Crockett council votes to order third‑party forensic audit of CEIDC after public allegations

The Crockett City Council voted to begin the process of securing a third‑party forensic audit of the Crockett Economic and Industrial Development Corporation (CEIDC) after multiple public commenters alleged questionable checks, undisclosed debt and possible violations of state rules.

The move follows a string of public comments in which residents urged the council to investigate CEIDC finances. "I have found hundreds of very questionable checks issued by CEIDC," one commenter said while another warned that long-term debt may not have been disclosed to the Texas attorney general.

Council members debated whether to authorize only an initial decision to seek forensic services or to immediately define a scope. The mayor and several councilors emphasized the difference between the city's annual financial audit and a forensic audit, which is intended to detect possible wrongdoing. "A forensic audit deals with the allegations — the beliefs that there is something illegal or wrong with that particular entity," a council member said during the discussion.

Opponents of immediate action argued that public commenters had not submitted documentary evidence at the meeting. One council member said there were "no documents" on hand and moved to not approve a forensic audit; that motion died for lack of a second. Another council member then moved to begin securing services of an independent third party; a subsequent motion to commission a forensic audit covering the current and recent past administrations was moved, seconded and carried.

The council did not adopt a scope, start date or funding mechanism during the meeting; members instructed staff to return with options about the type of forensic work (financial, procedural, or limited review), likely costs and a recommended number of years to examine. Council discussion referenced cost considerations ranging from lower‑hour, limited reviews to more extensive engagements that can take many days and cost substantially more.

Wanda Vance, a city consultant, had earlier described other agenda resolutions but did not present materials specific to the CEIDC allegations. City attorney Bill Pemberton was mentioned repeatedly by defenders of the existing audit process; some council members urged the attorney's involvement in defining a legally sufficient audit scope.

The council's approval was framed as a two‑step process: first, authorize staff to secure independent forensic services; second, return to the council with a precisely drafted scope of work and funding plan. The council also requested that any forensic audit, if opened, be extended to prior administrations as appropriate to ensure fairness and completeness.

Next steps: staff is to research qualified, independent forensic accounting firms, provide scope options and cost estimates, and present recommendations at a later meeting for a formal contract and budget appropriation.