplement to the local agencyís operating fund or a similar fund for use in DWI-related enforcement, training, and education;î (Minnesota Statutes 2002, Chapter 169A.63 Subdivision 10b, 1&2). Local departments also may use the money for equipment.

According to Temte, before the revision of the law in 2001, the forfeiture funds went into a cityís general fund. He believes the money was to be in an account for the police department, administered by the police department.

A second complaint is that he failed to follow the cityís purchasing policy by using funds in the referenced account to purchase a vehicle for departmental use (police investigator) despite having received a written directive from the city to follow the purchasing policy.

ìI believe funds, because they are not budgeted funds, not line item, not tax payer money, derived from the work of the police department, should be put into a special account outlined in the forfeiture law, and therefore the city would have no control over the money,î the chief said.

At the time of the car purchase he believed he did not have to follow the purchase order policy of the city, he said.

The savings account in question was opened in about 1980 and had been a petty cash account into which money obtained from copies of police reports to insurance agencies and other small amounts had been deposited. Money is used for office supplies, postage and other small purchases.

Recently the state laws changed and money from the sale of forfeited vehicles and undesignated money was deposited in this account, he said.

During one short time in the summer of 2002, about six forfeiture vehicles were sold and a much larger amount of money was deposited in the account until the total was about $9200. The department was in need of a more reliable car for investigations and after checking several vehicles, a relatively new car was purchased and paid for from the forfeiture fund.

Mayor Vern Haag wrote all department heads last summer about accountability practices. In his letter to Temte, July 18, 2002, was the directive: ìFrom now on the police department is to turn in a report to the council and administrator before the end of every month, showing account balances, the origin of revenues, and proposed expenditures for the following month. The city attorney is researching how forfeiture money may be spent.î

In his letter August 1, 2002 to the council, part of the consent agenda, Temte wrote, ìSome direction will be needed as to required review and control with the city administrator and council. My concern would be a timely access to this fund, for prior (approved in advance) expenditures. What happens if there are forfeiture funds in the account but the request for the funds is denied?î

He attached copies of the passbook and expenditures with his report to the council as requested but these reports were for after-the-fact expenditures.

Committee findings

Standridge read the personnel committee preliminary findings and recommendations. In summary these include the fact that against advice and warnings of the city auditor, warnings of the city attorney, the savings account holding forfeiture funds ìwas kept outside of council control and monies were collected and spent from the account without following city purchasing policy provisions as to required purchase requisitions, required purchase orders, and other provisions relating to unbudgeted purchases.î

Temte ìreceived and read city council minutes and two letters from the mayor warning him to turn over control of the account to the city council and city administration.î He also ìreceived and understood a direct order form the administrator/CFO to surrender control of the account at a July 11, 2002 meeting of the administrator, the city auditor, and chief Temte.î

ìTemte failed to obey the above mentioned reasonable, lawful, and direct order, and monies were spent from the forfeiture account without council oversight and without following city purchasing policy procedures. This constitutes an act of insubordination and a misuse of public funds.î

His ìfailure to obey the above mentioned order was not based on any consultation with any legal or financial professional or on an investigation of forfeiture account policies or practices in any other city. The refusal was based solely on Chief Temteís private opinion.î

The city request for control of the forfeiture account was reasonable based on the professional opinions of City Auditor Steve McDonald and his repeated warnings that such accounts outside of the city councilís control are unacceptable and must not be allowed. Continued failure of the council to be accountable for the funds in the account could mean eventual referral to the state auditor which could result in financial penalties to the city.

Council fears this at a time of severe budget shortfalls in state government and possible reductions in local government aid to the city. Council member Lynn Koalska said she wants an accounting because ìI have a fiduciary responsibility to the residents of the city.î

The summary continued: ìcontrol of the account was eventually turned over to the city council, but not before several thousand dollars in transactions occurred, including the purchase of a recent model Dodge Intrepid for $6000 and the sale of six forfeited vehicles.î

ìAn elected city council must be accountable to the residents of our city. For any employee to refuse a direct council order is a direct challenge to the authority of the council, a potentially dangerous practice, and completely unacceptable.The issue is far more than a simple misunderstanding.

ìTemteís action is a direct challenge to the councilís authority; it constitutes insubordination and a misuse of public funds, and must not be allowed to be repeated.î

Summary

In summary, after repeated written requests to turn over the passbook for petty cash fund which had been renamed forfeiture fund, Temte refused until directly asked by Coryell to turn over the book. Relying on his opinion about the appropriateness of doing so would go against use of funds for police purposes.

McDonald said he did not understand the part of the law that he (Temte) was referencing. Also important to Temte Monday, ìcouncil did not show him what the accountant referenced in making his opinion.î

Koalska said McDonald used as a reference the Minnesota compliance law.

For his part, Temte union representative Tharp said Temte feared council would veto any requests for use of the funds to supplement a police budget. Tharp implied the council or CFO would summarily refuse departmental requests, lose the money in the general fund and that was behind Temteís refusal to comply.

Council members have said they would never use forfeiture funds for other than designated purposes.

Standridge said she found it difficult, when the council is trying to make budget cuts to fit available money, to explain to questioning residents, where funds were found to purchase a relatively new vehicle, when there were complaints about capital fund cuts for a new squad car and computer.

The council and Coryell are in agreement with the intended purpose of the fund to supplement the police department budget.

One thing on which everyone is in agreement is that funds never were misused and no one suspected they were misused, council members have said.

A final decision about the situation was tabled because new council members wanted questions answered and some additional clarification. An open ìworkshopî for council, Coryell, Temte, and union representative Tharp is scheduled for 6 pm, Monday, Jan. 13 in the council chambers.

Before this meeting, one question council members seek to have answered is whether state statutes override city purchase policy.

Top of Page