Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Austin council rejects one audit contractor, approves short-term help from local former finance official
Summary
After weeks of debate about audit assistance for the city’s 2025 audit, the Austin City Council declined an outside contractor recommended by auditors and voted 4-1 to seek temporary help from former local finance official Tom Dankert to provide Austin‑specific institutional knowledge.
The Austin City Council voted on June 15, 2026, to decline a proposed independent contractor agreement for temporary audit assistance and instead directed staff to engage former local finance official Tom Dankert to support the city’s 2025 audit.
Council members debated two options on the meeting agenda. One was a contract proposed for Bradley (Brad) Carlton, recommended by the city’s auditors at CliftonLarsonAllen, at a rate of $175 per hour for up to 60 hours (a total not to exceed $10,500). The other option, repeatedly requested by the finance office, was temporary help from Dankert, who council members said holds the institutional knowledge specific to Austin’s 2025 accounts and special-assessment worksheets.
Council members raised concerns about how the two competing proposals appeared on the same agenda, with at least one member describing the dual submissions as a communication failure among staff, the outgoing administrator and the mayor’s office. Members questioned whether the outside contractor would be able to complete the work without calling Dankert for Austin‑specific records and history. The council voted to not approve the Carlton contract (motion carried 4-1).
Immediately afterward, the council approved a motion, also 4-1, directing the city attorney to reach out to Dankert and to prepare a contract so he can provide temporary audit assistance. The motion did not specify an hourly rate in the public motion; council discussion indicated members expected negotiation to include compensation and scheduling aligned with staff availability.
City staff told the council that Carlton had already been given limited laptop and email access, and that some initial, low-hour groundwork had been started pending council action; at least one council member said beginning work before council approval ‘‘sounds a little suspicious.’’ Finance and HR staff disputed that any improper work had been done and said initial meetings were intended only to prepare for the contracted work.
Why it matters: Council members underscored the distinction between general audit skills and Austin‑specific institutional knowledge. Several members said they supported getting the audit across the finish line quickly but wanted whoever was engaged to work with staff so staff could perform future audits without outside assistance.
What happens next: The council directed the city attorney to reach out to Dankert and prepare an agreement. The council did not set the final compensation publicly; council discussion suggested that staff and counsel would negotiate terms and return with a formal contract for approval if required.
Speakers quoted or referenced in this story include: Council members who voted on the motions, Finance Director Emily (last name not specified in the record), HR Director Trish Wikman, City Attorney Byron, and members of city staff who presented the contracts. The formal votes were recorded by the clerk.
