Lapeer commissioners press for fiscal oversight after dispute with prosecutor; no forensic audit ordered
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners debated a request to audit the elected prosecutor’s office after the prosecutor challenged administrator oversight of expenditures; commissioners voiced concerns but stopped short of ordering a forensic audit, agreeing instead to maintain administrative review and further transparency.
Commissioner McMahon urged the Lapeer County Board of Commissioners to pursue an audit of the prosecutor’s office, saying commissioners and taxpayers deserve transparency about how the office spends its budget. “I just think that we owe it to our constituents, to taxpayers to do an audit and find out what’s going on there, of that department,” McMahon said during the discussion.
McMahon told the board the prosecutor had presented a legal opinion arguing the elected office did not require direct approval from the county administrator/controller for certain expenditures and had sought to hire outside counsel as a “second opinion” at county expense. McMahon said the language the prosecutor drafted for a millage created “gray area” and raised questions about the prosecutor’s interpretation of authority.
Other commissioners pushed back on the idea of a special forensic audit. “I am not in favor of getting another opinion from — we had our corporate counsel look at it. I think we’re good,” Commissioner Zender said, adding that the county’s routine independent audit provides oversight of county finances. Commissioner Kemp and others warned that differences of opinion do not, by themselves, indicate misuse or concealment of funds.
County Administrator Moses Sanzo (name transcribed as provided to the board) said he and the prosecutor had discussed the matter and disagreed on the interpretation of approval authority, but that the administrator’s role includes fiscal oversight and quality control over expenditures. The board did not vote to commission a forensic audit; instead commissioners said they expect continued administrator review of larger expenditures and emphasized the board’s role as the budgeting entity.
The discussion concluded without a formal vote on a special audit. Commissioners said the county’s annual independent audit remains in place, and that additional review would be considered only if new evidence or anomalies were identified.
The board’s debate followed a request earlier in the meeting by a commissioner to add “auditing the prosecutor’s office” to the agenda; that addition was carried and discussed later in the meeting but did not lead to a new forensic review.
