Collin County turf battle cost taxpayers over $300,000

by Bill Baumbach of of The Collin County Observer

The ongoing attempt by the Collin County Commissioners to bring the County Auditor to heel has cost the taxpayers at least $304,177.35. This figure does not include court reporter's transcripts, deposition costs, unpaid attorney's fees, court costs, or expenses.

The expenses will continue to climb as the battle of wills over turf continues.

In his final judgment in favor of the Auditor, visiting judge Calhoun summed up his decision with, "Collin County shall take nothing on its claims in this lawsuit."

Judge Calhoun found in favor of the County Auditor, Donald Cozad on all nine questions that Cozad asked. He also ordered the county to pay the auditor attorney fees of $86,014.12.

In his decision, Judge Calhoun increased the Auditor's attorney fees to be paid for by the county by $50,000 if they appealed, and he ordered them to pay $10,000 for each post-trial motion.

The commissioners immediately filed two post trial motions and a notice of appeal.

According to the county's check register, Collin County has paid their attorney Peter Vogel's firm, Gardere, Winn, Sewell a total of $117,576.61 since filing the first suit against their own Auditor. They have also paid visiting judge Jerry Calhoun $566.40.

The commissioners have filed a notice of appeal and asked for transcripts to be prepared and sent to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas. The cost of the appeal could run least another $100-200 thousand in taxpayer dollars.

This is the second time Judge Calhoun has decided against the commissioners and in favor of the Auditor. In August, Calhoun issued a temporary injunction affirming Cozad's right to seek an opinion from the Texas Attorney General.

A question of law

Texas law requires that the County auditor is appointed by the local District Judges. The district Judges have the sole authority to hire, fire and set the salary of the Auditor and his staff.

The auditor is required by law to:

* Sec. 112.002. (a) In a county with a population of 190,000 or more, the county auditor shall prescribe the system of accounting for the county.

(b) The county auditor may adopt and enforce regulations, not inconsistent with law or with a rule adopted under Section 112.003, that the auditor considers necessary for the speedy and proper collecting, checking, and accounting of the revenues and other funds and fees that belong to the county or to a person for whom a district clerk, district attorney, county officer, or precinct officer has made a collection or for whose use or benefit the officer holds or has received funds.

* Sec. 112.006. GENERAL OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY OF COUNTY AUDITOR. (a) The county auditor has general oversight of the books and records of a county, district, or state officer authorized or required by law to receive or collect money or other property that is intended for the use of the county or that belongs to the county.

The request for Attorney General's Opinion

The battle between the commissioners and auditor began over whether the auditor could gain access to the base tables, permissions and settings of the software used by the county - especially software that fed into the accounting system.

When the county began deploying PeopleSoft's payroll system, Cozad asked for "read only" access to the software. The county said that level of access was not available and would be too costly to implement.

After months of wrangling, Mr. Cozad wrote a letter to the Texas Attorney General seeking clarification of his authority to compel the commissioners to grant him read only access to all software systems.

Mr. Cozad asked the Attorney General to answer 9 questions including:

* "May the County Auditor examine and audit the records (both paper and electronic) of administrative or elective offices?"

* "May permission to provide the County Auditor with only view only access to internal controls within a system or use of monitor software that reports changes be arbitrarily withheld?"

* "May permission to provide the County auditor with access to any data and/or tables used to create or support financial transactions... be arbitrarily withheld?"

The first lawsuit

The commissioners responded to Cozad's request by filing suit, asking the court to prohibit the Auditor from seeking an AGs opinion. In another action, the commissioners refused to pay for the auditor's attorney.

In August, Judge Calhoun ruled against the commissioners, granting the auditor the right to seek the opinion.

The second lawsuit

The commissioners then filed another suit asking for a jury trial to answer the questions posed to the AG by Mr. Cozad.

Much of the county's arguments were based on the effects and costs of granting the auditors requests. At one point the judge reminded Mr. Vogel that they were deciding if> the auditor had those rights, not how to accomplish them.

Last month, Judge Calhoun denied the jury trial, and issued the final judgment in favor of the county auditor.

Judge Calhoun responded to each of the nine questions with, "The auditor may examine", or other words that granted the Auditor every single right he requested on all nine questions, Cozad was also awarded his attorney's fees.

The attorneys for the county then filed:

1. a motion for a new trial

2. a motion to amend the judgment

3. a notice of appeal

A hearing on the motions is set for November 13.