County officials limited on offering details on possible investigation

Two recent meetings of the Hays County Commissioners Court have generated concerns regarding the status of operations in many county offices.

Hays County Commissioner Precinct-3 Lon Shell in a statement he provided to the Daily Record summarized what he said had occurred regarding potential errors in the computing of the Hays County employee payroll and the subsequent movement of payroll duties from the county Treasurer’s Office to the Budget Office and his reasoning for initiating a special meeting of the court held Tuesday.

County officials were contacted about reaching out to Hays County Commissioner Precinct-1 Debbie Ingalsbe, Hays County Commissioner Precinct-2 Michelle Cohen and Hays County Commissioner Precinct-4 Walt Smith for their take and comments on specific details related to to what some say may be a pending investigation. Responses reaffirmed what was told to the Daily Record Wednesday by Assistant District Attorney Gregg Cox: they were not legally able to comment on the status of 'a pending investigation.'

But Ingalsbe did provide this statement to the Daily Record concerning the special called meeting. “Regarding the special called meeting and as I stated in court, I don’t recall the mention, when asked about my availability, that I was a part of the calling. However, I do feel that the action the court voted on gave much more clarification regarding all aspects of payroll, which is beneficial to all involved,” Ingalsbe stated.

Smith also provided a statement to the Daily Record in response to a request for clarification.

'I was part of calling the special meeting and believe it provided much needed clarity to several county offices. If you review the proceedings, I specifically asked if the changes made were endorsed and helpful to both the treasurer and the budget office. And they both confirmed that to be the case, and I was happy to support their request. In terms of any possible pending investigations, it is my policy not to comment.'

Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra did not respond to requests for comment as of time of press.

This is the written summary offered to the Daily Record by Shell.

“Over the last few months Hays County employees have been experiencing various issues related to their paychecks. Minor errors can definitely happen when dealing with large payroll activities, however many of these have been significant and continual. I have been with the County for almost 12 years and been in positions where I would have known about significant discrepancies regarding employee paychecks or benefit allocations. Until this year I have not been made aware of issues like we have recently been experiencing. Our Treasurer’s Office has had little turnover during most of the time I have been here. Following the last election, there was significant turnover in the office. This is not necessarily unusual, some of the employees may be at or near where retirement is an option, some may want to work somewhere else and some may not be a good fit with the change in leadership. Whatever the case, when there is turnover in staff of that size with that level of administrative responsibilities, it is possible there could be a learning curve for the new staff and there could be an increase in errors. The most important thing is that everyone work[s] together to get errors corrected and improve the process collectively. I believe there has been a genuine attempt by multiple staff members and offices to try and help get the issues fixed, though the issues have continued to happen. Over the last couple of months, I have had multiple conversations with the County Auditor [Marisol Villareal-Alonzo] about her concerns with the errors and how they are being handled by the Treasurer’s office. The County Auditor does not work for the Commissioners Court, she is an appointed official that has extensive authority in auditing many county processes and providing a check and balance to any actions which might be carried out contrary to policies or laws. When an Auditor has a concern, it is extremely important that the concern is addressed quickly and appropriately. Towards the end of the week of May 12th the Auditor had a meeting with two other Commissioners regarding her concerns. Our Auditor let me know of this meeting and let me know that it did not look like any immediate action was planned to address the issue. She also informed me that she had serious concerns about being able to fulfill her responsibilities without assistance from the Commissioners Court. I asked that she prepare a document explaining the issue and that I would sponsor an item to have it presented to the Court. We had discussed having this item placed on the agenda for the May 23rd meeting, however I wanted to make sure she had enough time to prepare an accurate document, so I was willing to wait until the following court session if necessary. Late in the afternoon of May 19th, the Treasurer [Daphne Tenorio] and Commissioners Court members received an email for the District Attorney explaining an investigation involving an employee in the Treasurer’s Office and the concern that other employees could be involved. The allegations were extremely serious. Once I read the email I immediately called our General Counsel’s office and asked for two items to be placed on the upcoming agenda for May 23rd. One was to receive the Auditor’s concerns, the other was to address the Treasurer’s Office. These items were included on the agenda for the May 23rd meeting which was posted around its usual time on Friday May 19th. I also called the auditor to ask if she could have her report prepared by the 23rd, which she confirmed that she could. Our Auditor submitted a letter on May 22 explaining her concerns, which can be provided to anyone. In the final paragraph of this letter the Auditor asks the Commissioners Court for assistance. The video of the May 23 meeting is available online and can provide specifics regarding the discussions and action. It is our policy, and I believe most oftentimes the correct policy, to refrain from specifically discussing ongoing investigations. However, I can let you know that having read the email from the District Attorney, I would not be doing my job if the issues with the Treasurer’s Office and payroll were not discussed and addressed during the May 23rd meeting. Once action was taken on the 23rd, there was less [than] one week for the Budget Office to prepare and make the next payroll. I had multiple discussions with our Budget Officer during the week to make sure we were on track to get everything completed. Immediately she had concerns with communications from the Treasurer's Office. There were disagreements on what would be transferred between offices, on the timelines, on procedures, etc. I was not confident the payroll would be completed successfully based on what was happening. I let our General Counsel’s office know that I might need assistance in calling a special meeting of the court for the next Tuesday, May 30th, and for them to please notify other Court members and see if there were two other Court members willing to join me in calling a meeting. During the evening of Thursday, May 25, our Budget Officer received an email from the Treasurer stating that the Treasurer may not be able to complete the transfer necessary to complete payroll. The following morning I asked the General Counsel’s office to move forward with posting the meeting if they received the support of two other Court members. The agenda was posted on Friday, May 26th for the Tuesday, May 30th special meeting. I cannot imagine a time where a Commissioners Court member would have reason to believe that our employees would possibly not be paid for their work and not try to keep that from happening. The special meeting was posted on a Friday for a Tuesday meeting, just as all of our meetings are noticed. Special meetings happen from time to time when necessary, I believe this issue far exceeded the conditions for which other special meeting[s] have been called. What if payroll had not gone through, what if it did and there were serious issues, I would want to be able to address those issues as soon as possible. It was also evident the Court would need to clarify portions of the action taken on the 23rd. For these reasons I initiated the special meeting,” Shell stated.