Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
Not so, says County Attorney Heather Encinosa in response to Clerk of Court Kirk Reams’ recent representations in the newspaper that he and his office were never given an opportunity to explain his budget or answer questions prior to the findings of the forensic audit being presented to the Jefferson County Commission on Nov. 3.
Encinosa wrote an email to the commission in response to an open letter from the clerk that was printed in the newspaper, in which Reams decried the audit’s findings of unauthorized overspending and possible misuse of funds by his office, labeling the motives that spur the audit as reprehensible and politically motivated.
Encinosa stated in her letter that although she wasn’t the best person to address the audit’s specific findings, she wanted the board to know that the clerk’s office had been afforded ample opportunity to sit down with the auditor in advance of the report’s release to address issues and answer questions, and that the clerk’s office had steadily declined the invitations.
“We again made the offer for the clerk to offer any clarifications to the forensic audit presentation after it was presented to the board and again that request was denied after the clerk’s attorney initially accepted a meeting,” Encinosa wrote.
Her email communication included a summary list of the various offers made to the clerk, which invitations she indicated were supported by relevant emails. Again, as the Monticello News did with Reams’ response, the list of emails that Encinosa cited is printed as presented, absent comments, except for italicized explanations inserted in parenthesis for the sake of clarity.
August 31 – the Clerk in an email states, “I find it concerning that THF hasn’t reached out to us to clarify or ask for more information.” (THF is Thomas H. Ferguson, the CPA firm that conducted the forensic audit.)
August 31 – Charles Culp in an email states, “If there are questions, they simply need to be communicated and we will answer them.” (Culp is listed as finance director in the clerk’s office.)
September 27 – Mr. (Julian) Dozier emailed the Clerk and stated, “We have various follow-up questions and responses, and think that a phone call would be the easiest way to address them. We have availability today until 3:00 PM and tomorrow from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM (other than 10:30-11:15 AM). Please let us know if there is a time in either of these windows for a discussion. If not, please let me know what times you are available and we can find something that works.” (Dozier, with THF, conducted the actual audit.)
September 29 – Liz Ellis emails Dave Collins stating, “we haven’t heard back from the Clerk on this [in reference to the 9/27 email]. Can you please check and see if he’d prefer a phone call or another follow-up document?” (Attorney Liz Ellis is a colleague of Encinosa; Collins is Reams’ legal counsel.)
September 29 – David Collins replies in an email stating, “As to answering questions I have advised him (Reams) because of the pending investigation by the FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) to refer any questions to me.
September 30 – Liz Ellis emails David Collins in reply stating, “A phone call was simply a suggestion to avoid the repeated back and forth we’ve all been engaging in since June. We will continue to follow up in the event there is outstanding information.”
September 30 – David Collins replies in an email stating, “A phone call to me is fine anytime. Tell Mr. Dozier to call me. I believe if he could furnish by email his exact concerns about documenats received or not, we can hopefully expedite responses.”
October 14 – David Collins in an email states, “Please consider this email as notice that the clerk has produced what he has in his possession. The rest is in the custody of the other (external) auditor.”
October 14 – David Collins in response to a clarifying question from Liz Ellis replies in an email stating, “He has produced everything you requested that is in his possession. The rest of what you requested is either with the external auditor or does not exist.”
November 4 – Liz Ellis requests through Dave Collins for the Clerk to meet with Mr. Dozier to answer follow-up questions related to the findings and to provide an opportunity for the clerk to clear up any matters.
November 4 – Dave Collins replies to Liz Ellis and states that the clerk or “someone on his behalf” would be happy to.
November 11 – Liz Ellis again reaches out to Dave Collins about scheduling the meeting with the clerk.
November 11 – Dave Collins responds to Liz Ellis “Well since you already forwarded the report to the state attorney what is the point now? No, we are not interested in speaking to you now. Have a nice weekend.”