The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners voted to give Sheriff Gerald Lawson until 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 1, to turn over the proceeds from the inmate telephone system. If the county does not receive the $16,000, it will take legal action against the sheriff.

The vote was taken at a called meeting of the commission held Thursday, January 25.

Among those present were Sheriff Lawson; Oliver Hunter, deputy general counsel for the Georgia Sheriff's Association; and county attorney Britt Hammond.

Apparently, the conflict revolves around two major issues:

.. Can the sheriff as a constitutional officer enter into a contract without the approval of the commission?

.. Can the sheriff hold funds generated by such a contract in an account separate from the other accounts comprising the county's General Fund?

According to Sheriff Lawson, "I do not work for the county. I am independent of the county as far as doing my job in law enforcement and running the jail are concerned. As a constitutional officer, I have placed this money in a legal account which has been audited twice. The books are open to anybody who wants to see how the money is spent.

"Lincoln County didn't put anything into the inmate telephone system itself," he continued. "The contract does not have the county's signature on it, and the county has not incurred any debt in connection with the contract. I believe I have the legal right to enter into a contract. I also have the right to put the revenues from the contract into an account and use the funds for the inmates in our facility."

"We are blessed and cursed with how things are set up with the county and sheriff's office," said Oliver Hunter of the Georgia Sheriff's Association. "Naturally, the county wants to have some say so over what it funds. The county has to fund the sheriff's office, but the law doesn't give it a lot of control over how the money is spent.

"Sheriff Lawson is not pulling things out of thin air," stated the attorney. "His position is supported by our organization."

He went on to say that the sheriff is not mandated to provide a communications system for the inmates. He is, however, responsible for operating a safe jail, and the communications system is fundamental to this task. "As the communication system goes, so goes the jail."

Lawson indicated that the inmate telephone system is used by his staff as an investigative tool. "Even though the inmates are told they are being monitored, we have been able to solve crimes by working leads we obtained from the telephone system."

Hunter then addressed the question of whether the sheriff has the authority to enter into a contract without the approval of the board of commissioners. "If a sheriff can make direct purchases, there is no question he has the authority and the right to make contracts in the line of duty. The sheriff is an arm of the state, not of the county; he is not a county employee, according to the Georgia Constitution."

Citing the case of Hill v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, the attorney explained that the court of appeals found that "'the sheriff necessarily had the power to make purchases from third parties in the pursuit of his law enforcement duties, in this case the purchase of painting and remarking services.' Therefore, it is fair to assume that if the court allows the purchase of goods and services, it would also allow for the contracting of services in the furtherance of law enforcement functions by the sheriff.

"Given the fact that (1) no county funds were used to establish the telephone system, (2) the county is not a party to the written contract, (3) the contract was entered into in the furtherance of law enforcement duties, and (4) no county debt is being incurred, I think the sheriff is within his rights to maintain the funds generated under his control and not turn the funds over to the county," stated Hunter.

In other comments, he noted that the monies are public funds, not county funds. "However, the sheriff does have an obligation to account for the money. It cannot be co-mingled with other funds and must be used primarily for law enforcement functions. The account likewise has to be audited. But there is no argument that this is public money."

Addressing Sheriff Lawson, county attorney Britt Hammond said, "There is no provision in law that allows you to take this action - you must turn the money over to the county and ac- count for it. We are not getting into a legal battle - this is for the courts."

He indicated that the case of Hill v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners does not apply in this instance. "Georgia Law is clear that the county board of commissioners is vested with exclusive authority to control the fiscal affairs of the county. The General Assembly has given the board exclusive power to incur indebtedness and to authorize contracts and purchases. According to Stephenson v. Board of Commissioners of Cobb County, the sheriff is 'not permitted to do any act, make any contract or incur any liability not expressly authorized by a legislative grant of power or necessarily implied from an express legislative grant of power.' As a result, the sheriff has no independent authority to enter into a contract, unless specifically authorized by Georgia Law."

Hammond added, "Georgia Law has only addressed two areas where the sheriff is authorized to enter into a contract. Both, however, require consent of the governing authority and additionally require all funds received to be accounted for and turned over to the governing authority.

"In Mobley v. Polk County, it was determined that 'if there is reasonable double of the existence of a particular power, the doubt is to be resolved in the negative.'"

During the meeting, each of the commissioners had the opportunity to question Sheriff Lawson about his position concerning the revenues from the inmate telephones.

In response to a question asked by Commissioner Darrell Henderson, the sheriff said he felt he was authorized to sign the contract because its mission was law enforcement.

He was then asked how the money in the fund was being used. "The money was generated by the inmates and is being used to make life a little better for them. I haven't spent much of it, but I can get you a list (of purchases)."

Commissioner Mike Hawkes asked, "Why can't the money be run through the county? What is the purpose in having a separate checking account?"

"I'm going by what other sheriffs are doing," said Sheriff Lawson. "The money that inmates spend on the phone is earmarked. In the past, I have asked for money and the finance director told me I couldn't spend it on this. I would have to do this or that. I shouldn't have to argue about why I need something.

"My first year in office, when I wanted money out of the commissary fund for special needs, I went to the finance director and she said I had to go through Chairman Norman (Walker Norman, board chairman)," he continued. "I felt like as sheriff, I should be able to reach into the pot and get it if I needed it. For a while, I had a difficult time getting anything out of the Jail Fund."

"It seems as if we have a communication problem," stated Commissioner Hawkes. "It looks like the money could be kept in the General Fund, and you could have access to it without opening up a separate account."

"I don't feel comfortable with this," said Sheriff Lawson. "The system where I can get what I need is not in place today."

In his comments, Chairman Norman said, "The sheriff has not been denied what was approved in his budget. 'Inmate telephones' is a line item in the sheriff's budget under anticipated revenues. That $16,000 is included in the sheriff's $1.4 million budget which is supplemented by $800,000 in county tax dollars. The sheriff never told me he was going to send this money to another bank.

"If there is middle ground, we would be willing to compromise," he added.

Speaking to the issue of communication, the sheriff said, "This is the first time we've all sat down together like this, and I appreciate it. If we're going to run our offices efficiently, we will have to open the lines of communication. I don't have the answer. Nevertheless, I'm open to discussion. I don't want to see a lawsuit. It will cost a lot of money that could be used for extra deputies."

"We need to communicate better," stated Commissioner Hawkes. He told the sheriff to let the commissioners know if he is not getting what he needs.

In his remarks, Commissioner Allen Walker said, "I see the issue as a power struggle rather than the money - $16,000 is peanuts. I don't know why you want to police $16,000 a year to make a point - that bothers me."

In further discussion, Chairman Norman and the commission pleaded with Sheriff Lawson to put the money in the General Fund.

"The ACCG (Association County Commissioners of Georgia), our attorney, and two other attorneys say that what you're doing is not legal," said Chairman Norman. "We will take the advice of the county attorney. I'm asking you to turn over the money - you'll get it back. Go through the budget process like the other constitutional officers."

"We're dealing with a situation where we have two individuals who believe they are doing what is right," said Sheriff Lawson. "Maybe there is some way we can come to a happy medium. I don't know right now."

"Turn the money over to the county, and when you need it, you can get it," stated Commissioner Hawkes.

"You want me to trust, but there is no policing the rest of the courthouse," said the sheriff. "I am accountable."

"Every department is accountable," said Chairman Norman. "By placing this $16,000 in a separate account, you're circumventing the system. Release the money, and send it back through the system. It will be budgeted back out to you."

"The money is accounted for," said the sheriff.

"What if other constitutional officers put money in other accounts - the system doesn't work that way," according to the commission chairman. "We give you what you ask for if we can afford it."

"You are supposed to have a system in place where constitutional officers turn in money every 30 days," stated Lawson. "One doesn't turn in the money, and no one does anything about it. Where's the trust? I ask you how the clerk of court can show a 'zero' in the revenue column?"

"I am repeatedly on him about it - it is an issue with me," said Chairman Norman. "But he does turn the money over."

"But it is against the law," said Lawson.

"The money needs to be turned over, but he's not doing what you're doing," Norman commented.

"I feel strongly about my position," said the sheriff. "To try to keep the county from going to court, I recommend that we take a day or two to think things out. But, if you want something tonight, this is money paid by inmates and money that we should use for inmates. These funds are not budgeted revenues."

Following a recess, Sheriff Lawson and Turner recommended that the group sign a Memorandum of Understanding calling for the sheriff to release the money to the county's General Fund. In turn, the monies would be earmarked to purchase items that exclusively benefit the inmates.

In essence, the sheriff was asking that a $16,000 line item be added under expenditures.

"The $16,000 is already a revenue item in the budget," said Chairman Norman. "He has to cut out something or we will be giving him an extra $16,000. I'm not agreeing to give the sheriff's office an additional $16,000 tonight."

The bottom line on expenditures cannot be changed.

"If I have to take money out of my operational budget, I may come up short," said Lawson.

The commission then voted to give the sheriff a week to transfer the $16,000 in the General Fund.

(Editor's note: As of press time, Sheriff Lawson had not turned the money over to the county which means the matter will be brought before a judge for a declamatory judgment.)