Sheriff demands pay after weeks without salary

Information from Southeast Iowa Today with John Bain’s recording of this meeting contributed to this article.

MT. PLEASANT — Henry County Sheriff Rich McNamee broached topics pertaining to finances concerning his own paychecks and continued requests for payment of outside legal counsel at the Jan. 30 Henry County Board of Supervisors meeting.

  Buy Photo

McNamee began the discussion by first focusing on receiving his paychecks from the county, which he only discovered after receiving notification of his bank balance dropping unexpectedly low.

“So, I'm here today basically just to say, when can I get paid?” McNamee asked the board. “Luckily, the portion of my payroll going to my mortgage has been made, so I'm not losing my home or my farm, but I do want to pay my utility bills.”

McNamee said he learned about the missing paychecks when he attempted to withdraw money from his local bank and was told his account was nearly empty. Upon investigation, he found his paychecks had been sent to an account at Green Dot Bank, a financial institution he had never used.

According to Green Dot’s website, they offer, “mobile banking services, including mobile check cashing and deposit, online bill pay, and spending tracking,” and are a chartered bank and financial technology company. They are a subsidiary of Green Dot Corporation which has its headquarters in Austin, Texas.

“I did not sign the form, the standard form asking for a change in my payroll,” McNamee stated. “It either was an error by the payroll clerk, the software company that handles our payroll, Pilot Grove Bank, or some other means that need investigation.”

“Regardless, I've been providing a Sheriff service,” McNamee continued. “I've been doing my job since December 10. I'd like to get paid. So, what do I have to do to arrange for my paycheck? Three of them to be exact.”

County Auditor Robin Detrick said she contacted the State Auditor’s Office but had not yet received definitive guidance. She noted that the State Auditor’s Office did state that decision to issue McNamee’s pay now rested with the Board of Supervisors.

Supervisor Marc Lindeen hesitated, expressing concern about issuing a second payment.

“My question was, it’d be like double paying you in some way or another,” Lindeen said.

“I haven’t been paid at all,” McNamee quickly responded.

“I know, but as far as we’re concerned, we’re double paying you right now because it has already been taken out of your funds in the sheriff’s office,” Lindeen replied. “I don’t want to get in trouble that we have double paid you.”

Supervisor Steve Detrick turned to Human Resource Director Paul Greufe, asking if he had ever encountered a similar situation.

“Not to this degree,” Greufe said. “I mean, I've run into situations where people are paid incorrectly, either too much or too little. Usually, if it's too much, then even if it's a small amount, it's made up that same week. If it's a large amount they might spread it out over time, but not to this degree.”

Henry County Assistant Attorney Steve Giebelhausen emphasized that discussing the matter publicly was not ideal given that it was under investigation by the Division of Criminal Investigation.

“I will say now I believe you should make arrangements to pay the sheriff,” Giebelhausen repeated. “The money that was diverted was not diverted by the sheriff, so therefore we'll have to go through our steps to do it, but my recommendation to the board is that we do pay him the money that was earned.”

After receiving affirmation that the board would indeed pay McNamee his missing checks after following needed procedure, he went on to renew his request for county payment of outside legal counsel, citing an ongoing complaint against him with the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB). The complaint centers on his office’s handling of public records requests, including one submitted by attorney Danny Cornell, who McNamee called “a personal friend” of County Attorney Darin Stater.

“I appeared before you on Nov. 7, 2024, to address the ongoing issue of my need for county-provided counsel as it is a significant expense and necessitated by my official duties as sheriff and a conflict of interest on the part of the county attorney,” McNamee told the board. “I must have outside counsel provided to me for this proceeding.”

The board has repeatedly denied McNamee’s previous requests for outside counsel, although in early 2024, the board initially approved payments before reversing the decision following objections from Stater. Stater then worked to recover the payments, arguing the funds had been allocated improperly.

“I made this request first late in 2023 and got approval by the board and payment of a few bills early in 2024,” McNamee said. “As we all know, the board later reversed that decision at the direction of the county attorney, and he clawed back the money from that counsel — an act that I doubt is legal.”

McNamee stressed that the IPIB proceedings would involve legal hearings and that the county had a duty to provide representation.

“I must have legal counsel,” he said. “The county attorney is involved in this proceeding. That is a conflict of interest. How can he represent me when he has interfered with my original efforts to comply with the public records request?”

McNamee referenced the 1982 Iowa Supreme Court case Smith v. Board of Supervisors, arguing that county officers have a right to legal representation at county expense when a conflict of interest exists.

In the 1982 Iowa Supreme Court case Smith v. Board of Supervisors, the court addressed whether county officials could obtain reimbursement for legal expenses incurred during disputes with their Board of Supervisors. The court concluded that county officers are entitled to such reimbursement when acting within the scope of their official duties, especially when a conflict of interest prevents the county attorney from providing representation.

By referencing this case, McNamee underscored his position that he is entitled to county-funded legal counsel due to a conflict of interest with the county attorney with reference to this case.

The ongoing dispute over McNamee’s pay and legal representation has intensified existing tensions between the sheriff’s office and county officials. Last year, County Attorney Stater criticized the Board of Supervisors for approving spending without proper oversight, particularly concerning McNamee’s office.

“I have been asking for help, and I have been met with resistance at every turn,” McNamee said. “I am here, again, because this matter has not been resolved.”

McNamee asked to be placed on the Feb. 6 Board of Supervisors agenda to receive an answer to his request.

“I look forward to a response from you, gentlemen,” McNamee said. “The time has come, and I need some legal counsel paid for by county expense.”

Comments: AnnaMarie.Kruse@southeastiowaunion.com