Our County Commissioners Are Failing Their Oversight Responsibilities A Dereliction of Duty

Our county is operating under a $30 million budget deficit. This makes every contract the Board of Commissioners approves an opportunity to recover lost ground—or to dig the hole deeper. Unfortunately, recent actions show that our commissioners are doing the latter by approving contracts without the proper oversight or data-driven review taxpayers deserve.

Oversight is not obstruction—it’s responsibility. Yet our commissioners continue to “rubber stamp” contracts with little to no discussion about costs, justifications, or performance tracking. In a time of financial shortfall, this isn’t just careless—it’s unacceptable.

At present, there is no formal process for reviewing contracts before they are approved. Many contracts are bundled into the consent agenda, passed in a single motion with no discussion or public explanation. The entire business portion of some meetings lasts less than ten minutes, with millions of taxpayer dollars approved in that time. This is not transparency, and it is certainly not fiscal oversight.

To make matters worse, each commissioner is compensated at roughly $118,000 a year, a salary that should come with a higher standard of diligence and accountability. For that level of pay, the public should expect commissioners who are fully engaged in safeguarding taxpayer funds—not simply moving contracts along without scrutiny.

When public money is being spent, each contract should undergo a short, structured review designed to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used wisely. I’ve proposed a simple Contract Review Package—a five- to ten-minute process that captures the key data points necessary for informed decision-making:

Summary – What is the project? Is it budgeted? If so, is it above or below estimate? If not, what offsets are proposed?

Cost Justification – Was the contract competed? If not, why not? Can costs be reduced through scope or schedule negotiation?

Integrated Schedule – Does the timeline align with the county’s broader financial and staffing resources?

Disclosures – Are there any potential conflicts of interest or hidden liabilities?

Risk and Assumptions – What could go wrong, and how are we mitigating those risks?

County Budget Performance – How does this contract affect our running deficit, department by department?

These are not complex demands—they are the minimum standards for good governance. This framework is fast, fair, and transparent. It also acts as a forcing mechanism: if departments can’t easily fill out the required information, that’s a sign that due diligence isn’t being done before a request even reaches the Board. Will the board adopt this new process or do their salaries not guarantee this level of professionalism?

At a time when families and businesses across the county are tightening their belts, our leaders should be leading by example. Approving contracts without fiscal scrutiny sends the wrong message—it tells the public that accountability doesn’t matter.

The Board must take its oversight role seriously. Implementing a consistent, data-driven review process for all contracts would be a step toward restoring public trust and financial stability. Anything less is a failure of duty.