The issue stems from various situations in which commissioner’s court and Watkins disagreed, including a request on purchasing orders, which according to the court, Watkins was refusing to proceed with. Watkins had been claiming she was doing her due diligence as the county’s auditor.
Watkins addressed the Commissioners Court during the meeting under citizens communication before the court discussed an agenda item regarding their ordeal.
“I want to thank all Maverick County employees who have contributed to the County and have put it in a position to apply and receive federal grants again, and even end the year with excess cash. This takes teamwork and things are getting better,” said Watkins. “I just want the court and the public to know a little bit about the auditor office. My staff and I are dedicated to doing our jobs to the best of our abilities. We’re appointed by the district judges. This is important because we’re independent from Commissioners Court, and they do not set our salaries and we’re not elected therefore we don’t have a political agenda.
Our primary function is to assure that the local government operates within the bounds of State law and works in the best interest of the county taxpayers. The court may not pay a claim without the auditors approval in fact the auditor’s office cannot approve payment on checks quickly in accordance to the law. This takes time like in many counties the procurement process might take months. The auditor has financial oversight for all county offices and officers and may dictate the county procedures for all county offices. This was an issue this year because the court changed their budget policy on the last workday of the year.”
Watkins expressed that her department would continue assisting every department but at the same time has to follow procedures , laws and policies to reach the overall goal of protecting the taxpayer.
She then walked out of the meeting.
Maverick County Judge David R. Saucedo clarified the county’s differences with Watkins pertaining to signage of purchasing orders and how at the end of the day the orders had been signed and approved.
Commissioners Court then went into executive session to consult with legal counsel regarding the county auditor and her failure to perform duties as required by law and policy including any legal action that may be taken to enforce that these duties and responsibilities.
Once back in open session Commissioners Court ordered for Legal Counsel Robert Wilson to proceed with the actions that had been discussed in executive session which was not made public. It is believed that no further action against Watkins will be taken as she did eventually sign and deliver the purchasing orders in question.