Forensics audit concludes in Charles City, but citizens continue to search for answers

A request for a forensics audit on expenditures made by Charles City County has come to an end after it was dismissed on Aug. 21. And while the order was issued by the court, county citizens still raised several questions and concerns at the county’s regular meeting of its board of supervisors.

After a two-hour hearing, the order was dismissed after insufficient information was submitted for its completion, with the court having more questions than answers.

Initiated through a petition submitted to the court system on Apr. 18, 2025, the forensics audit was petitioned by the citizens from Charles City County after questions about the spending went unanswered through questions posed at regular board meetings. Stretching over nearly a two-year period, citizens turned to the court system, with approval being granted for the forensics audit to proceed.

On Mar. 6, 2026, Brown, Edwards, and Company’s Certified Public Accountants submitted a 16-page document to the court on their forensics finding related to the audit. In their opening statement, they reiterated that management is responsible for implementing and monitoring the internal controls of the county (referring to Charles City County’s Government), and that the firm does not express an opinion on the county’s financial statements or any elements.

The firm audited the 2024 books, finding two material weaknesses in the audit. The first was the condition that “Financial statements did not contain all necessary adjustments to reconcile to the entity’s internal documents to comply with generally accepted accounting principles.” The cause of this according to the firm was that internal controls were not in place over financial reporting and year-end adjusting entries were not identified prior to the auditor’s arrival to conduct the audit.”

The second weakness was identified as a bank reconciliation that included outstanding checks that were recorded as accounts payable. Additional transactions were on the bank reconciliation list that were not posted. The cause, according to the firm, is that the county’s accounting system was not posting transactions properly at the end of the year.

Brown Edwards reviewed documentation related to the first set of material weaknesses, with approximately 50 audit adjustments totaling more than $60 million. Brown Edwards recommended consideration of procuring pre-audit services, which apparently has been made since the discovery. Weaknesses noted by the firm include bookkeeping errors, checks written beyond the fiscal year date that were included for reconciling, with those checks paying for items related to the prior fiscal year.

Related to the second material weakness, a consultant firm was hired to assist with year-end closure proceedings. Brown Edwards noted that while the county’s auditor indicated the cash weakness was not repeated, the audit adjustments weakness did repeat for fiscal year 2025.

One of the things that was noted by both Brown Edwards and citizens at Tuesday night’s Charles City Board of Supervisors’ meeting was the lack of information provided to the firm to proceed with the audit. According to Brown Edwards commented that it did not receive documentation for grants for the justification projects (i.e. using mulch instead of gravel at Harrison Park), documentation for 19 transactions in the general ledger, and supporting documentation for invoices that were issued.

Brown Edwards also pointed to projects that overspent (Market 5), the inability to receive documentation to complete accurate reporting of Waste Management and landfill accounting, and documentation on the use of credit cards issued to the county. Addition information on land transactions included the leasing of the Neighborhood Facility Building also yielded inconclusive results.

Brown Edwards noticeably commented about the revenue and expenditures in the budgeting process. They noted that in some cases the county did not adjust their budget based on projected revenues. The company also noted increases in expenditures, leading to a decrease in the fund balance. The poor financial results weren’t confined to just the general fund, as the sanitary district also experienced losses, as well as the broadband funds.

According to the firm, responses supplied to them on missing documentation included that the employees who currently work for Charles City government were not there at that time and that they did not have any background knowledge on the projects. The company asked for responses and additional information on Feb. 18, 2026, but did not receive any information as of the firm’s publishing of their findings in March 2026.

Tuesday night’s Charles City Board of Supervisors meeting saw county leaders already receiving heat from the public as the agenda was nearly blank. During the public comment period, citizens not only voiced their disappointment on the lackluster list that consisted of no items but also criticized the leadership over the proceedings of the audit.

“It worries me a lot that the forensic audit doesn’t have a lot of attention from the board,” said Bill Hopke. “What concerns me most is not what auditors found, but it’s what they couldn’t find.

“Brown Edwards was asked to examine specific transactions involving millions of dollars of public money, yet throughout this report we repeatedly read phrases such as insufficient documentation, unable to determine, could not provide an explanation, employees involved are no longer employed, and finally, we have not received a response to this list,” he added, referencing expenditures that the auditors could not find and documentation. “These are not trivial questions; this is public money.”

Hopke questioned the board on where the people who made the requests were and those who approved of the expenditures. He also criticized some of the responses that were given, such as why documents were unavailable.

“When [current county finance director] Christina Crawley-Jones was asked the questions, she answered them to the best of her ability and I commend her for that,” Hopke continued. “Based on Ms. Crawley’s response on why were papers destroyed, you were afraid of a fire risk. It was just too much paper.

“You have a pretty big database,” he added. “But somebody has a scanner. Somebody has a Cloud. But the administration took credit card statements and shredded them. Was the scanner broken?

“Somebody has to be able to answer these questions,” Hopke said as he wrapped up his comments. “The forensics audit is finished, but the responsibility to answer those questions is not done.”

“I’m happy that the audit is over, but sad about the outcome,” commented Thelma Whitehead. “The court may reject the audit per say, but we haven’t.

“We going to do as we are supposed to do, we are going to move forward to take the next steps to make things better,” she continued. “We, the people, are going to stand together. You got to get out and vote and that’s when change will come.”

“There were winners, I guess, and there were losers,” commented Martha Harris as she spoke at the lectern. “The winners; people who spent all of our money. The administrators who spent all our money who caused us to borrow not one, not two, but three multi-million-dollar loans. It was definitely not us, the citizens.

“Am I disappointed by the findings? Yes,” she continued. “But not with the judge. He had statutory requirements that he had to follow. My disappointment lies directly with this board; for your lack of willingness to first of all order that forensics audit yourself.

“I cannot understand for the life of me why you all would not want to know what happened to that money and why it dwindled,” Harris added. “I’m disappointed in your lack of involvement in ensuring that all of those made by the CPA were not provided. You all should have been involved in it and made sure all those responses were adequate.

“I’m disappointed in your lack of commitment in doing your part and due diligence in ensuring that our dollars weren’t being spent illegally or misused,” she continued, becoming more emotional as she addressed county leaders. “The credit card part was an easy response. Go to the bank and get the seven years of freaking statements. That’s all you had to do and you all could have seen where every dollar was spent.

“We are left with speculation and allegations,” Harris said as she wrapped up her comments. “Wouldn’t you want to have verifiable information submitted to the CPA so that they could have made that determination? How have you guys not addressed the forensics audit? The responses were ludicrous and lacked any factual evidence. Somebody was employed at that time and why haven’t you asked staff where those forms were at.”

Jackie Stewart commented about how citizens continue to be vigilant and are still looking for answers.

“We’re still working to figure out where the money went and how it’s being spent,” she said. “With the county’s help, we can get the answers and believe it’s only a matter of time.

“Citizens continue to ask the board to put the brakes on excess spending because the $8 million-plus debt will take us 20 years to repay,” Stewart continued. “There has to be a willingness on both sides to achieve solutions.”

During board comments, District 1 Supervisor Ryan Patterson addressed the audience and the statements they made during the public comment period.

“I understand your frustration when it comes to information not being shared, especially public information,” he said. “But we must continue to apply the appropriate pressure where it’s needed.

“Continue to push for transparency. Continue to push for finance/audit committee, and continue to hold your elected representatives accountable,” Patterson continued. “I am going to push that we address these concerns and definitely like to address them at our next available workshop.”