Wicomico County auditor says grants audit incomplete after requested records were not produced; council votes to acknowledge report and seek follow-up

An internal grants audit in Wicomico County stalled after the county's internal auditor, Angela Shatell, said she did not receive support documents requested for 52 account lines and therefore could not complete the testing portion of her review.

“We attempted the risk review and could not perform the testing because the documents were not provided,” Shatell said, describing repeated requests and follow-ups that produced no supporting records for the listed Munis org/object/project combinations. She told council members she received documents in management responses and exhibits but not the underlying support needed for formal testing.

Council members pressed for specifics and next steps. Some members said they were concerned the delay and lack of cooperation created a perception of obstruction. Council member Jeff Ennis said the situation “creates doubt” when requested documents are not supplied, and suggested using subpoenas if necessary; others urged an open work session first to try to resolve miscommunication.

Several members referenced a separate letter from the audit committee chair that criticized management’s response to the audit and underscored the seriousness of missing documentation. Shatell said the county had 311 Munis accounts with the same object codes and that an earlier volumetric review suggested $33,245,281.66 in revised budgets for grant-related accounts that she was not able to reconcile with the listings provided to her.

By a recorded motion, the council adopted Resolution 117-2026 acknowledging that the grants audit could not be completed as planned because the internal auditor did not receive necessary information. The resolution puts on the public record the auditor’s attempts and the management responses; it also directs staff to pursue work sessions to clear up communication channels, and council members discussed referring the materials to the Maryland Office of Legislative Audits if local resolution fails.

Next steps described by council included an open work session to identify whether the failure to deliver documents was a communication issue (for example, the auditor routing requests to the grants administrator rather than to department contacts), whether additional vetting of candidates for boards had delayed cooperation, and whether a subpoena or referral to the state audit office is warranted.

The council voted to post the adopted resolution to the council’s website; Shatell said she will include the exhibit materials, marked as an incomplete report if published. Council members signaled they expect the audit office and executive branch to cooperate in follow-up work sessions and to provide the records necessary for the internal auditor to finish her testing and recommendations.

The session left several substantive questions unanswered: which individual account lines lacked support, whether invoices or grant reports were created by grantees, and whether the identified $33.2 million in revised budget lines represents spending not covered in the auditor’s listing. Council members and the auditor said they will convene scheduled work sessions and consider escalating to the state level if records cannot be produced locally.