UPDATED 6:08 p.m. Aug. 13.
LITTLE ROCK — Jefferson County officials faced questions Thursday (Aug. 13) before the Arkansas Legislative Audit Committee about a series of findings in the county’s 2024 audit, including a $305,000 solar-panel project that remains unresolved more than five years after the county paid for the installation and nearly $900,000 in expenditures that auditors said were misclassified.
County Clerk Shawndra Taggart, County Judge Ivan Whitfield and Chief of Staff Lloyd Franklin II appeared before the committee to answer questions about the findings. The committee ultimately voted to file the Jefferson County report after questioning the officials about several of the most significant findings.
The audit found that the county paid $305,000 for solar panels on three county buildings on Feb. 10, 2021, but the panels had not been installed as of the audit report date. The finding was identified as a repeat finding and cited as noncompliance with Article 12, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution. 
The audit also found that financial statements contained nearly $900,000 in misclassified county judge expenditures, which auditors said was not in compliance with Arkansas law requiring county management to maintain accurate financial records. Auditors classified the errors as a control deficiency in the process used to prepare the county’s financial statements. 
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1881.
The solar-panel finding drew the most extensive questioning from committee members.
Rep. Cameron Cooper, R-Romance, pointed to the fact that the county paid the $305,000 more than five years ago and asked county officials what had happened to the project.
“So that’s been five and a half years ago and the panels are not installed,” Cooper said. “Did that company go out of business? What exactly is going on with (the project)”?
Franklin explained that the issue had already been brought to Legislative Audit.
“That was actually a self-reported finding when I was on the Quorum Court,” he said. He explained the county reported in 2024 that the solar panels had not been installed and that the matter had also appeared before the committee previously.
“This is just a repeat finding that we still have not resolved the issues,” Franklin said, adding that he believed the matter was currently in the hands of a special prosecutor and the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office. 
When asked directly whether the county had paid the $305,000 but still had no solar panels, the answer was yes. Franklin said the solar project was part of the construction of the three buildings and confirmed that the matter remained open. He also noted it is an open investigation and the prosecuting attorney was investigating the matter.
The committee also reviewed the audit’s finding concerning the classification of county judge expenditures.
Auditors said Arkansas law requires county management to maintain adequate financial records. Their examination found financial statements containing nearly $900,000 in misclassified county judge expenditures.
“The fact of these errors constitutes a control deficiency in the process of preparing financial statements,” the audit presentation stated. 
The issue was presented alongside another finding concerning county records. Auditors said lease-purchase agreements and service contracts entered into by the county judge, as well as documents pertaining to bids, were not adequately maintained or filed in the county clerk’s office.
The audit also found that a contract for Mack Trucks was awarded and payments were made before court approval was issued, a finding auditors identified as a repeat finding.  A committee member questioned whether the Quorum Court actually had authority over the Mack Trucks contract because it involved the Road Department.
“It’s actually the Road Department,” Sen. Mark Johnson, R-Little Rock, said. “So the Quorum Court doesn’t have to act on that? That’s strictly within the purview of the County Judge, is that correct?”
The discussion concluded that it’s the County Judge’s authority to enter contracts on behalf of the county within certain parameters, particularly when the expenditure involved a Road Department item.
The county also failed to report the disposition of a county-owned building to the Quorum Court as required. Although bids were advertised for the project, auditors said the advertisement appeared in a newspaper for only one week and the scope of work performed did not match the requirements advertised in the bid. 
Auditors said records were not adequately maintained or filed in the clerk’s office, including lease-purchase agreements, service contracts the county judge entered into and documents related to bids. The committee also reviewed a finding involving two sheriff’s employees.
County policy requires employees to work continuously for the county for at least one year to qualify for a vacation-leave payout when they resign. Auditors found that two sheriff’s employees were hired, resigned, rehired and resigned again and received vacation payouts upon both resignations, even though neither had worked continuously for one year at the time of the resignations.
The resulting overpayments totaled just under $2,000 for 2024 and just over $1,000 for 2025, according to the audit presentation. Taggart told the committee that the sheriff’s office had policies and procedures in place and that employees were aware of them. She said the employee involved did not follow those procedures and instead followed the direction of the previous county judge. 
“It has been resolved,” Taggart said. “I’ve gotten rid of that employee and the judge hired her.”
After questioning Taggart, Whitfield and Franklin, the committee voted without objection to file the Jefferson County report. 
“Appreciate the three of you coming,” a committee member said after the questions concluded. “Thank you for coming to Little Rock. Thank you so much.” 
Serving Pine Bluff since 1881
Stay informed. Support local journalism.

source