Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Finance Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Claiborne supervisors approve payroll but one member cites unauthorized payments, asks for state audit attention
Summary
At the May 5 Claiborne County Board of Supervisors meeting the board approved the April 2025 payroll and the claims docket despite a publicized nay vote from one supervisor who raised concerns about alleged payments issued without board approval and called for state auditor involvement.
The Claiborne County Board of Supervisors approved the April 2025 payroll and the claims docket at its May 5 meeting, while one supervisor publicly registered a continuing objection and urged state review of county payments.
The lone dissent came during discussion of the claims and payroll dockets. A supervisor who identified ongoing concerns said she would “not be part of any corruption” and said “payments being issued out to individuals that the board didn't approve” had motivated her continued nay votes. She also said she had notified the attorney general’s office and “the state auditor’s office.”
The board voted to carry the motions. A motion to approve the April 2025 payroll was made by Supervisor Hudson and seconded by Supervisor Dawson; the chair called the vote and the motion carried. The transcript records the payroll approval immediately after the dissenting remarks.
County staff and other supervisors responded during debate by reiterating standard process requirements for issuing checks and for board approval of claims; the dissenting supervisor said alleged discrepancies in payroll and overtime pay required the state auditor’s attention. The transcript records her remark that she began voting against the claim docket after receiving information from the attorney general’s office and the state auditor’s office.
No formal referral to the state auditor or a special audit motion appears in the meeting record; the transcript shows the board proceeded to vote on the payroll and claims items during the same session. The record does not show a staff report with underlying documentation of the specific payments the supervisor contested, nor does it include a formal county response or an administrative finding resolving the supervisor’s allegation.
Board decisions: the payroll docket and claims docket were approved at the May 5 meeting; the approval motions carried. The transcript does not record an itemized vote tally by name other than the recorded nay from the supervisor who spoke.
The supervisor’s remarks and references to outside oversight offices remain on the record; the county did not take a formal recorded step at this meeting to request an external audit or to pause payments pending review. The transcript does not identify the specific vendor payments or payroll checks the supervisor cited, and those details were not provided during the meeting.
