Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Government Audits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Russell County board approves countywide forensic audit RFP; two supervisors abstain

6440062 · September 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Russell County Board of Supervisors voted to release a request for proposals for a countywide forensic audit after debate about timing and cost. Two supervisors abstained; one explained the abstention as a protest of the earlier tax vote and its linkage to the audit requirement.

The Russell County Board of Supervisors voted Wednesday to issue a request for proposals for a countywide forensic audit, a measure the board said was tied to prior budget actions. The motion passed after discussion about timing, cost and how a completed audit might affect the county's tax-rate-setting process; two supervisors registered abstentions.

The board's motion directs staff to publish an RFP for a countywide forensic audit with the language agreed by supervisors and incorporates edits circulated to members before the meeting. County staff said the RFP as presented at the meeting reflected those edits.

During debate, one supervisor asked whether the audit's final report could be delivered before the board sets the tax rate in April, suggesting a March 31 delivery might allow the board to consider audit findings before adopting the rate. County staff said the RFP's schedule provides a six-month window for the auditor and that timeline constraints could limit earlier delivery.

Two supervisors abstained when the board voted. One supervisor, Miss Wallace, later explained her abstention as a protest rooted in the board's June budget vote: she said she opposed the tax rate adopted in June and objected to coupling that rate with an audit requirement. She characterized her abstention as a public protest of both the rate and the unspecified future costs of the audit.

Board members also discussed funding for the audit and asked the county administration to prioritize how the county will pay for the work when the audit procurement committee meets. The motion passed with the abstentions recorded; the board did not identify specific dollar amounts for the audit at the meeting.

The board's action begins a procurement process; a successful RFP would contract an external auditor to perform the forensic audit and deliver a report to the board consistent with the RFP schedule.