Commissioners cite procurement failures, discover unapproved account as forensic audit proceeds

A forensic audit and public questions over past purchases pushed Curry County commissioners on April 21 to pledge further investigation into procurement practices after residents and a former commissioner raised concerns about ammunition procured for the sheriff's office.

The board said auditors and staff have identified at least one county account that was established without formal Board approval and which reportedly held about $1.8 million, and they flagged purchases of ammunition in December 2020 that were not routed through required procurement approvals.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the findings raise questions about adherence to county procurement policy, potential patronage, and whether discounted law‑enforcement pricing and federal excise‑tax exemptions were used improperly. The issues prompted calls for fuller review to protect public trust and county finances.

Commissioners described the pattern to the public after multiple speakers raised the ammunition matter during the meeting's public‑comment period. In discussion the board said Dooley Enterprises — the vendor named in county records — sells ammunition at a law‑enforcement rate and requires a federal excise tax exemption certificate for discounts. "Dooley's requires a federal excise exemption certificate by anyone who would be purchasing ammunition," a commissioner said in response to public comment. The board said those certificates were only completed for the Curry County Sheriff's Office as an agency and not for the individual purchases questioned.

Former Commissioner Christopher Pash, who spoke during public comment, said donations historically funded some sheriff's‑office equipment such as the canine unit and that he remembered a donated account being used for certain purchases. "I recall that account as donations into the sheriff's department from private citizens," Pash said.

But county officials contrasted past practice with legal procurement requirements. The board noted that purchases over $10,000 require formal Board approval and said the December 2020 transactions did not carry that sign‑off. Officials also said some of the ammunition purchased in 2020 was for calibers the sheriff's office had since moved away from (the office switched from .40 S&W to 9mm in 2017), raising questions about whether some lots were for personal use rather than agency duty use.

No formal disciplinary or criminal determinations were announced at the meeting. Commissioners said the county's forensic audit and staff follow‑up would continue and that any policy violations identified will be addressed. The board affirmed its commitment to transparency: "There are a few things that need to be looked into and investigated, fully investigated," one commissioner said.

What happens next: Commissioners said findings from the forensic audit will be shared as allowed by law and that staff will continue to map procurement controls, verify any restricted or donor funds, and ensure policies match actual practice. The county also signaled it will review whether to revise procurement training and internal controls to prevent recurrence.

Reported motions and votes: During the meeting the board approved routine agenda and consent items, and it voted to issue an RFP to repair the fairgrounds' livestock pavilion (see separate article). No vote on the forensic audit or law enforcement purchases occurred at the session.

Context and limits: Statements in this article are drawn from public remarks at the April 21 meeting; allegations described by speakers have not been adjudicated by the county or a court. The county emphasized that prior practices do not exempt matters from review: "Just because it may have been normalized past practice does not make it acceptable," a commissioner said.