Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

November 25, 2024

Shelby County – Pattern Of Misinformation Continues

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On July 13, 2024

Shelby Co.- (ECWd) –

Once again we find ourselves witnessing the spin cycle after attending the Shelby County regular board meeting.

In January of 2022, we published this article after former county board member Gary Patterson pointed out the number of county audits listed with one accounting firm and then claimed he did not see any counties on the list of the other one, which was the current auditor Benford Brown & Associates. Patterson needed glasses.

Spin Cycle – 2024

County Board member Tad Mayhall points to information he located on the website of Benford Brown & Associates (BBA) and indicates he found nothing indicating they had government accounting experience.

The list of government clients in the proposal from BBA to Shelby County should clear up Mayhall’s concerns about their experience. Anyone reading it can see they have quite a bit of government accounting experience contrary to both Patterson and Mayhall’s representations. Their proposal can be downloaded at the link and starting on page 23 you can see a clear list of government experience – Benford Brown & Associates.

Mayhall’s comments influence how board members act. When those comments are wrapped in misinformation it misleads the board and the public.

In November of 2021, we published this article regarding the audit needed for the Sheriff’s office after former Sheriff Koonce resigned. Rather than provide legal advice on whether it should or should not be done, former State’s Attorney Nichole Kroncke’s comments were about her not thinking any other county is following it and not finding any case law on the matter.  Neither of those factors had a thing to do with what the law says.

Spin Cycle – 2024

During this week’s county board meeting, the board discussed the issue of auditing the office of the State’s Attorney due to the resignation of the former SA in May.  While the primary focus was related to the agenda item of simply asking the auditor a question about the need to audit that office, State’s Attorney Ruth Woolery gave an actual legal opinion, unlike Kroncke on the same subject matter.

We pray they do audit the office, but must ask, when is the Highway Department going to have their required audit performed after Alan Spesard retired or Steve Dewitt resigned?  The Sheriff’s required audit never took place after at least 2 Sheriff’s resigned, but by all means, audit the SA office ASAP, please.

We have said for years that there are answers to every question in local government. The key is knowing where to go and being willing to do the work to get those answers before making public statements and making decisions.  Our coverage of local government operations for the last 14 years is what builds a database of information that local governments across the state learn from.  Maybe some in Shelby County will realize that is the purpose of our work rather than some contrived conspiracy to control things.

As a side note to the audit discussion, it was claimed by Mayhall and the SA that a conflict of interest exists because Alyshia Benford, founder of BBA, used the services of Rob Hanlon in a private legal matter.  While there is not enough time or space in this article to cover these assertions, claiming there is a conflict does not make it so. Without a proper conflict of interest analysis being performed to identify how a completely unrelated matter conflicts with an audit firm representing the county in the performance of an audit of one office in the county, these allegations are not proof of an actual conflict of interest.  At this point, it’s just another red hearing tossed in the waters as chum for the local propaganda machine. I am confident that if BBA believes there is a conflict they will address it.  If the majority of the board thinks it’s a conflict, they can go elsewhere for the audit.  Either way, a proper analysis should be done before making such disparate claims in a public meeting.

The full county board meeting video is below for those wanting to watch it.  It’s currently set to begin where the audit issues were discussed.

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

2 Comments
  • JP
    Posted at 18:21h, 15 July

    It is noted that on March 1, 2021 a letter was sent to an individual in Elmwood Park, Illinois in which representation was noted between the two individuals mentioned by the Shelby County Board member in the last county board meeting. I believe your site posted this formal letter in an article. Of course, anyone can retain the services of any legal representative they wish. Also noted is representation in CASE NO.5:21-CV-302-JSM-PRL. Again, one can retain the services of any legal representative they wish, but here are two examples of representation between the two parties mentioned in that last county board meeting. So the question is would it be improper for the County to seek a legally binding opinion on a matter of funds that were in question for the office the former SA occupied? Representation has been established. The question lies in would this be considered a potential conflict based on past representation? I am sure her credentials are impeccable but if there would even be a hint of questionable conflict then why put Ms. Benford in that position? Get an outside opinion and save the headaches.

  • JP
    Posted at 18:29h, 13 July

    Question: Was there ever a situation where Benford & Brown or the partners in their business were represented by the former SA and or his assistant at one time? If answer is in fact yes then there is your conflict of interest. It’s not whether they are qualified to perform audits on governmental entities or not that is in question. It is instead the potential appearance of a conflict based on previous representation. Why were they selected anyway to do the counties audits? Was the auditing firm selected done so through the proper bidding process? If so, then where are the documents? Are there not other firms that perform this type of work? I am sure there are so why not remove all room for questioning the opinion the Board is seeking regarding the funds of the former SA office and get it from a firm that is completely outside the area of the normal pool of previous selected auditors the county has used? It’s a rather simple solution to squash the chatter surrounding this and save the Board some unneeded headaches.

$