Vermillion County Council debates rollback of electronic timekeeping system

At its Jan. 13 meeting, the Vermillion County Council spent significant time debating the county auditor’s decision to stop using an electronic timekeeping module that had been integrated with the county’s accounting and payroll software.

Council members and multiple officeholders questioned why the county appeared to be reverting to paper time sheets despite payments already made to a vendor for the timekeeping module. Officials asked whether a refund was available, whether the county had issued any required notice to the vendor, and whether reverting to paper would create extra labor and compliance risks.

The discussion centered on three technical and administrative points: whether the AOD timekeeping module was—and remains—compatible with the county’s integrated accounting/payroll system (referred to at the meeting alternately as the “Lao/Lyle/Lau system”); how much the county had paid for the module and the broader suite of services; and whether any existing county ordinance or State Board of Accounts rules require electronic timekeeping or particular recordkeeping formats.

Council members said the county had already paid part of the vendor contract (one speaker recalled an earlier figure “around $43,000” for what was described as a portion of the work) and described a larger yearly contract for multiple modules that one speaker estimated at “around 120 some thousand.” Several council members said the county had used the timekeeping system for about six weeks and that canceling usage now would waste the earlier payment and increase staff labor.

Multiple officials raised record-retention requirements. A county staff member reported that paper time sheets would have a 99‑year retention burden and that the module had been adopted in part to minimize storage and paperwork. Another participant cited State Board of Accounts guidance and said timesheets must show beginning and ending times rather than only total hours.

Practical concerns also surfaced about how field employees would record time if the county removed electronic clocks. Some department heads said deputies and field staff often work continuously or eat lunch on the road and that expecting them to use personal phones or otherwise clock in remotely could be impractical without county-provided devices. Others said the module supported predefined time entries and administrative approval workflows that would be lost with a return to paper.

Several speakers said training and transition problems contributed to resistance to the module: incoming auditors and some staff had not attended vendor training opportunities, and supervisors said they had to wait for a single staff member who was stretched thin to resolve questions. At least one commissioner said the change back to paper was an “incorrect decision” and questioned the auditor’s judgment; another said the module increased transparency and accountability for taxpayers and should remain in place.

Council members requested follow-up information: whether a formal written notice had been sent to the vendor, whether a refund or prorated credit was possible, and a clearer accounting of the invoices already paid for 2024/2025. No formal motion to cancel or reinstate the module was recorded in the transcript during this meeting; the item remained a discussion and follow-up for commissioners and the auditor.

Ending: Council members agreed to gather additional documentation (invoices, the vendor proposal and any notices) and to put the matter back on a future agenda so commissioners can decide whether to continue, cancel, or modify the county’s use of the vendor module.