Former Prosecutor Rodney Cummings’ ideas about how to use the John L. Neal money are reminiscent of a December 1998 Christmas party thrown for his staff. Cummings tried to have the staff’s party — which cost $1,236 — paid for with incentive funds received for the collection of child support payments.

In the end, the auditor turned his request down, and Cummings paid for the party out-of-pocket. The auditor’s decision was the correct one.

Taxpayer money or money collected during criminal investigations — no matter what fund it goes into — should be carefully watched over.

We’re not talking about a few dollars, but millions. In Neal’s home alone, investigators seized roughly $1.7 million, and police have said they discovered nearly $2 million in various bank accounts, not taking into account the number of taverns, vehicles and various other property seized in September in the raids. J. Gregory Garrison, the attorney representing the state in the civil case, could end up receiving 30 percent of all the assets seized — 40 percent if he wins the case— because of a contract he signed while Cummings was in office.

Cummings claims the other 60-70 percent would be placed in the prosecutor’s law enforcement fund and requests for its use would be made to the Madison County Council. “You can do whatever you want with it,” he said.

This is not a good move. Monies seized should not go into a free-for-all fund. The money currently in that fund is used for equipment and activities. Activities? That scares us into thinking about that Christmas party again.

Law says the money seized in the case will first be used to reimburse costs of the criminal investigation and attorney fees. The remainder is supposed to go into the state’s school fund to pay for education.

But the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act messes that all up, and it is unclear what will actually happen with the money.

University of Notre Dame law professor Jimmy Gurule, a former undersecretary for the U.S. Department of Treasury and co-author of a book on the law of asset forfeiture, states: “Forfeiture money shouldn’t be money in a cookie jar that the prosecutor divvies up as he sees fit. I’m uncomfortable with that. I don’t see that in the statute.”

Gurule said the money will go into the state treasury. The statute reads “ ... the court shall ... order the property forfeited to the state and specify the manner of disposition of the property, including the manner of the disposition if the property is not transferable for value.”

We hope that, when the Neal case ends and if the state wins, a judge looks at this windfall of money and makes the right decision: to place the money in the state treasury. Anything else would look improper and give the impression that the seizure was out of the prosecutor office’s own interest and not the state’s.