(ANGOLA) - Steuben County leaders have still provided no public answers about how more than $44,000 in county park collections went undeposited over three years--or how residents can independently know the financial operation is now under control.
A former park employee, Sara Brook Smith, has been charged with four felony counts. Park Director Scott Schwartz says new procedures have been implemented. But the criminal case does not answer the broader questions raised by the Indiana State Board of Accounts investigation:
How did the losses continue unnoticed from 2022 through 2024? Why were basic comparisons between receipts, rentals and deposits not routinely performed? Who was responsible for reviewing the work? And what verifiable safeguards now prevent the same failures from happening again?
Those questions became more pressing after the Steuben County Council voted 4-3 to commit another $389,799.77 to park improvements --even as County Council Vice President Christina Cress said the county still lacked a true understanding of what the park costs to operate.
Cress was not responsible for supervising the park. She was one of the officials who helped uncover the discrepancies.
The County Commission is responsible for the park, and Schwartz was Park Director throughout the period examined by the state.
WLKI has asked Commissioners Wil Howard, Rick Shipe and Andy Laughlin to explain the oversight failures and the safeguards now in place.
Howard declined to discuss the matter, citing the pending criminal case. Shipe did not respond. Laughlin did not answer WLKI's questions, although he later commented to The Herald Republican, whose reporting is available to subscribers.
WLKI also contacted Cress because she worked with Schwartz when the discrepancies were first identified. She has not answered questions about that early review or what the county learned as the problem was uncovered.
The criminal prosecution may limit what officials can say about the evidence against the defendant. It does not prevent county leaders from explaining park operations, current financial controls or who is now responsible for verifying the park's records.
What The State Found
The State Board of Accounts identified $44,141.27 in campground and facility-rental collections that were not deposited between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024.
The total included:
- $25,784.37 connected to campground operations.
- $18,356.90 connected to facility rentals.
The findings involved 23 camping lots and facility rentals, including seasonal camping fees, electrical charges, dock rentals, building rentals and security deposits.
The amount identified increased sharply over the three-year period:
2022: $4,126.05
2023: $17,076.25
2024: $22,938.97
The losses identified in 2024 were more than five times the amount found for 2022.
That progression matters. This was not one isolated deposit that disappeared or one accounting error discovered immediately. The discrepancies continued through three separate calendar years and became substantially larger.
The SBOA also warned that its procedures were limited to the records associated with park collections and were not designed to identify every instance of noncompliance.
That qualification is especially important because significant records were missing.
How The Discrepancies Were Discovered
Sarah Smith was hired as the Steuben County Park Assistant Superintendent and Event Center Coordinator on November 15, 2021.
Her duties included collecting and receipting fees, submitting money to the County Auditor and County Treasurer, reading electric meters, billing campers, maintaining reservation schedules and assisting with the annual park budget.
The investigation did not begin because the park's regular controls quickly detected a bad transaction.
It began while Schwartz and Cress were attempting to prepare profit-and-loss statements for 2024. The calculated park profits were lower than expected based on known rental activity.
They began comparing campground billing forms with park receipts and found that at least two campers' forms showed more money had been paid than the amounts recorded in the receipt books.
Schwartz contacted the campers. They confirmed paying the larger amounts.
The concerns were reported to the State Board of Accounts on November 12, 2024.
State examiners met with Schwartz and Cress on November 21 and found similar differences. When Smith was shown two billing forms and the associated receipts, the audit report says she told investigators she "had no idea" about the discrepancies and that "it was just a mistake."
Smith resigned from the Park Department on January 10, 2025, effective immediately.
Cress's role in that process was helping identify the discrepancies--not supervising the financial operation that allowed them to continue.
One Receipt Showed $2,850. The County Copy Showed $50.
One transaction illustrates both the seriousness of the discrepancies and the failure of the park's review process.
According to the SBOA, a camper's original white receipt documented a $2,850 cash payment on March 16, 2023.
The yellow duplicate retained for the county's records showed only $50.
The $50 amount--not $2,850--was deposited.
Investigators also found that a copy of the original $2,850 receipt had later been submitted to the County Auditor to support a $1,250 refund to the camper, who used the site for only half of the season.
That meant the larger receipt existed in county records for another purpose, while only $50 from the transaction was recorded as deposited.
The SBOA documented other overwritten duplicate receipts as well, including one on which a carbon amount of at least $400 had been changed in ink to $100. Investigators reported finding no replacement receipt and no deposit connected to that transaction.
These were not discrepancies requiring sophisticated financial forecasting to detect. A routine comparison of the customer's agreement, the original receipt, the duplicate receipt and the deposit should have exposed them.
The state found those comparisons were not routinely occurring.
Four Months Of Collections On One Report
The audit also documented severe delays in reporting and depositing money.
Indiana law generally requires local public funds to be deposited by the following business day once collections on hand exceed $500.
The park submitted 49 Reports of Collections during the three years reviewed.
The shortest reporting period covered three days--but included $22,481.30.
The longest covered 123 days, or roughly one-third of a year, and included $20,969.20.
That nearly $21,000 was eventually included on a collection report. It was not part of the $44,141.27 identified as undeposited.
But allowing that much money to accumulate across a four-month reporting period shows how far the park's regular practices had moved from the state's next-business-day deposit requirement.
It also raises a basic oversight question: how could nearly one-third of a year pass before that report was submitted without the delay itself triggering intervention?
Records Missing Across All Three Years
The investigation became substantially more complicated because reservation and supporting files for 2022, 2023 and 2024 could not be located.
The state did not have one complete set of records that could simply be reconciled against county deposits.
Investigators instead attempted to reconstruct park activity through the material still available, including campground agreements, billing forms, receipt books, payment documents, booking summaries, sheriff's department indemnity forms, electronic records and interviews.
In some cases, the State Board of Accounts and Indiana State Police could not contact renters or obtain additional documentation needed to determine the complete payment history.
For six events, investigators found evidence that the facilities had been reserved and security had been provided, but could not reach the renters or obtain rental agreements, text messages or other records confirming every payment. The SBOA calculated what should have been collected based on the documentation it could reconstruct.
The report also found that documents were not maintained to show whether cash security deposits were returned, when they were returned, whether security-deposit checks were returned or destroyed, or whether post-rental inspections had identified damage.
The result is an identified loss of $44,141.27--but not necessarily a complete reconstruction of every park transaction during those years.
Too many original records were missing for the state to know with certainty that every affected transaction had been identified.
The Investigation Cost Another $35,049
The State Board of Accounts charged $35,049.33 for the cost of conducting the special investigation.
That expense was assigned to Smith in the audit's reimbursement demand. It was a cost incurred by the State of Indiana, not an additional $35,049 taken directly from Steuben County's park accounts.
Still, it was public money.
When the undeposited collections and investigation costs are combined, the report lists a total balance due of $79,190.60.
The investigation cost also helps show the amount of work required after the county's original records failed to provide a complete accounting.
The state investigation began after the discrepancies were reported in November 2024. The report was dated December 22, 2025. Its findings were discussed with county officials during an exit conference on February 18, 2026.
The matter required more than a year of state examination before the report was completed and formally presented to county leadership.
The State's Criticism Went Beyond One Employee
The SBOA report centers on Smith's handling of park collections. But its findings also describe an operation without adequate supervisory controls.
The state's internal-control standards call for reconciliations, authorizations, approval procedures, performance reviews, verification and separation of financial duties.
Those controls are intended to prevent problems or identify them quickly.
At the Steuben County Park, the work of receiving money, issuing receipts, maintaining records and reporting deposits was not being independently checked in a way that detected the growing discrepancies.
The state identified problems involving:
- Collections that were not deposited.
- Missing or incomplete supporting records.
- Security deposits that were not properly tracked.
- Receipts that were incomplete or inconsistently maintained.
- Public money that was not deposited within the required time.
- Credit-card collections that were not recorded in park receipt books or properly remitted through the county's normal process.
- A lack of adequate internal controls.
The report's findings were discussed at the February exit conference with County Auditor Kelli Johnson; Schwartz; Commissioners Wil Howard, Andy Laughlin and Richard Shipe; County Council President Daniel Caruso; and Cress.
The central management questions rest with Schwartz and the County Commission: who supervised the park's financial work, why the discrepancies continued for three years and what safeguards now ensure that receipts, rentals and deposits are being independently reconciled.
Schwartz Says Corrective Measures Were Implemented
In his formal response to the audit, Schwartz thanked the SBOA for its review and said he took the findings seriously.
He wrote that corrective measures had already been implemented, including:
- Internal controls.
- Additional documentation procedures.
- Staff training.
- Timely deposits when collections exceed $500.
Schwartz wrote that he felt confident in the improved procedures.
The SBOA explicitly notes, however, that official responses included with its reports are not verified for accuracy by the state.
WLKI has not received a detailed public explanation identifying the new controls, who performs each review, how frequently campground and facility activity is reconciled against receipts and deposits, or who reports discrepancies to the commissioners.
The public has been asked to accept that changes were made without being given enough detail to independently evaluate them.
Cress Later Raised Another Financial Concern
The question of current financial accountability returned during the Steuben County Council's June 9, 2026 meeting.
County officials presented a package of park improvements that included concrete camping pads, stair replacement, bathhouse work and utility improvements.
During the discussion, officials described the park as generating significant revenue and said increased fees could help repay the investment.
Cress raised a different concern.
"The gross number is nice to look at," she said, but added that she had "no true understanding" of what operating the park actually costs.
She said the county was discussing another investment without a complete financial picture.
"I think it's a great thing," Cress said. "I just wish we had a better picture of it."
She later added: "If we're going to be in a business, then let's be in a business and let's do it like a business. This is not the way I would run a business."
Cress was not defending the absence of detailed accounting. She was publicly calling attention to it.
Despite the concern she raised, the council approved the full $389,799.77 package on a 4-3 vote.
The money was to come from the county's Major Moves fund, with increased park-related revenue intended to provide a repayment source.
The improvements may be needed. Council members described deteriorating stairs, aging bathhouses and years of deferred maintenance.
But the vote created an unavoidable public-accountability question:
Why was the county committing nearly $390,000 more to the park while its own council discussion showed it still could not clearly establish the park's actual operating costs?
Four Felony Charges Are Now Pending
On July 20, 2026, Sara Brook Smith was charged in Steuben Superior Court with four Level 6 felonies:
- Theft involving property valued between $750 and $50,000.
- Counterfeiting.
- Obstruction of justice.
- Official misconduct.
The criminal docket identifies her as Sara Brook Smith. The State Board of Accounts report identifies the former employee as Sarah Smith.
A probable-cause affidavit was filed, but the document was not available through the online court record reviewed by WLKI. Without that affidavit, WLKI cannot state which specific audit findings prosecutors are using to support each criminal count.
It would therefore be improper to assume, without the affidavit, that the counterfeiting charge is based on the altered receipts or that the obstruction charge is based on the missing files.
The criminal case remains pending. Smith is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
WLKI Asked County Leaders For Answers
WLKI asked Schwartz and the county commissioners to explain the oversight failures and the safeguards now in place.
The questions include:
- What controls existed from 2022 through 2024?
- Why did those controls fail to detect the discrepancies?
- Who supervised the park's financial operation?
- What specific controls have changed?
- Who now compares rentals, receipts and deposits?
- How often are those comparisons performed?
- Do the commissioners receive written reconciliation reports?
- What happens when figures do not match?
- How can the county justify further investment without a complete accounting of operating costs?
Howard declined to comment, citing the active criminal case.
Shipe did not respond.
Laughlin did not respond to WLKI but later spoke to The Herald Republican. He said the discrepancies had been reported when discovered and indicated that controls and policies in other departments were being reviewed.
The pending prosecution is a legitimate reason not to discuss evidence against Smith.
It is not an answer to questions about county management.
WLKI also asked Cress about the initial review she conducted with Schwartz and what was learned as the discrepancies were uncovered.
Those questions were directed to her because of her involvement in discovering the problem--not because she was responsible for park oversight.
She has not responded.
The County Is Asking For Trust
The County Commission is responsible for the park. The County Council controls its funding.
The central responsibility for explaining what failed and what has changed belongs to the officials responsible for operating and supervising the park.
The identified losses grew from $4,126.05 in 2022 to $17,076.25 in 2023 and $22,938.97 in 2024.
A receipt showing $2,850 to the customer became a $50 receipt in the county's copy, and only $50 was deposited.
Nearly $21,000 in collections was included on a single report spanning 123 days.
Important records were missing.
State investigators spent more than a year reconstructing transactions and charged more than $35,000 for that work.
Then the county approved another $389,799.77 in park spending after a council member publicly warned that the county still lacked a true understanding of the park's operating costs.
County leaders are asking the public to trust that the financial operation has improved.
But trust without verification--and without accountability--is how failures like this are allowed to continue.
Steuben County residents are entitled to know who is checking the books, who is responsible when those checks fail and what proof exists that the system is working.
The commissioners can keep avoiding those questions.
WLKI will keep asking them--and so will the public.
The commissioners should answer them publicly.
Now.