Northern Lafayette County Commissioner Monica Ritter made the following statement on May 23.

“Yesterday, the Lafayette County Commission met with Randall Fiene, CPA of Concordia, Missouri, to discuss county audit requirements and to better understand the differences between the outside audits Lafayette County already completes and the petition audit currently being discussed publicly.

The conversation was both informative and eye-opening.

One important clarification discussed during the meeting was the difference between a comprehensive outside audit and a petition audit requested through the Missouri State Auditor’s Office. Many residents may not realize that Lafayette County has already been undergoing extensive outside audits for years.

Because Lafayette County has an elected auditor, outside audits are only required under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances occurs when a county expends more than $1 million in federal funds during a fiscal year. Prior to recent federal changes, that threshold was $750,000. Due to the receipt and expenditure of federal COVID-related funds, including ARPA funds, Lafayette County has been required to complete outside audits for the past five years.

As I began reviewing those audits, questions arose regarding the petition currently circulating requesting a state audit of the county. During our discussion, I asked how long Lafayette County had been completing outside audits. I was surprised to learn that the county has been conducting them since the early 2000s.

At that time, the audits were required due to bonds issued for the county jail project. While those bonds have since been paid off, the federal funding associated with COVID programs continued the outside audit requirement in recent years.

Importantly, these outside audits are not limited to ARPA funds alone. They are comprehensive financial reviews that examine county finances broadly, including officeholder funds, General Revenue, revenues received, expenditures made, internal controls, compliance procedures, and financial reporting practices.

The audits currently available to the county are extensive. Many exceed 70 pages and contain detailed financial statements, testing procedures, compliance reviews, and findings. Mr. Fiene also explained that, from his understanding, these audits have historically been publicly presented to the Commission each year.

Mr. Fiene’s background also provided valuable perspective during the meeting. Prior to his work in private accounting, he served for many years within the Missouri State Auditor’s Office and is very familiar with the state audit process.

Another important topic discussed was the scope of the petition currently circulating within the county. A petition audit through the State Auditor’s Office would not be a full countywide audit similar to the outside audits Lafayette County already completes annually. Instead, it would focus specifically on the items identified within the petition itself.

The estimated cost of $125,000 – $175,000 or more for the petition audit came directly from the State Auditor’s Office. By comparison, Lafayette County’s current annual comprehensive outside audit costs taxpayers just under $40,000 each year.

We also learned that in many third- and fourth-class counties, the State Auditor’s Office often contracts with outside third-party CPA firms to conduct petition audits. Those audits are then reviewed by the state before final reports are issued.

In practical terms, taxpayers could potentially spend over $150,000 for an additional outside review focused on four specific issues while the county already completes and publicly presents comprehensive outside audits annually.

One point raised during the meeting was that many citizens are not CPAs and may find these reports difficult to interpret. I do not disagree. The audits are detailed and highly technical. However, I also questioned how a petition audit would necessarily be easier for the average taxpayer to understand. Ultimately, both processes involve professional accountants reviewing records, preparing findings, and presenting formal reports.

This discussion also highlighted something the county can improve: accessibility and public awareness. While these audits have existed for years, many residents may not realize they are available for public review. Thankfully, technology now makes it easier to share this information. I currently have the last five years of audits available in PDF format, and efforts are underway to make them accessible through the county website.

In the coming days, I also plan to locate older audit records so they can be made available for public review as well.

Before taxpayers spend additional taxpayer dollars pursuing information we may already have available, I believe we owe it to ourselves to first carefully review the information already in front of us. Due diligence matters. Questions should absolutely be asked, and government transparency should always remain a priority. But before committing taxpayers to an additional expense that could exceed $150,000, we should first determine whether the answers we seek may already exist within the audits already completed.

If, after thoroughly reviewing the information available, questions still remain unanswered, then certainly continue pursuing those answers. Every taxpayer has the right to understand how public funds are spent and accounted for.

I encourage residents to review the audits currently available and ask questions. Reach out to the Commission, the Auditor’s Office, or other county offices. If I do not have the answer, I will help find the person who does.

This is our county, our government, and our taxpayer money.