Pubdate: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 Source: Lowell Sun (MA) Copyright: 2000 MediaNews Group, Inc. Contact: 15 Kearney Square, P.O. Box 1477 Lowell, Massachusetts 01853 Website: http://www.newschoice.com/newspapers/lowell/sun/default.asp Author: Jason Lefferts COUNCILORS WANT MORE CONTROL OVER DRUG FUND Reports Asked On Use Of Money Seized In Raids LOWELL --The state law regarding drug forfeiture accounts run by Lowell's police superintendent should be changed to allow for more public control of the money, city councilors said this week. Following a report by The Sun that found $500,000 from two accounts controlled by Police Superintendent Edward F. Davis III has been used to buy everything from food to new cruisers since 1995, city councilors said they should have more input in how the money is spent. "I'm upset that there is little to no accountability. That law was loosely written," said Councilor Richard Howe. "Too much money was spent on travel, and too little money was spent on equipment." The council last night voted unanimously to ask for more oversight and accountability over the use of the money. The council will get monthly reports from City Auditor James Kennedy on how money from the Law Enforcement Trust fund is used. Davis, by law, controls two funds that hold cash received by the Police Department by seizing assets from drug raids. The city receives 80 percent of the money from federal operations, and Davis needs approval to use money from that fund. But when the money comes from a state investigation, Lowell receives half of the assets, and Davis does not need approval to use that fund. The chief said he has no problem with the increased oversight voted by the city council. "Everyone is acting like this is some big secret fund, it isn't," Davis said. "For the past three years I've given the council annual reports on the fund." Councilors interviewed this week said they want more checks on spending the money. "The minute funds become public funds, there has to be some public scrutiny," said Councilor Armand Mercier. "I don't think any public funds should be at the discretion solely of one individual." Since 1995, Davis has spent $311,000 from the state fund. He told The Sun that all expenditures from the fund (which currently holds $62,000) are reported to the city auditor. Councilor Rodney Elliott, like many of his colleagues, said that is not enough oversight. "I think the legislation needs to be changed," Elliott said. "It's all taxpayers' money that's used to generate these forfeitures and seizures, and we as an elected body should represent the issues of the taxpayers who fund the Police Department." The sponsor of the motion passed last night providing for increased oversight over the expendutures, Councilor Edward "Bud" Caulfield, said Davis wasn't "frugal" enough with the money in the accounts. "He could go out and have a catered meal of Chinese food or whatever he wants at any local establishment," Caulfield said. "I think that local elected officials should be kept abreast of the level of police funds the city has." Some councilors said in interviews that they want direct control over the fund. "We have to look to see if there is any way the city side can have a better way to manage the fund," said Councilor Rithy Uong. "It would be a great asset to the city, but we have to refer to the law." Current state law gives the police chief sole authority over the fund. Most city councilors say they should have approval of expenditures. "I think the elected body should always have oversight of the expenditure of public monies," said Councilor Bill Martin. By having final approval on expenditures, a strong-willed City Council could essentially take over the fund by rejecting requests is sees as unsuitable. Many councilors, for example, are upset with they consider to be a high amount of out-of-state travel by police officials. Councilor Rita Mercier said if the chief came before the council and asked to use money from the fund to send five officers to Seattle for a five-day conference, she'd shoot down the request. "What's wrong with that? Why do they have to be there five days? Why is it always the chief that goes?" Mercier said. "We have nine people to deal with. Maybe he won't spend it so frivolously. This is another layer of bureaucracy." Martin said a change in the law to allow council approval wouldn't necessarily usurp the chief's authority, but it would place attention on an important area of city government. "I don't know if it's a power grab, but we've seen large increases in the police budget over the last few years, so naturally there's going to be more sensitivity in that department," Martin said. "I don't think we would be micromanaging the police department. It's just an issue of accountability, and where will the money be better spent," Elliott said. Councilor Dan Tenczar said he would like to see the money used for a new crime lab, for example, but he has even broader ideas for the funds. He said he would like to see the money available for all of city government. "Why shouldn't the city benefit from things that effect the community, instead of just one department," Tenczar said. "I think it should be changed so the community would benefit." For the council to change any current facet of the use of the state fund, it would need to have the law amended on the state level. Lowell legislators said they would support changing the law. "I wouldn't have any problem with that at all. You're talking a lot of money here, and you have to have oversight and accountability," said Rep. David Nangle. "I don't think anybody should have the responsibility to have that sort of money in accounts without having to go to somebody." Sen. Steven Panagiotakos said he would also favor a change in the law. "I don't think anybody should have any opposition to more local oversight," he said. Panagiotakos said instead of making a wholesale amendment to the current law, the city's best bet may be to try getting an exception through a home-rule petition. He said he isn't entirely sure such legislation is legal, but if so it would be the easiest route to passage. "If the substance of it is allowable to be a home-rule petition, that's always easier. I don't see where the legalities would be where you couldn't do that, but I'd wait for a legal opinion," Panagiotakos said. Davis, who attended the council meeting, said he supports the motions calling for additional oversight. "Everyone is acting like this is some big secret fund, it isn't," Davis said. "For the past three years I've given the council annual reports on the fund." Christopher Scott of The Sun staff contributed to this report. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea