When I appeared before the Geneva County Commission to discuss an IT proposal that could save taxpayers approximately $65,000 over 36 months, Commissioner Todd Brannon immediately responded:
“We’re in a contract.”
There was a problem with that statement: I had already specifically requested the County’s IT contract through a public records request.
No current IT services contract was provided to me.
I told Commissioner Brannon exactly that during the meeting.
His reaction was telling.
Brannon looked toward County Administrator Cindy Williams, apparently seeking confirmation that the County did, in fact, have a contract.
Williams shook her head no.
The discussion continued, and the supposed contract was no longer presented as an obstacle. Instead, the conversation shifted to the Commission being satisfied with its current IT provider.
That’s an important distinction.
Being contractually obligated to a vendor and simply choosing to continue using that vendor are two entirely different things.
Why Does This Matter?
Commissioner Brannon’s first reaction to a proposal offering substantial taxpayer savings wasn’t to ask about the services, qualifications, staffing or pricing.
It was to state that the County was already under contract.
Yet when challenged, he appeared to seek confirmation from the County Administrator and received a head shake indicating otherwise.
That raises a legitimate question about how familiar the commissioners responsible for approving these expenditures are with the County’s existing IT arrangement.
Geneva County pays approximately $90,000 per year for recurring IT services, in addition to other technology-related expenditures.
For an expense of that size, commissioners should know whether the County has a contract, what that contract requires and what taxpayers receive for their money.
The Records Should Answer the Question
My public records request specifically sought the County’s IT agreement, and no current contract was produced to me.
If a current contract does exist, this is easy to resolve: produce it.
If there isn’t one, then Commissioner Brannon’s statement raises a different concern.
Why was “we’re in a contract” the immediate justification for dismissing consideration of another provider if the Commissioner apparently didn’t know whether such a contract existed?
This isn’t about criticizing someone for misspeaking.
It’s about the level of scrutiny being applied to the expenditure of public money.
When an elected official is presented with an opportunity that could potentially save taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, taxpayers should expect the decision to be based on verified facts.
In this case, the initial reason given for not considering an alternative appeared to fall apart within seconds of being questioned.
And that leaves a very simple question:
If there isn’t a contract preventing Geneva County from seeking competitive proposals, what is preventing the Commission from putting its IT services out for bid?