Supervisors split in reimbursing Jefferson Sheriff
FAIRFIELD — The county will reimburse the legal expenses incurred by Jefferson Sheriff Bart Richmond, after the sheriff tangled with the Jefferson County Attorney's Office in court over his placement on a list of officers with questionable credibility.
The list is known as the Brady/Giglio list, named after two U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding information prosecutors must provide to defendants in criminal trials. If an officer is on the list, it means prosecutors would need to disclose information about what led to the placement to defense counsel if the officer is listed as a state's witness.
A district court judge in February found Richmond did not lie and thus his placement on the list was not warranted. After the ruling, Richmond asked the county to reimburse his legal fees to date. County Attorney Chauncey Moulding has filed a notice of appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
The issue first came to the board two weeks ago, but was tabled as supervisors looked into the legality of a potential reimbursement and to see if the county's insurer would cover the cost.
On Monday, Jefferson County Board of Supervisors Chairman Lee Dimmitt said the payment couldn't be covered under the county's insurance policy, but he did believe supervisors could approve the expenditure given Iowa Supreme Court opinions regarding public fund expenditures.
The Iowa Constitution requires expenditures to be for a public purpose, but Iowa's top court has held that purpose should be broadly defined. The longstanding precedent cited in multiple cases that finding an expenditure doesn't meet a public purpose must be so "clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind at first blush."
Dimmitt believed that precedent gave the supervisors room to legally reimburse Richmond's legal fees to date.
"I do believe in reading that, we have some flexibility regarding how we define it as a public purpose — or if we define it as a public purpose," Dimmitt said. "I would also add that if public funds were expended ... to remove the ability of the ... sheriff ... to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the office, therego it would seem we could use public funds to restore the ability of the sheriff to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the office. I don't think they are mutually exclusive of each other in those terms."
Supervisor Joe Ledger reiterated his calls for the "hours and dollars spent on this issue' be presented by the county attorney's office, and said he felt it was important to support Richmond.
"At this time, I'm in support of Richmond — we've got to get behind our county employees," Ledger said. "And this is just a place where if we don't support our county employees how many more is gonna wanna pull out because we don't have support."
The vote to approve the reimbursement was 2-1, with Supervisor Susie Drish opposed.
"There's no statute to authorize payment of these fees under current law," Drish said as she voted no.
Dimmitt acknowledged the county's budgetary challenges, and worried what would happen if legal expenses continued to climb. Supervisors have no authority to stop Moulding's appeal as long as he stays within his office's approved budget.
"Evidently, County Attorney Moulding feels strongly enough about this — whether I agree or disagree — to move forward with it," Dimmitt said. "I can't stop it. I wish that I could, but I can't."
Moulding was not at Monday's meeting.
The supervisors had pondered whether to make it a one-time reimbursement, or to cap the amount they will reimburse. The final motion was simply to approve the request before them now.
"This is a very difficult decision for me to make, anyway, because I can see both sides of the equation,' Dimmitt said. "I'm not willing, personally, to look at an unknown quantity. I can't do that. And the reason I can't do that is because we just talked this morning about not filling a position out at the roads department. ...
"What if it goes to $100,000, where am I supposed to get it? Out of [the sheriff's] budget? Does that cost a deputy his job or her job? Those are not hypotheticals here. If we were to have to find $100,000 somewhere, that is a difficult search to have."
Ledger said the taxpayers he's spoken to in recent weeks have indicated broad support for the reimbursement to Richmond.
"Over the past two weeks, I've been in contact with numerous county taxpayers who believe that we should support Sheriff Richmond," Ledger said. "Several comments were that this appears to be a personal attack on the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department."
The Iowa Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear Moulding's appeal, and their timetable for making that decision is unknown. Moulding has previously challenged the constitutionality of the process Richmond used to challenge his placement on the Brady/Giglio list, which used a new law that took effect July 2024 to establish a judicial review process.
Moulding placed Richmond on the list in June 2024 for what he dubbed an obstruction into a use of force investigation. Judge Jeffrey Farrell said that while Richmond could have been more responsive, he was not dishonest and the conduct did not rise to the level necessary to warrant placement on the Brady/Giglio list.
"There is no evidence in this case that Richmond was dishonest or did not tell the truth," Farrell wrote. "The problem is that he was nonresponsive to Moulding's emails and hesitant to provide information to the Keokuk County Attorney during her investigation.
"The court has no doubt this entire case could have been easily avoided if Richmond had simply provided basic and professional responses to Moulding's emails."
Federal and state cases have generally "required a showing of deceit, deception, or dishonesty," Farrell wrote. Additionally, Farrell noted details about Richmond's conduct would not likely change a jury's decision if disclosed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How school choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) (THE CONVERSATION) School voucher programs that allow families to use public funds to pay tuition to attend private schools have become increasingly popular. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently operate voucher programs. In addition, 15 states have universal private school choice programs that offer vouchers, education savings accounts and tax credit scholarships. More states are considering school choice and voucher programs as the Trump administration advocates for widespread adoption. School vouchers have a long history in the U.S. The first vouchers were offered in the 1800s to help children in sparsely populated towns in rural Vermont and Maine attend classes in public and private schools in nearby districts. After the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which justices ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional, segregationists used vouchers to avoid school integration. More recently, school voucher programs have been pitched as a tool to provide children from low-income families with quality education options. As a scholar who specializes in education policy, law and politics, I can share how current policies have strayed from efforts to support low-income Black children. History of school voucher programs Research from education history scholars shows that more recent support for school choice was not anchored in an agenda to privatize public schools but rooted in a mission to support Black students. Over time, as school voucher policies grew in popularity, they evolved into subsidies for middle-class families to send their children to private and parochial schools. School choice policies have also expanded to include education savings account programs and vouchers funded by tax credit donations. Vouchers can redirect money from public schools, many of which are serving Black students. Impact on public schools States looking to add or expand school choice and voucher programs have adopted language from civil rights activists pushing for equal access to quality education for all children. For example, they contend that school choice is a civil right all families and students should have as U.S. citizens. But school voucher programs can exclude Black students and harm public schools serving Black students in a host of ways, research shows. Since the Brown v. Board ruling, school voucher programs have been linked to racial segregation. These programs were at times used to circumvent integration efforts: They allowed white families to transfer their children out of diverse public schools into private schools. In fact, school voucher programs tend to exacerbate both racial and economic segregation, a trend that continues today. For example, private schools that receive voucher funding are not always required to adopt the same antidiscrimination policies as public schools. School voucher programs can also negatively impact the quality of public schools serving Black students. As some of the best and brightest students leave to attend private or parochial ones, public schools in communities serving Black students often face declining enrollments and reduced resources. In cities such as Macon, Georgia, families say that majority Black schools lack resources because so many families use the state's voucher-style program to attend mostly white private schools. Moreover, the cost of attending a private or parochial school can be so expensive that even with a school voucher, Black families still struggle to afford the cost of sending children to these schools. Vouchers can siphon school funding Research from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C., shows that voucher programs in Ohio result in majority Black school systems such as the Cleveland Metropolitan School District losing millions in education funding. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities across the U.S. with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Another example is the Marion County School District, a South Carolina system where about 77% of students are Black. Marion County is in the heart of the region of the state known as the ' Corridor of Shame,' known for its inadequate funding and its levels of poor student achievement. The 17 counties along the corridor are predominantly minority communities, with high poverty rates and poor public school funding because of the area's low tax base due to a lack of industry. On average, South Carolina school districts spent an estimated US$18,842 per student during the 2024-25 school year. In Marion County, per-student funding was $16,463 during the 2024-2025 school year. By comparison, in Charleston County, the most affluent in the state, per-student funding was more than $26,000. Rather than focus on school choice and voucher programs that take money away from public schools serving Black students, I argue that policymakers should address systemic inequities in education to ensure that all students have access to a quality education. Establishing restrictions on the use of funds and requiring preferences for low-income Black students could help direct school voucher policies back toward their intent. It would also be beneficial to expand and enforce civil rights laws to prevent discrimination against Black students. These measures would help ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education.
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
Southern Baptists target porn, sports betting, same-sex marriage and 'willful childlessness'
Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's approval of same-sex marriage. The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
How school choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families
School voucher programs that allow families to use public funds to pay tuition to attend private schools have become increasingly popular. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently operate voucher programs. In addition, 15 states have universal private school choice programs that offer vouchers, education savings accounts and tax credit scholarships. More states are considering school choice and voucher programs as the Trump administration advocates for widespread adoption. School vouchers have a long history in the U.S. The first vouchers were offered in the 1800s to help children in sparsely populated towns in rural Vermont and Maine attend classes in public and private schools in nearby districts. After the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which justices ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional, segregationists used vouchers to avoid school integration. More recently, school voucher programs have been pitched as a tool to provide children from low-income families with quality education options. As a scholar who specializes in education policy, law and politics, I can share how current policies have strayed from efforts to support low-income Black children. Research from education history scholars shows that more recent support for school choice was not anchored in an agenda to privatize public schools but rooted in a mission to support Black students. Over time, as school voucher policies grew in popularity, they evolved into subsidies for middle-class families to send their children to private and parochial schools. School choice policies have also expanded to include education savings account programs and vouchers funded by tax credit donations. Vouchers can redirect money from public schools, many of which are serving Black students. States looking to add or expand school choice and voucher programs have adopted language from civil rights activists pushing for equal access to quality education for all children. For example, they contend that school choice is a civil right all families and students should have as U.S. citizens. But school voucher programs can exclude Black students and harm public schools serving Black students in a host of ways, research shows. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Since the Brown v. Board ruling, school voucher programs have been linked to racial segregation. These programs were at times used to circumvent integration efforts: They allowed white families to transfer their children out of diverse public schools into private schools. In fact, school voucher programs tend to exacerbate both racial and economic segregation, a trend that continues today. For example, private schools that receive voucher funding are not always required to adopt the same antidiscrimination policies as public schools. School voucher programs can also negatively impact the quality of public schools serving Black students. As some of the best and brightest students leave to attend private or parochial ones, public schools in communities serving Black students often face declining enrollments and reduced resources. In cities such as Macon, Georgia, families say that majority Black schools lack resources because so many families use the state's voucher-style program to attend mostly white private schools. Moreover, the cost of attending a private or parochial school can be so expensive that even with a school voucher, Black families still struggle to afford the cost of sending children to these schools. Research from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C., shows that voucher programs in Ohio result in majority Black school systems such as the Cleveland Metropolitan School District losing millions in education funding. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities across the U.S. with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Another example is the Marion County School District, a South Carolina system where about 77% of students are Black. Marion County is in the heart of the region of the state known as the 'Corridor of Shame,' known for its inadequate funding and its levels of poor student achievement. The 17 counties along the corridor are predominantly minority communities, with high poverty rates and poor public school funding because of the area's low tax base due to a lack of industry. On average, South Carolina school districts spent an estimated US$18,842 per student during the 2024-25 school year. In Marion County, per-student funding was $16,463 during the 2024-2025 school year. By comparison, in Charleston County, the most affluent in the state, per-student funding was more than $26,000. Rather than focus on school choice and voucher programs that take money away from public schools serving Black students, I argue that policymakers should address systemic inequities in education to ensure that all students have access to a quality education. Establishing restrictions on the use of funds and requiring preferences for low-income Black students could help direct school voucher policies back toward their intent. It would also be beneficial to expand and enforce civil rights laws to prevent discrimination against Black students. These measures would help ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Kendall Deas, University of South Carolina Read more: Trump order boosts school choice, but there's little evidence vouchers lead to smarter students or better educational outcomes States are favoring school choice at a steep cost to public education School vouchers expand despite evidence of negative effects Kendall Deas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
