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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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 no

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 s

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 corrido

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 enforcemen

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

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

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

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 con

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

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 t

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.

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 th

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.

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.

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 a

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

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

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

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

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

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 authorizi

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

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 availab

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 nex

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 w

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

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 v

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 act

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

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

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 onc

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

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?

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.