Audit Raises Serious Questions About Oakman’s Finances
A “disclaimer of opinion" has been issued as a result of inaccurate or incomplete information in an audit of the Walker County Town of Oakman. That finding by Northport Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Don Wallace is the most serious that can be made, short of outright fraud, that the Northport CPA could have returned.
The audit stated Oakman, "...had not complied with state audit requirements since fiscal year 2019, leaving no reliable trail for fixed assets, loans or other balances carried into the current audit."
A primary issue in the audit is a $1,748.59 town payment that is evidence in the felony indictment of now former mayor Cory Franks. That indictment, unsealed last November lists two felony ethics charges against Franks. He is accused of allowing his daughter to drive a town-owned 2021 BMW 528i for personal use and taking all or part of a $1,748.59 town check.
Wallace's audit lists an identical $1,748.59 payment to “Cory Franks for police supplies” in 2024 but contains no documentation. The audit's finding states, “The Town was unable to properly find and locate backup documentation for disbursements across the Town’s funds and to ensure that funds were expended only for public use and charged to correct accounts as required under state laws.”
Because Oakman had fallen out of compliance with required state audits, the town hired the outside CPA to perform an audit that would meet those state standards. That’s why the report repeatedly references failures to follow state laws, state audit requirements, and state fund restrictions.
Problems with no reliable trail for fixed assets, loans or other balances are also exacerbated by frequent turnover of town staff.
Two signatures are required on town checks but “many payments only had one check signer,” including many of the specific payments the audit flagged including the the check now cited in Franks’ indictment.
The audit also discovered the town has no dedicated bank account for Rebuild Alabama funds and could not confirm the money went into the restricted accounts required by law. Instead. Wallace's audit questions if those funds were placed in the town's general fund instead.
The audit also questions a “Schedule of Questionable Costs” listing several other payments; some to cash, some to Franks himself, some to other current and former town officials. None include required supporting documentation.
Noted in the audit is a statement that, due to missing records, “we were unable to determine whether any additional adjustments might have been found necessary for the amounts included in the financial statements.”
Wallace's audit also found almost not documentation for Oakman Municipal Court in FY25 or 25.
More From Tuscaloosa Thread
