Auditor delivers ‘Grinch-o-gram’

2010-07-29 / Front Page
BY DAN TUCKER GAZETTE PUBLISHER

CHRIS EBIE COUNTY AUDITOR CHRIS EBIE COUNTY AUDITOR County Auditor Chris Ebie shared a very unsavory report with the board of supervisors at Tuesday’s meeting.

Ebie’s “Grinch-o-gram” outlined his department’s solution to a 16-year-old accounting malfunction that has an effect on a number of Mariposa County employees.

Last April the auditor, who did not seek re-election in the recent primary election, discovered that Social Security and Medicare contributions weren’t being deducted from employees’ deferred compensation contributions.

That amounted to a $385,000 “oops” that the board addressed in June. The supervisors voted to take $385,000 out of the county’s Tobacco Settlement Fund and make payment to the IRS, thereby avoiding a substantial penalty.

Since then, Ebie has determined that under IRS regulations, the employees involved in the under withholding are responsible for paying it back to the county.

Ebie believes the problem occurred in 1993-94 when the auditor’s office converted to another computer system. That was under then County Auditor Evelyn Billings, and Ebie was the assistant auditor.

Since that time, the correct withholding hasn’t been made. Ebie estimates that about 240 current employees will have to pay the piper for the past three years.

Thanks to the statute of limitations in the IRS code, Mariposa County is only liable for the past three years of unpaid withholding, as are the affected employees.

Ebie’s board information item suggested that deductions be made from the affected employees’ pay over four months, this Sept. Oct. Nov. and Dec. Every supervisor except District 1 representative Brad Aborn objected to that plan, as did a number of law enforcement personnel and other employees who addressed the board on the issue.

Supervisors Jim Allen, Janet Bibby, and Lyle Turpin, along with Chairman Kevin Cann urged Ebie to make further arrangements to extend the repayment plans, suggesting time frames from 12 to 24 months.

“The employees are going to suffer and this is a terrible time,” Bibby said. “Our people are going to take this hit and you need to minimize it as much as possible,” Allen said.

Cann asked Ebie to “go to the maximum degree to make this as minimal as possible to everyone effected.”

The auditor’s office has identified all employees who are involved in the under witholding, but they haven’t been advised as to the amount. Ebie said the repayment amount averages about $530 per employee, but varies greatly by level of compensation and contribution.

Ebie had planned to notify employees with their paychecks at the end of August. The board wasn’t going down that road either.

The board insisted that Ebie get the numbers, along with a clear and concise explanation of the repayment options into employees’ hands as soon a possible.

Mariposa County Sheriff’s Sergeant, Kathy Rumfelt, an 18-year veteran, has a particularly complex issue. She told the board, “The county isn’t making this right, it only fixes three years. My Social Security will never be correct. It will be short for the rest of my life.”

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representative Debbie Macias thanked the board for urging the auditor to extend the repayment options. She said that 202 SEIU employees were effected by the under- withholding.

Child Support Director Debbie Walton pleaded with Ebie to let employees know their repayment totals as soon as possible, as did Assessor Becky Crafts.

Deputy Joe Williams, president of the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, said, “My people need to know now. My guys live paycheck-to-paycheck, month-to-month and they deserve to know what they’re faced with. You’re going to have deputies standing in the ‘Kops for Kids’ line if we don’t do this right.”

Ebie responded with, “We can try.”

Cann cautioned that repayment options must accompany any notification to employees of the amount owed. “Can you two meet as soon as we’re done here?” Cann asked Williams and Ebie.

Some of those making statements to the board suggested that the county should stand good for the repayment, but County Administrative Officer Rick Benson, backed up by County Council Steve Dahlem, explained that wasn’t possible because it would constitute an illegal gift of public funds.

Benson also flew a flag of caution about extending the repayment option for employees, since there may be tax consequences to stretching payment out.

“We need to talk to our tax attorneys to be clear on that aspect,” Benson warned. Allen wanted to know how soon that could happen, but Benson couldn’t commit to a specific time frame, saying “I can’t speak to how quickly our attorneys can get us that answer.”

There is another side effect too. Every employee who made deferred compensation contributions over the last three years that either retired, left their position, or was terminated, get to stand in the pay back line.

Ebie said, “That’s going to be a challenge.” He said his office plans to invoice those individuals, and if repayment isn’t arranged, the County will issue a W-2, which could initiate tax consequences for those involved.

In any case, every County employee who participated in the deferred compensation plan, back to 1993-94, except those who have participated in the family insurance plans, have had their Social Security earnings underreported, thereby at least minimally adversely affecting their ultimate retirement benefit amounts.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS STORY, OR READ OTHER COMMENTS, VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.MARIPOSAGAZETTE.COM

I think the Unions should

I think the Unions should file a class action lawsuit. Then the taxable liability becomes an untaxed settlement. Sure it would hurt the county, but why should workers, who had faith in the county's accounting, suffer from a stupid mistake?

Who is it that does not know

Who is it that does not know that Social Security and Medicare taxes are always due on earned income? In a deferred income account the only taxes that would be deferred is income taxes. How long do you have to work as a payroll clerk before you test to make sure that your software is working correctly? Apparently 16 years. Who is it that is responsible for hiring someone whose expertise is so limited that they do not make sure that what they are doing is compliant with current payroll tax laws? Then has such confidence in their ability that they do not check their work? Dependency on software is inexcusable and ignorance intolerable.

Where's a good class action

Where's a good class action lawsuit attorney when you need one?

What I read in the latest

What I read in the latest Gazette's front page is nothing short of tragic. Are we really just a back-woods society-- with no one really watching the store? Do we really have to wait until it is presented to the Board of Supervisors [Isn't the Elected County Auditor just the "fox guarding the chickens"?] Not only does the County Auditor's report deprive us of needed County funds in times of large financial shortfalls, expose us to IRS and California State Government scrutiny and disdain, but also may cause significant and major losses to our retired and retiring Mariposa employees. This is unconscionable! And who is overseeing the Auditor's Office's record-keeping and IRS/Social Security payment compliance? How about a Grand Jury investigation of the years of 3 separate Auditor's shortcomings? In the 21st century, can Mariposa County allow this to happen in our electronic age? Changing "leadership" or staffing; or changes to new computer systems is no excuse. County employees will not only have to "re-pay" deferred compensation contributions for three years due to County computer system screw-up; but County employees may also suffer for unpaid contributions-- when it finally comes to them drawing upon Social Security contributions for that pre-three year period of non-paid Social Security fees. I have been assured by my County Supervisor Janet Bibby that this bail-out will not affect Tobacco Settlement Funds all ready earmarked for our badly needed new Old Highway/ Yaqui Gulch/ Bridgeport Area fire station. Angry? You bet I am! Michael E. Lichtenstein, Mariposa

Is this the CalPERS

Is this the CalPERS Supplemental Income 457 Plan? Because on the CalPERS website (just updated 7/23/2010) it clearly states "Participants’ current taxable income is reduced by the amount you save on a before-tax basis, lowering their tax bill. Their earnings are automatically reinvested before taxes, which makes your savings grow even faster." Monies in these funds are managed by the employee and can only be rolled over into an eligible employer plan which "includes a plan qualified under section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code." The plan further states that "you are eligible to receive a distribution of your entire or a portion of the balance in your CalPERS Supplemental Income 457 Plan account after retirement or permanent separation from your employer. Contributions may be left in the Plan until you achieve age 70 ½. Federal Law requires you to begin distribution by April 1st of the following year of your 70 ½ birthday." Can someone please clarify if the deferred compensation they are talking about being taxable is the money that was invested in the CalPERS 457 Plan? Because if it is, someone is wrong. IRS has a section on Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Audit Techniques Guide. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=134878,00.html Here is the link to the CalPERS site http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/employer/program-services/def-co...

Social Security/Medicare can

Social Security/Medicare can have a different tax basis compared to strict Income Tax. It depends on the plan, but can be taxable even if the plan is considered "pre-tax". http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15/ar02.html#en_US_publink1000202554 (search for "Retirement and pension plans")

I too am an employee for the

I too am an employee for the county, and I received the "slip" stating I owe $600.00. On the slip I says nothing but that I owe the $600.00. Ummm I would like to see the numbers! Where did they come up with these numbers and how? A little explanation would be nice!

I would demand details. They

I would demand details. They should show you a total taxable base, the dates, type of tax, tax rates and tax amounts.

While I find it disturbing to

While I find it disturbing to read that such an error occurred, and fear that the burden will be placed on the employees whose checks were not deducted accurately and the county as a whole for those employees who have since left their positions within the county; I must give applaud to Chris Ebie for finding the error and having the courage to do his job of reporting this horrific "oops". Facing the residents of this county and the Board with such an alarming "malfunction" could not have been easy, especially in the state of our economy. With 16 years of error, and the number of auditors who preceded him, I believe Ebie is in a tough position of reporting such a problem that has gone unnoticed. I would imagine that the job of Auditor is a tedious position, requiring a keen eye. Ebie took the job on and found a problem that could have resulted in another 16 years of toll on our county. Disappointing situation? Yes! Could it have continued without notice? After 16 years of history, I would conclude it could have. Is Ebie to blame? You know the saying, "Don't kill the messenger"? While Ebie must take responsibility for this occurring under his watch, let's be reminded that he is the one that found it, which means that he has proven himself to be an Auditor that is actually doing his job seeking problems with budgetary/monetary issues. When a new computer system is enveloped to a county program I would imagine that the testing and scrutiny of such a system is a lengthy process that is watched carefully to determine if it's functionality is meeting the needs of the county it serves and working properly and accurately. At the point of "going live" with a new system, these kinks should have undergone such scrutiny that this problem was realized and corrected BEFORE "going live". The problem as I see it lies with the audit of the system during the implementation process. Unfortunately the failure of the programming of this system went unnoticed for a very long time. Applause, applause, applause to Ebie for finding this problem after slipping by the leaders at hand who implemented the program, auditors before him, and even the creators of the system who certainly appointed a training rep to walk our county employees through the process of the system's inner workings. Thank you Mr. Ebie for finding this problem and reporting the issue. Unfortunately the larger task is still at hand.... how to recoup the $385,000 that have escaped the county and now must be paid. I feel confident that now that the problem has been identified that your office will have the fortitude to find a solution to the repayment plan and that your understanding of our county's current state will be of benefit to the problem solving process. Kimberly Vaughan

I must respond to the

I must respond to the comments of Chris Ebie finding this error. He "found" this error after I told his office about it in January and sent them documentation proving that they weren't doing it correctly. After 3 months of emails back and forth he finally "found" the errors I had been telling them about.

My husband works for the

My husband works for the county and has heard rumors of this issue surfacing. In response to the first poster "Rob Fox" most employees would not know that their deferred compensation benefit was taxable as many retirement plans are not. I believe that the accounting/auditor's office didn't even know this and that is the reason that the error went on for so long. There have been many wage related errors coming from that office. Secondly, County employees have been told just recently that they should have been given the option to either invest the unused portion of their benefit allowance (deferred compensation) into a 457 Plan or actually take it as income on their paycheck. The question that many are asking is that if the County forcefully invested our "deferred compensation" without even giving us the option to take it as wages, then shouldn't we be allowed to withdraw as wages now and without penalty? Furthermore, wouldn't that solve the tax situation by making those withdrawals taxable income? I think the Union needs to follow this issue and make sure the workers are represented for their best options.

I'm no accountant, but when I

I'm no accountant, but when I get a pay advise slip or a bank statement, I audit it to make sure the figures are correct. If my employer or bank make an error in their favor, you can bet that it's brought to their attention at once. If there's an error in my favor, then I point it out to them and reduce the net amount of money in my pocket. If the county failed to make the SSA deduction from my paycheck, I'd surely notice. Maybe others did not notice, or maybe they figured that it was to their advantage to not mention it. Now that the chickens have come to roost, it's a big burden for those affected to pay back money they never should have received in the first place. Those who want to make their SSA account fully whole can probably restitute beyond the statute of limitations but at additional expense. Looking at the bright side: you get to pay it now with inflated dollars that are worth less than they were when you benefitted from the county's error. Of course, those who want to put it all on the county may attempt to sue under the adage that, "if something bad happens to me then somebody's got to pay."

Did you say “Oops”? Seems

Did you say “Oops”? Seems another financial hardship neither this county nor its workers can afford to repay. Exactly which county department was responsible for monitor such oops, the Auditor's? Shouldn’t county employees expect that their pay and deductions are proper handled and reconciled so that these costly mistakes do not continue over long periods of time? Mr. Ebie may believe the citizens of Mariposa are satisfied with his explanation that it wasn’t his fault but that of the gross defects of some new computer program upgrade. Whether this error happened under Auditor Ebie’s watch or not, I find the computer glitch a very poor excuse. What is the Auditor’s responsibility anyway? Could it be to audit using good old fashion checks and balances? And what took Auditor Ebie so long to find this $385,000 error? It’s no wonder our county is in such dire straights. I applaud the Board’s insight in requesting Mr. Ebie present a more detailed report in getting the numbers straight before penalizing the majority of struggling county employees. Slapping this unexpected financial bill on the backs of county employees just before the holidays, well gee thanks Grench Ebie.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Click here for digital edition
2010-07-29 digital edition