Citizen Portal

Nueces County auditor seeks contracted Workday cleanup; commission ratifies contract after debate

Nueces County Commissioner’s Court · January 15, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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 county auditor asked the court to ratify a professional services agreement to get Workday accounting records cleaned and reconciled; the court approved the ratification in a 3–2 vote after commissioners questioned history and oversight.

Nueces County’s auditor told the commissioner's court the county needs focused, expert help to correct and reconcile Workday accounting records and meet upcoming audit and grant deadlines. The auditor said prior vendor work fell short of the county’s timeline and that internal staff turnover left the office without the institutional knowledge needed to parse transactions placed in a consolidated Workday account.

"We determined that the county has had an elevated fraud risk during our review period," a public commenter who referenced the forensic audit said earlier in the meeting. Auditor (Speaker 13) told the court that outside consultants had been unable to finish by the county’s deadlines and that he had arranged narrowly scoped assistance from a former county employee with relevant Workday experience to speed the cleanup.

Commissioners debated the risks of hiring someone connected to prior accounting issues. One commissioner said he had "stayed my ground" concerning past problems but acknowledged the current auditor had presented a plan. Another commissioner cited no known criminal charges against the former employee and expressed trust in the auditor’s judgment.

A motion to ratify the judge-signed professional services contract was moved and seconded. The court approved the ratification with three votes in favor and two opposed.

The auditor said the work is intended to produce corrected, department-level reporting and to meet independent-audit and grant-submission deadlines; commissioners asked that the work proceed under the auditor’s supervision and that updates be returned to the court.

No detailed contract dollar amount was read into the public record during the discussion; the auditor described the arrangement as narrowly scoped and under his direct supervision.