Board of Supervisors - Special Meeting

We have a call to order for a special session today. Can I have a roll call, please? Okay, we're all here. Review the agenda. Disclosure of conflict of interest or amending of the agenda. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

BY REMOVING WITH YOU WHEN YOU HAVE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SHERIFF, IS THERE A CONFLICT ON VOTING ON ANYTHING LIKE CAMERAS AND SOMETHING HE IS AHEAD OF? IS THAT A CONFLICT? NO, BECAUSE HE'S NOT AHEAD OF IT.

ANYTHING ELSE? SORRY, SORRY. WE HAVE THE BACKUP ON TEAM. at that okay um any discussion all in favor please vote aye aye all opposed motion carries all right um we are now in the public comment folks we do have a hard stop at noon so i've asked that um if you do have public comment um it has to remain it has to be on the agenda uh but since it's a special meeting so um and we may have to

I have to be pressed in at one, so that's why. So you're the problem?

I'm the problem. Okay. My fault. Thanks for clarifying that. All right, so we're at the time for public comment right now, so if you have a comment, please come up and state your name and where you're from, and you have three minutes. And it's limited to five items on the agenda. If not, we'll go ahead and move to the following. No, please. Sherry Young, Madison County. And yes, I will stay on topic. First, I will do my usual greeting.

This time, a lot of people really demand your resignation at this point. And yes, you're correct. To my friends about trespassing last week, You know, I told, I gave them a message and they're not here.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but that is not the topic that's on the agenda. It's very brief and I will say what I'm going to say. If you would speak to five items, that would be great. Otherwise, we have to ask you to sit down.

Well, I'm not finished, so I will. Well, you need to stick to the agenda for policy.

Okay, well, the fact remains, you know what we did. So my friends are not here, not because they couldn't, but they had other obligations. So they were not attended by you all either. So here's what I'm going to say. It appears that you guys have actually kind of broken the law. As soon as I get, or you have been told by the judge to cease interfering with the auditor's office, her ability to conduct her business on behalf of the taxpayers until that hearing takes place this month.

Not on the agenda, Sherry.

Your recent action resolutions are a private sample of conflict of interest and intentional continued malfeasance in ordering against the auditor's office. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to comment? Otherwise, I'll move to the phone. Please remember to, if it's regarding the topics that are on the agenda, the five topics, since this is a special meeting.

Chris Jordan Peru, regarding security cameras. As an elementary teacher, first, third, fifth grade, for 43 years, I taught the three branches of government. and the separation of powers when you're talking about limiting the ability of people in one branch of government such as the sheriff who enforces the law and cameras that can be put up by that person i believe you're out of your lane you may have the right of being kind of like the legislative branch to create resolutions but when it comes to enforcement I think you're out of your lane. That's not your problem. He should have the right to put up cameras where he wishes. The county attorney is the judicial branch. When you're talking about his ring camera, I think you're out of your lane. They have their rights. I don't see when I vote on the ballot that one person on the ballot has any more authority than another. All are elected by the people. You do have an appointed county attorney, but he has one primary, so he will be on the ballot. And to say that even when it comes to things like your special counsel, that you have the right to go outside the council that the voters are putting in, I think you're out of your lane. And it's a very basic constitutional thing that third graders understand. They understand that there's a 55 mile an hour speed limit. The sheriff didn't put that speed limit up, that sign up. It was legislated. The sheriff just gives the ticket. And when the judge rules, there are three separate branches of government. And I think we need to get back in our lanes and take care of our branches. Because you are supervisors, it does not mean that you have control over all. All are elected. There's no hierarchy on the ballot in terms of who is elected. And I also feel as the last speaker that when you have a lawsuit against the county sheriff and the county attorney on this issue when they both have security cameras, you should not have a vote.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Otherwise, we will go to Tom.

On these cameras, as I stated at the last meeting, there's not been a problem with these for seven years that other county attorneys have had until your stalker here comes in and makes a big issue of it. So yeah, that's you. That's going to be a lawsuit. It's called freedom of speech. You can call somebody whatever you want. It's not proven.

It doesn't have to be.

It doesn't have to be. These cameras are not your obligations to be taken down and putting up and doing this with. And this is proven that you're being vindictive to County Attorney Swanson because you didn't even realize that the treasurer also had an attorney. You didn't have a problem with that until it was brought up. Nobody said a word about that one. Nobody said a word about those other ones for seven years. And now all of a sudden it is while you're doing your vindictive things against attorney Swanson, who people have chosen. You put him there. That was your choice. You put him there. And then when he didn't go along with you, you turned on him and now you're doing everything you can to make his life as hard as possible in there, because that's what you do to people. So all the county employees are sick and tired of you and what you two have done to them. They don't feel safe to come in and speak out, so I'm doing some of that for them. What I come in here to say is being told to me from other county employees, and they are sick and tired of what you are doing to this county. You are an embarrassment to this county, you do not know how to stay in your lane, explain a third grader can figure this out yet you two seem to not be able to so what is going on here is ridiculous as she said you should not be voting on any camera systems or anything to do with that while you have a lawsuit against sheriff Barnes period end of story You are out of your lane. You're trying to do all of this stuff for vindictive measures the same way he is, comes up here and reads your speeches that you write out for him and do this stuff. This is absolutely asinine. And while I get accused of being aggressive, have we listened to any of this guy's talk when he gets up here and screams and yells at people? That's aggressive. Those are threats and intimidation tactics, not what I've done. I've come up here to say my piece as a citizen. Same as he gets to come up and say his as a citizen. But when I get these accusations from your husband online, or whether that's you, her husband, or your husband, or you actually writing that, who knows? Who cares? But when Rex comes in and says stuff like that to me online, that's out of line. And I will take that as a threat that he said against me. You want to cry wolf with this? You know, and act like I'm some bad guy up here. Well, then why don't you go up to the same one that's doing the same thing, if not worse. He acts a hell of a lot worse than I do up here.

Time is up.

Resign.

All right. If anyone else wishes to speak, you have three minutes. Please state your name and where you're from. Otherwise, we'll go ahead and move to the phones.

All this stuff about the cameras is pretty much irrelevant. January 1st we'll have two new board members who will just redo the problem and fix it. So we can go back and forth about the cameras, yada yada yada. But when we get the two new board members in January 1st, they can change the problem. There are 2,426 households in this city. If I have to go to each and every one of them to make sure that Hobbs isn't reelected, then we'll have got rid of all staffs on Hobbs. Thank you.

Great. Anyone else wish to speak? Otherwise, we'll go ahead and move the call. Okay. If you are on the phone, If you wish to speak, please remember to hit star six to unmute your phone, and you have three minutes. Be sure to say your name and where you're from. Okay, hearing none, we'll go ahead and move forward to the rest of the meeting.

Okay. Okay. Okay. So let's go back to the beginning of how this whole conversation started. The auditor apparently had claims against the board of supervisors for retaliation, which the board decided to do a relocation to our office, which the auditor came in and asked if I would watch it. There have been cameras in the courthouse for eight years that were owned by every county attorney up until now, so me, and I have my own camera, just like all of them did. Suddenly, once the login is filed, that camera becomes an issue. Retaliation, again, hostile work environment. reach mindful management, definition of retaliation. Tell them bullying. We have a bunch of bullies. We have two bullies on the board of supervisors. They use their perceived power to push people around, to harass people, to threaten people, to threaten criminal charges and all the stuff that's outside their lane. They like to do that. What about the conflict of interest? Conveniently have conflict of interest is convenient to them. Well, you can't handle the other issues of conflict of interest. But despite the fact that they have lawsuits against me and there's currently a lawsuit I'm representing the auditor on against them, that's not a conflict of interest for them to vote on my safety. My safety is not a concern to them, you see, because they don't like me anymore. So they've decided that they need to, you know, intimidate me, bully me, do whatever they can to make my life less comfortable. I don't know if that's the only reason or if the other part of the reason is that, you know, one of the supervisors was in the courthouse on a Sunday afternoon meeting a prayer group outside my office, which I picked up on the camera. I'm doing kind of an exorcism out there. She's not very happy that I saw that. But between those two things, retaliation and the bullying needs to stop. It's not your position to be bullying people around. That's not what... whoever elected you that's probably 90 of which is regretting it now um those people didn't elect you to be bullied and to harass people they let you do a job which you don't do because you spend all of your time and all of your accounting time talking about things outside your lane that's all anyone else wish to speak please please state your name and where you're from you have three minutes

all right moving forward to resolutions for board consideration the first one is approving the award for the video security equipment upgrades and vendor services for the courthouse annex and ems you guys have the bids the updated bids uh when i was reviewing them i had some follow-up questions apparently you did too jess so i sent you guys my spreadsheet if you guys have a spreadsheet of how you reviewed it please send it because then we can go over it

I don't know who wants to start. I wanted to get clarification regarding the, I know there was some back and forth. SEI had sent the 2U 60TB updated pricing. So that was, I added $8,500 to each of the categories for the rate, but that's under the rate. So the totals then I come up with is $26,008. For the courthouse.

For the courthouse. With adding the rate. With adding the rate. I did some research this morning, and they say, other experts say, if you have watchdogs, you really, waiting for us is probably overkill.

I was thinking the same thing. It's just so much money, they said, and it's probably an overkill. Watchdog isn't enough for us, and so... Are you okay looking at the other columns to be aware? Are you okay with that? I don't think we need RAID.

I think it's an overkill. I think if we use digital water stop, which I know the sheriff likes, he says it's easier to do. It's very user-friendly. So let's drop the RAID and that will change.

And there was some clarity we need regarding storage redundancy or not.

Well, it's automatically storage redundancy right now. So if we just look at the first columns, what I have for the courthouse for SEI is $17,508. For SMG, I have $19,865. You're still on SEI. SEI, yeah. So I just want to make sure all those numbers are the same as mine. And then SMG? SMG, I have $19,865.90. But they also had a miscellaneous install charge, so we can talk about that. That's basically divided by three. And then per mar. So this was a question I did not get an answer back on. They quoted $7,772 for a layer three switch, which it sounds like they quoted a Cisco, which is like the Cadillac. And we don't need that. So I asked them to give me something different, a different one. I'm not going to say which one, but I asked for something, you know, within the $1,200 wage, which is usually what we have for a Layer 3 switch. They did not give back to me, but if we back out that $7,772 per mile is actually the lowest for the warehouse. Now, if we back it out. But not when you look at the long-term cost when you factor in maintenance? PERMAR is higher in maintenance. Yeah, if we factor in maintenance. But let me back that out real quick. So if we back it out, they are $15,541. plus the switch whatever that plus the switch so we would figure i i would say you don't need that we don't need the catalog so i would say maybe budget 100 for that um that's kind of the range the other vendors were at um so that would still um that still brings them lower than fdi And SMG. But again, the annual maintenance is more expensive. If we choose to do annual maintenance, we don't have to do annual maintenance. We can do time and materials, which would be cheaper. And this is going to be a new system. I don't think we need annual maintenance.

I think we need, at minimum, still need to come in annually and make sure that if you're doing A, that we have remote service available, and B, that they're checking for patches for more upgrades. And that's what is being done. And we need to be the same on all the buildings. Right.

But that's what we're doing right now in Annex EMS. That's what Summit's doing. And they just sent us a bill for the upgrade and kind of annual things. And I believe we spend, I don't know, $1,000 a year just by doing that. I'll have to look at billing with Michelle. But he is the one... he is the one that recommended not doing maintenance because for us and the little amount this stuff is used he said it's really overkill and that was one of the reasons why he believed previous boards have so let's do a one-time what if what would a one-time annually with which vendor well you're talking per mar i mean well per mar it doesn't seem like you'd want to do one time well when it's brand new and installed and it's all updated, you're not going to be doing anything for the annual maintenance. And after a couple of years, somebody else can figure it out. Yeah. So, but I like the idea with SMG, their annual maintenance was for all three sites. And I like that.

And they have structured cabling services available and other things. Their maintenance was far more detailed and inclusive for future needs. And I love their flat rate.

But their cost was higher. Was Johnson Controls, they didn't choose to bid? We did not, we decided to only do channel partners for Digital Watchdog. And Johnson Controls, when I called Digital Watchdog corporate, they said there was no, Johnson Controls did not have any Digital Watchdog installs. So I'd rather have somebody who's familiar with the Digital Watchdog. And these are channel partners. which means they do a lot of system installs and they maintain a lot of systems. So I'd rather not have newbies. I thought they do have digital watchdog. They said they can support it, but they are not a channel partner. And when I called Visual Watchdog, they said they don't have any active systems in Iowa, which means they'll be running on a job that I don't want that. We already have enough problems with that. I see good things in each one of these, and from a one-time cost, per MAR is cheaper. But over time, I don't know. Over time, and I'm concerned about the service levels.

Are you leaning towards SMG? I am, yes, I am too.

So SMG with the router for the courthouse it was $19,865.90 and then they also budgeted they asked for an additional in case you need material extra materials they put an extra budget they may or may not use it when i asked them about that 2 182.33 they said well just divide that by the three sites and that's what you'll have so if i divide that by three it's 727.44 so on their quote at the end on the summary page it has um basically additional add-ons of 2182.33 so and i believe i sent that email to you guys but i asked what that was because it wasn't it wasn't assigned to any site and they said they always build in a little extra in case when they get on site there's something else needed a bracket or cable or something like that so they build that into their quotes So I said, well, how do I price this out per site? Especially if we want to do a phased approach, you know, do the courthouse first and then do the upgrades and the annex and the MS. And they said, well, just divide that 2,182 by three. So if I do that 2,182 by three, it's $727. So 703 bucks. All right, so. All right, so. So SMG would be, the one time would be higher. If we decide to do the maintenance over time, it will be lower. But that's assuming we decide to do the maintenance. I think since it's a brand-new system, we may want to forego maintenance the first year since it's under warranty and then consider doing the maintenance next year. I would agree. Or the year after.

Okay, that's sustainable. All right. What do you guys think? We're both leaning towards this.

Yeah, I just have more of a comfort level with their proposals, with their service offerings. It's going to be a little bit more on the front end, but long term the cost will be lower. I like that they have stable, low cost maintenance for future. I also like that they have structured tabling and other things that they could help us with if needed.

And we're going to take the rate off of SMG because we don't need it. Right, that's $26,000.

That's great. So basically what we're looking at is for SMG it's $19,865.90 for the courthouse. So what are you guys' thoughts on the annex and the MS? Now for the courthouse we could use lost money for that.

I don't think we need server upgrades at the courthouse or at the Annex or EMS right now. Not right now, but eventually we will. Eventually. But that's why I sent it clear by applying an email to them earlier just to make sure. To make sure they're replacing that courthouse. Yes. Yeah, I wanted to make sure that they could still service these locations without server upgrades. I just wanted to make sure that was confirmed and they confirmed that.

Okay. So do we want, does the board just want to move forward with the courthouse server for now with SMG? Yeah. And then forego the maintenance for now? Yes. Yes. So that total will be $19,865.90 plus the $730 for the extraneous materials. And the auditor can figure out where to take that money.

So then, possibly, we need to add for next Tuesday or the following meeting, walk through the specifics of that conversion, that upgrade, and user access to the systems. You'll have to include all your departments.

no it would just be we just we'd have to make sure that that um steve and jason they have you know because we have resolutions on who has access to the system and then we've got to make sure they're built in and they have access and that the vendor obviously is going to be remote so none of this trip charge stuff that we currently have to deal with with the courthouse so that's the same cost but i would like to discuss at a future meeting

who in addition to the county attorney and county sheriff have access to those scanner systems.

Put it on the agenda then, then she requests to put that on the agenda for the next review. One other thing too is I wanna see, I neglected to ask this question. I'm assuming it because it's a watchdog, but I'd like to do geofencing. Do you guys know what geofencing is? Basically, so in the case of say the treasurer, she wanted to have access to the cameras in her office and that's perfectly, I think that's fine. but she doesn't need to have access everywhere else. So we can ask Digital Watchdog, if we can geofence her, she can log in and she just has access to her office and maybe the corridor. And the corridor can have access to her office and down the line. So we can certainly do that. I'd like to have them have that access, given the concern expressed by the treasurer. And then... we can work with those department heads down here that would like to have access to the cameras that oversee their location. We'll ask them. Yeah.

We're going to do what here? Let's just make sure we've got what she's already put on your agenda, your request.

You're going to communicate with the department heads that are elected to see who has access for your spaces? Sure. Okay. And then what about the communication to SME? And the other bidders?

I can do that. I can communicate and let them know who, you know, thank you for participating, but we've decided to go with another vendor, with the other two, and then obviously tell SMG. Is that, would you share that with them? I would have the auditor do it, but I don't care. That's what you want to do. Well, I was the lead on the RFP, and they've been in all the communications.

That's fine. Send them a letter that we've chosen another vendor. So we'll take SMG with no RAID. and no service contract for the first year.

And then Supervisor Stansel, are you going to discuss with them the geofencing and then just as far as the installation, we'll want to make sure that we're coordinated on that of who's getting set up as users, who has a lot of access, training, all that good stuff.

Yeah, probably more than likely because this is going to be a unified system, we can just reuse I mean, the goal was to have a single login for all three buildings for law enforcement. So they already have login ability to the annex, to extend it, and EMS, so that will automatically be extended to courthouse. What would be an add is the geofencing for other department heads. So I can confirm them with that.

I'm gonna go. And then if we're giving other department heads or the board access or whatever we decide to do,

then we're going to need training for those new users who never use this system right right i'll do it okay so you're going to check with departments that would like to have access to those cameras around there And what kind of training they want. What kind of training. I think we've already set up the type of user access. So the admin, vendor admin would just be the vendor. But the law enforcement, they currently have the highest access under vendor right now. So that would remain. I don't think other offices need that. They just need their areas just view. we want to make sure law enforcement has the ability to view live download that kind of stuff so okay so so regarding the resolution um let me pull that up real quick we well and it has it's written as whereas

blank line was the lowest bidder, but we have other category, other. Maybe cross it out by preferred bidder.

Approved bidder. And then put SMG there. And then be it hereby resolved by the Madison County Board of Supervisors to approve security cameras with SMG in the amount of, so. So that would be $19,387.28 which is described as Yes, courthouse, camera, server, upgrade.

Are you going to do cameras outside, which we really should on these coaches?

Well, that could probably be something we can request things on for that Diane, but the switch

yeah the switch we have in there can accommodate that so we can add those later on we do need to that was discussed last year and actually county attorney swanson was not in agreement to add out exterior cameras because you have a lot of situations where just traffic will settle off people just walking by that's true there's a lot of data storage we can discuss it further unless you just have it aimed at the doors So let's go ahead and do courthouse cameras for phase one. And we're going to wait on the annex AMS.

do the cameras have courthouse camera server upgrade as well yeah i think we should note that we are waiting on the other two what do you guys think should we note on the resolution that we're waiting on that can you just communicate or maybe courthouse camera server upgrade only courthouse camera server only yeah that don't how about that yeah that's fine okay uh be it further resolve that um smg shall also be the new official provider for annual maintenance warranty servicing and ongoing support accounting video should we cross out annual maintenance but we want to do warranty servicing and ongoing support okay okay um well maybe she should read for the result the middle county department official okay and um I left that blank because I put that in there because I didn't know if we wanted to have someone else other than the county auditor to make sure this happens. Do we want to put... Supervisor Sample? I'm just going to be sending emails. If you want to do that, that's fine, but it's mostly going to be the auditor that... Because she's going to be coordinating with the vendors for going into the server room and all that kind of stuff. Just leave the auditor. Just leave it blank. Or just cross out, put be further resolved that, then cross out both, and then put a line through that, and then and, and just so it says be further resolved that, the county auditor is directed to take all of the states. That's fine. Yeah, when they do that, right, I can certainly assist and help them.

Yeah.

She's going to have to be coordinating that and getting access to the server room up there to make those changes. So we want to make sure that that happens. And then approve this day, 4th of August. So did you want to read that back to the board to make sure we're all on target?

I'm going down the second paragraph. Whereas SMG was the preferred bidder for the above RFQ, it hereby resolved that the Madison County Board of Supervisors shall approve security video camera upgrades with SMG in the amount of $19,387.28, such as to accommodate the solution described as courthouse camera server upgrade only. and be it further resolved that SMG should also be the new official provider for, you know, maintenance is crossed off and put warranty servicing and ongoing support of county video security equipment going down to the last paragraph. Be it further resolved that and then both the empty line and are all crossed off. Be it further resolved that the county auditor auditor is directed to take all necessary steps to include this risk. Is that $19,000 you stated, did that include the $730,000?

Yeah, I just, I don't know what happened, but it added it wrong, so let me... Is it the $19,000?

Yeah, it doesn't, that amount didn't look right. Let me just go to that. Thank you for that catchphrase. Yeah, okay. So... It's $20,595.90. So it's $20,096. Yeah. All right. Okay. So that sounds good to me. Does that sound good to you? Yeah.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE CHOOSE SMG WITH NO RATE. WE AREN'T HAVING A WARRANTY FOR SERVICE RIGHT NOW IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,595.90. OKAY. AND THE RESOLUTION AMENDED AS DISCUSSED?

YES. OKAY. WE'VE AMENDED THE RESOLUTION. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? anything else all in favor please vote aye aye all opposed motion carries okay the next agenda item is um approving review of rampant courthouse by engineer up to the amount of eighteen hundred dollars we talked about this last week diane you said you want you prefer doing his resolution i did call okay i did some calling this morning bryholz and opn are more than willing to come back

even do some drilling and camera work um they're doing to explore exploration um they both are more than willing to do that before we go any further they have not they do think there is an issue they don't know what for sure but uh they both would come back and that would probably be under the warranty or they felt um So we need to come back and review this before we

Nobody wants to get worried. I don't want to do that either. But I'm going by their last response. But I didn't get that. That was basically, you know, you're outside the warranty period. You know, that's the concern I have is that they specifically sent an email, and then that was the response. And what this resolution was for was for the engineer to come back and say, this is basically, here's why you're wrong, and this is why this is happening.

I didn't think drilling would resolve the issue. It's a design flaw. I don't think they are not saying that's not true. I wish we could resolve it without spending more money.

I don't want to spend any more money, Diane, but I'm going by the last email they sent us. And their email was, there's no warranty. We don't see it being an issue. And this is not to do any drugs. This is just to have them answer their claims as to this is not an issue.

So this guy is going to say there's an issue and we're going to go to court.

That's what we're going to do. I hope you don't. But my hope is that he'll outline what the issue is and then there's a not designed issue. And that is a much bigger thing than just

I think there are significant enough concerns that we have that we need a subject matter expert helping us navigate this, a technical expert who's not the contractor, who's not the architect. So I fully support doing this. I think it's going to be money well spent to help further protect the county. All right.

Let's go. Okay. I will entertain a motion to approve the review of the ramp at the courthouse by engineer up to the amount of $1,800. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? I'm going to vote nay because I think I can negotiate this, but that's fine. I do understand. I appreciate you doing that. Hopefully that conversation will encourage them to meet us.

I think we can resolve it. But why haven't we been done yet? In the last year, it was out of warranty.

Well, but that wetness didn't really start that first year. No, it started.

Not as bad as now, but it was started the first year, and I mentioned it, and I was kind of dismissed. All right, so any further discussion? Otherwise, I'll... we already did it okay so you're voting okay all right so the next one is approving board of supervisors outside council refer county attorney swanson's personal ring camera to the town attorney general's office diane i mean sorry jess you added this uh yeah so i sent an email to sheriff barnes and county attorney swanson last tuesday after our last meeting asking that the uh

unauthorized cameras be removed by end of business Friday? They have not. I visited on Sunday. I find it fascinating that a lot of people keep bringing up that, oh, there's been a camera there forever, so it must be okay. Well, we haven't had citizens complaining about potentially being recorded. We haven't had people requesting data and being given no information about it, no confirmation of whether it even has audio or not. I guess after the email communication from Swanson claiming that I performed an exorcism outside his office, I find it fascinating. At least we know he's keeping the data, right? Well, he just confirmed he's storing the data. So now I'm not qualified to perform the exorcism that he needs, but I did take a prayer group there on a Sunday months and months and months ago. So I don't know how far back this data he's sharing, but now we've gotten multiple complaints from citizens, people who've had court matters up there. Iowa is a one party consent state. Those people that are being recorded are not consenting to being...

Nor is he part of that conversation.

Nor is he part of that conversation. Now, had this been handled differently in the multiple emails that were exchanged about this, had there been any effort by Mr. Swanson to work with us on this, we'd be having a totally different discussion. Now, there's also the matter of the current system will allow remote access via their phones this whole time. That was another option. So I guess I'm done dealing with it. I think we need to refer to the AG and probably DCI as well. And get their way in on it, because I guess I don't know what else to do.

So just a thought. I think at minimum, we should contact the state court administrator. and let them know that this is there so they can advise the judges, who can then advise plaintiffs, defendants. They do know, and so do other counties. Well, they know now, of course. They know. But we want to make sure that they're aware so they can advise juries, attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants, that if they dismiss people up onto that third floor, or they hold court on that third floor, that there is a recording device there that the county has no control over. And that they can... Do you have that contact? No, it's just state judicial administration. It's part of the Iowa judicial system. I mean, I'm sure you can look it up, but I can look it up. But those, whoever's in charge of rotating the judges, which is the judicial system, At the very minimum, they need to be advised. Until this is resolved, since there's a refusal to remove it. Because I do not, I continue to get contacted by people with that concern. that they're being recorded without their consent. Every place in a public building has recordings. Not audio. Not audio.

Not where court matters are being handled.

And that is one of the reasons why our courthouse does not have audio like that. It's because we don't want to be recording potential conversations, privileged conversations or jury conversations.

there's a high high risk of that i get a high risk and i think it probably because it's uploaded to the cloud so it does open you up but i do also think if you take this away and you don't have anything in its place and he is he has something in his place he chooses not to use it does can he access it yeah all you have to do is contact johnson's controls and they can set him up with remote i mean sheriff barnes he got our last meeting he confirmed he says oh yeah i have it it's gonna set it up

So where is that? Does anybody know where that is and what process? Well, I reached out to Johnson Controls asking what the policy, what the process was for that. And because I said, can you tell if they're set up, if they have access, blah, blah, blah. They said they don't have remote view, which is odd, but they don't have remote view. In order for us to get that information, they would have to roll a truck after that. to find out who has remote access so he really doesn't know if he has access well according last year when we set this up they were set up at the same time in fact didn't you say that last year you were working with them to get both of them have remote access

I understood it was an option. And from there, my goal and my focus last year was to make sure there weren't any unauthorized people accessing that Canvas system. OK. And from there, they were directly with Johnson. Right.

So we've had discussions in previous board sessions how important it is for our law enforcement to have remote access. We don't want them to walk into something potentially. Right. So if they are given that resource and they choose not to use it, I can't help that. But it's there. And it should have been taken care of rather than a personal ring camera that records audio stuck wherever it's stuck. All right.

And has there been a formal work order issued with Johnson Controls to set that up?

Well, I requested that, and then they told me how much it would cost. And I said, I'm not making that call. It's a board decision. How much? 800 bucks. So did you ever take it on the board? That's what I'm doing right now. Diane, I canceled the ticket because once they told me the cost, I said that's not something I could. But Swanson and Barnes could have issued a work order. They could have, yes. Or they could have contacted Johnson Controls. They did tell me if someone would have called them, they could have walked them through how to do it on the phone. Oh, okay. And they said, we can do that for you. I said, well, I'm not an authorized user for this. But they said anyone could call in and get that taken care of, and they can walk them through how to do it. So I don't know why that was not done. And if it's true that previous attorneys had it, I don't understand why it was not done with previous attorneys. I know that's what's alleged. I don't know if that's true or not. I don't want to call it. But to be honest with you, I wasn't paying attention. Just that you've always done it doesn't make it right. Correct. correct it's just we're aware of it now because we're aware of it we have to take care of it so um so my recommendation to you is i mean i i with your resolution um i think we can resolve it if you let the court system know um if you still want to refer that okay i don't want to I understand your concern, because I'm concerned. I don't want to be held liable if someone decides to sue the county because of this. And Board of Supervisors knew and did nothing. But I just want to give that option to you as an additional thing that we can do. In addition to referring to the AG? That I would like to take care of as soon as possible to reduce county liability, yes. because if you refer it to the AG, that's going to take forever, and that thing is going to be up there. And we're still exposed as a county. So how are you going to remove it? Well, he's refusing. So we've done our due diligence. I think the next step is letting the judicial system know so they can advise everybody to reduce our liability and people aren't having conversations giving a shot at that. until the AG, if they decide to do anything, it's done. So that's done in tandem with this referral to the AGS. My concern is this referral is not going to do anything right away and we're still going to be held at risk as long as that can result. And then we're going to be in transition with a new company too, so it's going to take a while for them to order that server and get that out there. so but they are more than free to make a phone call to johnson controls and get that remote access set up correct anytime anytime so uh that's just my i just want to share that with you because again i don't i think this is helpful i don't think it would resolve it in the immediate term and it still would be put the county at risk so so do we want to amend this this resolution inning or do we just want to

regarding advising a judicial branch. Let me see if I can resolve this and you can call Johnston Control and take it down.

Well, tell who to take it down. Our desk looks different now, Diane.

We've been dealing with this for how long?

We've been trying to get this We've expressed our concern, we've expressed our risk, we've said that there's been people contacting us, former plaintiffs, former defendants have exposed this, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of concern. All right, so I don't know if we need to amend this or just add to the motion. to contact the judicial branch.

Email to the state court administration.

Just to give them a heads up so they can advise people.

So I'll handle sending this to Boal. Could you reach out to the state court administrator? Yeah. But Diane, by all means, if you think you can have some influence with Swanson and get him to do the right thing,

mean i'm not saying it's the right thing but i will try to resolve this without getting it so nasty all right let's move on because i have okay so let's yeah we have to oh my gosh we're only 10 minutes so all right so i'll entertain a motion to approve the resolution uh directing outside council to refer the unauthorized installation and continuing operation of personal surveillance equipment on county property to the iowa attorney general as well as it isn't really how this resolution reads so so you're amending your resolution anything else to do there

What? Not amending it. But you said you're going to refer it to outside.

I wasn't finished speaking. Sorry. That's okay. And amended to also refer, notify the Iowa Judicial Branch. So basically it's a motion that's amended to also add the Iowa Judicial Branch. So one of you guys has to make that. Do I have a second? No. I will second it. Any discussion? Are there any other changes or tweaks you need to make on this resolution? Does it look okay to read? It looks okay. I'm just trying to put that together on the fly. It looks okay to me. Okay.

So we can just add that.

we don't need to add this resolution though it's the whole so the notification is separate so we don't need to modify this resolution okay um any further discussion all in favor please vote aye aye all opposed motion carries sarah can you make sure that that's very clear in advance as to what i appreciate that okay so that brings us to the um let's scroll back up here it's the board of supervisors forensic fiscal 25 audit rfp so uh they the vendors we had eight vendors that sent us questions um most of the questions have the treasurer and auditor answer there's a few questions all three all three departments have to answer so i did my best highlighting what i thought and sent it to you guys Obviously there may be, you guys have different opinions on that, so I just kind of did that just to make it easier. And then I created a spreadsheet for each vendor, and we can go through the questions if you want. Did you guys have a chance to review that?

I think we need to just run through these. We've got seven minutes now, so let's, it was helpful that you sent that consolidation, consolidated questions.

And so I noticed after I scan it and send it to you guys that some of the highlighted parts that I used to highlight with didn't show through the greatness on some of these. Send it again so we can look at it.

Sorry. Did you have it up?

Let's keep talking. Okay. Jess, you want to start with the first questions while I try to find this.

I'm just going to go from the sheet you sent, so we're all in the same order. Most important criteria when selecting a firm for Part A and B are numerous items you will consider, but we're wondering if one is more important than the other.

What I put is bank reconciliations, because that was the main thing of the qualified finding, and then costs. What do you guys think?

Well, if you go with another outside company or other forensic auditor, the people can easily petition to have the state do it anyway. Well, for audits, I don't know if the state does forensic audits, but they could. I looked up forensic audit. Nobody really knows what it means. I called many CPAs. I called the firms. It's just an in-depth, because when Seacob, when the fire came, that had a, they did a Department of Commerce came in. I thought it didn't mean much more than an audit.

Well, that's why there's further questions that are asked.

It's just opening more doors and digging really deep.

That's what it is. And there's a risk-based approach for known issues that we want to make sure they dive into. But the people can still petition.

The state will do it again.

They could end up with another great thing. Yeah, but if they do that, the state pays for it, you know. No. According to the code. If they accept it. If they accept it, according to code, the state pays for it.

But then there's a higher level, more comprehensive approach where you could do like every fund, every bank account, every record, all of that. So I think there's kind of a middle ground there. And I would like to have a third party.

I think you had your auditor and recorder ask you to hold off because they think they can fix a lot of this.

Well, they haven't. We still have only barely through November the last year. We've asked so much of them. Let them catch up. We have so many things. We have so much. Let them catch up. Well, Diane, they don't have to attend all our ordinances.

If they're not on the agenda, they don't have to be here.

They choose to be here. So we have an issue, and we need to fix it. We've had problems with bank reconciliations back to fiscal year 19. It's been a finding every single year. And now it's blown up. We gotta fix, we have to figure out what's going on. Okay, so who will be making the decision? The board. What level of onsite presence would the board consider ideal throughout the engagement? Is the board comfortable with most team members participating remotely? Considering the state auditor mostly, Did it remote? I don't, I'm not, I don't have an issue with them being remote. Um, so I have an audit vision about all the time. Not, not, not in the beginning. They were here for a few days when they gathered information. But after that, everything was remote. They weren't here again. So, um, fiscal 23 and 24. So anyway, and it is 2026. So I think that most of the stuff can be done remote. Um, but I would, like to have some kind of initial presence when we pick somebody to have them come out meet the team gather so not like remote right out of the gate what do you guys think about that yeah after the after the foundation is laid and they've got the data that they need i don't see any reason why they most of them they come in and they they tell the staff what they need they have it all laid out they go through it and then they take it back and they do it remotely

You should have everything they have. When I was audited, I had to have everything else, specifically how they wanted it. And I was so thrilled it was done in three hours. But they can do that. They should have it. If they have it already, maybe just remote.

So what do you think about this response? Remote is okay after foundational meeting? Yeah. They do it remote anyway. That sounds good. Okay. The next one, they want to know if they would welcome an addendum for additional optional services. It can't hurt. Sure. Are you okay? Are you opposed to that? Yeah, if they have something that our treasurer, our auditor could use? I mean, it doesn't mean we have to buy it.

Exactly. Well, if they want it, I don't think so. If they think it's beneficial, they would know. Okay. So let the department have to figure it out.

Then target budget range, how the heck do we even answer that? what i my answer was no budget has been identified would be open to extending timeline to mitigate cost yeah i didn't know how to answer yes so what do you think about that diane is that okay all right um specific suspicion of fraud yes yes so what What I said was there's ongoing bank reconciliation issues for past several years as well as the other findings in fiscal 24 audit have led to lack of confidence in the books and fear of fraud. Although the treasurer was arrested for matters unrelated to the books, the public deserves to have confidence that taxpayer money has not been misappropriated. I think that's the biggest concern. I'm very concerned about that, especially since I'm worried about that. Yeah. So what do you think? What do you think, Diane? Is that okay response or would you like to say something different? Okay. Okay. So those were ABDO's questions. The next one is Baker Tilly. So scroll down, I call. Were there other? Yes. So scroll back up here.

She mentioned that payroll may also be an issue. Can you provide more details? What documents would you expect us to review?

Okay, yeah, that was what I missed, I think. Well, that payroll issue of 20 of us being underpaid, that's going to be an issue.

yeah and so but that highlights that yeah and this is one of the reasons why i'm concerned about payroll is because there seems to be different definitions on how to handle it so my understanding is once it's appropriate you have to appropriate them the amount of money In the fiscal year, it's appropriated. So say, for instance, you appropriate, we'll just use round number, $100,000 for a salary. That $100,000 has to happen within the fiscal year it's appropriated. So if you're, because of how they do it, sometimes you have, like we're on a biweekly payroll, sometimes it crosses over into the next fiscal year. So how do you handle that? In the past, I've gotten two paychecks.

Yeah, one to settle up the year and one for...

Right. And other years, I didn't get any. So I don't know if there were different standards applied or something happened. I have no idea. And my concern is that we really need to have a drop-dead explanation of the proper process. Because if it's supposed to be appropriated the same year, And that means we have to adjust how we do our payroll at the end of the year, depending on if it crosses over 50 years. So I think that- I just think it's hilarious.

People think there was something nefarious we did on that when we were underpaid too. Yes. On that $39,000 a year salary. It's based on- I mean, one of the big bucks, I guess.

I haven't gotten the whole list from the auditor yet. on that, but I think every salaried employee, that happens. I'm assuming, because you said there's 25. So if it happened to every salaried employee, it has to do with how, because it worked out to be you were a day overpaid or a day overpaid, depending on how they calculated it. Because there was, I think it was 261 days in the fiscal year but obviously only 260 are paid on a payroll so that means there's one extra day floating around all right so what are we doing with this so for that one i would just put payroll you know um as a concern but um that was my concern regarding the the appropriations the other concern i have was potential duplicate payment in the cases of workman's comp. Yeah. And there were some. Yes. So I'd like them to look at that because violation, you know, workman's comp and not doing it right, that could get us into hot water. And if it's not done right, we want to make sure that we get the right advice on how to handle it going forward so we can have better processes and procedures from the experts. Okay. So other than that and ABDO, otherwise we move on to the fertility. So, first one is, beyond the matters identified in fiscal 23 and 24, were there additional concerns, allegations, departments, funds, accounts, or transaction types that county expressed a subject to address under Part B? Again, bankruptcy reconciliations, payroll, workmates comp, We need to know where the money is going, especially the qualified finding from the state auditor was the bank, was the reconciliations. Diane, do you have any other thoughts for this question? No, could you money in the bank? yes so uh yes i don't know if that's something a forensic audit would can force us to do but it can certainly be addressed i did it did do any good put your money in the bank yeah so and kylie advises

Are there particular departments, funds, transactions, and reporting periods that are of greatest concern? I mean, they're going to have their 24 and 25 audits, or 23 and 24 audits. There you go. There's our concerns, I mean.

So I would like them to go back to when we had no bank reconciliation issues. which I think is 2018. Trying to figure out what's different. And move forward as to what was the cause of all these issues. Because I know Heidi had struggled. Shelly had struggled with that and i there's something going on that's causing that that's causing a lot of frustration so i'd like them to look back and see maybe they can see something that is benign but it's causing an issue yeah and also to make sure that expenditures do not go over appropriations because that was another thing that we were dinged on for that okay um so okay so the next question Diane, do you want to kind of, we're going to try to whip through these. Are you okay? I'm not going to take much. Okay. What outcomes or decisions is the county hoping this engagement will support? Things get fixed. Yep. And we have a clean set of books. Yep. Okay. The next one is... scope of reconstruction yes scope of reconstruction i added i said yes to that does the county expect selected firm to reconstruct and reconcile all county funds and make accounts for fiscal 23 or 25 or to apply a risk-based approach based on that so do you guys want a complete reconstruction or you want a risk-based approach reconstruction reconstruction So one would be more in-depth. The other would be more risk-based.

Risk-based, high level in general, yeah. And then you identify the problems and do more of the comprehensive, right? But all of those referenced, it makes sense to do a comprehensive. So we're going to do a reconstructed. internal controls just since you're doing that one. Are there specific internal control deficiencies or operational processes the county would like the selected firm to prioritize?

Well you know on this one it we talked about bank reconciliation payable workers comp i also want to add because it's additional frustration for kylie is the warrant payment accuracy something's going on that's requiring duplicate that's causing duplicate warrants and i want to make sure that we have figured that out they fix you fixed it i think we have figured it out okay okay it was a human error wasn't it well they created the duplicate i think so yes and we can

Well, no, it's... So let's add that to our list to confirm that Kylie is not discussing.

We know how to fix it. Okay, so I'll put that as a question mark when we get the three questions together. I think she's got that figured out. Okay, all right. The next one, have any control weaknesses been identified outside the annual audit process? Yeah. So... we have the workman's comp and the payroll and the other thing too is it just popped up recently is the contractor employment documentation so we want to make sure that that is buttoned up because we don't want a finding on that in a future audit yeah so i think we'll have one because of recent events but So the next one is fraud and irregularities. Well, I mean, the treasurer was arrested.

Do we need to send them a communication account? I mean, I don't know what we'd send them other than a vacant pool or all that. Well, it's already stated in the audit.

So the main thing is we're concerned that because of the other errors that were under her control and the lack of balancing, there might be something else. So does that sound good to you, Diane? It's fine. Reporting, does the county anticipate interim presentations or updates to the board beyond the milestones? I don't, unless you guys want more milestones, I want we're in the honor of Pete. Okay. If the work identifies previously on known accounts, missing records, unexplained reconciled items, unsupported transactions, potential misconduct, what process does the county envision for authorizing expanded procedures and communicating? So this one is kind of different because if you're finding, you know, law enforcement stuff we can't really talk about that in the public so i i think we should be communicated to the board of supervisors and legal counsel and potentially the ag if it involves the treasurer because that's who's handling that case right now so i just put we would welcome recommendations from them what do you think yeah because it depends on the nature of the yeah it depends on the nature of the okay that sounds good so OK. That brings us to, unless you guys have other questions, we can go on to CRI.

I think we're going to run out of time here. And it seems like a lot of these questions are similar. They're very similar. Yeah. So Diane, are you OK with Supervisor Stancil answering these other questions, as long as they're all similar in nature to what we discussed on these others?

Yeah. Or we can finish up these questions and then what I can do is I can update my spreadsheet and send it to all three of you and make sure there isn't any irregularities that wasn't discussed. Diane, are you okay with that? Yes.

I think one of the main things left is it hasn't been touched on is the timeline. Yeah. And I'm okay giving them more time. They're probably going to need it. So we need to give them a reasonable amount of time to do this work.

Yeah, so because we're probably not getting these other questions to them until the end of the week. And they're gonna have to digest that, and then they're not gonna have a lot of time to put their proposal together. So Diane, would you be okay extending rfp adding a week or adding a two week to do that i think two weeks yeah and two months and maybe asking for feedback if they think that's reasonable enough time for them because uh you know i think we should be flexible on that if they think they need more time okay because i don't want the honor of the treasurer to rush through this i want to make sure they have the time they need to answer the questions I can, we can put that, I can add that in here. So Diana, are you okay with us extending our due date by two weeks? Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So, and then they have given the requirement for final delivery by December 31, 2026. Does the county complete any preliminary assessment of record availability and readiness? Where are you at here? I'm on 11. I'm on 11. I kind of skipped the others up here to see.

yes this meeting is being recorded this meeting is being transcribed okay okay um okay yeah some of these are so you said look so given the requirement for title delivery by december 31st has the county completed any preliminary assessment of record availability and readiness that's the question for the treasury yes i mean I would, my first blush is no, but that would be a question for them. Okay. Did I ask the other one a question there? Thank you. Thank you. The other question is number 15. The previous treasurer was arrested, put on bond and waiting trial. Former employees should be available. Any investigations related to this should not impact records access. That's what I added. So Diane, would you agree with that, number 15?

Yes. And I'm going to leave because I'm late. And this last one, pay the bill. If you do not pay the bill, they will withhold your state tax, your sales tax. They will get that money out of you regardless. Pay the bill. So another reference, so I have to leave at 12.15.

OK, thank you, Diane. All right, so and then 17 is about adjusting milestones. i think they all just need to go in line with whatever we extend and then the sealed bids number that was a typo so it's it should be four hard copies four seal bids, not three seal bids, four.

And the reason why I made it to four is because I wanted to honor her to have a hard copy so she could follow along.

So that brings us to the DeLuca one. When do we expect our award? Well, originally, it was the first week of September, but if we push it out two weeks, I would say the end of September.

or should we say beginning of october yeah i mean i want to have a little bit of christian in there okay and maybe you could say september but we'll know more after we get kyle and michelle's responses and get that next step addressed right we'll have so uh mid-september potentially october yeah

Any business license or certifications? I put no. Are there any requirements for the selected firm or firms to have local or state presence? I put no. Is the forensic work required to be performed in person, virtually, or hybrid? Yeah. Does the county have a specific budget in mind? Yeah. a non-cpa consulting firm firms that employ cpas cfe's and other professionals would they be considered i i said yes but i'm open to the board they're qualified okay that's it for them so the next one is eve bailey they had none of those questions they sent would be board input that's a treasure honor The next one is Fortas. So it's kind of a repeat. Yes. So all of that is kind of a repeat. I've got a few questions here.

Number two, I mean, resigned or been terminated.

I guess you could add the resignation of Kaczynski and then Schwartz. Well, he just lost the election. He wasn't terminated. He had to resign. he was in office and he's not anymore right and then the first deputy i think there was another person that was terminated in the treasurer's office i cannot remember what their position was so that's something i can we can go over michelle yeah and kylie um so does the county expect selected firm to quantify potential losses beyond the amounts currently identified including preparation and information for insurance recovery I mean that's kind of what we're hoping they tell us is they're over right so we know because if there was indeed fraud then that would be litigation and criminal stuff So is the primary, county's primary objective to identify and quantify potential misappropriations? I would say yes. Yeah, it's both. It's both. Does the county anticipate the need for expert testimony, litigating support, insurance for private support, bond claims support, other legal proceedings?

Maybe.

Maybe.

It kind of depends on the AG's investigation and or the results of these audits if there's more they find, right?

okay so and then i didn't have any more questions under that vendor unless you did we can move to hka um so timeline to due dates um that again this is another typo 3 versus 5 pm do we want to the building closes at 4 30 so should we make it 3 pm yeah okay um And then these, number two was kind of technical. They really got into the weeds a little bit in that one. So basically, they wanted to know if the requirements we put forward for both the Part A and Part B is technically for Part A, because in Part B, they wanted to know if they could use the AICPA station on standards for forensic. So I didn't know quite how to answer that one completely. I just put, Yes. And then we'll discuss with Michelle and Kylie.

Yeah, let's just see if they have a strong feeling one way or another, right?

Yeah. So, okay. So number one for scope, we already talked about that. What prompted the forensic audit and financial reconstruction? Number two, same question. Unknown allegations, whistleblower, audit findings. What if any sense of political governance or stakeholder dynamics may impact this forensic audit? I'm not sure how to answer that one. So how I answered that is that there is internal friction on this regarding whether or not it's needed.

So I don't know how to, internal friction and disagreement regarding whether or not forensic audit is needed and whether or not the state auditor's office should be used. I mean, they should know that there are some in our government who do not believe we should be going outside of the state auditor's office too. So they may be at first. So how do we want to remove that friction? and some aversion to utilizing the firm outside of the state auditor's office or an outside firm.

All right. Number four, as a county attorney, according to the county attorney outside of the council. Well, it would be the AG's office.

It would be the AG's office. So maybe just reply that the AG is currently investigating or handling the criminal charges against the former treasurer.

Yeah, so what I put is that No, but they need to be kept apprised of it, of what's going on, and that the county attorney is not prosecuting the treasurer for any misdemeanors. Yeah, I think just that point of clarification. So number five, does the county expect judgmental sampling, statistically valid sampling, 100% review of the data population using data analytics? Each of these are different levels of death. So that's right. I mean, I say whatever thinking you've been analytics to streamline and help with and the better. So do we want either statistic? What I put is either statistically valid or 100% because we need to get our books. Yeah, that makes sense to me. So so maybe the two higher levels and I don't know how that would affect the bid, but we want to make sure that things are correct and so the public feels confident about those. Okay, so number six, beyond the fiscal 23-25, should the engagement include review of earlier periods if necessary? I said yes. What do you think? Yeah, because you made a really good point about i want to go back to when they were when it was working what happened differently yeah yeah um so this is an interesting one does the county permit use of ai enabled analytical tools including generative ai and machine learning applications and connection so are there any restrictions regarding data inputs this is way outside we don't have any policy or procedure on ai so i think it's fine to use but the problem isn't just personal experience you've got to check everything right so also too we don't know how They secure it. We don't know what kind of AI they're using. So, you know, that is a whole new frontier of stuff.

And it's just the one firm that asked that question. So maybe we can ask them to clarify what exactly they're wanting, how they're wanting to use it. And maybe they can provide some information that will give us some reassurance.

so what i'm going to put is the more detail is how will we use how data will be protected okay uh has the county established a target budget range for the overall project i put no okay well better uh letters who do not submit too many signed copies of full contracts the proposal will be disqualified

Is it G deliverable? For me, it's at the next home. No, the first one is. This is still HKA.

Yeah, so G, bear with me, it's kind of light. so i had internal control oh yeah yeah so does the county expect a selected firm to evaluate both design and operating effectiveness of internal controls i would say yes yeah okay our specific controller is concerned to receive additional focus i just put we did before bankruptcy solutions and payroll matching appropriations and then for number three i just put expect benchmarking controls against best practices i would say would be welcome and then that brings us to deliverables for the first question what level detail and i put enough to take action But if law enforcement is engaged, it needs to be more of a public meeting. Yeah, that's true. Because we can't disclose that if there's law enforcement engaged. OK. Next one is, does county management expect to have an opportunity to review and comment on draft? I put yes. I mean, both the treasurer and the auditor need to be able to have feedback. And then the board supervisor does. Kind of the same process that the state auditor does.

Number three, I mean, I think they're kind of both prioritized and risk-ranked.

Yeah.

So, you know, we'll defer to them on their findings, right?

Yeah. So I just put yes for that. so deliverables to the corrective action roadmap to recommended implementation timelines and response to parties i put yes because you need to know who's going to be in charge of what and is presentation to the board anticipated to occur in public meeting closed session or another form it depends on what's being presented so a public meeting with consideration of law enforcement needs to be engaged that portion needs to be okay work paper ownership i just for that one question i just said soft copy electronic copies unless you have another okay and the last vendor was uhy they only had two questions and neither one is stuff that you would answer so so what i'll do is i'll finish getting this done and i'm going to send it to you and diane so look over make sure you agree with what was discussed and then i'll send an appointment with michelle and kylie to kind of go over because some of these they're going to need to answer in addition to us that's right so and the plan was for you to meet with kylie and

michelle at the end of this week sometime towards the end and i requested thursday okay um i haven't heard back on that yet um and then the intention would be to get responses to these vendors by the end of the week at the end of business friday friday that would be my goal um especially if we're going to be

extending it out two weeks. So I think that will help the vendors with their comfort level because I think they're a little worried that they're going to, you know, because right now it's the 4th and it's due the 24th. Yeah. So, yeah. Okay. So anything else? Otherwise, we'll move on to the next agenda item. Okay. So the last agenda item is at our last meeting, it was requested that I follow up with the state auditor with just this very simple questions that were outstanding that we just wanted to know. And you both were copied on that, and then you were both copied on the response. So, didn't really answer the questions, and basically said, pay your bill. Now, to Diane's point, you know, Normally, this is something we would just pay. However, this is not normal times. In the past, when they would go over, we'd get an informal letter letting us know we've encountered these things. This is going to be the additional cost. That's the way it's been the entire time I was on the phone.

Well, that was my point of clarification. Did that happen and we just won a price of it?

well i requested that information saying we went out of prize because he said that they this chief of staff this is not the auditor responding this is cheap or any of their auditors it was just the chief of staff his response was you know that was provided to county officials and i said which county officials because we never got any of that communication and in the past that's been shared with us in fact i think the first is when Amanda was still here, and they told us that because of the lack of responsiveness, it's going to increase the cost that first time. This is in 2023 or 2024. And once Phil was still here. And we got a letter for that, but we haven't gotten anything since. And we did not get any, the board was not communicating with, to my knowledge, since our last bill from them last June. we got no change orders we now got no notification no nothing the last communication we had was hey you know we have everything we need and it's just gonna be a little while longer and then you know both the otter and kylie also believe that it's just it's gonna be minimal if we just got a five thousand dollar bill yeah i wouldn't be happy about it but we would not be having this conversation over a five thousand dollar bill this is a forty five thousand dollar bill so um i would like to know uh i don't think we should be paying for his staff to do things that he's not statutorily required to do nor was he engaged to do he was not he was not the auditor choice for the fiscal 25 audit that was already awarded to somebody else and yet we're in findings for fiscal 25 in the fiscal 24 audit which is weird and so did we pay for that did we pay for the findings that were outside of his lane to quote lanes he went outside of his lane on things that were not statutory his job to do two of them so i don't want to pay for that either all i wanted to know was how many hours did you bill for these items that's all i wanted to know so we could ask them well since they don't provide that information then do we give it our best guess and say okay we're going to pay half

and until unless or until you give us a documentation of where this is all documented where who authorized this and these additional scope items that were outside the scope of this purview we're not paying for that unless you actually answer our questions that would be an approach that's an option um the chief of staff also mentioned that there's a challenge process

We can challenge? We can dispute a bill. Oh, let's do that then. He mentioned in his letter that we can dispute a bill. And I did look at code and it did say that.

Oh, and let it not too long. Yeah. And our outside counsel could help with that.

Yes. So, and if that's the case, a lot of the records that are being withheld would probably be able to be disclosed then. because we would find out exactly all this stuff via email, because that would be part of the dispute process. I don't know if it could be disclosed to the public, but it definitely could be disclosed to the board, because we need to know why we're being billed with things that they were not engaged to do. I believe some of this bill is correct. I really do. I just don't know how much. Especially concerning is that the bill for the fiscal 23 He didn't answer this part. He billed for less than three days of work. And it took a year to get that bill. And for the first six months, they billed less than two hours. And then from June through November, they only billed for a little under 20 hours. So if you were double checking because of the auditor, why did you wait to do most of it until after ? Sorry, the treasurer. Why would you wait until after June to start that? And then not tell us. And then wait until they do the accident review seven months later. I would just like some clarity. Because it's a huge bill. This is taxpayer money. And I don't understand why there's pushback. So I know some of it's correct. I just don't know how much.

Well, we need that information from them to determine how much of it is there and reasonable. So I guess I would make a motion that we proceed along code 11.21. To dispute it? To dispute this bill. I can engage outside counsel to help with that process.

To help with that process. Okay, all right. I'll second that. Do you have any other discussion? All right, all in favor of starting the dispute process for this, do you want that for fiscal 23 and 24 or do you want just 24?

I'm trying to remember which one was.

The 23 one was like $2,900 and it was for less than three days work. Yeah, no, that one wasn't as big of a concern.

Do you want to pay that one? Yeah, I'm okay with that. Okay, so paying the fiscal 23? Yeah, I'll make a motion. And disputing the 24? Do you want to make a motion for that? Yeah, do you want to rescind your original motion? I'll rescind my original motion, and I'll make a motion that we pay the state audit invoice for our fiscal year 23 and dispute fiscal year 24 and pursue Iowa Code 11.21 to dispute the invoice from the state auditor's office.

All in favor, please vote aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Are you going to communicate with Bull on that or do you want me to?

You have a much more finite knowledge. Yeah, I got the original email, so I'll take care of that. So the two things I need to take care of is I need to get an appointment with Michelle and Kylie to go over our discussion items for the vendors, contact the judicial branch regarding the ring cameras, and to contact them regarding the dispute process.

and I will contact all regarding the resolution that we passed regarding personal favors. Okay.

So, all right. So, if there's nothing else, I'll convey the motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Second. All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Also motion carries. We are adjourned at 1237.