Doña Ana County commissioners delay special audit measures, demand greater transparency
Doña Ana County commissioners delayed action on three special audit corrective measures, calling for greater transparency and outside review before approval.
Commissioners postponed action on three corrective measures after questioning why audit-related documents were placed on the consent agenda and how they would be reviewed.
Damien Willis, Organ Mountain News
LAS CRUCES - Doña Ana County commissioners postponed action Tuesday on three measures intended to address findings from a special audit, after raising concerns about transparency, late-arriving documents and confusion over the role of the county's newly contracted inspector general.
The Oct. 13 discussion began when commissioners removed audit-related items from the consent agenda, where routine business is ordinarily approved without individual debate. By the end of the exchange, the board had voted unanimously to postpone consideration of all three measures, agreeing that the documents should undergo outside review before returning for formal consideration.
The measures addressed shortcomings identified in the special audit involving Fire Rescue inventory controls, documentation supporting commission agenda items and procedures governing county litigation and conflict counsel. Commissioner Susana Chaparro argued that placing those corrective measures on the consent agenda undermined the transparency the county was supposed to be improving.
Damien Willis
"I think audit findings need to be put on an approval or an action item instead of just consent in order to move forward with transparency, which I think at least I've been requesting for months," Chaparro said.
She also complained that the agenda had changed since commissioners reviewed it the previous week, leaving her to examine lengthy documents shortly before the meeting.
"And when one has to stay up until two or three in the morning reading documents that I hadn't received before, I think that we need to work on that," she said.
Commissioners question consent agenda process
The first disputed item involved a Fire Rescue Department policies and procedures manual submitted as documentation of compliance with three special audit findings, numbered 2026-029S, 2026-030S and 2026-031S.
Acting County Manager Stephen Lopez explained that the manual governs day-to-day departmental operations, ranging from uniforms and shift responsibilities to inventory management and overtime reporting. He said the audit findings involved inventory controls, including emergency medical services supplies, although he initially could not recall the specifics of all three findings. Another acting county manager subsequently clarified that finding 2026-031S concerned pharmaceutical inventory records and chain-of-custody controls for EMS medications.
Chaparro asked Lopez to explain how the policies would address the audit findings, emphasizing that residents should understand the measures being advanced in response to the county's special audit.
"Transparency to the public and answering audit findings is very, very important at this time," she said. "And we just cannot be lax about not letting the public know."
Commissioner Susie Kimble agreed, questioning why commissioners were being asked to consider materials they had not adequately reviewed and why the agenda did not clearly explain what approval would accomplish.
"I don't want things on the consent agenda that we have never seen before," Kimble said. "That's not what a consent agenda is for."
Kimble also objected to the wording of the proposed action, which asked commissioners to approve submitting the Fire Rescue manual as documentation of compliance without expressly identifying the outside reviewer. The distinction became important when Lopez clarified that commissioners were not being asked to certify that the county had corrected the audit findings. Instead, management wanted authorization to submit the materials for outside review before returning them to the commission for final action.
Outside review to precede commission approval
During the discussion, county officials identified Baker Tilly as the firm selected through a competitive procurement process to serve as the county's contracted inspector general.
Lopez said management wanted guidance on how commissioners expected to handle corrective documents, particularly departmental policies that would not ordinarily require commission approval. The intent, he explained, was for the outside reviewer to determine whether the proposed measures satisfied the audit requirements before commissioners made a final determination.
"This isn't the board's approval of these items because our understanding was that you all wanted the Inspector General to confirm that these met the audit requirements before you actually make that determination," Lopez said.
Commission Chairman Manuel Sanchez favored having the inspector general complete that review first, so commissioners would not need to repeatedly consider documents that might change during the compliance process. Kimble agreed but emphasized that agenda descriptions should clearly identify where the materials were going and what commissioners were being asked to authorize.
The board ultimately decided to postpone the measures until after the outside review, with Sanchez indicating that they should return as action items rather than be placed on the consent agenda. Lengthy or complicated documents could also be discussed during a work session before commissioners were asked to vote.
The first postponement, involving the Fire Rescue manual, passed unanimously. Commissioners then unanimously approved postponing the other two measures. No date was established for their return.
Five audit findings covered by postponed measures
The three agenda items encompassed five findings from the county's special audit.
In addition to the Fire Rescue policies addressing findings 2026-029S through 2026-031S, commissioners were scheduled to consider a County Manager's Office plan requiring departments to submit and maintain complete records supporting agenda items. That measure was intended to address finding 2026-032S.
The third measure involved a standard operating procedure for county litigation and conflict counsel, responding to finding 2026-036S. According to the agenda packet, that finding identified a need for clearer authorization procedures involving county litigation and conflict-counsel matters when county officials have adverse interests. The proposed procedure was intended to establish a documented process for those decisions, an issue commissioners had previously discussed during a work session.
The amended agenda packet included supporting materials for the measures, including the Fire Rescue policies and the litigation and conflict-counsel procedure. But commissioners questioned whether the documents had been provided early enough for meaningful review and whether the proposed actions were sufficiently explained.
County officials also said during the meeting that the Fire Rescue policies and procedures had been due Sept. 30. The discussion did not establish whether the county had met that deadline or whether the postponement would affect any subsequent compliance requirements.
Transparency concerns extend to corrective process
The disagreement illustrated a broader challenge facing county officials as they work to address the special audit: determining not only what corrective measures are necessary, but how those measures should be documented, independently evaluated and presented to the public.
Chaparro urged the county to make a greater effort to explain its actions rather than allowing important audit matters to move through routine consent votes without discussion. Lopez acknowledged the concern, saying county staff sometimes regard departmental procedures as routine even when residents and commissioners need more information about their purpose.
Under the approach discussed Tuesday, Baker Tilly would review the proposed corrective measures before commissioners consider them for formal approval, with substantive audit-compliance matters returning to public meetings as action items.
For now, the three measures remain unapproved by the commission. The postponement did not establish that work on the corrective measures had stopped, but it left their formal acceptance unresolved. Whether the outside review will result in revisions, additional requirements or acceptance of the county's proposals remains to be determined.
Damien Willis is founder and editor of Organ Mountain News. If you have a personal story to share or a lead we should follow up on, reach out at OrganMountainNews@gmail.com or connect with him on X at @damienwillis.
