Massachusetts sheriffs held more than $36 million in bank accounts outside the state’s financial reporting system last June, according to a new report by state Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro.
The money came largely from civil process fees collected by sheriffs for services like summons and subpoenas, and was deposited in more than 120 private bank accounts outside public oversight.
Rather than moving the money into state-held accounts to be spent on budgeted items, the funds in these bank accounts were spent “using checks and credit cards,” the report said.
“We came up with over 120 accounts. And these weren’t then known to the treasurer, they weren’t known to the state comptroller,” Shapiro told GBH News on Monday. “Where’s the oversight? Who knows what the spending is for? Who knows if it’s appropriate?”
The findings were released in what Shapiro called a final report on the state’s sheriff’s finances. Shapiro launched his investigation last year in response to a request from lawmakers who were concerned after county sheriffs requested millions of dollars in supplemental funding. The final report echoes preliminary findings released in February that called the budgeting process for the state’s 14 elected sheriffs’ offices “deeply flawed.”
That initial report also showed unclear and outdated laws about the powers of sheriffs has led some to expand their law enforcement activities without explicit approval from lawmakers, contributing to overspending and duplication of services. It also showed the state had been underfunding sheriffs’ offices for years with the idea that they’d spend more than their regular budgets and get reimbursed through supplemental budgets.
Shapiro’s new report called the private bank accounts his “biggest concern” moving forward.
Though the report doesn’t suggest fraud, a lack of documentation made it difficult for the inspector general’s office to get complete details on spending. Norfolk County sheriff’s office was flagged as spending the largest amount — more than $8.6 million — from that type of account outside the state’s accounting system.
In response to a request from GBH, the Norfolk County Sheriff’s Office said that the funds were in accounts holding civil process fees, inmate commissary funds and other funds. Spokesman Peter Wilson said his office continues to work with the Office of the Inspector General to bring those accounts into the state accounting system.
The report also noted that Norfolk , along with Nantucket, were the only two sheriffs offices that did not spend in excess of their budgets in the last fiscal year.
The report found that some money was spent on discretionary items that didn’t go through an appropriations process. Some accounts also had large balances sitting idle, with no particular purpose and not earning interest. The accounts are also not visible to the legislators trying to decide what to appropriate to sheriffs’ offices.
Shapiro recommended that sheriffs immediately be required to disclose those bank accounts to the state treasurer and get approval to continue using them.
The final report also mapped out a timeline for recommended steps ranging from immediately ensuring sheriffs don’t spend beyond their authorized budgets for the current fiscal year, to a call for the legislature to take a “zero-based” budgeting approach to sheriffs budgets by 2029. This would force each office to justify line items each year rather than roll over prior year spending.
“The sheriffs’ budget process is chaotic, opaque, confusing, atypical of other state agencies, and in immediate need of reform,’’ Shapiro concluded in the report. “The current process is also not financially sustainable.”
The Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association, which represents the state’s 14 sheriff’s offices, welcomed the new report.
“The Sheriffs will carefully evaluate the report’s findings and recommendations,” said Carrie Hill, the association’s executive director, in a statement. The association also will, “deliberate them as part of our continued efforts to strengthen operations, enhance accountability, and ensure responsible use of public resources across the Commonwealth,” she said.
Spending on Netflix, Uber Eats
The report also found “questionable spending” by Franklin County Sheriff’s office staff members, including small dollar purchases at grocery stores, and subscription services like Netflix and Uber Eats deliveries.
“While these purchases do not amount to a high-dollar figure and would not affect the sheriffs’ deficit, it does suggest an abuse of public funds for personal use. The purchase of one’s morning coffee is not likely to be an appropriate use of public funds,” Shapiro wrote in his report.
Among other findings in the report:
- The women’s correctional facility and a court ordered treatment facility in Hampden County are underfunded.
- The Bristol County House of Correction lacks proper funding for major upgrades that could ultimately save “millions” in operational costs.
- Combining the Dukes and Nantucket County Sheriffs’ Offices likely won’t result in major cost savings.
- There is weak oversight of use of debit cards by employees of Hampshire and Middlesex County sheriffs’ office.
The new report also added more details to what the inspector general called “unauthorized compensation” to sheriffs – pay outside the salary set by the state. Among findings, the report found that Barnstable County Sheriff Donna Buckley received the largest amount: $13,600 in each of the past two fiscal years.
Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson KC Myers said the office welcomed Shapiro’s recommendations for long-needed overhaul to the way sheriffs’ offices have been funded. “We look forward to continuing to work with the Legislature to determine if these compensations should continue,” Meyers said.
In the latest report, Shapiro praised sheriffs’ responses to his initial findings saying they had already proposed more transparent budgeting, and begun to cut spending.
After the first report was released both the Massachusetts House and Senate proposed reforms to how the sheriffs’ offices are funded. The Senate’s version proposes more stringent controls by proposing that a “sheriff fiscal oversight council” could take over management of a sheriff’s budget if that office didn’t comply with financial controls.
The two proposals would have to be ironed out as the legislature works through budget negotiations over the next few weeks.
