ADVERTISEMENT

Reynolds defends using coronavirus funds for staff pay

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,421
58,913
113
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said Wednesday there is nothing inappropriate about her decision to spend nearly $450,000 in federal coronavirus relief money on salaries for aides in her office, including her chief of staff and spokesman.
Reynolds addressed the matter at a press conference for the first time since a report was posted Sunday by Laura Belin, publisher of the liberal-leaning online blog Bleeding Heartland. The report, based on information Belin obtained through a public records request to the Iowa Department of Management, indicated 21 employees on Reynolds’ staff will have more than 60% of their salary paid with federal emergency funds from March 14 through June 30.

Reynolds said the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act allow salaries to be paid for workers whose job requirements are significantly changed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
“CARES funding can be used for salaries. That’s very clear in what allowable allocations are,” she said.

She said when the first COVID-19 cases were identified in Iowa in early March, she moved half of her staff to a state emergency operations center to organize the state’s response. They worked nine- to 10-hour days, seven days a week on the virus, she said. The other half of her staff remained at the Iowa Capitol, working similar hours answering questions and working to meet the needs of Iowans, Reynolds said.






The governor’s office confirmed the expenditures with the U.S Department of Treasury Office of the Inspector General, said Reynolds’ chief of staff Sara Craig.
Craig said the money hasn’t shown up in CARES Act expenditure documents yet because the governor hasn’t signed the transfer of money but after she does, the spending will show up in public documents.
It wasn’t immediately clear what happens to the state money that had already been allocated to governor’s staffer salaries.
The amount sought from the federal funds for 21 governor’s staff members will total $448,449, Reynolds spokesman Pat Garrett confirmed.



Sen. Joe Bolkcom, the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Iowans should have confidence the federal COVID relief funds are being spent to help residents.
“Instead of using funds that are desperately needed to provide relief to hard-working Iowans and closed or struggling businesses hurt by the pandemic, the governor is diverting the relief funding for other purposes. That’s not right,” he said.
While common uses for the money include testing and contact tracing, support for hospitals, and economic support for businesses, there does appear to be a use allocated to “budgeted personnel and services diverted to a substantially different use” in OIG documents.



The OIG’s office did not immediately respond to a message.
Iowa Auditor Rob Sand has confirmed his office will audit CARES Act spending in Iowa. He declined to discuss any details, which he said will be contained in any report his office produces.
Neither the governor nor the Republican-majority Legislature have granted media credentials for Belin, who is open about the support for Democratic ideals. Reynolds’ office did not respond to any of her questions about the spending over a two-week period.

Also at her press conference Wednesday Reynolds criticized the Des Moines school district for not abandoning its online learning program and returning its more than 33,000 students to classrooms. She said other districts have managed to meet her requirement for in-person learning even as the state remains a national hotspot for coronavirus infections.

Des Moines officials argue it’s too risky for students and staff to return to classrooms under Reynolds’ orders.
Education Department Director Ann Lebo said officials would begin a process to potentially punish the district for not being in compliance and students may be required to take additional classes after school usually ends next spring.
As of Wednesday morning, Iowa had 775 new confirmed coronavirus cases in the last 24 hours and one additional death.

 
  • Like
Reactions: GOHOX69 and MitchLL
I don't necessarily have a problem using federal money to cover state wages. That helps out Iowa taxpayers.
But, it is not a very good look to pay salaried employees overtime, to up $50k and more per person.
I understand they are working very hard and long hours. But, there are pros to being salaried, and cons as well.
And, they are just taking advantage of this federal money to line their own pockets with additional wages, instead of just offsetting state wages.
 
I don't necessarily have a problem using federal money to cover state wages. That helps out Iowa taxpayers.
But, it is not a very good look to pay salaried employees overtime, to up $50k and more per person.
I understand they are working very hard and long hours. But, there are pros to being salaried, and cons as well.
And, they are just taking advantage of this federal money to line their own pockets with additional wages, instead of just offsetting state wages.

Agreed, at bare minimum, this looks bad for Reynolds, even if it's all technically on the up-and-up, it's not a good PR look.
 
I don't necessarily have a problem using federal money to cover state wages. That helps out Iowa taxpayers.
But, it is not a very good look to pay salaried employees overtime, to up $50k and more per person.
I understand they are working very hard and long hours. But, there are pros to being salaried, and cons as well.
And, they are just taking advantage of this federal money to line their own pockets with additional wages, instead of just offsetting state wages.

If wages were rightfully owed, due to excessive labor hours directly related to Covid, then I see no problem with this,.. Once again Kim gets it right...
 
I don't necessarily have a problem using federal money to cover state wages. That helps out Iowa taxpayers.
But, it is not a very good look to pay salaried employees overtime, to up $50k and more per person.
I understand they are working very hard and long hours. But, there are pros to being salaried, and cons as well.
And, they are just taking advantage of this federal money to line their own pockets with additional wages, instead of just offsetting state wages.
All well and good. But when they run out of $$ for testing and PPE... Iowa taxpayers are still paying for that.

Kimmy has a long history of "juggling" funds, so while not surprising, it really just shows reckless disregard.

I'm thinking that I might have to reevaluate my original prediction of what happens when Grassley croaks/resigns. I wonder if Kimmy appoints herself to succeed Senile Chuck?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
If wages were rightfully owed, due to excessive labor hours directly related to Covid, then I see no problem with this,.. Once again Kim gets it right...

I don't know that anything was wrong per se, I just would think state employees should be paid for by the state. In theory, that shouldn't be covered by federal bail out money. It just looks bad when looked at by businesses owners who are struggling and wondering why these gov't employees are getting money when they aren't.

Not great optics is the point I'm trying to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MitchLL
There are a lot of people, working a lot of hours on this virus response who are salaried and not getting an extra dime for it. Both in Des Moines and across the state.
And, when those overworked, nearly burnt out people see somebody getting an extra $50k (on top of their already significant salary), it doesn't sit well with many of them.
 
Agreed,.. but if this money is rightfully owed to these employees I don't see a problem with it coming out of these funds...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bank of Hawk
Agreed,.. but if this money is rightfully owed to these employees I don't see a problem with it coming out of these funds...

Well, it is not rightfully owed money is the issue. There was no obligation, legal or otherwise, to supplement their salaries with the federal money.
But, that is how they chose to spend it.
 
I don't necessarily have a problem using federal money to cover state wages. That helps out Iowa taxpayers.
But, it is not a very good look to pay salaried employees overtime, to up $50k and more per person.
I understand they are working very hard and long hours. But, there are pros to being salaried, and cons as well.
And, they are just taking advantage of this federal money to line their own pockets with additional wages, instead of just offsetting state wages.

Lol, come on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying these people more money for what they did.

Having a bunch of people quit would have been terrible.
 
Our local county government is using these funds for front-line health professionals, emergency responders and public health workers involved in the pandemic response measures and hygienic & health equipment & supplies.

What they aren't doing is paying bonuses to already well-paid salaried administrators just because they can under the rules of the grant program.

Local government is the best government, the State affirms this fact at every turn.
 
Our local county government is using these funds for front-line health professionals, emergency responders and public health workers involved in the pandemic response measures and hygienic & health equipment & supplies.

What they aren't doing is paying bonuses to already well-paid salaried administrators just because they can under the rules of the grant program.

Local government is the best government, the State affirms this fact at every turn.

Local money in counties I believe has been generally going to offset county funds and to hire and pay additional contact tracers.
Not to give bonuses to managers and directors.
 
Agreed,.. but if this money is rightfully owed to these employees I don't see a problem with it coming out of these funds...
The problem is the lack of public knowledge on the decision-making process about which employees receive these funds for overtime. Are they somehow tied to Kim or the GOP? Are they specific departments/divisions in which all are receiving extra compensation? For you to blanketly say "Once again Kim gets it right ..." without evidence is rather ill-considered, wouldn't you say?
 
The problem is the lack of public knowledge on the decision-making process about which employees receive these funds for overtime. Are they somehow tied to Kim or the GOP? Are they specific departments/divisions in which all are receiving extra compensation? For you to blanketly say "Once again Kim gets it right ..." without evidence is rather ill-considered, wouldn't you say?

No,.. I wouldn't say that.
 
Thanks for the details. I guess we posted at about the same time.

Truly disgusting actions by Reynolds.

Basically giving Iowans the middle finger.
Have we ever had a guv. that made so many exec pronouncements as KR. I know we and the country are in a "war" against the virus , but..........
 
Who is dumb enough to think that "funds" means only for materials or hand outs? Most of our tax dollars go to wages and salaries of government workers and retirees.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ThorneStockton
“The Workday contract raised flags because it circumvented the competitive bidding process,” Hall said. “That process is there to avoid corruption.”

It’s not unusual for the state to approve a no-bid contract a few times a year, perhaps, Hall said. But a $21 million request for a project that turned out to be $50 million over two years almost always would mean going out for bids, he added.
 
“The Workday contract raised flags because it circumvented the competitive bidding process,” Hall said. “That process is there to avoid corruption.”

It’s not unusual for the state to approve a no-bid contract a few times a year, perhaps, Hall said. But a $21 million request for a project that turned out to be $50 million over two years almost always would mean going out for bids, he added.
How else do you pay off a former staffer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MitchLL
there was a massive amount of confusion the latter part of March and early April where many people living paycheck to paycheck were laid off overnight and there was a complicated plethora of aid programs ... I know first hand so having extra staff or extra hours by g‘ment officials to assist citizens and local volunteers navigate the programs was an absolute necessity at the time.

I also understand the CAREs was intentionally somewhat vague as to not try and wrap people up in the semantics and get the funds out ASAP— it truly was remarkable how quickly PPP funds got into the hands of small business owners. So if Kim and her office interpreted the funds were ok to be used for the purpose they were used for, then no harm no foul in my opinion. If the funds are deemed not to be reimbursable, so be it, I don’t see any fraud or misleading here.
 
there was a massive amount of confusion the latter part of March and early April where many people living paycheck to paycheck were laid off overnight and there was a complicated plethora of aid programs ... I know first hand so having extra staff or extra hours by g‘ment officials to assist citizens and local volunteers navigate the programs was an absolute necessity at the time.

I also understand the CAREs was intentionally somewhat vague as to not try and wrap people up in the semantics and get the funds out ASAP— it truly was remarkable how quickly PPP funds got into the hands of small business owners. So if Kim and her office interpreted the funds were ok to be used for the purpose they were used for, then no harm no foul in my opinion. If the funds were deemed not to be reimbursable, so be it, I don’t see any fraud or misleading here.
The entire argument from the Pelosi side was oversight on the distribution of funding. As we've seen in so many instances... those concerns were justified.

There didn't have to be massive fraud if the WH/Senate had agreed with NP.

Your argument abount intentional "vagueness" seems weak. But maybe it's just me that sees it that way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
The entire argument from the Pelosi side was oversight on the distribution of funding. As we've seen in so many instances... those concerns were justified.

There didn't have to be massive fraud if the WH/Senate had agreed with NP.

Your argument abount intentional "vagueness" seems weak. But maybe it's just me that sees it that way?
it’s not my personal argument , it’s what I heard from bankers and others who had some skin in the game in terms of disbursing the funds ... they didn’t want to be liable for fraud from a third party who committed fraud and they were allowed some rope in case of that. But there were some readily available documentation one should have provided to the banker or party responsible to disburse funds to the party who requested said funds. So the original documents from Kim’s office to obtain the funds is what I am curious to see and who approved the disbursement of the funds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MitchLL
You remembered what happened with those funds right? With no real oversight, the initial money was gone in days. Then it started coming out that it got snatched up by huge businesses, like the Lakers and others, who only returned it if they were noticed and got bad press.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT