Commissioners decline action after auditor does not present DA's $804 asset-forfeiture request

Cooke County Commissioners on an item listed as "Item 15" discussed and then took no action on a District Attorney's Office request to use asset-forfeiture funds to pay court reporter Holly Oakley $804 for a requested reporter's record.

The District Attorney's Office representative said the office had an invoice from Holly Oakley and sought permission to pay the $804 out of the forfeiture fund. The representative said, "We signed it" and that the auditor, Sharon Giffin, had issued a purchase order initially but later the auditor would not approve payment after the invoice arrived at the auditor's office. The DA's Office representative added, "We just need it to be approved. The purchase order has already been signed, and as soon as it's approved by this Commissioner's Court, I think we can submit to the treasurer and a check can be issued in the normal course."

The request prompted extended discussion among the commissioners and the county auditor about the applicable procurement rules and the timing of requisitions and purchase orders. The DA's Office cited several Attorney General opinions (1971, 1977 and 1993) and argued those opinions permit payment for services after delivery provided the auditor can audit the account. The DA's Office argued the cost should come from an available forfeiture balance and said, "I think we've got $55,000 that we could use."

County Auditor Sharon Giffin (referred to in the discussion as the auditor) explained the auditor's office must examine and approve claims before payment and that the auditor did not forward the claim to the court for approval. Multiple commissioners noted the auditor does not report to the Commissioners Court and said they did not have authority to order the auditor to present the claim. At one point a commissioner summarized the legal tension: "The auditor doesn't work for us... we don't have the authority as judge and commissioners to tell the auditor what to do." Another commissioner said the court could pursue further legal remedies if necessary.

After discussion the court publicly recorded "Item number 15 is no action." The DA's Office said it would consider re-submitting the claim or seeking additional legal guidance, including a possible Attorney General opinion or further legal steps.

Why it matters: County auditors serve as a check on disbursements; a disagreement about whether a requisition must precede a delivered service can delay payment to vendors and create potential legal exposure. The DA's Office pushed that the matter involved a service (a reporter's record) rather than supplies and therefore should be treated under different requisition timing rules, while the auditor relied on the county policy and the requirement that claims be presented in time to be examined and approved.

Next steps noted in court: no formal vote to pay the invoice; the DA's Office may re-submit the claim for a future docket or pursue further legal advice.