Committee questions why three past audits (including Animal Care) were not widely circulated

Several commissioners raised questions about three audits from earlier work that they said they had not seen or that had not been broadly circulated. Committee members identified two audits involving the sheriff's office (one on physical fitness requirements and one on commissary accounting) and one involving Animal Care, which included questions about an alcohol charge and per‑diem overlap.

One commissioner described the Animal Care audit: the audit reported an instance where an employee received per diem while also charging part of a meal to a county p‑card, leading to a suggested $150 reimbursement. The presenter described the two issues in that audit as "double dipping" (receiving per diem while also posting p‑card charges) and an alleged alcohol purchase on a p‑card. The presenter said the card paid about $150 by the county and another entity paid the remainder of an ~$800 bill, and that the auditor noted the per‑diem overlap as the issue.

Committee members discussed whether prior controllers or staff had withheld or asked to be removed from audit reports; the presenter said a past controller had contacted him and asked to have his name removed because he did not support the audit conclusions. The presenter said the intention was not to remove or pull reports but that if necessary a name could be redacted; he reiterated the reports are on the county website for committee members to review.