Filed Date: 6/23/1983
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
REQUESTED BY: Senator Richard Peterson Nebraska State Legislature 1118 State Capitol Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Dear Senator Peterson:
Your letter to this office states that future legislation will be considered during an interim study concerning the Community Mental Health Services Act. You inquire if the community mental health centers are actually extensions of the Department of Public Institutions.
While the Community Mental Health Services Act, §
For example, §
While such committee does not have veto authority over the standards, rules, and regulations to be adopted, the procedure indicates that the regions are not under the legal control of the department but have an independent input into such adoption.
Section
These governing boards consist of one member from each of the county boards of supervisors or commissioners represented by each region. Each of the counties shall contribute financial support for the operation of the regional comprehensive community mental health services program based upon a funding formula acceptable to each of the counties involved. This clearly distinguishes the regions from being subdivisions or agencies of the State Department of Public Institutions as it is the regional governing board which governs, supervises, makes assessments on the counties, and contracts for services under this section.
Section
While the regional governing board must also report annually to the Director of Medical Services regarding the expenditure of funds and submit annually a proposed budget and plan of the services to be offered, it must also establish the amount of funds to be requested from each county.
Under §
The foregoing constitutes the regions and the agencies with whom they contract as separate legal entities which must comply with certain standards and regulations to receive the funds appropriated by the state under the budgets submitted. The relationship is similar to that of any state or local governmental subdivision receiving grants from the federal government.
Nowhere under said act is any enforcement authority given to the Department of Public Institutions which would give the department direct control over the regions or agencies thereof.
The department does have the authority to require annual audits and reports as it deems necessary, and provide accountability for all sources of funds and all expenditure of funds from all agencies receiving any state funds, but such authority is not backed up with any enforcement powers. Presumably problems of the department with the expenditure of funds or operation of the programs would result in withholding of future funds by the Legislature.
The department, under §
It shall be the duty of the Auditor of Public Accounts:
(4) Conduct audits and related activities for state agencies, political subdivisions of this state, or grantees of federal funds disbursed by a receiving agency on a contractual or other basis for reimbursement, to assure proper accounting by all such agencies, political subdivisions, and grantees for funds appropriated by the Legislature and federal funds disbursed by any receiving agency.
This provision, would, in our opinion, require the Auditor of Public Accounts to audit the regional governmental organization or other agency under the act which is the grantee of funds appropriated by the Legislature.
Hoping this will be of assistance to you we are,
Very truly yours, PAUL L. DOUGLAS Attorney General Mel Kammerlohr Assistant Attorney General