Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Resources Audit Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debate surfaces $90,000 Willis Towers HR review and alleged procurement gaps
Summary
Board members raised questions about a Willis Towers engagement that cost about $90,000 to review the district’s human resources operations after an earlier RFP and partial work; members said the final scope and process did not match the board’s original request and some raised concerns about promotions and reorganization that followed.
During board discussion on May 6, several members raised procedural and procurement questions about a human resources review and a related Willis Towers engagement that the board was told cost about $90,000.
Board members said the district originally issued an RFP and requested an assessment of HR processes and the causes of hiring and payroll issues; a January contract listed activities such as meetings with HR and payroll staff and creating detailed process maps. Board member comments at the May meeting said the work that followed did not produce the expected independent report and instead led to a reorganization proposal and personnel moves the board had not authorized.
At the meeting, a board member said the district paid roughly $45,000 for initial work and later approved a $90,000 Willis Towers contract to perform work the board had believed it had already commissioned. That board member said the reorganization paperwork contained proposed promotions and pay increases and that the process had not included the HR supervisor as expected. The speaker said the sequence suggested consolidation of HR functions and raised concerns about decision‑making and transparency.
Board members asked for documented reports; one member said they had repeatedly asked for the Willis Towers deliverable and that it had not been produced for public review. The board also discussed a state procurement posting and an entry on the state website that listed the solicitation as canceled “in the best interest of the state,” although the presentation at the meeting listed executed documents.
The board did not move to rescind or approve the reorganization at the May 6 meeting; members asked for the relevant documents to be made available to the board and public before any final personnel actions. The board did not vote on a contract change at the meeting.
