The problem is that the sheriff was able to nearly or entirely unilaterally make the decisions that were made that led to the problem and that is a unquestionable breakdown in internal controls and city management discipline. For example, no single payroll/accounting department person (even if it's a controller) should not have total command and control over the creation and disbursement of funds. At least one other person, preferably someone at the same level or above the person that is doing the rest of the work, is double-checking to make sure that no malfeasance is occurring and this includes all recording of transactions as well as money movement in general. Reports should be retained well beyond the statutory minimums and in a secure fashion so that reconciliations can occur at...

Not keeping meticulous and complete records is foolish on a number of levels and legal compliance is far from being the only example of why.
In short, the sheriff was only able to do what was done because that person was allowed to act with such impunity. It never should have come to that and it should have been caught much sooner. The sheriff may have complained and pouted about such controls, but when public money is at stake there is little way that anyone can justify exhaustive financial and procedural controls over anything that can expose the city/county to losses and/or bad publicity. Losing the faith and the trust of the populace that elect these officials and fund the dalliances of the sheriff or people like them have to rewarded for their trust and good faith.