Sheriff James W. Murphy’s office line is 314-622-4131, as listed in the City of St. Louis municipal directory.
That’s also the phone number listed for the “Murphy for Sheriff” campaign finance committee on every Missouri Ethics Commission committee disclosure report filed since 2001 – the last available on the commission’s online records bank.
City taxpayers are bankrolling the sheriff’s campaign phone bill, said Vernon Betts, a former deputy sheriff who is running for sheriff as a Democrat. On June 12, Betts filed a complaint with the commission against the Murphy for Sheriff Committee for misuse of public funds.
Murphy, a Democrat who has held the office since 1989, will face two Democrats on August 7 – Betts and David Mosley. Republican candidate Robert Sternberg also has filed.
The St. Louis American asked Julie A. Allen, the commission’s executive director, whether the use of publicly-office equipment for a campaign is legal.
Allen said city policy is the first place to look for the answer.
According to the Sheriff’s Office Employee Code of Conduct, “Sheriff assets and equipment are for Sheriff purposes only and not for personal benefit. This includes the personal use of Sheriff Department assets, such as vehicles, computers, etc.”
The sheriff’s phone costs the city $14.87 a month, according to city records. Adding up the phone cost since 2001, it totals more than $2,100.
Murphy’s committee stopped paying a campaign phone bill in 2002, according to campaign disclosure records. In 2001, he was paying about $37 a month, with a one-time expense of $328.64 in May of that year. However, he has not reported a campaign phone expense since.
When someone calls the 314-622-4131 line, an on-duty deputy at the front desk answers, said Mike Guzy, the sheriff’s administrative aide.
However, Guzy said, “The line has never been used for campaign purposes.”
Guzy said he is not sure who filled out the annual campaign disclosure forms and provided that number. According to records, the forms were signed by James Murphy himself. Guzy said Murphy plans to amend the number in his campaign finance reports.
If Murphy listed his office number as his campaign number for the last 12 years or more, he and his staff have been conducting campaign business during working hours from the publicly-funded phone number, said C.D. Clarkson, Betts campaign volunteer and a member of the Shalom Church City of Peace where Betts is a minister.
The employee code also states that deputies shall not engage in any political activities whatsoever at their place of employment or on courthouse grounds.
“By those deputies answering the phone, it throws them into the position of electioneering,” Betts said.
Incumbents who have ran for re-election in other offices have reported paying several hundred dollars for phone service each quarter out of their campaign funds – not taxpayers’ money, Clarkson said. These individuals also did not list their office numbers as the helm of their committee operations.
Murphy has misappropriated more than $2,000 in utility services from the city, Clarkson said.
“There are men that are locked up in the city’s Justice Center for stealing $600 of service from Laclede Gas,” Clarkson said.
Guzy said the sheriff is out of town, and he is not sure if Murphy will repay the city for the use of the phone.
Even if Betts’ complaint is valid, the commission is not able to accept it, Allen said. By law, the commission can’t accept complaints 60 days before the election that aren’t related to campaign finance or personal financial disclosure violations. Misuse of public funds does not fall into that category, she said.
On June 20, Betts submitted the same complaint to the attorney general’s office.
Audit issues
This is not the first time Murphy has been scrutinized for using public resources – even his deputies themselves – for campaign purposes.
The State Auditor found in a 2010 audit that deputies were not charged vacation days when they took off election days to do campaign work for their boss. In 2008, when Murphy was last up for re-election, 26 of his employees were paid as if they worked a full day when they were actually working the election, the audit found.
The audit also discovered that the department had no record-keeping system in place for monitoring Murphy’s sick leave accruals. The audit showed that Murphy had 191 accumulated days of sick leave, some of which could have been cashed out when he retires for an immediate payment of over $11,000.
Race complaints
Murphy also has faced criticism and legal judgments regarding racial discrimination. In September 2010, two of his African-American deputies successful sued Murphy for supporting a racially hostile work environment when he refused to discipline three other employees who hung a noose from some pipes in the St. Louis Civil Courts building in 2006, near where prisoners were held.
The lawsuit also found that Murphy passed over black employees for promotions and gave those promotions to white employees. Plaintiffs William “Pat” Hill and Jacques Hughes also successfully argued that they were retaliated against for complaining about the racial problems.
