County judge candidate Griffin demands forensic audit, questions hire of Florida firm

A candidate for Pulaski County judge has called for a new forensic audit and full transparency about how a Florida firm was chosen to probe a roughly $52 million budget shortfall, saying he has asked the county's procurement office to begin a request for qualifications immediately.

"I asked our procurement office today to begin working on a RFQ, for an auditing company, to come in and audit all departments of, county government starting immediately," the candidate said in a recorded statement. The report identified the candidate by the surname Griffin and described him as a candidate for county judge.

The audit under discussion is intended to determine what led to the shortfall and whether any funds were mismanaged, the report said. At a special quorum court meeting on April 6, those financial concerns were traced in part to federal COVID relief money, and Griffin pressed for monthly fiscal reports and a public timeline documenting how the Florida firm was chosen.

County officials, as relayed in the report, said the procurement process was open and competitive. According to the county's account provided to the reporter, the procurement notice was disseminated broadly; a very small number of recipients viewed the posting and two firms submitted technical proposals. One firm did not submit required financial documents and was disqualified, leaving a single vendor to be vetted. The procurement remarks in the record include inconsistent numerical figures for the mailings (the transcript lists both "476" and "464" invitations); the county's breakdown, as reported, said six views and two technical submissions, with one incomplete package disqualified.

The reporter sought comment from the county comptroller and the county treasurer about the forensic audit and the claims of fiscal mismanagement but had not received a response at the time of the report. "We are continuing to review the county's documents and will bring you any new developments," the reporter said.

The report did not identify the Florida firm by name; that detail was not specified in the available record. Griffin called for public disclosure of when the firm was first contacted and identified, who participated in the selection process, and what evaluation criteria were used.

The story remains under development; the reporter indicated she will follow up on any new documents or official responses.