Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Collin County court presses tax assessor-collector on cash-handling policy; auditor cites statutory authority
Summary
Commissioners probed why the tax assessor-collector's office is not following the county auditor's cash-handling procedures, with the auditor citing Local Government Code §113.064 and the tax assessor citing staffing constraints and secured storage; the court urged the two offices to reconcile differences but accepted the audit report.
Commissioners on the Collin County court questioned Tax Assessor-Collector Scott Griggs about cash-handling practices after the auditor's office flagged compliance issues in a quarterly report.
"At no point did I say that I was not going to follow the auditors' policy," Griggs told the court, describing operational changes he said secured checks and reduced unsecured mail. "I just can't open mail, process it, restrictively endorse, and get it to the bank on the same day as receipt" because of staffing and volume.
County Auditor Cohen (self-identified on the record) told the court the Local Government Code gives the auditor authority to prescribe the county's accounting system and internal controls, citing Section 113.064 and related provisions that require receipting, logging, endorsing and immediate securing or deposit of checks upon recognition.
Griggs said the tax office receives thousands of items during peak periods, sometimes whole boxes containing hundreds of checks; he described operational workarounds including secured storage in fireproof cabinets and a vault, use of comp time, and off-site processing hubs. He said he requested nine additional desk positions in the next budget cycle and estimated that meeting the auditor's same-day deposit expectation at peak would require far more staff, as many as 50 in his estimate for peak capacity.
Commissioners asked whether lag times are growing; Griggs said processing delays now are relatively steady and that he has reduced some backlogs by hiring and restructuring work shifts. Commissioners expressed concern that an elected official's refusal to follow adopted policies could create liability; the auditor said the policies he prescribes are backed by attorney-general opinions and case law.
The court urged the auditor and the tax assessor-collector to meet and resolve operational conflicts so the issue does not repeatedly return to the public agenda. Despite the disagreement, the court voted to accept the compliance audit report as presented.
The court and staff agreed to pursue a follow-up meeting to seek clarity on whether policy or operations must change and to obtain legal guidance on how county policy and the tax office's internal procedures should align.
