Politics

L.A. Got Billions For “Homeless Initiative”; Where Did The Money Go?

Published

8 years ago

January 19, 2018

(Via The Daily Wire)

Just before 5 a.m. on Wednesday, December 6, flames raced up the hills adjacent to Los Angeles’ 405 freeway, shutting down one of the nation’s largest traffic arteries, destroying and damaging 18 homes, and scorching 422 acres.

Americans were awed by the fire-and-brimstone videos that morning commuters posted on social media. Angelenos were stunned by the smoke clouds pouring into the skies above their city.

Six days later, the Los Angeles Fire Department announced that the blaze was sparked by an illegal cooking fire at a homeless encampment next to the 405, in the ritzy neighborhood of Bel-Air.

The revelation brought increased attention to what city and county officials acknowledge is a homelessness crisis, and what Mayor Eric Garcetti called the “moral issue of our time” in his April 2017 State of the City address.

The figures are grim: According to the official Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, done every January by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), in 2017, on any given night, there were 57,794 people experiencing homelessness, 42,828 of whom, 74%, were unsheltered.

That total number was 23% higher than 2016’s count, which itself saw a 6% jump from 2015. In those two years, the percentage of the total homeless population unsheltered on any given night was 74% and 70%, respectively.

Unsheltered, as in sleeping in tents, on sidewalks, beneath highway overpasses, and anywhere else that may provide some respite from the elements. Even in Los Angeles, nighttime temperatures routinely drop into the 40s and 50s.

As the nation’s second largest city, and one with a pleasant climate, it’s no surprise that L.A. has the second largest homeless population, behind New York City. Or that L.A. has a higher percentage of unsheltered people who are homeless than nearly any other city in the country.

But three-quarters?

In New York, according to a 2016 report by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on any given night that January, 96% of the city’s 70,685 homeless were sheltered.

Why the stark difference?

The answer is simple: As much money as L.A. spends on homelessness, policymakers have no intention of providing enough homeless shelters to put a roof over homeless people’s heads. That means it has no mechanism to increase capacity when homelessness spikes, as it has in recent years in large part due to skyrocketing rents and a low vacancy rate.

A Los Angeles Times review of federal data found that while the nation’s 402 “homeless service areas” have about three beds for every four homeless people, L.A. has only one for every four, one of the nation’s lowest ratios.

Neither the city nor county builds or operates shelters, with few exceptions. Instead, private charities raise funds to operate shelters, and contractors bid for a shrinking pie of local and federal funds.

But the cost of running publicly-funded shelters has steadily increased, due in part to the county’s requirement that they provide more services than just shelter, including case management and rapid transition into permanent housing.

Peter Lynn, LAHSA’s executive director, told the paper that there were zero bidders last year for the agency’s shelter funds.

The result? In 2017 LAHSA counted 16,600 shelter beds. But removing beds that are only available seasonally, ones not available for drop-ins, and the cash payments for motels and rent that are counted as beds, there are only about 5,000 “on a moment’s notice, year-round” shelter beds available for over 57,000 homeless people. And while the latter figure keeps growing, the former keeps shrinking. There are fewer and fewer beds available for more and more homeless people.

This has caused not only a crisis for the homeless, but for the city as a whole.

Homeless encampments and tent cities have spread beyond their usual location in Skid Row, an area of downtown that Angelenos and their government have long accepted as a homeless neighborhood.

A shocking video posted online last month showed footage of Skid Row on Christmas Day captured by a car’s dash cam. As the Daily Mail described it, “Rubbish bags piled up by the pavements and littered across streets. Tents erected in clusters where people have camped down for the night. Dozens of directionless residents congregating by the roadside and wandering into the road.”

But a drive through neighborhoods like Westlake, Hollywood, or Venice will also reveal areas — sometimes spanning entire city blocks — of shopping carts packed with clothing, rows of tents, and other makeshift shelters. Homeowners, business owners, and pedestrians in L.A. are left to deal with the various forms of disorder that inevitably follow.

A ‘FEMA-LIKE’ CRISIS

Conditions at homeless encampments have become so unsanitary that the city has installed toilets, handwashing facilities, and mobile showers at some sites. In September, county officials even declared an outbreak of Hepatitis A, a liver disease contracted through close person-to-person contact or in places contaminated with feces.

LAHSA’s 2017 homeless count showed that from the year prior, the number of tents and makeshift shelters jumped from 4,797 to 5,858 on any given night, a 22% increase. A Los Angeles Times report from June 2017 said L.A. public works crews have cleaned “16,500 homeless encampments since 2015, removing more than 3,000 tons of trash,” part of a $14 million cleanup effort.

A $14 million cleanup effort not designed to move homeless people into shelters or remove encampments, but to remove trash from the streets. Trash including litter, feces, drug paraphernalia, and weapons. Some cleanup sites are so hazardous that biowaste personnel spray the area with disinfectant.

After the crews disappear, the encampments often reappear in the same spot or set up shop nearby.

Rev. Andy Bales, CEO of the Union Rescue Mission, told me Los Angeles should view its homeless problem as a “FEMA-like, Red-Cross-like crisis” that the city needs to address by providing more emergency shelters.

The Union Rescue Mission, located in Skid Row, is Los Angeles’s oldest, and one of the country’s largest rescue missions. It provides emergency services like shelter and meals, health clinics, therapy, job training, and Christian ministry.

They house over 900 men, women, and children every night, and serve over 3,000 meals every day. Their mode of operation is to help someone change their life, then help them hold down a job, then help them find a permanent place to live.

Right outside the mission’s entrance is a small tent-city, with homeless encampments lining the sidewalks for several blocks and homeless people wandering the streets. It’s a tragic sight to behold, just blocks from the downtown financial district, L.A. Live, and Staples Center.

Bales is diplomatic in his criticism of how Los Angeles has (or has not) handled its unsheltered homeless crisis, but he’s very clear.

“It is a no-brainer that we should provide space for everybody in need,” Bales said. “Leaving someone on the street for one night could alter their lives in a very negative way.”

Leaving someone on the street for one night could alter their lives in a very negative way.

-REV. ANDY BALES, CEO OF THE UNION RESCUE MISSION

Bales proposes that the city builds or funds a sufficient number of shelters and beds to house all of Los Angeles’ unsheltered homeless people, similar to New York City’s approach.

Failure to do so, he said, will all but consign many of Los Angeles’ temporarily homeless to the ranks of the chronically homeless.

By the time a man or a woman or an entire family gets to Union Rescue Mission, Bales said, they’ve gone through hell. Skyrocketing rent or a job loss pushed them out of their apartment. They ran out of cash staying in a hotel. They wore out their welcome sleeping at a friend’s or relative’s. They slept in their car until it broke down. They stayed on the streets until it broke them.

“By the time you’ve endured any one of those issues and you’ve spent time on the streets you are going to have mental health issues,” Bales said. Many of the people experiencing homelessness, he added, become drug addicts on the streets. It’s a form of self-medication to escape the reality of their despair.

Bales says many people experiencing homelessness in L.A. would “just need a short stay somewhere, and they can pull it back together in 60 days to 180 days to even a year.” But that timeline can get longer and longer for anyone who spends one night, one week, one month, or one year on the streets.

“They are going to be tomorrow’s chronically homeless adults,” Bales said.

HOW DID THINGS GET THIS BAD?

In retrospect, Los Angeles’s crisis seems all but inevitable, given its high cost of living, its decision to not provide enough shelters, and the city’s de facto acceptance of homeless encampments.

Encampments in Skid Row and beyond only became a recurring problem in recent years, but it stems from L.A.’s 2007 settlement with the ACLU.

The civil liberties group sued L.A. for arresting people who sleep on sidewalks, which is illegal according to section 41.18(d) of L.A.’s municipal code.

After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Los Angeles’s enforcement unconstitutional, the city settled with the ACLU, agreeing to not enforce the law between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m until another 1,250 permanent housing units were constructed.

That number was reached in 2015, but the city still doesn’t enforce the sidewalk law between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., and routinely not between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. either. Even if it did, though, without enough shelters, enforcing the law would just mean turning Los Angeles’s jails into unofficial homeless shelters, which, to a certain extent, they already are.

For at least three years, there have been innumerable speeches, committee hearings, and photo-ops from the city’s and county’s politicians — the Mayor, the City Council, and the powerful County Board of Supervisors.

See Mayor Garcetti’s groundbreaking of a new publicly funded housing development that will provide 122 new units of what officials say will be permanent housing.

Or Councilman Gil Cedillo’s excursion with a local eyewitness news team to Elysian Park, home to several homeless encampments.

Or Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas’s op-ed in the Huffington Post, in which he calls on Gov. Jerry Brown to declare a state of emergency for California’s homeless, who are “living in unspeakable conditions and under peril of illness, violence and death.”

“Leaving people unsheltered is costly to taxpayers, impacting law enforcement, health services, property values, and more,” Ridley-Thomas wrote.

With the exception of LAHSA and the office of Mayor Garcetti, no city or county officials — including every member of the City Council’s Homelessness and Poverty Committee — provided an interview or comment for this story, despite repeated requests.

Tom Waldman, LAHSA’s Director of Communications, said solving the homelessness crisis is “at the top of everybody’s list.”

“I don’t know that they can do anything that they’re not currently doing,” he said of policymakers. LAHSA is the largest local provider of homeless services, and carries out the policies implemented by voters, the City Council, and the County Board of Supervisors.

“Seeing a reduction in numbers [of homeless] is our goal,” Waldman said. “We have the resources in place to … achieve the results that people are going to expect.”

Los Angeles’s homeless budget ballooned from $18 million in fiscal year 2015-2016 to $138 million in fiscal year 2016-2017 to $180 million in fiscal year 2017-2018 — a 900% increase in two years, but still a fraction of the New York Department of Homeless Services budget of $1.4 billion.

In that same period, the number of homeless on any given night in Los Angeles went from 44,359 (31,025 unsheltered) to 46,874 (34,701 unsheltered) to 57,794 (42,828) — a 30% overall increase and a 38% increase in the unsheltered population. The sheltered population actually dipped 9% from 2015 to 2016 but, encouragingly, jumped 23% from 2016 to 2017.

HOUSING FIRST

Beginning last year, a portion of Los Angeles’s homeless budget for the next decade or so will include significant amounts of funding from two ballot propositions that voters approved, both of which are centrally focused on building permanent housing and providing homeless services.

As Waldman said, describing Los Angeles’s official position, “The best way to attack homelessness is to get people into permanent housing.”

Measure H, which passed with 69% approval, authorized a 0.25% sales tax over 10 years to “fund mental health, substance abuse treatment, health care, education, job training, rental subsidies, emergency and affordable housing, transportation, outreach, prevention, and supportive services.”

The tax should raise over $350 million annually, and the funds will comply with the L.A. County Homeless Initiative’s “Approved Strategies to Combat Homelessness.” The 130-page booklet outlines 47 strategies, one of which is to “enhance the emergency shelter system.”

Measure HHH, which passed with 77% approval, authorized the city to issue $1.2 billion in bonds ($1.9 billion with interest), mostly to build about 10,000 permanent housing units for low-income and chronically homeless people.

But as city controller Ron Galperin wrote in a September report, it will take years for Measure H and Measure HHH to have their full impact, and the permanent housing “won’t in and of themselves be sufficient to house all of our residents experiencing homelessness.”

In an August interview with sports commentator Bill Simmons, Mayor Garcetti said traffic and homelessness — L.A. leads the nation in both — are his “top two priorities” and “crowns we can lose.”

But can we?

Are the large, complex, long-term programs policymakers favor, like H and HHH, the most effective way to end the unsheltered homelessness crisis?

The “housing first” philosophy that L.A. practices may be laudable, but will it be effective? This approach premises that ending homelessness begins with providing permanent housing, whether someone’s homelessness is the result of something temporary — an illness or lost job — or something chronic and recurring, like substance abuse or a mental illness.

“Housing first” is increasingly popular nationwide. It’s even the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) official policy, championed by Secretary Ben Carson.

While proponents say “housing first” has proven to be the most effective way to end chronic homelessness, the results don’t paint such a simple picture.

Even Utah, the poster state for the movement’s stated success in reducing chronic homelessness to at or near “functional zero,” has been criticized for overstating its accomplishments, in part by using very technical terms like “chronic homelessness” and “functional zero.”

The working definition of “chronically homeless,” HUD’s definition, is to be homeless for a year or more, or to have at least four homeless episodes within three years. But the chronically homeless make up a small percentage of the homeless population in Utah, and under 25% nationwide.

“Functional zero” in the context of chronic homelessness is when at least as many chronically homeless people are being placed in homes as there are new chronically homeless people. So a city can reach functional zero chronic homelessness but still have thousands of people living on the streets.

Andy Bales says housing first advocates have done a good job “marketing” Utah’s stated success story, but that the idea that the state has solved homelessness is an “absolute lie.”

“They absolutely altered the facts and they went around the country saying, ‘Look how we solved it,’” Bales said. “If you don’t believe me just go visit Salt Lake City on the streets and you will see that that was absolutely marketing.”

“Since we made the change to housing first, people around the country say we’ve reduced homelessness. I don’t see that at all,” Bales said.

He doesn’t reject “housing first,” but says it’s not the right solution for many homeless people. And it’s the wrong one when it crowds out resources for emergency shelters. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has slashed funding for homeless shelters.

But those shelters, as Bales pointed out to the Los Angeles Times, “put a roof over people’s heads while they wait for the housing to be built.”

They think, ‘Well we got a plan and that plan will eventually address it and that’s okay.’ That’s not okay.

-REV. ANDY BALES, CEO OF THE UNION RESCUE MISSION

That will take years in Los Angeles, and still won’t come close to housing the city’s unsheltered population.

The City Council is exploring a plan to temporarily house about 67 people in three trailers on city-owned downtown lots. But the trailers won’t be ready until the summer, and they will cost $2.3 million in the first year, and $1.3 million annually after that. The cost of $19,402 per person is more expensive than annual median rent in many L.A. neighborhoods.

Anna Bahr, a spokeswoman for the mayor’s office, said Los Angeles is “moving as quickly as possible to simultaneously build permanent supportive housing and create emergency shelters that house homeless Angelenos while they wait for new apartments to open up.”

“The shelters the City is focused on are specifically designed to serve as bridges to permanent supportive housing. The shelter opening on Lot 5 is supplied with intensive case management services — ranging from mental health to drug and alcohol treatment — that will help homeless Angelenos stabilize and move into permanent homes as quickly as possible,” Bahr wrote in an email to The Daily Wire.

Nevertheless, as evidenced by their actions, Los Angeles’s elected officials are not going to be able to solve the unsheltered homelessness crisis in the foreseeable future.

As the head of the L.A. County Homeless Initiative, Phil Ansell, told the Los Angeles Times in September, “The simplistic response of saying, ‘Why don’t we put 47,000 people into shelter?’ — we’re not going to do that.”

That decision, though, means that Los Angeles may spend well over $1 billion in the coming years to solve homelessness, but that the crisis of tens of thousands of people living on the streets every night may remain a crisis.

“They think, ‘Well we got a plan and that plan will eventually address it and that’s okay,’ ” Bales said. “That’s not okay.”

Iowa

Breaking the Cycle: Linn County Mother Takes Her Fight From Iowa DHS to Washington, D.C.

Published

2 days ago

November 19, 2025

Pepe Jones

Linn County, Iowa — In a case that has already raised red flags for judicial conduct, DHS contradictions, and violations of federal sibling-preservation laws, one mother is now taking her fight far beyond the courtroom.

For Kristin Mitchell, the system that once separated her from her siblings as a child is now repeating the same trauma with her son WG, who was adopted through Iowa DHS, later removed from that adoptive home after abuse, and is now facing yet another rushed adoption while Mitchell appeals at multiple levels.

“I experienced harm in foster care as a child — and now my own child is living the same trauma,” she said.

Her intervention hearing in Linn County left her with more questions than answers. DHS issued her a Family Notice legally recognizing her as a qualifying relative. But in court, the agency reversed itself, and the judge denied her motion to intervene.

Not a single safety concern was presented about her home. The State called just one witness — the same DHS worker who separated Mitchell from her siblings decades ago.

“Nobody named a single safety concern. Not one reason why my home would not be good for WG.”

When evidence later surfaced showing the presiding judge and DHS workers viewed Mitchell’s private Facebook stories during deliberation — and the judge’s account disappeared shortly after — her concerns about impartiality only grew.

So Mitchell did something few parents in child welfare cases ever do.

She took the fight to Washington, D.C.

A Journey From Linn County to Capitol Hill

During the trip, Senator Mark Finchem conducted a full sit-down interview with activist and FJAA author Francesca Amato at the B&B where the team stayed. Kristin and her son were present throughout the discussion, had the chance to ask their own questions, and captured photos with the Senator during the extended conversation.

Mitchell traveled with a coalition led by Francesca Amato, author of the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA). Their goal: secure bipartisan support for sweeping national reform.

“We came with purpose,” Mitchell said. “Our team met with 10 senators or congressmembers — some meetings went over two hours.”

She visited offices across Capitol Hill. Her youngest son made popcorn and played with tractors in Senator Joni Ernst’s office. She took photos with Arizona Senator Mark Finchem. Congressional staff, she said, treated her evidence with seriousness and gravity.

“They listened closely. They took notes. They understood that what is happening in Iowa is part of a national pattern.”

Mitchell wasn’t just representing her own experience. She brought with her 27 credible stories from Linn County families, many describing similar systemic violations: retaliation, ADA discrimination, sibling separations, and rushed removals.

“The gap between federal foster-care standards and what’s happening in Linn County is enormous,” she said.

A Moment of Precise National Timing

EXECUTIVE ORDER:
FOSTERING THE FUTURE FOR AMERICAN CHILDREN AND FAMILIES pic.twitter.com/Lk84KGmeBV
— First Lady Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) November 17, 2025

The same week Mitchell walked the halls of Congress advocating for reform, Donald Trump and Melania Trump signed a foster-care–related federal law.

“When I learned they signed that law while I was in D.C., I honestly felt it was no coincidence,” she said.

“It was incredibly validating. It gave me hope.”

She believes the synchronization signals something larger:
“Our voices are finally reaching national leaders.”

The Push for Accountability

Mitchell delivered a clear message to federal officials: the Family Justice and Accountability Act is not about creating new rights — it is about enforcing rights the system already violates.

“I told them the FJAA is about accountability,” she said. “About enforcing constitutional rights, civil rights, human rights, and ADA protections.”

She also stressed the urgency of stopping rushed adoptions.

“I have appeals at multiple levels. And yet WG is being pushed toward another adoption before my appeals are decided. That is why this cannot wait.”

Her personal history magnified her purpose.

“I lived through sibling separation as a child. I know what it does to you. No child should live that twice — and that’s what’s happening to WG.”

Washington Responds

Multiple policymakers expressed interest in reviewing her documentation, obtaining evidence, and potentially examining Iowa DHS practices.

“I want to give them the space to conduct their reviews responsibly,” she said. “But yes — interest was real.”

Even the judge in her own case acknowledged she had “strong experience to speak to legislative reform,” a comment Mitchell found telling given the legal barriers she still faces in WG’s case.

The New Federal Law Sends a Message to Iowa

Mitchell believes the new foster-care law sends a direct warning to states like Iowa:

“Pretending to comply with federal mandates is no longer enough.”

She said, “Iowa has repeatedly violated the Fostering Connections Act. My case proves it. DHS recognized me as a relative in writing — then told the court I wasn’t one.”

The new law, she argues, makes one thing clear:
“The era of unaccountable child-welfare agencies is ending.”

A Call to Other Iowa Families

As she continues her appeals — including exploring whether to overturn the original termination of rights, which the court stated was “not strictly necessary” — Mitchell is turning outward and calling on other survivors to come forward.

“If you’re in Iowa and you’ve been harmed by DHS, I want you to contact me.”

She emphasized that many families remain isolated or silenced, and she wants them to know there are safe channels and advocates ready to support them.

What Comes Next

Mitchell is now working with local lawmakers to bring Iowa into full compliance with federal law. The FJAA author is also preparing portions of the bill for a potential executive order, which could activate protections more quickly nationwide.

“Our movement is gaining momentum,” Mitchell said.

“And we’re not stopping until every child is protected from the trauma the system has allowed for far too long.”

From the courtrooms of Linn County to the halls of Congress, Mitchell’s fight now sits at the center of a growing national reckoning over child welfare, accountability, and the long-overlooked rights of siblings.

Groyper

Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson Expose ‘Israel First’ Extremists in MAGA

Published

1 week ago

November 11, 2025

Pepe Jones

In a seismic two-hour conversation that has ripped the conservative movement wide open, Tucker Carlson sat down with far-right firebrand Nick Fuentes on October 28, 2025, and what emerged wasn’t just a podcast episode—it was a reckoning. The interview, which rocketed to the fourth most-viewed video in Carlson’s post-Fox catalog, didn’t merely platform a controversial figure; it exposed the festering rift between genuine America First patriots and the neoconservative “Israel First” faction that’s been masquerading as MAGA for far too long.

Fuentes, the 27-year-old provocateur whose “Groyper” army has long challenged the GOP’s sacred cows, didn’t hold back. He eviscerated U.S. foreign policy as a “suicide pact” driven by Zionist lobbies that prioritize Tel Aviv over Toledo. Carlson, no stranger to bucking the establishment, nodded along, calling endless aid to Israel “insane” and questioning why American blood and treasure are funneled into a foreign war while our borders bleed. This wasn’t fringe talk; it was a mirror held up to the MAGA base, revealing how a vocal minority—think Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts defending Carlson amid backlash—has been hijacked by interventionists who wrap endless wars in the flag of evangelical Zionism.

The fallout was swift and savage. PBS labeled it a “rift among Republicans,” with a task force on antisemitism severing ties with Heritage over the scandal. NPR chronicled how isolationism and creeping antisemitism are eroding conservative support for Israel, once a bedrock of the movement. Even within MAGA, the knives came out: Ted Cruz and Josh Hammer decried Carlson’s platforming as normalizing extremism, while Fuentes’ defenders accused the critics of being “Zionist agents.”

At its core, this interview peeled back the layers of a movement Trump built on “America First”—no more forever wars, no more blank checks for allies. Yet, as Fuentes hammered home, neocons like those at the Daily Wire have turned MAGA into a Trojan horse for Israeli interests. Carlson’s agreement that “neoconservative policies harm America” struck a nerve because it’s true: billions in aid, vetoes at the UN, and now whispers of U.S. troops in Gaza—all while veterans sleep on streets and fentanyl floods our cities.

This isn’t about hate—it’s about priorities. Trump won by promising to drain the swamp, not refill it with Tel Aviv lobbyists. The Fuentes interview has forced MAGA to choose: Do we stand for American workers, secure borders, and fiscal sanity, or do we bow to foreign gods? Carlson and Fuentes may not be saints, but they’ve done the movement a favor by naming the elephant in the room. The “Israel First” crowd’s days of puppeteering from the shadows are numbered. America First isn’t negotiable—it’s the soul of MAGA. And it’s roaring back.

Iowa

Rob Sand BUSTS Iowa Police Chief – “Got Um”

Published

2 weeks ago

November 10, 2025

Pepe Jones

In the rolling farmlands of central Iowa, where community trust is the glue holding small towns together, a routine financial review has exposed a web of overpayments and oversight lapses that cost taxpayers nearly $90,000. On Thursday, November 6, Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand released a scathing special investigation into the City of Baxter, revealing improper disbursements tied to three former officials—including William Daggett, who resigned that same morning as Mitchellville’s police chief. What began as whispers of padded timesheets in a town of just 1,000 residents has rippled outward, forcing a leadership vacuum in neighboring Mitchellville and igniting debates on accountability in rural governance.

Daggett’s swift exit—submitted hours after the report dropped—underscores the fragility of public service in Iowa’s heartland. Hired by Mitchellville in March 2024 after leaving Baxter amid internal scrutiny, the 20-year law enforcement veteran now faces not just reputational ruin but potential criminal probes. As Jasper County authorities and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office review the findings, this scandal serves as a cautionary tale: In places where officials wear multiple hats, the line between diligence and deceit can blur with devastating consequences.

The Unraveling in Baxter: A New Council’s Wake-Up Call

It was a crisp January morning in 2024 when Baxter’s freshly elected city council, buoyed by a wave of local change, cracked open the ledgers of their modest municipal operation. The town, nestled in Jasper County with its single stoplight and volunteer fire department, had long operated on faith in its core team: Police Chief William Daggett, who juggled patrols with a side gig in Van Meter; City Clerk Katie Wilson, the gatekeeper of the books; and EMS Coordinator Randi Gliem, coordinating life-saving responses. But as the new officials pored over payroll stubs and credit card statements, the numbers didn’t add up—timesheets bloated with hours unverified by dispatch logs, vacation payouts exceeding earned balances, and Visa charges for items that vanished from city inventories.

By early February, an internal probe had escalated into a full-blown crisis. Gliem resigned on the 5th, citing personal reasons but skipping a pivotal review meeting. Ten days later, Wilson and Daggett followed, their departures leaving Baxter’s public safety apparatus in disarray. The council, acting on mounting suspicions, fired off a “qualifying request” to Sand’s office—a taxpayer-funded mechanism designed to unearth fiscal foul play. What they uncovered wasn’t just sloppy bookkeeping; it was a pattern of excess that drained public coffers, from overlapping shifts that let Daggett collect dual paychecks to undocumented swipes at big-box stores. As one anonymous council member told local reporters, “We trusted them to protect us, not pick our pockets.”

Daggett’s Quick Pivot: Hope in Mitchellville Turns Sour

Undeterred by the Baxter fallout, Daggett polished his resume and landed the chief’s role in Mitchellville by March 4—a town of 2,300 with ambitions to bolster its force amid growing suburban sprawl from Des Moines. Elected officials there saw a seasoned operator: Daggett’s bio touted decades on the beat, from traffic stops to crisis negotiations. Yet red flags lingered. Mitchellville’s human resources team, spotting echoes of Baxter’s payroll puzzles in Daggett’s timesheets, quietly requested their own state audit in the spring. “We hire for integrity,” Mayor Scott Meeker said in a statement Friday, “and when questions arise, we act decisively.”

The move proved prescient. As Sand’s team dug into Baxter’s records—cross-referencing timesheets against Jasper County Sheriff’s call-in logs and employment overlaps—the discrepancies piled up. Daggett’s claimed full shifts often coincided with zero check-ins, suggesting ghost hours billed while he worked elsewhere. By summer, whispers in Mitchellville’s city hall grew louder, with staffers trading notes on unapproved comp time accruals. The audit’s release on Thursday morning hit like a siren: Daggett’s resignation letter arrived before noon, accepted provisionally by Meeker pending a council vote next week. In its wake, the department’s 12 officers are left leaderless, with a veteran sergeant stepping in as interim chief.

Audit Deep Dive: The Numbers That Don’t Lie

Sand’s 40-page report, spanning July 2021 to February 2024, paints a damning portrait of lax controls in Baxter’s $1.2 million annual budget. At the epicenter: $51,275.62 in overpayments to Daggett alone, broken down into excess wages ($41,944.77 from 36 unverified pay periods), comp time payouts ($6,667.33 for 161 ineligible hours), and duplicate billing ($2,663.52 for 65 hours claimed across two full-time jobs). Wilson netted $3,509.55 in improper comp time, inflated by mathematical errors and leave-period earnings, while Gliem pocketed $1,461.09 via overtime misclassifications and phantom EMS shifts. Add $1,776.99 in volunteer payroll irregularities, and payroll alone siphoned $58,023 from the till.

Beyond wages, the probe flagged $11,294.57 in unsupported expenditures—credit card splurges at Amazon and Target without receipts, totaling $5,932.32, plus vendor checks for groceries and gear that never reached city shelves. Another $15,035.90 went to questionable vendors, including $4,050 overpaid to a uncertified water operator. Late fees tacked on $129.81, and utility bungles left $3,814.88 uncollected in penalties and deposits. “These weren’t isolated slips,” Sand said at a Des Moines presser. “They point to systemic failures—no reviews, no segregation of duties, just trust without verification.” The auditor referred the file to prosecutors, hinting at theft or forgery charges under Iowa Code.

Legal Implications for the Individuals Involved

By Billy D. Frazier IV – Senior Judicial Legal Analyst (Iowa / National)

Auditor’s Findings and Context (Opinion): The Baxter audit exposes a breach of fiduciary duty—officials mishandled public funds by failing to verify hours and purchases. Under Iowa Code § 721.2(5), that could amount to “Misconduct in Office.” It shows how trust alone cannot replace documented accountability in small-town government. Layman’s terms: They were supposed to take care of taxpayers’ money, but they didn’t double-check what was being spent. That’s not just sloppy—it could be a crime when public cash is handled carelessly.

The Numbers That Don’t Lie (Opinion): With $51,275.62 in overpayments to one officer, the losses exceed felony thresholds under Iowa theft statutes if intent is proven. Citizens are owed restitution and deterrence; repayment alone cannot close the case. Layman’s terms: That’s a lot of money—enough to count as a felony if he meant to do it. Paying it back isn’t the same as facing justice; taxpayers deserve both accountability and prevention.

Fallout and Voices: Resignation, Reckoning, and Repercussions

The shockwaves reached Mitchellville’s council chambers by evening, where members huddled to appoint an interim and launch a national search for Daggett’s replacement. “This is a blow, but we’re committed to transparency,” Meeker told KCCI, emphasizing the city’s parallel audit request as proactive governance. Daggett, reached briefly outside his home, declined comment, but sources close to him say he’s cooperating fully and disputes the audit’s characterizations as “overreach on incomplete logs.”

Sand, a Democrat wrapping up his term amid re-election buzz, used the podium to rally local watchdogs. “Audits like this happen because someone speaks up,” he urged, noting the report’s reliance on the council’s tip. “Public trust is the real currency here—lose it, and reputations follow.” Indeed, the scandal has locals buzzing: Baxter’s Facebook groups brim with calls for repayment plans, while Mitchellville residents petition for ethics training. No charges have landed yet, but the shadow looms large over the ex-officials’ futures.

Lessons for Iowa’s Heartland: Beyond Baxter’s Borders

This isn’t Baxter’s anomaly; it’s a symptom of strains in Iowa’s 900-plus municipalities, where budgets scrape by on property taxes and part-time clerks double as bookkeepers. The report lambasts absent safeguards—no monthly bank reviews, no council sign-offs on payroll—echoing audits in Eldora and Correctionville that flushed out similar grift. Statewide, Sand’s office fields 50 such requests yearly, up 20% since 2020, as post-pandemic hiring booms expose weak spots.

Yet hope flickers in reform pushes: Bills in the Iowa Legislature aim to mandate annual internal audits for towns under 5,000 residents, with whistleblower bounties for tips leading to recoveries. “It’s about empowering the everyday Iowan,” says Sen. Rob Hogg, a Cedar Rapids Democrat sponsoring one measure. For now, Baxter’s council is overhauling policies—segregating duties, digitizing receipts—while Mitchellville eyes body cams for fiscal accountability, a cheeky nod to policing its own books.

Broader Judicial and National Perspectives

By Billy D. Frazier IV – Senior Judicial Legal Analyst (Iowa / National)

Daggett’s Resignation and Broader Impact (Opinion): Resigning the same day the audit dropped looks like consciousness of guilt—a signal he knew trouble was coming. Mitchellville may face exposure for negligent hiring if it ignored Baxter’s red flags, since public employers must vet applicants who handle taxpayer funds. Layman’s terms: Quitting right after the report makes it look like he knew he’d been caught. The next town that hired him might get in trouble too for not checking his background first.

Audit Corroboration and Resignation (Opinion): Cross-checking Baxter payrolls with Sheriff dispatch logs proved dual-employment conflicts and potential conversion of public funds. Daggett’s resignation before termination could be viewed as an attempt to preserve benefits or limit accountability. Layman’s terms: The audit showed he was clocked in two places at once—getting double-paid. Stepping down early might help him keep his pension, but it doesn’t erase what happened.

Outlook: Rebuilding Trust, One Ledger at a Time

As November’s chill settles over Iowa’s prairies, Baxter and Mitchellville stand at a crossroads. The cities could recoup some losses—Daggett already repaid $123.44 for minor items—but full restitution hinges on prosecutors’ grit. For Daggett, a return to private security seems likely; for Wilson and Gliem, quieter paths await. Sand’s report ends with a clarion call: “Fiduciary duty isn’t optional—it’s the oath of office.”

In the end, this saga reminds us that in America’s small towns, the badge of public service weighs heaviest when balanced against the ledger. As Baxter’s new clerk logs her first unblemished payroll, and Mitchellville’s interim chief radios in for duty, one truth endures: Accountability isn’t just good policy—it’s the patrol car keeping watch over us all.

*Disclaimer: The views expressed by Billy D. Frazier IV, Senior Judicial Legal Analyst (Pro Se), are for educational and public advocacy purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or attorney services. Mr. Frazier is not a licensed attorney and acts solely as a pro se litigant and public legal educator.*