Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Forensic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners direct staff to seek independent forensic audit after public allegations of waste
Summary
After public comments alleging "waste, fraud and abuse," commissioners voted to begin a sealed RFP process for an independent forensic audit covering transactions commissioners identify, while debating scope and an independent point of contact.
Nick Graham of Uniontown urged the board to "vote tonight to put out an RFP for an independent forensic audit of payroll to be conducted by a vetted firm with no previous connections to this county," saying the public should receive the final report online when complete. Commissioner Greg Mley responded by moving that the county engage an independent firm to perform a forensic audit of commissioner‑selected transactions, including cash receipts and disbursements, procurement irregularities, grant compliance, payroll/timekeeping irregularities and other areas of concern.
Discussion centered on ensuring credibility and independence. The sheriff said any allegation of criminal activity would be referred to law enforcement and that the sheriff's office would not lead any audit investigation, but could assist by directing appropriate investigative resources. Commissioners debated who should be the formal point of contact for the RFP; several raised concerns that using internal staff or contractors with county ties could undercut perceived independence. Commissioner Mley said the goal was a sealed, competitive procurement so qualified audit firms could bid.
The board agreed to move the procurement process forward (the motion for an independent forensic audit advanced in the meeting). Commissioners asked the sheriff to identify a neutral, acceptable point of contact for bid communications so proposers do not contact commissioners or staff directly; the sheriff said he would consult potential partners about a suitable contact. The county attorney and procurement staff were discussed as potential administrative resources, but several commissioners and members of the public urged an outside control on communications to preserve impartiality.
The motion includes a scope broad enough to cover irregularities in receipts/disbursements, vendor payments and procurement, grant allowability, and payroll/timekeeping. Commissioners said they will finalize the precise scope and point‑of‑contact before releasing the sealed RFP. The sheriff reiterated that criminal referrals will follow standard law‑enforcement procedures if audit work uncovers potential crimes. Next steps: finalize the RFP language, designate an independent point of contact, and publish the sealed solicitation.
