Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Financial Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises questions about Shelby County treasurer reports and $74,030 severance
Summary
At the June 11 Shelby County Board meeting, Mr. Cole said monthly balance reports from 2021–2026 contain unexplained discrepancies and questioned a $74,030 severance payment to an assistant state's attorney; he also raised concerns about low investment yields and where the treasurer's authority originates.
Mr. Cole urged the Shelby County Board to examine the county treasurer’s reporting and certain department actions, saying the monthly balance reports he reviewed from 2021 through March 2026 often do not reconcile and lack basic headings and totals.
“I did a lot of searching ... there were very few times that the ending balance for a month match the beginning the balance of the next month,” Mr. Cole told the board during public comment, citing mismatches that in some months were tens of thousands of dollars. He said many recent balance reports lacked beginning and ending balances, a preparer’s name, totals and the names of financial institutions where funds are held, leaving the reports unreconcilable.
Mr. Cole also raised questions about the county’s investment returns and a large severance payment. He said April’s reports showed roughly $12 million in total funds earning “approximately 1%,” and suggested the county could obtain higher rates elsewhere. He asked, “Where did our county treasurer reserve her authority?” in reference to a series of actions he attributed to the treasurer, including an apparent contract to sell the county farm, instructions to departments to use time clocks and a $74,030 payment to an assistant state’s attorney described as severance.
Mr. Cole framed his remarks as concerns rather than formal accusations: “I’m not accusing anyone of anything, but I don’t understand some of it,” he said, and recommended the board seek documentation that explains account reconciliations, authorization for contracts, and the legal basis for severance payments.
Why it matters: The public comment put questions about financial transparency and use of county funds directly to the board. The meeting record does not include a departmental response or documentation that resolves Mr. Cole’s specific allegations; the board did not take immediate action on these questions at the meeting.
The board proceeded with its agenda after public comment; Mr. Cole’s request for clearer reconciliations and documentation remains on the record.
