News

In any successful organization there is value placed on the education, training, certification, and licensing of its employees. Any experienced leader of any organization, regardless of the industry, will tell you that ongoing education, training, certification, and licensing of its employees is an integral part of an organization’s success and ability to move forward in the right direction.

A local government, like Cache County, should be no different. The county pays for the education, training, certification, and licensing of many of its employees. In any county, the legislative body approves a training and travel budget line item for each county office and department of the executive branch. Once that money is approved and allocated by the legislative body to the training and travel line item of the office or department, the expenditure of that budget for individual items which pertain to the line item is the sole responsibility and purview of each department head or elected official, unless otherwise specified by code. The elected officers of the executive branch can make expenditures from their approved budget on whatever items they deem necessary, beneficial, or prudent to the fulfilling of their statutory responsibilities regarding their offices.

During my time as the Cache County Recorder, I did everything I could to keep my office up to date on the current practices, procedures, and laws which applied to our work of processing land records and changing record title property boundaries. This included using the allocated and approved training and travel budget to pay for ongoing licensing, certifications, training, and education for all the applicable employees of the office, including myself as the elected official. Every expenditure I made as the County Recorder from the county recorder’s approved budget was made for the benefit of the county recorder’s office to improve its ability to serve the public correctly and efficiently. When making those expenditures I followed every process and procedure that the Cache County Finance Department had in place at the time. There were never any controls circumvented in the multistep process of documenting the use of public funds through the Cache County Finance Department. There was never an instance where I was flagged, called out, questioned, or told that I had improperly used or documented the use of public funds.

In addition to being a benefit to the county recorder’s office, the expenditures I made as the County Recorder from the county recorder’s approved budget for ongoing licensing, certifications, trainings, and education was a benefit to the county as a whole, in many ways. Many discussions, consultations, and decisions regarding the counties overall statutory responsibilities to serve the public were made with the benefit of professional level expertise provided by the ongoing licensing, certifications, trainings, and education acquired.

To imply that ongoing licensing, certifications, trainings, and education were made only with regard to an individual’s personal benefit is unrealistic and blatantly ignoring the fact that those same licensing, certifications, trainings, and education had great benefit to the county recorder’s office, and to the county in general, and was worthy of the expenditure of county funds. The entire rational for including any of county recorder expenditures in the audit is based on the assumption as stated that “we are not aware of any aspect of surveying that is part of the County Recorder position. Consequently, there is no basis that we can discern for items relating to his surveyor’s license or conference attendance being paid for by the county.” Making this statement without giving any reference to what evidence was gathered, and what facts were relied upon to make that decision, is presumptive and uninformed, especially in light of the fact that the county recorder or county executive/surveyor were never interviewed or asked a single question regarding the work performed by the county recorder’s office or the county surveyor’s office.

In the county recorder’s office, the work of processing land records and changing record title property boundaries depends on a working knowledge of conveying documents, legal descriptions, accurately mapping property boundaries and other industry practices directly related to, or originating from, land surveying. Most documents processed at the county recorder’s office which make changes and adjustments to record title property boundaries are prepared by professional licensed land surveyors. Being able to perform the work of interpreting, analyzing, and correctly processing land records to change record title property boundaries is a skill that can be learned on the job as a recorder over time after many months and years of training. That work can also be done by professional licensed land surveyors who have already passed the education and testing requirements of their licensure to competently perform that work. Though the license of a professional land surveyor is not required to be an elected county recorder, having a professional licensed land surveyor as the elected county recorder is an immense benefit to a county recorder’s office and the county as a whole. Many counties in Utah have understood the overlapping roles of the county recorder and professional land surveying to the extent that they have made the logical step of combining the county recorder’s and county surveyor’s offices into one Recorder/Surveyor Office when the offices cannot be maintained separately.

In the county surveyor’s office, there are over eight statutory survey requirements that the county is responsible for fulfilling. As an elected executive/surveyor for cache county who is not a professional licensed land surveyor, there were many occasions in which the county executive/surveyor relied upon my understanding and expertise because I was the only professional licensed land surveyor on staff at Cache County. The executive/surveyor often asked me questions regarding how to best fulfill the county’s surveying statutory requirements. In addition to consulting and discussing with me how to fulfill the county’s surveying statutory requirements, I was asked by the executive/surveyor on multiple occasions to attend trainings and conferences on behalf of the county surveyor’s office, including the attendance of the conference referenced in the audit.

In light of these facts, the assumptions made in the audit are inappropriate and misleading. For anyone to claim that the audit is the only fact of the matter is a self-serving misrepresentation of the truth. If you still have doubts regarding my motives for my actions, feel free to read the following point by point response to the particular assumptions made regarding the expenditures of the recorder’s office in the $60,000 Special Investigative Audit ordered by the county council, performed by Sage Forensic Accounting, and released on December 12^th 2023. It is important to note that the audit specifically states that the Sage is “not a law firm” and its audit is from an “accounting perspective, not a legal perspective.”

• The assumption that recording and surveying are not related.

“We investigated another instance related to charges incurred by the Former County Recorder who held the position until approximately August 5, 2023, when he resigned. The invoice excerpt below is from the Utah Council of Land Surveyors to an entity named Boundary Line Surveying, LLC, with the Former Recorder as the contact for that company. The below invoice was paid using a County issued credit card. The payment of this invoice with a county issued card is improper as we are not aware of any aspect of surveying that is a part of the County Recorder position. Consequently, there is no basis that we can discern for items relating to his surveyor license or conference attendance being paid for by the county.”

Sage Investigative Audit Report of Findings, Cache County December 8, 2023. Page 14-15

There is no part of the cited portion of the audit that identifies what policy or procedure was violated or broken. The only assumed problem is that the author is not aware of any aspect of surveying that is a part of the County Recorder position. The author also makes no reference to what lengths he went to in order to inform himself in those regards. The duties of the county recorder’s office are intimately intertwined with the work of land surveying. It is so intertwined that Utah code for a time required that “the county surveyor and recorder of their respective counties shall jointly prepare and keep plats drawn to a convenient scale, which shall at all times show the record owners of each tract of land in the county, together with a description of such tract…”(The compiled laws of the State of Utah 1907 Section 623×1 Pg. 332) It is now the sole responsibility of the county recorder to fulfill those same statutory responsibilities. The state legislature, when establishing the County Recorder Standards Board in 2023, recognized the relationship between land surveying and the duties of the county recorder and required a seat of that County Recorder Standards Board to be filled by a professional licensed land surveyor from the Utah Council of Land Surveyors, appointed by the Utah Council of Land Surveyors. (Utah Code 63c-30-201(2)(c))

As stated before, the work of processing land records and changing record title property boundaries depends on a working knowledge of conveying documents, legal descriptions, accurately mapping property boundaries and other industry practices directly related to, or originating from, land surveying. Most documents processed at the county recorder’s office which make changes and adjustments to record title property boundaries are prepared by professional licensed land surveyors. By the author stating that there is no “aspect of surveying that is a part of the county recorder position” is an admission that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory responsibilities performed by the county recorder’s office. Even the most basic amount of investigation into the statutory requirements of the county recorder’s office and the role of land surveying in property transactions would indicate otherwise.

• Receipt to the wrong entity.

“This invoice is concerning as it specifically indicates it is issued to a separate entity and not to the County nor to the Former Recorder as an individual. Based on our research, the Former Recorder is the registered agent for this entity, which was established in June 2019. This information is easily accessible and publicly available from the State of Utah by doing a Business Search with the Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, see below: A registered agent is not always an owner. However, for a nominal fee the Certificate of Organization can be obtained from that State website. We obtained that and the Certificate shows the Former Recorder is a Member of the LLC, and a member is an owner of an LLC.”

Sage Investigative Audit Report of Findings, Cache County December 8, 2023. Page 15-16

There is no part of the cited portion of the audit that identifies what policy or procedure was violated or broken. The only assumed problem is that a receipt was issued to a separate entity. The Utah Council of Land Surveying (UCLS) is an all-volunteer organization which hosts an annual conference. As the county recorder, and in cooperation with the county executive/surveyor, I attended this conference for the benefit of the county recorder’s office and the county as a whole. The UCLS has one option for a member of that organization to list their contact information with them. In the past, I had listed my full-time employment and used my full-time employment email in my contact information with the UCLS. Upon leaving that employment, I missed emails from the UCLS which they continued to send to that former employer email. To avoid missing any informational emails from the UCLS, regardless of where I had my full-time employment, I listed my personal company’s email with them. When I registered to attend the UCLS conference I did not change my contact information with them. Subsequently, the receipt for the conference registration was addressed to my personal company and sent to my company email. To submit that receipt to the Cache County Finance Department for documentation of my expenditure I forwarded the receipt to my county work email and then submitted the receipt. Upon submitting the receipt, I received no contact or indication from the Cache County Finance Department that a receipt not addressed to the county was an issue or problem. Had they notified me that the submitted receipt was not acceptable I would have requested a new receipt from the UCLS to submit.

Not having a receipt issued to the county when I had made that expenditure with the county credit card was a misstep I made, and I take full responsibility for that misstep. I should have requested that the UCLS provide me with a receipt issued to the source of the purchase. However, the expenditure itself was a worthy expenditure due to the benefit it provided to the county recorder’s office and the county as a whole.

• The assumption of improper disclosure.

“The forgoing is a significant concern. It is our understanding that the Former Recorder’s ownership of this company was not disclosed to the County. Our research indicates such is required under Utah Code 17-16a-6. Further, the Former Recorder completed a Cache County Disclosure From dated Janua1y 3, 2021, wherein he affirmed that he was “not engaged in any personal or business activities that would be found in violation of the County Officers and Employees Disclosure Act.” There were no subsequent Disclosure Forms completed by the Former Recorder. Boundary Line Surveying provides private surveying work. Sage learned that the Former Recorder acted as a private surveyor for certain individuals that also had items requiring County approval from the Recorder. The Former Recorder’s private work while the Recorder would subject him to the requirements of Utah Code 17-16a-5 which prohibits such officials from receiving compensation for assistance in transactions involving the county. Likewise, the Former Recorder approving as Recorder items he performed private surveyor work on would subject him to the requirements of Utah Code 17-16a-4, which prohibits use of office position to secure privileges for others.”

Sage Investigative Audit Report of Findings, Cache County December 8, 2023. Page 16

Many county employees own companies and engage in employment outside of their full-time employment with the county. Whether or not that outside employment is a conflict of interest is a legal question based on a legal analysis by individuals qualified to practice law. On page three of the audit, the auditor specifically states that Sage is “not a law firm” and its audit is from an “accounting perspective, not a legal perspective.” However, as cited above, the author of this portion of the audit gives a legal assumption that, due to my ownership in a company, that I would be subject to the requirements of Utah Code 17-16a-4 without the citation of any qualified legal analysis of the subject. My personal attorney, and the counsel given to me by the Cache County Attorney’s office during my full-time employment with Cache County, is contrary to the unqualified legal assumptions made by the auditor in this section of the audit. Whether or not my position with the county and my ownership of a private company would have made me subject to the requirements of Utah Code 17-16a-4 is a legal matter, requiring a legal determination, and is well beyond the scope of a forensic accounting perspective. As a legal matter, I am entitled to defend myself against my accusers in a court of law and am innocent of violating Utah Code 17-16a-4.

Further, regarding the Disclosure Form I submitted to the county dated January 3, 2021, the author of this portion of the audit states that, “There were no subsequent Discloser Forms completed by the Former Recorder.” This is absolutely a false statement as I made a detailed disclosure to the Cache County Council in their regular council meeting held on March 28^th, 2023. A Copy of that disclosure statement provided to the County Council on that occasion, being nine months prior to the publishing of the audit, can be found here.

• The assumption of improper approval of documentation.

“Regarding the UCLS invoice above, I note that it was approved by the Chief Deputy Recorder. She reported directly to the Former Recorder, placing her in a position of having to approve her superior’s requests for reimbursement. It is noted that on other occasions, the Former Recorder would approve his own reimbursement requests. To us, this evidences the potential of efforts taken to create an appearance of independence. Examples of the Former Recorder approving his own request are noted on receipts from Staples, DOPL, and The Crepery, shown below:”

Sage Investigative Audit Report of Findings, Cache County December 8, 2023. Page 16-17

There is no part of the cited portion of the audit that identifies what policy or procedure was violated or broken. The only assumed problem is that a receipt was signed and approved by someone other than the elected official. First and foremost, it is important to be clear that what the author is showing here are receipts for expenditures made with the county credit card and not reimbursement requests. A reimbursement request is made when an employee makes an expenditure on behalf of the county with their own money and then subsequently makes a reimbursement request to the county to have the money returned to them. There was a separate multistep process for the Cache County Finance Department to approve a reimbursement request. However, what the auditor is showing here is a process for submitting receipts to document expenditures made with the county credit card and does not involve money returning to the county employee. When receipts are submitted for the documentation of a purchase made with the county credit card each receipt is noted with a stamp and signature for the purpose of identifying that the purchase was made by the authorized card holder and that the payment was approved by the cardholder for the benefit of that office. It is then submitted for approval by the Cache County Finance Department. In the office of an elected official, the Cache County Finance Department allows receipts to be signed and submitted by the elected official or the chief deputy of that office. If this was not the case, the receipts would not have been approved by the Cache County Finance Department and would have been returned to the office. All existing policies and procedures regarding the recorder’s office receipts and the accompanying signatures submitted to the Cache County Finance Department were followed during my time as county recorder.

• Repeated assumptions and non-adherence to US GSA.

“Another transaction reviewed involved a three-night stay at the Staybridge Suites hotel in St. George. The hotel invoice is addressed to the Former Recorder’s wife with “Work” as the company. That invoice is shown below: There is nothing on this receipt to show that this expense is related to the County. The nightly accommodation rate for this trip was between $127.40 and $161.60 per night, which is greater than the applicable 2023 GSA reimbursement rate of $98 per night. This transaction was again approved by the Chief Deputy Recorder who reported directly to the Former Recorder. Although not stated specifically on this document, our research indicates the dates coincide with the UCLS conference. We are aware of no County Recorder business this relates to and thus again find there no basis for this amount being charged to a County credit card.” Pg. 14-15

Sage Investigative Audit Report of Findings, Cache County December 8, 2023. Page 14-15

This receipt was for lodging as part of the travel and training for the attendance of the above-referenced UCLS conference. As stated above the duties of the county recorder’s office are intimately intertwined with the work of land surveying and attendance at this conference by the county recorder is an appropriate use of the recorder’s office training and travel funds. Also, as stated above, the approval signature on this receipt followed all policies and procedures of the Cache County Finance Department. Again, as stated above, the entity that was the recipient of the receipt was not an issue raised by the Cache County Finance Department when the receipt was submitted for their approval. Had it been, I would have requested a new receipt from the hotel.

The issue raised by the author of the audit regarding the U.S. GSA reimbursement rate for travel lodging accommodations is misleading. The audit previously stated, “according to Cache County policies and procedures, U.S. GSA per diem rates serve as the basis by which Cache County will pay for expenses related to travel.” However, Cache County had a modified policy and procedure based on the GSA but did not strictly adhere to the GSA rate in every aspect of training and travel expenses. With regard to lodging in specific, I was instructed by the Cache County Finance Department that the U.S. GSA rates were not required to be followed for lodging expenses. I am sure a simple investigation into any travel lodging arrangements made by any employee of the county at that time would reveal a wide variety of lodging accommodations not in line with, or strictly adhering to, the Federal GSA reimbursement rate for lodging because strictly following that rate was not a requirement of Cache County policy and procedure.     

In conclusion, I want to again thank you for taking the time to hear both sides of the story and leave you with one final observation of the assumptions made in the audit regarding the expenditures of the recorder’s office. In my experience audits performed for the right reasons can be a tool for good to help the organization learn and improve from the findings of the audit. If I were a county council member, and this audit was truly conducted to improve the service the county provides to the people of Cache County, I believe it would not take this long to meet with the department heads and elected officials to discuss the results of the audit and brainstorm solutions to the real or perceived findings of the audit. In the five months since the audit was released the county council has not had any discussions with the executive/surveyor or any department heads and elected officials to clarify training and travel procedures. Since the audit, the county council has not made any direct changes to the processes and procedure of the county regarding the expenditure of training and travel funds approved by the county council. If the purpose of the audit truly was to find and fix issues with regard to the financial dealings and internal controls of Cache County, and the assumptions made about the use of the recorder’s office training and travel are real issues, why would the results and findings of this audit not be discussed with the leaders of the county recorder’s office, or the other offices of the executive branch?