There are two, sometimes three sides to every situation.
What Mr. Slayton fails to mention is that he submitted his own proposed budget to the county council via e-mail prior to their scheduled budget hearing, a budget that was NOT approved by the other two Public Defender Board members. He also fails to mention that the other two PDB members had sent their own e-mail to the county council members stating that this was not approved by a majority of the board.
A special meeting was called by the other two PDB members pursuant to IC 30-4-7-3. Mr. Slayton was aware that this meeting was called to address his actions of preparing and submitting via email a budget that had not been discussed or voted upon by the PDB members. Mr. Slayton chose not to attend this meeting.
On Sept. 13 Mr. Slayton disregarded the special meeting that had been set and proceeded to personally submit his proposed budget to the county council. At which time both council member Tim Crowley and county council attorney Andrew Porter objected to the proposal of Mr. Slayton's budget, but other members of the county council voted to pass it anyway — all knowing it was Mr. Slayton's personal proposed budget and not that of the PDB.
The two other PDB members composed and approved a budget during the special (public) meeting, then along with others which included attorneys, had to go to the County Commissioners meeting to submit a revised budget approved by the majority of the PDB, which was approved by the county commissioners. The two PDB members then submitted the revised budget to the county council, which was approved.
Mr. Slayton's proposal and the PDB proposal used the same model of using a part-time chief public defender and flat-rate contracts for the attorneys. Only the amounts of the budgets were different, by less than $40,000. Also many of the lawyers are somewhat agreeable to the changes. Not all the attorneys have misused the present system.
I am a taxpayer. I am a registered voter. I am a stickler for following the rules and that every penny be accounted for. Mr. Slayton states that his proposed budget was voted on and approved at the PDB meeting on Aug. 29. I've seen the minutes to that meeting, the meeting was dated as Aug. 25, and no where was a budget approved.
The current system is costing the taxpayer and also delaying "due process" to the clients. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The issue is that Mr. Slayton's action to proceed forward without the approval from the majority of the PDB, then to blame the "good ole boy system" is nothing more than he, himself, trying to circumvent the process.
It should be pointed out that the PDB is to oversee the program by statute. Over the years the PDB had been very inactive. And yes, Mr. Slayton was a member of the PDB during those times as well. Plenty of blame to pass around
The facts of this comment came from public information and sources directly involved with this incident, sources both Republican and Democrat.