Newly released state audit for Wright County shows laws not followed and mismanagement of both financial and public records

(Editor's note:As of 2:30 p.m. Thursday, July 2, a full statement from Presiding Commissioner Zach Williams appears at the bottom of the article. There is now a quote from Missouri State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick added to the early part of the story).

The Missouri State Auditor’s office has completed its first audit of Wright County in a decade and the initial results were not good for County officials.
The detailed audit released on Tuesday, June 30 shows state laws not being followed and includes several examples of financial and public records mismanagement. This ultimately led to the County’s overall audit performance being labeled “poor.”
There were two-and-a-half pages of findings in the audit provided by Missouri State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick’s office, mostly focused on situations involving the County Commission (Zach Williams, Tommy Kingery, Randy Pamperien), the County Clerk’s office (Loni Pedersen) and the sheriff (former Sheriff Sonny Byerley).
All of the findings in the audit have responses from the County.
"This audit report has recommendations that can help county officials address the many issues that exist across multiple offices of county government, but the process it took to reach this point was more difficult than it should have been as we were forced to issue a subpoena to get records, and the former Sheriff originally withheld information about the fund he illegally maintained outside the County Treasury," said Missouri State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick. "The people of Wright County deserve a better and more transparent government and the recommendations we have in our report will help county officials make much-needed improvements. So far the response to our report has been encouraging, but I urge officials in Wright County to not let up until every recommendation is put into place."
Settlement and debt involving the jail project/other items involving the County Commission
“The County Commission did not adequately protect the county’s financial interests when overseeing the jail project, and as a result, the county incurred litigation costs,” the audit report says. “The County Commission entered into a form of indebtedness not allowed by state law to pay the resulting legal settlement.”

With a failure to pay construction costs timely, the construction manager filed a lawsuit against the County for a breach of contract in June 2022.
The County counterclaimed, then in July 2025, the parties came together for a $625,000 settlement.
The audit noted that at the time of the settlement, the guaranteed maximum price was $451,045. This means the settlement added $173,955 and the County took out a loan agreement to incur interest costs totaling $74,000 to pay the settlement.
The audit revealed that the County Commission signed a $350,000 promissory note on Sep. 15, 2025, to pay the Wright County Industrial Development Authority (IDA). The funds were obtained to pay a portion of the settlement. The County; however, did not document the agreement in open or closed meeting minutes though indebtedness is a public record.
The Wright County Journal submitted their own public meetings minutes requests last year after hearing about a possible IDA loan being agreed to by the City. No discussion or decision to take out the loan could be found in the provided meeting minutes.
In the audit, it is reported that the note signed showed the County Commission agreeing to pay semi-annual installments of $21,200 to the IDA with a first payment due March 15, 2026. That original note also stated thought that all outstanding principal and interest would be fully due on or before Sep. 15, 2026.
If the balloon payments were extended, the final payment would be due in 2035, making it a 10-year loan.
The Missouri State Auditor’s office went on to report significant delays in receiving documentation from the County regarding the promissory note.
So on Dec. 29, 2025, the auditor’s office issued a subpoena to the County Clerk requiring the documentation.
Then on Jan. 6, the County Commission and IDA Board signed a new agreement to supersede the promissory note.
This now required the County to pay the IDA Board $21,200 every six months for the next 10 years starting on March 15, 2026.
While the agreement indicates it is one between two governmental parties, the auditor’s office said in their findings that the IDA Board is a corporation and not a governmental entity.
So with the promissory note and the new agreement becoming loans with a 10-year repayment schedule, the auditor's office expressed this is not authorized by state law.
In an auditee’s response to this portion of the audit, the County Commission noted that it “recognizes that some of the matters reference in the report include complex legal issues that may be subject to debate, but concurs with the recommended courses of action and appreciates the opportunity to share its perspectives.”
According to the audit, the County Commission also violated constitutional provisions and the state law when they authorized a mid-term salary increase totaling $16,281 to the Sheriff over a period of two years.
In their auditee’s response, the County cited court cases where it felt that they were able to increase pay due to added job duties.
The auditor’s office responded that multiple cases in the Supreme Court of Missouri have addressed the constitutional prohibition on mid-term increases.
In focusing on county procedures, the audit showed the County Commission appointed an interim sheriff who did not meet statutory residency requirements. This happened when Kristi Akers was named interim sheriff after Wright County Sheriff Sonny Byerley retired.
In the auditee’s response, the County said they did not think the law applies unequivocally to interim appointments. The County felt that it properly followed the appointment process portion of the law.
The County also noted that the interim sheriff owned real property and paid taxes within the county. She was also brought in to facilitate the transition to a new sheriff.
The auditor’s response said the County Commission’s interpretation is “inconsistent with the wording of the statute.”
The comment also went on to note how the statue was not limited to elected sheriffs.
“Following the County Commission’s reasoning, a felon could be appointed sheriff,” according to the auditor’s comment. “Just as a felon is not eligible for the office of sheriff, regardless of whether he/she is elected or appointed, so too a person must be a resident taxpayer to be eligible for the office.”
The County Commission was also noted in the audit for not adopting a written policy regarding public access to County records as required or create a log to track Sunshine Law requests.
County Commission minutes for seven closed meetings (March 14, May 23, July 24, July 31, Aug. 1, Aug. 22 and Sep. 28, 2023) could not be located.
Along with this, the County as a whole has not developed a records management and retention policy that includes electronic communication. This means the County is not compliant with the Missouri Secretary of State Records Services Division guidance, which was approved by the Missouri Local Records Commission.
The County Commission is reportedly meeting with each elected official and the information technology department to discuss the matters.
Focus on County Clerk’s office
One item in the audit showed that the County Clerk did not document her property tax reduction calculations.
“As a result, there is nothing to support that the calculations were accurate and calculated according to state law, and the audit determined the county levied approximately $23,400 in excess property taxes for 2023,” is a statement found in the audit findings.
In the auditee’s response, the County said it was using a method passed down from her predecessor. A new calculation method has since been implemented.
It was reported in the audit that the County Clerk has not been ensuring that physical inventories of assets were completed. This means the County does not have a current inventory of assets or a way to ensure all of them are accounted for.
The audit includes a focus on county procedures where the County Clerk’s office does not ensure bills are paid timely, resulting in late fees and finance charges totaling $961 for January 2023-June 2024.
A failure to retain receipt slips for credit card purchases was also noted. In a snapshot from February 2023-June 2024, the documentation of 73 transactions (50%) totaling $16,629 could not be located.
Along with these financial items, the County Clerk’s office was found to not be performing timely and accurate bank account reconciliations. November and December 2023 bank reconciliations were done in April 2024, which was almost five months after the statement date.
The County has said it is working to have procedures in place to take care of the addressed items.
Sheriff findings
One part of the audit showed a review of what was described as “haphazardly selected items” from seized property evidence. Four of the items could not be located, which include a New England 20-caliber gun and a Maverick model 88 gun.
These issues with the Sheriff’s office not having established adequate controls and procedures over seized property has appeared in three prior audit reports.
In the auditee’s response, the County says procedures have since been implemented to “ensure all court-ordered disposals are properly document.” It also noted that periodic physical inventories are now being conducted.
The audit also showed that the Sheriff’s office maintained a bank account and a safe deposit box outside of the County’s treasury, where $15,000 of public funds sat in the account.
The audit shows the Sheriff made six improper and unsupported disbursements from the Special Operations account totaling $15,950 from January 2023-July 2025.
Two drones were purchased and one was kept at the Sheriff’s personal residence. It also noted gym equipment that could not be located at the jail or office. The County Commission since said the equipment has been returned.
No controls or procedures were put in place to ensure donations were tracked as $15,000 was improperly deposited in to the Special Operations account.
Since the auditing process started, it has since been reported that the account no longer exists and was transferred to the treasurer’s office. The safe deposit box has been inventoried to ensure proper disposition of the funds. Overall, the matter has reportedly been referred to an independent law enforcement agency for review.
The audit also noted that Sheriff’s office personnel did not always have timely deposit or restrictively endorsed checks. Monthly bank reconciliations were not done timely from January-June 2023 and there is no monthly list of liabilities for the inmate and commissary account. The County said this measure has since been addressed.
As of Sep. 30, 2024, the Sheriff’s office held $2,972 for 237 former inmates in that account, with $1,788 of it being held for more than one year. The County says unclaimed balances are now being reviewed and efforts are being made to return funds to former inmates.
Also, there were 21 outstanding checks totaling $590 older than one year in the civil service bank account.  The County’s response is that all funds that have been returned will be forwarded to the Unclaimed Property Division of the Missouri State Treasurer’s office.
Fuel uses of office vehicles was also not being monitored by the Sheriff as there was a reported assumption the Sheriff felt the dispatch center monitored the fuel usage. The County has since started maintaining the fuel log through the Omnigo System.
Miscellaneous audit findings
It was noted that Wright County Assessor Rachel Willhite has been charging a $3 fee, which is not allowed by law, to those requesting a receipt slip for some parcel document transactions. Around an estimate of $376 in fees were collected in 2023.
The finding notes how the fee is called a “research fee,” but no research is being performed. There is a note that the office procedures for recording money and receipts “need improvement.”
Willhite noted in the auditee’s response that her office has charged the fee since before she started there in 2007 and was unaware that a fee could not be charged. It has since been eliminated.
As noted in previous audits, the prosecuting attorney needs to segregate accounting duties and needs to establish procedures for reconciling the bank account, follow up on outstanding checks routinely and prepare a monthly list of liabilities to reconcile to the available cash balance.
There is also a need to deposit receipts timely. It was noted that the prosecuting attorney’s office has an employee conducting a personal business as a notary while performing regular office duties.
In the auditee’s response, it was noted that all of the items were addressed and that the office will also no longer provide notary services to the public.
As for the public administrator’s office (formerly John Miller), three “haphazardly selected estates” showed all three were filed after the due date. That office filed 28 annual settlements for 28 wards and estates as of Dec. 31, 2023.
In the auditee’s response, it is noted the office is now current on all settlements. Being currently short-staffed and with new cases added, there are times the timeline is reportedly affected, it went on to say.
As for password controls, the report noted that the county assessor, prosecuting attorney (John Tyrrell) and sheriff had not established controls to reduce risk of unauthorized access to computers and data.
The county assessor, county clerk and prosecuting attorney to not have security controls in place to lock computers after so many log-in attempts. Other findings show the Sheriff does not store back-up data at an off-side location and the public administrator did not perform back-ups of electronic data.
Plans are reportedly in the works for addressing the electronic security issues with each office.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citizens of Wright County,

As your Wright County Presiding Commissioner, I want to personally address the recent State Auditor's report.

We are aware of the audit and we appreciate the time taken to review the County's operations. I encourage every citizen to read the entire audit, including the County's written responses. Reading both documents provides a complete picture of the findings, the context surrounding them and the actions the County has already taken.

We take every recommendation seriously. Whenever opportunities for improvement are identified, our goal is to strengthen our processes, increase accountability and better serve the people of Wright County. Many of the items addressed in the audit have already been corrected, and additional measures have been implemented to ensure the County continues moving in a positive direction.

Regarding the loan document for the IDA, the original document was determined to need additional work to reflect the agreement. The original document that was presented and used to reflect the agreement between the IDA and the County was not reviewed by county counsel. Given the complexity of the agreement and concerns noted by the auditor the County sought outside counsel, Keck and Phillips. It was at this time additional documents were drafted and agreed to by the IDA and the Commission. The auditor and the County have a disagreement as to the documents.

Additionally, the County's revenues and expenditures during the audit period were significantly impacted by federal ARPA and COVID-19 relief funds distributed through the State of Missouri. These one-time funds temporarily increased the County's revenues compared to prior years. Because the State also established deadlines requiring those funds to be obligated and expended within a specified timeframe, the County experienced a corresponding increase in expenditures during that same period. These unusual circumstances should be considered when comparing the County's financial activity to previous years.

Our commitment has always been to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars while providing the services our citizens depend on. We remain dedicated to transparency, continuous improvement, and earning the trust of the people we serve.

Thank you for taking the time to stay informed and for your continued support of Wright County.

Zach Williams
Presiding Commissioner
Wright County Commission