|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
DARTMOUTH — As the state’s top investigator finalizes a report on decades-long budgeting issues and deficits with sheriffs’ offices across the state, the Bristol County sheriff says the inspector general’s preliminary report confirms what he has been saying all along: the budget process is “flawed.”
The Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General found that the sheriffs’ budget process, which also involves the state Legislature and state officials, is “opaque, chaotic, and deeply flawed,” due in part to unclear and outdated laws that define sheriffs’ responsibilities and authority.
The state also routinely underfunds sheriffs’ offices, while sheriffs spend above their appropriation without waiting for the extra funds to be approved in a supplemental budget process, the office said.
The investigation was ordered by the state Legislature after it was reported that the commonwealth’s 14 sheriffs’ offices had a combined deficit of $162.4 million for fiscal year 2025. The OIG later found that the deficit was actually around $110 million.
“It is apparent that the role of the sheriffs’ offices may not be as narrow as some legislative leaders expect, nor as expansive as some sheriffs believe,” said Massachusetts Inspector General Jeffrey S. Shapiro in a statement last month, when the preliminary report was released.
While sheriffs’ offices have core responsibilities for correctional services, several offices provide support to other local law enforcement or agencies, whether it be task forces that assist with incident response, or personnel to locate individuals with intellectual disabilities who have wandered off.
“The Legislature has an opportunity to clarify such roles and responsibilities while also reforming a fundamentally broken budget process,” Shapiro continued. “The manner by which the sheriffs’ offices have been funded and that they have spent beyond their appropriation needs to end this year.”
Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux said he was not surprised by what he read in the report. His office has provided OIG with internal records to inform the investigation, which will conclude in May with a final report.
“The preliminary report repeated what us sheriffs have been saying for a long time that we are not properly front funded from the beginning,” said Heroux. “[The report] confirmed that we had notified the Legislature and [the Executive Office of Administration and Finance] of what we needed to properly fund this place.”
His office is not overspending, he said: “Every dollar we spend is accounted for. They gave us less than what we asked for from the beginning.”
For fiscal year 2025 (defined as July 2024 to June 2025), Heroux’s office asked for $63 million and was granted nearly $61.5 million by the state Legislature, per the preliminary report. In previous years, the office got 85% and 92% of its requested budget. Some counties received between 59% to 90% of what they requested in recent years.
Related
Sheriff Heroux at the halfway point: ‘There’s still work I want to do at the jail’
If you missed the hour-long discussion with the Bristol County sheriff, we’ve got the full Chat available. He said while he has made progress, he is “not claiming mission accomplished.”
However, the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office ended up spending $75.4 million last fiscal year, creating a nearly $10 million deficit after budget transfers were made. It also went over budget the previous two years.
Heroux said his office originally asked for about $74 million for the last fiscal year, but was asked to “revise” that number because the supplemental budget could make up for it. He said his office has a “paper trail” to support this. The Light has requested those records.
Asked what has contributed to rising costs, Heroux said he and his staff have trimmed all that they can, and that everything they offer is necessary to the operations of a correctional facility and inmate services.
He said his staff received raises (a cost of living adjustment) that were approved by the Legislature, which meant retroactive pay to dole out.
Heroux and his Chief Financial Officer Tracey Rodriguez also listed overtime pay, no-cost phone calls for inmates (mandated by the state), and medication assisted treatment (MAT) for substance use disorder (also mandated) as recent contributors to expenses. Previously, sheriffs’ departments could get commission on phone calls, which would offset some expenses.
The state established reserve accounts to fund costs associated with no-cost calls and MAT, but they do not fund any added payroll costs incurred, per the OIG report.
Heroux highlighted areas in which he has either added costs, or reduced them since he assumed office in 2023. In the addition column, he expanded the re-entry unit, which helps inmates find housing, jobs, healthcare and other support, from 4 to 15 employees. He also hired case workers to assist inmates so that correctional officers could focus on security.
As for cuts, he said he trimmed the fleet of vehicles down from 115 to 75, eliminated some non-jail positions, and ended programs that, while good for the community, needn’t be under the purview of a sheriff.
This included ending programs that called senior citizens for wellness checks, and helped locate missing people.
To further illustrate his attention to managing expenses, Heroux pulled out his employee badge, noting it does not bear the sheriff’s name (his name) under the office title, as it might for other sheriffs’ offices. He also pointed to a tall banner stretched behind a podium for press conferences, which also doesn’t have his name.
When he’s no longer the sheriff, those items won’t need to be repurchased and replaced, he said.
“We only do corrections stuff here,” Heroux said. “There’s nowhere for us to cut. Everything we do here serves a corrections-related function.”
The only cut, he said, could come through layoffs.
The OIG found that the practice of underfunding sheriffs’ offices is partly due to misunderstandings or insufficient communication between the parties involved.
Rodriguez said there are a lot of layers in state government, and that the office often has to submit the same information to different offices and sometimes in different formats.
The report identified 10 of 14 sheriffs had received unauthorized pay, flagged by the OIG as another problem. Heroux was not one of them. The Boston Globe reported at least three sheriffs’ offices have recently fallen under scrutiny amid accusations of the misuse of campaign funds, drunk driving, and extortion of a company.
Michael Caldwall, deputy director of the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, didn’t respond to emailed questions about the association’s views or role in addressing the issue. In a statement, he said the association and its sheriffs have been “collaboratively engaged with OIG throughout its review,” and that they appreciate the work the office is doing.
“The Sheriffs will closely review the preliminary report’s findings and recommendations and will continue to support efforts that advance transparency and sound fiscal management across the Commonwealth,” the statement said.
A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Administration and Finance said the office continues to review the preliminary report and “looks forward to seeing the final report and working with the Inspector General, the Legislature and the sheriffs on this important issue.”
WBUR reported last month that a spokesperson for House Speaker Ron Mariano said they appreciated the OIG’s work, and looked forward to reviewing both the preliminary and final reports.
As for the current fiscal year 2026, the report says the deficit will likely get worse.
“They took out our funding for 2025,” said Rodriguez, adding that they are starting the year with a significant shortfall.
Rodriguez said the office has been able to pay its bills after a conversation with state offices, which provided funding to cover vendors at the jail.
“Right now there have been no disruptions,” she said. “We’ve been able to pay all our bills, including electricity and everything else.”
The OIG issued several preliminary recommendations, assigning responsibility to the sheriffs, state Legislature and state administration and finance office, and tasking them all with next steps to address the problem.
Heroux said he thought some recommendations would be difficult to implement, or reflected an insufficient understanding of the sheriffs’ offices, which he noted sit in different counties and respond to different constituencies.
He said he’d welcome a county-by-county breakdown in the OIG’s final report that looks at the problems and recommends solutions more granularly.
“I would welcome the [inspector general] to say, ‘This is what Bristol County is doing beyond corrections’… so the legislature has full confidence,” he said. “We are very lean at this jail. If they think there’s any fat here, please tell me where it is.”
Email Eleonora Bianchi at ebianchi@newbedfordlight.org and Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
“Transparency and good fiscal management” are not words to be used in conjunction with the MA Legislature.
“Obscurity and ongoing fiscal mismanagement” are the more likely words to be utilized in conjunction with the MA Legislature.
The MA Legislature desperately requires the voter approved (72% in favor) audit.
Only the worst of actions and intentions can be assumed by their continued opposition to legally “opening the books” on their activities.
The Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General is really describing the Massachusetts State Legislature when they invoke, “opaque, chaotic and deeply flawed”, within this article.