Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Grant Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee directs finance review of opioid-grant contracts after accounting questions
Summary
Sumner County legislative committee moved to have the finance department prepare a summary internal review of opioid-grant contracts and submit it for audit, after members flagged about $12,550 unaccounted for and questioned whether grant staff should audit recipients.
Chairman opened discussion of county opioid-grant contracts, citing contract language that allows the county to audit recipients and urging verification that invoices reflect services provided. "It says that allows the county board ... may audit the recipients to verify compliance with this agreement," the Chairman said.
The Chairman said roughly $12,550 — "roughly half of the contract's award" — remained unaccounted for and used a locksmith charge negotiated from $100 to $50 as an example that needs verification. He also raised concerns that patient names and records could be mixed with another provider unless account structures are segregated.
To avoid perceived conflicts and turnover, the Chairman proposed that a finance department employee — not the opioid grant writer — conduct the internal review. "If we could suspend the rules, he could probably shed more light on that for you," the Chairman said when seeking grant-program input; an objection prevented that testimony during the meeting.
Commissioners asked whether the internal review required certified auditors or CPAs. Staff replied the planned internal review would not require external certifications; state reporting remains annual, while committee members suggested twice-yearly internal reviews as a reasonable cadence.
On the motion floor, the committee moved that the finance department prepare a summary review ("more than cursory") of the opioid contracts and submit it to internal audit; a subsequent amendment assigned the financial management committee to oversee the review. The record does not name the mover or seconder, nor does it contain a recorded vote tally or final outcome in the transcript.
The Chairman said the finance review should confirm invoices, ensure funds were spent as contracted, and that recipients maintain appropriate account segregation. The committee did not receive the grant administrator's explanations at this meeting; the Chairman asked staff to bring clarifying documentation and to ensure the finance or audit committee performs the follow-up.
Next steps: staff were directed to arrange the finance summary and route it to internal audit/financial management committee for review. The transcript does not record a formal vote outcome or an implementation timeline beyond the committee discussion.
