Accountability in Action: What the CRI Forensic Audit Revealed About Nueces County Finances
- Michael Hall
- Dec 22, 2025
- 2 min read
Taxpayers expect their county government to manage public funds responsibly, transparently, and within the law. A recent forensic audit shows that expectation was not met.
In early 2025, Nueces County hired Carr, Riggs & Ingram Advisors to conduct a forensic audit of two critical areas: the county’s self-insured health insurance fund and the county auditor’s office. The review covered multiple fiscal years and examined financial records, internal controls, procurement practices, and management oversight.
The findings were troubling.
The audit identified approximately $3.75 million in loans and fund transfers that were not properly approved or presented to Commissioners Court. Elected officials were not fully informed about how significant sums of money were being moved between funds.
The health insurance fund showed a pattern of ongoing losses. Even after excluding federal relief funds and internal transfers, expenditures exceeded adjusted revenues by more than $10 million over the review period. According to the audit, these deficits were not clearly communicated, and long-term forecasting was insufficient.
CRI also concluded that the county faced elevated fraud risk. Bank reconciliations were not completed in a timely manner. Procurement card and fuel card activity lacked adequate oversight. Some purchases, including gift cards, did not have sufficient supporting documentation. Policies either did not exist, were outdated, or were not consistently followed.
The audit further found that the county’s financial operations were siloed, with departments operating independently rather than under coordinated oversight. A major transition to new financial software was poorly planned and underutilized, limiting its effectiveness as a control and reporting tool.
County officials acknowledged the seriousness of the findings during public meetings. Some commissioners described the results as disturbing and called for stronger controls, clearer reporting, and ongoing audits to prevent similar issues in the future.
While some of the problems identified occurred under prior leadership, the lesson is clear. Weak oversight allows problems to grow unnoticed, and taxpayers ultimately bear the risk.
This audit reinforces why accountability matters. Public funds require constant oversight, clear reporting, and leadership willing to ask hard questions. Transparency is not optional. It is a responsibility.
Most importantly, this is not simply a failure of staff. Commissioners Court is responsible for setting expectations, demanding clear information, and actively leading the organization. When systems break down across departments, that reflects a lack of ownership at the top. Effective leadership means knowing what your team is doing, asking tough questions before problems escalate, and taking responsibility when oversight fails. Accountability starts with those elected to lead.