BELLE — Maries County Sheriff Mark Morgan issued a formal demand to the county commission on Nov. 6 for the immediate transfer of $93,625 in fourth-quarter funds appropriated to his office, warning that if payment is not made by Nov. 11 he will pursue legal action against the county.

In a five-page letter dated Nov. 5 and addressed to Commissioners Vic Stratman, Douglas Drewel, and Patrick Kleffner, Morgan said the commission’s failure to release the final quarter of the sheriff’s 2025 budget violates Missouri law and threatens his ability to meet statutory duties that include operating the county jail, providing court security and maintaining law enforcement operations.

“I write to formally demand the immediate transfer of the fourth-quarter appropriation to the Maries County Sheriff’s Office in the approximate amount of $93,625 as approved in the county budget adopted in January 2025,” Morgan wrote.

The sheriff said during a recent commission meeting he was told the county lacked sufficient funds to make the transfer and was asked, “How much do I actually need?” Morgan described that question as evidence of a “fundamental misunderstanding” of Missouri’s budget laws and the legal nature of appropriations.

Appearing before the commission, Morgan opened by saying, “I’m here because the fourth-quarter transfer hasn’t been made and I have to make payroll on the 13th of the month.”

County Clerk Rhonda Rodgers responded, “We should have tax money coming in shortly, which will be helpful.”

Stratman added, “We got a check from the license office on a couple of little things.”

Morgan replied, “So, I’m taking it that I’m not gonna get my fourth-quarter transfer? I mean, it was due Oct. 1 and now it’s Nov. 6 and I’m a little bit concerned.”

He told the commissioners he was not there to discuss next year’s budget.

“Okay, so I’m not jumping into an impromptu budget meeting here. It’s not on the agenda for a budget meeting or amending a budget. So all I need to know is I need my fourth-quarter transfer,” he said. “I budgeted for the year, not for three quarters a year. I budgeted for the entire year. I’ve stayed well within my budget. I’ve been very cautious with my spending this year to make sure I’m not sitting here right now going, ‘where’s the money?’”

Morgan told the commission that he had reduced spending earlier in the year.

“If you recall, at the beginning of the year, we were in the budget process. I took $57,000 out of my budget to replace the agent patrol car because you guys were gonna get a loan. I was just trying to help out,” he said. “Whatever you guys did or didn’t do about the loan, that’s on you, but I budgeted for the whole year, and it’s an approved 2025 budget. That’s what I’m asking for. I’m not asking for a penny more or a penny less.”

Rodgers asked, “If we don’t have the money, how are we going to do that?”

Morgan replied, “It came out a balanced budget. I just need a clear answer yes or no, so I’ll take that as a no.”

Rodgers said the commission had warned officials months ago about funding shortages.

“If I remember correctly, wasn’t it back in June when we were all brought in here, all the elected officials, and we were told that we were not going to have enough money?” she said.

As the commissioners reviewed Morgan’s letter, Drewel asked, “What do you think after reading that, Vic?”

Stratman replied, “I still don’t think we have the money.”

Drewel followed, “What is he supposed to do? Where is his money supposed to come from?”

Rodgers added, “I think we were all asked to cut whenever back in June. When we met, you told us then we weren’t going to have enough money to make it through the year and we needed to do whatever we could to not spend things that we shouldn’t spend unless it was absolutely needed.”

Stratman said, “I think we have enough money to cover payroll. It’s not like they won’t be paid.”

Rodgers agreed, “There should be money there to do that…should be money for fuel, just no extra for anything else basically.”

Stratman asked, “If we have enough money coming in there for payroll, fuel, and other ordinary expenses, what would the other part of the $93,000…where is it?”

Morgan answered, “This is not procedurally correct. This is not how this is supposed to go.”

Rodgers responded, “No, it’s not how it’s supposed to go. We all sit here and say that every day, all day long, this is not how it’s supposed to go. But when your payroll is being made and your fuel is being paid and the phones are being paid, what part of that can you not reduce or your other expenses until the end of the year to try to help the county? I don’t understand.”

“I’ve been helping the county all year,” Morgan said.

Rodgers replied, “Really?”

“Absolutely. How have I not helped the county?” Morgan asked.

“Okay, alright,” Rodgers said.

“How about we compare my expenditures this year from last year,” Morgan responded.

Rodgers said, “GR (General Revenue) is giving you the same amount as what we’ve given in prior years. I’m just saying, if we can do those things until the end of the year, why can’t that be okay?”

Morgan ended the exchange by saying, “I consider it to be a legal matter now, and I’ll just let the attorneys deal with it. Thank you for your time.” He then left the meeting.

After his departure, Rodgers said, “I’m concerned for my people. We haven’t bought any extra supplies. We haven’t bought anything out of the way. We haven’t went to some trainings. We’re not going to MAC, and every other elected official in here is doing the same thing. I don’t understand why he cannot do that also. I don’t understand his way of thinking.”

Drewel asked, “What is his plan for using the $93,000? If there was something that he had to have, if he did that for payroll or fuel, but he never did say what he wanted to use the money for.”

Deputy Clerk Renee Kottwitz said, “I think what he was saying is that it doesn’t matter what he wants it for, that it’s his money. The sheriff’s revolving fund is the one that’s over budget by $1,600.”

Drewel noted, “If you take it to the extent of a legal aspect here, by the time that’s filed, and the time you get that to court and get attorneys involved, the end of the year is going to be here anyway.”

Kleffner asked, “And who pays for the attorneys?”

Drewel replied, “Well, if the sheriff has an attorney, does the sheriff’s department citizen safety pay for the attorney, or does the county pay for the attorney out of general revenue?”

Rodgers said, “Depends on how the judge says it should be assessed. But either way, it’s county money, right, unless they tell him he has to pay for it personally. I mean, the county is broke.”

“Either way you’re spending money,” Drewel said.

“That shouldn’t be spent,” Kleffner added.

“Just throwing it into the wind,” Drewel said.

Rodgers said, “That tells a lot about the elected official that you have, somebody that’s willing to do that.”

Morgan’s letter cites multiple Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMO), including RSMO 50.622, RSMO 50.815, RSMO 57.010 and RSMO 221.020, to argue that once funds are appropriated by the county commission, they become legally committed to that office and cannot be withheld or reduced without a formal budget amendment, public notice, and a documented vote.

In his letter to the Maries County Commission, Sheriff Mark Morgan cited several Missouri laws to support his position.

RSMO 50.622 allows counties to amend their budgets during the fiscal year only under specific conditions, such as receiving unexpected new funds or facing a verifiable decline of more than two percent in expected revenues. Even then, the amendment must follow the same procedures used to adopt the annual budget—public notice, a hearing and a recorded vote by the county commission.

RSMO 50.815 requires county commissions to prepare and publish an annual financial statement showing all receipts, disbursements, and balances. While it promotes accountability and transparency, it does not govern how or when appropriated funds must be released to elected officials.

RSMO 57.010 outlines who can serve as sheriff, their term of office, and election procedures. It establishes the sheriff as an independently elected official but does not address funding or budget procedures. Although it helps define the sheriff’s independence from the commission, it does not specifically deal with appropriations or spending authority.

RSMO 221.020 assigns the sheriff full responsibility for the “custody, rule, keeping, and charge” of the county jail and any prisoners held there. It reinforces that maintaining the jail is a statutory duty of the sheriff, not a discretionary service. In this sense, it supports Morgan’s broader argument that his office’s funding is not optional, since the sheriff is legally required to carry out these duties under state law.

However, not all the statutes he referenced directly address the issue. Sections 50.815 and 57.010 do not govern appropriations or fund transfers, and there is no statute that explicitly says once funds are appropriated they “cannot be withheld.” In practice, Missouri law leaves some discretion to county commissions when managing cash flow, especially if revenues are delayed, but requires transparency and formal process if any changes are made to the adopted budget.

“The Commission cannot use its budgetary authority as a tool to obstruct the performance of statutory obligations by an independently elected county official,” Morgan wrote, adding that his office has operated for 10 months under the approved 2025 budget and has already committed expenditures and staffing accordingly.

The sheriff warned that the commission’s inaction would force him to seek judicial remedies, listing several options, including a petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the commission to transfer the funds, a declaratory judgment establishing the commission’s legal obligation to release the money and injunctive relief to prevent interference with his office’s operations. He also said he may submit a formal request for an opinion from the Missouri Attorney General and issue a public notification to inform residents if the commission’s actions threaten jail or law enforcement functions.

Morgan said the commission’s failure to provide the funds could expose the county to liability for violations of state jail standards and employee contracts, as well as legal costs that would ultimately fall on taxpayers.

He listed potential impacts such as compromised court security, understaffed jail operations, disruption of public safety services, and damage to intergovernmental relations within the county.

“I have taken an oath to faithfully execute the duties of Sheriff of Maries County as established by Missouri statute,” Morgan wrote. “Those duties are defined by state law, not by the subjective determination of ‘how much I actually need’ as posed in the recent commission meeting.”

The sheriff said he remains willing to discuss “legitimate budgetary concerns” for the 2026 fiscal year but insisted that the 2025 appropriations must be honored through the end of the current year.

“I trust that legal action will not be necessary and that the Commission will fulfill its statutory duty to transfer the appropriated funds,” he wrote. “However, I am prepared to take all necessary steps to ensure that the Sheriff’s Office can continue to meet its statutory obligations to the citizens of Maries County.”

The letter was copied to Rodgers and Prosecuting Attorney Tony Skouby.

Commissioners went into closed session and, after emerging, Rodgers explained that the commission had voted to transfer the sheriff’s final quarter allocation.

“All right,” Rodgers began. “The motion was made and seconded to pay the sheriff his last quarter amount, which was $93,625, yeah, that’s what it was. And that money, since general revenue does not have that money to pay him, we are borrowing that money from Road District Two, to be paid back by the end of the year when tax money starts coming in and general revenue can pay it back.”

The motion was made by Drewel and seconded by Kleffner, and passed with a 3-0 vote.

Rodgers noted that, even before the transfer, the sheriff’s office had enough in its budget to cover core operations.

“He did have enough money coming in for his payroll expenses,” Rodgers said. “Maybe not all expenses, but the major expenses that he needed to keep him going. He had money in his budget. He would have had enough cash to make payroll, pay fuel and pay his phone expense.”

Rodgers said the commission sought legal advice before making the decision.

“After seeking legal advice, this was the best way to do it,” she said. “We really didn’t want to cost the county attorney fees and court costs that could go on for months.”

Drewel agreed it would be a waste of the county’s time and money.

Drewel said, “You’d have to have two outside attorneys, one for him and one for the commissioners. How many thousands are you gonna waste of taxpayers’ money? And then, in the end, it still may have to be paid. Maybe not, but still you’ve wasted the money.”

Drewel said the commission did not fully understand why the sheriff needed the full amount immediately.

“We don’t understand exactly what he needs all that money for until the end of the year,” he said.

Rodgers said, “I think that question was already asked, and he didn’t answer.”

Morgan was asked to join the commissioners again and when he arrived was given the news that the transfer would be made.

Stratman said, “Mark, after considerable discussion, we come up with the plan that we will borrow money from another fund and give you the $93,625 transfer.”

“And of course, I’m going to do just like I have the rest of the year,” Morgan said. “I’m going to spend what we need to operate. Nothing’s changed. I’m still waiting on Motorola to explain some of the charges on that $12,000 bill that was supposed to be covered by ARPA funds, that’s why I set it up. They haven’t explained everything clearly enough for me to know if we literally need it, and I will continue to scrutinize every bill just like that one.”