Brandon Leuallen, The Business Times

A series of financial controversies involving Mesa County Public Health over the past several years has exposed gaps in oversight, procurement practices and internal controls, prompting ongoing efforts by county officials to strengthen accountability for taxpayer dollars.

The most recent issue involves former Executive Director Xavier Crockett, whose use of a county purchasing card led to a settlement agreement and ended a short-term advisory contract earlier this year. That situation follows earlier controversies involving former Behavioral Health Director Lisa Mills and former Mesa County Public Health Executive Director Jeff Kuhr, whose tenure prompted an independent forensic review of the department’s contracting and procurement practices.

Taken together, the three cases highlight different types of financial concerns but raise a central question: Who oversees how public funds are managed within an independent health department, and how can similar issues be prevented?

Procurement breakdown drove Kuhr review

The situation centered on Kuhr in 2023 led to a forensic review conducted by Hammer Consulting and Forensics at the request of the Mesa County Attorney. 

A summary of the review released by county commissioners said upwards of $20 million in contracts were awarded without a competitive bid, without a legal contract or both.

The review was triggered after a consultant was found to have been paid nearly $500,000 over several years “without the contracts going out for public bid and with few perceived contract deliverables,” according to the report’s factual summary.

Investigators examined approximately five years of contracts, expenditures, purchasing-card activity and revenue sources to determine whether the department complied with federal, state and county procurement rules. The report said it reviewed “contracts and subcontracts with outside vendors” as well as “detailed revenue and expenditure reports by project” to understand spending patterns.

Those rules required the health department to follow county purchasing policies, including competitive bidding and formal contract review. County policy states the county must maintain “an open and competitive environment to all qualified vendors,” and it requires documented bids from at least three vendors for mid-level purchases and formal advertised bids for larger contracts.

The review also confirmed that although the commissioners do not oversee the health department, the department is still required to follow county policies under its intergovernmental agreement, which states it “will follow County Purchasing policies and procedures and will use County requisition system.”

The findings identified repeated instances where those requirements were not followed, including contracts entered into without competitive bidding, without formal agreements and without required oversight.

What procurement means and why it matters

Procurement refers to the process government agencies use to spend public money on goods and services. It includes how contracts are awarded, how vendors are selected and how purchases are approved and documented.

Mesa County’s procurement policy is designed to ensure open competition and accountability. The policy states the county is responsible for maintaining “an open and competitive environment to all qualified vendors” and that procurement actions must be conducted fairly and in the county’s best interest.

For purchases over $5,000, departments are required to obtain multiple quotes, while larger contracts require formal bidding processes and additional oversight. Contracts above certain thresholds must also be reviewed by finance staff, the county attorney and risk management, as outlined in the procurement policy included in the forensic review.

These requirements are intended to prevent favoritism, ensure competitive pricing and create a clear record showing how taxpayer dollars are spent.

When those processes are not followed, the risk extends beyond individual purchases to whether contracts are enforceable, whether vendors are selected fairly and whether restricted funds such as state or federal grants are used appropriately.

Behavioral health director terminated amid separate concerns

A separate controversy emerged in March 2025 when Mesa County terminated Mills, the founding director of Mesa County Behavioral Health.

Documents obtained through an open-records request by The Daily Sentinel showed Mills was accused of several policy violations, including “inappropriate interactions with county contractors, including potential financial benefits and acceptance of gifts while not performing contractually required audits of these same contractors.”

Latest issue involves purchasing card use

The most recent issue involves Crockett, whose use of a county purchasing card to buy first-class flights while conducting county business prompted concerns in late 2025 about compliance with travel and expense policies.

After Crockett stepped down as public health director, a settlement agreement between Crockett and Mesa County resolved questions surrounding travel and meal expenses charged to a county purchasing card, which the county asserted “did not comply with applicable County policies.” Under the agreement, Crockett forfeited $2,000 in compensation he was entitled to for January consulting work, which the parties defined as “a negotiated offset and settlement amount.” The agreement states that neither party admits wrongdoing, policy violation, breach of contract or liability, and that no further payments or recovery will be pursued.

The settlement also states Crockett asserts he incurred certain personal travel-related expenses for which he did not seek reimbursement.

Separate governance structure complicates oversight

One of the challenges in addressing these issues is the structure of Mesa County Public Health.

The department is overseen by the Mesa County Board of Public Health, not the Board of County Commissioners. While the department operates with its own funding structure, it is still required under its governing agreement to follow county financial and procurement policies.

That separation has created a system in which the Board of Health is responsible for direct oversight of the executive director, while county systems and staff provide financial infrastructure and support.

Mesa County Public Health is governed by a seven-member Board of Public Health, currently chaired by Marguerite Tuthill and including members Stephen Daniels, Mona Highline, Jeannine Frey, Joe Giauque, Alexandra Hulst and Trish Weber.

The Board of Health publicly addressed Crockett’s settlement during its March 10 meeting, stating it had initiated a review of Crockett’s travel expenses in fall 2025. Board members said the review “identified some expenses where county travel policies were not fully followed” and concluded that resolving the matter through a settlement agreement was “the most prudent and fiscally responsible course for the stewardship of public funds.” The board also stated it has revised its process for reviewing the executive director’s expenses.

County implements new systems to improve accountability

In response to these issues, Mesa County has been implementing changes in its capacity to improve financial oversight and transparency.

Sheila Reiner, Mesa County’s acting finance director, said the county implemented a new enterprise system called Workday in April of last year, replacing a roughly 25-year-old system that relied heavily on external spreadsheets.

The new system centralizes financial data and introduces structured approval workflows for purchases and payments. She said it has taken time to work through initial challenges and adapt to the new system.

Under the updated process, most purchases go through a front-end approval system. Transactions over $5,000 require multiple quotes or a documented sole-source justification, followed by review from designated cost-center managers and the county’s purchasing division. Invoices are then reviewed again before payment, creating additional layers of oversight.

Reiner said purchasing-card transactions are handled differently than standard purchases, because they occur before approval, requiring oversight after the fact. Unlike purchases that go through a pre-approval process, purchasing-card transactions are made first and then reviewed.

After a purchase is made, employees are required to upload receipts and documentation into the county’s financial system, where the transaction enters an approval queue.

The cost-center manager plays a key role in that process. Reiner said health department cost-center managers are responsible for reviewing transactions within the department to ensure they comply with county policy, including whether purchases are appropriate, properly documented and within allowed spending guidelines. She said that review requires an additional step, as each transaction must be opened to view full details. For example, a charge may appear simply as an airline purchase, and details such as a first-class ticket would not be visible unless the transaction is individually opened and reviewed.

Reiner said when purchasing cards are used improperly, employees are expected to repay the county, either by self-reporting the mistake or after the transaction is flagged during the review process and questioned by a cost-center manager.

Reiner said the county is working to reduce reliance on purchasing cards and shift more spending into pre-approved workflows. Planned changes include integrating vendor purchasing into Workday, allowing employees to route purchases through approval processes before they are made rather than relying on purchasing cards that are reviewed after the fact.

She also said the county is exploring the use of travel agencies that would ensure bookings comply with county policy at the time they are made.