MARIES COUNTY — Sheriff Mark Morgan appeared before the Maries County Commission on Jan. 22 to present an amended budget, explaining that the revised proposal reflected a substantially larger reduction in general revenue funding than previous years and outlining the operational impacts of those cuts.

Morgan said in a Jan. 21 letter he provided them incorrectly estimated a 14 percent reduction to his budget, but now his figures show a much higher number.

“The percentage of the budget reduction is not 14 percent, it’s actually 34 percent… it was a typo on my behalf,” Morgan said.

The letter Morgan sent to county commissioners formally objected to a proposed $160,000 reduction in general revenue funding for the Maries County Sheriff’s Office. In that letter, Morgan said the proposed reduction represented a 14.4 percent decrease from his department’s total operating budget of $1,111,691.

The original letter citing a 14 percent reduction referred to the change in the sheriff’s total operating budget. The 34 percent figure discussed during the meeting, however, applied only to the portion of the sheriff’s funding drawn from county general revenue. It did not reflect a reduction to the department’s full budget, which also includes restricted funds and other non-general revenue sources. In practical terms, the change represents a $160,000 decrease in general revenue support, not a 34 percent cut to the sheriff’s overall budget.

In his written objection, Morgan said the proposed reduction would have direct impacts on staffing, coverage and employee welfare, including the elimination of one full-time road deputy and reductions in part-time staffing. He wrote that these reductions would result in gaps in countywide patrol coverage, longer response times to emergency calls and increased reliance on overtime and compensatory time to maintain minimum coverage levels.

In his letter, Morgan also argued that the proposed reduction could impair the sheriff’s ability to carry out mandatory statutory duties under Missouri law. He cited provisions outlining the sheriff’s responsibility to serve as conservator of the peace, execute court orders and warrants, serve process and provide court security. Morgan wrote that these duties require adequate staffing and reliable equipment to be performed safely and effectively.

Morgan said the amended budget was submitted under protest to avoid delaying the county’s budgeting process.

“I don’t want to hold up the county budgeting process. I know Rhonda (Rodgers) is on the clock with the state,” he said.

To reach the reduced funding level, Morgan detailed multiple cuts to his department. Some of which had been suggested by county commissioners.

“I took the cars out. Took the equipment out for the cars. I took the $12,000 out for the drug task force. I cut one road deputy,” Morgan said, adding that he also reduced part-time staffing.

In the letter, Morgan wrote that reducing staffing levels would likely increase employee fatigue and burnout, reduce morale and lead to higher turnover, which could ultimately increase long-term recruitment and training costs for the county.

Morgan warned that removing drug task force funding would limit undercover operations.

“It’s hard to take a guy out of a patrol car and out of the uniform, and a week later he’s walking around in plain clothes trying to buy dope,” he said.

Morgan also wrote that the proposed reduction would prevent the replacement of two aging patrol vehicles that have exceeded 100,000 miles and are experiencing mechanical failures, including oil and coolant leaks. He said that continuing to operate unreliable vehicles could increase maintenance costs, reduce patrol availability and create safety risks for deputies and the public.

The letter further described what Morgan characterized as long-term fiscal consequences of deferring equipment replacement. He wrote that escalating maintenance costs, increased vehicle downtime and potential liability if a mechanical failure contributed to an accident could ultimately exceed the cost of replacing the vehicles and reduce overall patrol availability throughout the county.

Morgan continued, saying that eliminating modest wage adjustments requested during the budget process, combined with staffing reductions and rising operational costs, would place additional strain on remaining deputies. He wrote that wage stagnation, increased workload and equipment limitations could affect employee morale and retention.

Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that the sheriff’s budget must remain within the county’s available allocation and that additional funding could not be added.

“We gave all the money we had toward the projected transfer from general revenue,” Presiding Commissioner Vic Stratman said.

Eastern District Commissioner Doug Drewel said that the budget process could not be delayed despite the concerns raised.

“We can’t drag it out. We’re gonna have to do something. Right or wrong, it’s gotta be done,” Drewel said.

When the discussion turned to legal expenses requested by the sheriff, commissioners questioned whether the county was required to fund the request.

“Does the county have to pay for it?” Western District Commissioner Patrick Kleffner asked.

Morgan cited RSMo §57.104, which allows a sheriff in a noncharter county to employ an attorney to aid and advise the sheriff’s office and provide legal representation, with the attorney’s compensation required to remain within the funding allocation approved by the county commission and paid from general revenue.

“So you want to use this money to go against the county commissioners? Is that what you’re saying?” Kleffner asked.

“If county commissioners are acting outside the state statute for doing something they’re not supposed to be doing, and we have legal questions come up… When I ask Tony (Skouby) to answer those questions, it puts him into a conflict position,” Morgan said. “Just like our budget right here, I show a statute that says you can’t cut my budget by that much. So you kind of see, if I call Tony right now and I asked him about that, he’s gonna be like, ‘Man, this is a conflict for me, because I represent the county commission. I don’t represent the sheriff’s office.’”

In his letter, Morgan cited Section 67.030.2 RSMo, which limits reductions to law enforcement budgets relative to other county departments when measured over a five-year aggregate period. He said that if the proposed reduction exceeded the statute’s 12 percent threshold, the law provides a mandatory remedy for injunctive relief initiated by a taxpayer.

In addition to objecting to the reduction, Morgan’s letter requested written justification from the county commission identifying the statutory authority relied upon to implement the cut. He asked the commission to provide the exact amount of general revenue it intended to allocate to the sheriff’s office and to supply budget figures for all county departments for the past five fiscal years to allow for comparison under state law.

The letter concluded with a request that the commission reconsider the proposed reduction and engage in further discussion to identify alternatives that would maintain public safety while addressing the county’s financial constraints.

Kleffner cited statutory language limiting how funds may be used.

“It says here, ‘within the allocation made by the county commission to the sheriff’s department,’” Kleffner said, adding that spending must stay within the amount allocated.

Commissioners also questioned the idea that legal funds were mandatory.

“You’re saying you’re required to have this money by statute, but it’s never been in there before,” Kleffner said.

Later in the discussion, Stratman summarized the commission’s position.

“We don’t like the legal thing,” Stratman said. “We think it should be under salaries, but in the end that’s your budget. The bottom line is that’s what you got.”

Drewel added, “And it’s your discretion to spend it as you want.”

Morgan said he was requesting legal funds to retain independent legal counsel due to potential conflicts of interest with the prosecuting attorney, who represents the county commission.

“With all the questions and all the issues that we’ve had come up, I need to be able to consult with an attorney,” Morgan said.

Morgan said the prosecuting attorney could be placed in a conflict of interest if asked to advise the sheriff’s office in disputes involving the commission.

He said the proposed legal expense was intended to provide guidance and risk management.

“It’s to guide me on, well, is this right or is this wrong… it’s also risk management,” Morgan said.

Maries County Prosecuting Attorney Anthony (Tony) Skouby said, “I think past sheriffs have gotten their money for attorneys from their discretionary fund.”

Morgan said, “My discretionary fund, I use for training.”

“That’s not something that’s ever been budgeted before,” said Skouby.

Morgan said, “Well, that’s a necessary evil. Unfortunately, with everything that’s happened the past year, and everything that’s shaping up for the upcoming year, you know, there’s issues that come up that you got a conflict with.”

“Are you still paying Sugg for sitting at home?” Skouby asked.

Morgan said, “He resigned as of yesterday.”

“Okay, because I knew we were paying him for not doing anything,” said Skouby.

Morgan said, “In compliance with the Missouri Police Officer Bill of Rights, I can’t fire him without due process.”

“Seems like a waste of taxpayer money to me,” Skouby said.

“Well, look at the state statute on it,” Morgan said.

Under the Missouri Police Officers Bill of Rights (RSMo §590.502), state law allows an officer to be placed on administrative leave during an internal investigation, but any action that results in loss of pay triggers specific due-process requirements. Law enforcement officers who are suspended without pay or otherwise placed in a status resulting in economic loss are entitled to written notice, investigative procedures and a due-process hearing before discipline can be imposed. Sugg had been provided written notice by Morgan and a due-process hearing was scheduled, however, Sugg’s resignation ended the process.