August 27, 2024, Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

I attended the August 27, 2024, Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

Commissioner Gohagan and Skelton were present.

The first agenda item was LANEG Equitable Sharing Report.

This equitable sharing report was an agreement between Camden County and the Lake Area Narcotics Enforcement Group (LANEG). LANEG is a Drug Task Force that consists of Camden, Laclede, Gasconade, Maries, and Crawford Counties. Osage Beach and Camdenton are not part of the task force. Since Camden County is the 1^st Class County in the task force, the grant money comes in through Camden County.

Presiding Commissioner Skelton observed that the form stated that by submitting the form, the Camden County Sheriff’s office would be bound by all subsequent updates and federal regulations. Submission of the report would be a prerequisite for receiving funds or property through the equitable sharing program. Skelton stated that he doesn’t believe the county should continue to participate in federal equity sharing programs and that it his intent to submit an ordinance that the county would no longer participate in these programs. As a result, Skelton felt it would be inappropriate for him to sign such an agreement.

Skelton stated that he felt the asset seizure procedure and system under the Missouri constitution was a more appropriate method to take property from convicted defendants.

Sheriff Tony Helms asked a member of LANEG seated in the audience to explain to Commissioner Skelton what would happen if he declined to sign the report.

The LANEG rep said he had spoken to people in Washington DC. The DC person told him that DC had never had an entity refuse to sign the report.

(Welcome to Hooterville, young man.)

The DC person explained that if Skelton didn’t sign and certify the report, Camden County would be liable for the last certified amount. The last certified amount was $107,000.

Commissioner Skelton questioned whether the $107,000 would come from county general revenue?

Sheriff Helms addressed Skelton, stating, “I also would like to say that just because you feel that way, doesn’t make it right, sir. I mean, we’ve done this for a hundred years.”

Skelton responded that he believe he was elected to do things a little bit differently than they had always been done. He felt equitable sharing was a way for federal agencies to “commandeer” local law enforcement resources to achieve their federal goals. He gave the DEA’s Camp Zoe raid as an example of this.

Camp Zoe Raid

Camp Zoe Asset Forfeiture

Commissioner Skelton explained that when local agencies seize assets using Missouri asset forfeiture, the proceeds go to fund education. When the federal agencies enter the picture, they can circumvent the Missouri asset forfeiture procedures and use federal equitable sharing programs instead.

Sheriff Helms objected to Commissioner Skelton insinuating that the federal asset seizure operations were illegal or unlawful. Helms told Skelton, “Just because you personally despise the federal government. I don’t. And I think this is more than legal and there is a whole lot more people in the state of Missouri that have a different opinion that are a lot smarter than me and you, says that’s okay.”

Helms continued, “Just because you feel this way and you’re going to lead the county this way, does not make you right, sir. I’m sorry. It does not make you right. Because all the task forces in the state of Missouri participate in this.”

Helms explained that the local agencies ask the federal agencies to come and assist them because they have more resources.

Helms and Skelton continued to argue the issue. Eventually, Sheriff Helms asked the LANEG representative to help him out.

The LANEG rep looked like he probably had a thousand places he’d rather be, but he gamely joined in. He assured Skelton that when LANEG requests DEA assistance, LANEG still retains control of the investigation. He confirmed that the asset forfeitures that were part of the equitable sharing report were criminal forfeitures, not civil forfeitures. He also stated that after 2018, as an added check and balance, the lead counties were added as fiduciaries for the task forces.

So there was a separate agreement that established Camden County as a fiduciary for LANEG. He offered the option that if Commissioner Skelton was willing to certify the equitable sharing report amount now, they could review the fiduciary agreement at a later date and see if the Commission wanted to make changes to that agreement.

Skelton stated that he was willing to sign the Equitable Sharing Report simply because he didn’t want Camden County to be liable to pay back the last certified amount. In the future, he did not anticipate that Camden County would be participating in federal equitable sharing. He was fine with asset forfeiture under the Missouri state system.

Commissioner Gohagan commented that the Sharing Report was old (dated 2018) and it probably needed to be updated.

I asked the LANEG representative if any of the LANEG task force members were deputized as US Marshals or other federal officers?

He responded that the officers on his task force were not deputized.

The Commissioners unanimously voted to sign the Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification. Commissioner Skelton reluctantly signed the document.

The second agenda item was Lodging Tax Discussion.

Gail Griswold spoke to the Commission and summarized the results of the recent Missouri Supreme Court decision on the lodging tax. The previous judgement of the Circuit Court was reversed. The method of collection of the lodging tax was declared void and constitutionally invalid. There was no appeal. There was no stay of the decision and it was a unanimous decision by the Missouri Supreme Court.

Griswold asked why then was the Camden County Collector still collecting the lodging tax?

The Deputy for the Collector explained that if people sent the lodging tax to the Collector’s Office, they held onto it, but they were not dispersing it.

County Attorney Green opined that the judgement of the Missouri Supreme Court is not final until they respond or until 90 days after the decision. If the 90 days passes with no response from the Missouri Supreme Court, he will contact the Circuit Court and make the recommendation that it appoint a trustee to deal with what remains of the lodging tax and the taxing entities. Green did not feel that there was an appeal pending. He instead characterized it as a motion that was still pending a response.

And that was that.