What Every Jonesboro Resident Needs to Know
By Councilwoman Santia Fox
Following the release and presentation of the forensic analysis by Plante Moran during the May 28 Special Called Meeting, many residents have asked what the report actually says, what findings were identified, and what those findings mean for Jonesboro moving forward.
My goal is to help break down the report in a way that is easy to understand.
First Things First: What Was This Analysis?
This was not a criminal investigation.
It was a forensic financial analysis designed to review specific concerns raised by City Council regarding:
Credit card purchases Accounts payable payments (vendor payments) Employee compensation and benefits
The firm reviewed financial records from 2022, 2023, and 2024, analyzed transactions, examined supporting documentation, and tested whether City policies were followed.
It is important to remember that this analysis reviewed specific financial records and transactions from the years included in the engagement. The report speaks only to the period examined by the forensic analysts.
Before discussing the findings, it’s also important to understand that the report’s purpose was to evaluate financial practices and internal controls, not determine criminal liability.
What Did They Find?
The report identified several areas where City policies were not followed and where financial controls should be strengthened.
1. Some Vendor Payments Violated City Purchasing Policies
The report found instances where payments were made without evidence that the City’s required purchasing procedures were followed.
Jonesboro’s purchasing policy requires:
- Three written quotes for purchases over certain thresholds
- Council approval for larger expenditures
The analysis found at least one example involving landscaping services where required documentation and bidding records could not be produced. The report states that the payment appeared to violate the City’s purchasing policy.
Why This Matters
Policies exist to:
- Protect taxpayer dollars
- Ensure fairness
- Prevent favoritism
- Create transparency in spending
When procedures are not followed, public trust suffers
2. Employees Were Paid Through Accounts Payable Instead of Payroll
The report found that some employees were paid through the accounts payable system for work performed at events.
According to the analysis, these payments appeared to be compensation for work performed rather than reimbursements for expenses. The report notes that employee compensation should generally be processed through payroll for proper tax treatment.
Why This Matters
Payroll systems exist for a reason.
They help ensure:
- Proper tax reporting
- Accurate employee records
- Compliance with labor laws
- Financial transparency
The report indicates that the City no longer uses this practice
3. Cash Bonuses Were Given to Employees
The report identified a reimbursement request for $5,600 in cash bonuses distributed to 56 employees in December 2022.
The forensic analysts stated that cash bonuses are not recommended and that bonuses should be processed through payroll to ensure proper tax treatment.
Why This Matters
Good governance requires that all compensation be properly documented and reported.
Even when intentions are good, the process matters.
4. Questions Were Raised About Travel Expenses
The report notes that the Mayor, City employees, and some Councilmembers attended various conferences and events, including trips to:
- Seattle
- Chicago
- Washington, D.C.
- Tampa
- West Palm Beach
The analysis found that several travel reimbursements were labeled as being paid from OPB Grant funds.
The report states that these travel expenses would not typically appear to fit within the usual categories associated with OPB grant funding.
Importantly, the report does not conclude that grant fraud occurred. It simply notes concerns regarding whether those grant funds were the appropriate funding source for certain travel expenses.
Why This Matters
Grant funds often come with strict rules.
If grant money is used for expenses outside of those rules, cities can be required to repay funds or make corrections.
5. A Duplicate Payment Was Identified
The report found one instance where an employee received reimbursement for an expense that had already been paid using a City credit card.
The amount involved was relatively small—approximately $37.
The report specifically states that it found no evidence that the employee reimbursed the City for the duplicate payment.
Why This Matters
This finding wasn’t about the dollar amount.
It highlighted weaknesses in the City’s review process and internal controls.
Other Concerning Observations
The report also notes broader administrative challenges.
According to the analysis:
- The City remains behind on publishing financial statements.
- The City’s external auditor resigned.
- The City experienced significant turnover, including multiple finance directors and city managers over a short period of time.
Frequent turnover often makes it harder to maintain consistency, institutional knowledge, and financial oversight.
What The Report Did NOT Say
It is equally important to understand what the report does not say.
The forensic analysis:
Did not accuse anyone of theft.
Did not conclude that fraud occurred.
Did not make criminal findings.
Did not identify a widespread conspiracy.
Instead, the report primarily identified weaknesses in policies, procedures, documentation, oversight, and internal controls.
Recommendations Moving Forward
The forensic analysts recommended several improvements, including:
Regular reviews of major contracts
No cash payments to employees
Processing all employee compensation through payroll
Council review of major travel expenses
Better monitoring of credit card purchases and reimbursements
Stronger compliance with purchasing policies
My Commitment To You
As your Councilwoman, my responsibility is not to protect personalities.
My responsibility is to protect the public’s trust.
That means:
• Asking questions
• Seeking facts
• Reviewing documents
• Improving policies
• Strengthening oversight
• Keeping residents informed
Whether you supported the forensic analysis or opposed it, the report has now been delivered.
The question before us is no longer whether the review should have happened.
The question is what we do with the information now.
- How do we strengthen oversight?
- How do we improve documentation?
- How do we ensure policies are consistently followed?
- How do we build greater public confidence moving forward?
Those are the questions I believe residents should be focused on.
The most important question is:
What changes will we make now to ensure these issues never happen again?
Forward With Fox
Councilwoman Santia Fox
Reshaping One Jonesboro 
