Baker County commissioners and clerk spar as delayed audits trigger state sanctions threat

Baker County commissioners confronted a months‑long audit delay and a dispute with the Clerk of Court on April 1, after county officials said the county has not submitted its 2022–2023 audited financial statements on time and received a formal warning from state authorities.

At the start of the meeting Commissioner John Mobley read a March 31 letter from Stacy D. Harvey, Clerk of Court and Comptroller, that said the clerk would not permit other offices to perform the clerk’s constitutional finance and minute‑keeping duties and warned the board the clerk might seek court relief if county and clerk functions were not “brought in line with the clear requirements of our state constitution and laws.” The letter also demanded “control over the finance system” be delivered to the clerk’s office and said the clerk would no longer permit anyone else to keep the board’s minutes.

The board’s auditor liaison told commissioners that James Moore & Co. is testing federal (FEMA) items and expects to submit draft audited financial statements by the week of April 7; the firm also expects to deliver adjusting journal entries for the county to import into the county accounting system the same week. The county’s representative on the call said those steps are necessary before the auditor can complete the 2023 audit and warned that the state’s Joint Legislative Auditing Committee (JLAC) has already begun the process that could lead to withheld state funds if the county remains noncompliant.

Why it matters: Delinquent audits can trigger loss of state and federal funds and weaken confidence among grantors and bondholders. Commissioners said the county’s late filings already produced sanctions for prior years and threatened nonrecoverable forfeitures if the situation persists.

What commissioners said: Commissioner Mobley (read portions of the clerk’s letter into the record and) told the board he had contacted the auditors directly to learn status updates because “the auditor … works for the Board of County Commissioners” and it is the board’s responsibility to work with auditors. Mobley said James Moore expected drafts by the week of April 7.

Clerk’s letter: The letter from Stacy D. Harvey said the clerk’s office is the statutorily required clerk and comptroller and therefore “shall keep the minutes and accounts” and perform other duties “as the board may direct.” The letter said the clerk will not authorize any other office to oversee finance and demanded the board transfer control of finance systems to the clerk’s office.

Board response and next steps: Commissioners sharply disputed the clerk’s characterization that the clerk’s office bore no responsibility for the audit delays. Several commissioners said they had not been informed earlier that audits were late and that the county has incurred additional consulting costs to help the auditors finish the work. Board members asked staff to press the auditor for final deliverables, to quantify consulting costs incurred so far, and to report back at the next meeting. Commissioners also discussed a forensic audit once the current audits are finished.

What the auditors told the county: James Moore’s staff said they were testing single‑audit (FEMA) items and expected to submit adjusting journal entries to be imported into the county General Ledger (ADG) by the week of April 7. They gave a May 1 date for receiving supporting documentation needed to allow completion of the 2024 audit in time for June‑30 reporting; the auditors warned they could not promise a June 30 completion without receiving full support by May 1.

Public‑fund risks: Commissioners emphasized that JLAC’s notice could lead to withholding or even permanent forfeiture of some state revenues if compliance is not met quickly. Staff indicated JLAC had set a start date of May 2 for official withholding action if the county remained noncompliant.

Ending: Commissioners said they will continue to press the auditor and county staff for a timetable and cost accounting, and several members said they would pursue a forensic review once the current audits are delivered so the county can document causes and fix process gaps.