Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staffing Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board schedules vote after member raises concerns about StaffEZ rehire contract and state review
Summary
A board member asked that the contract with third-party staffing vendor StaffEZ be brought to the next meeting for a vote because the company is under state review; the board discussed possible grandfathering of current employees and potential staffing gaps if the contract is terminated.
Board member Jacob Daniels raised concerns June 2 about the district’s contract with a third-party staffing vendor called StaffEZ, saying his research showed the company and similar arrangements are receiving scrutiny from Tennessee authorities. Daniels asked the board to place a formal vote on the contract at the next meeting rather than allowing it to auto-renew.
Daniels said he had contacted state officials and found the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System and others were “still researching” how the new state law on retirement interacts with third-party staffing vendors. He asked the board to review whether to continue, terminate or limit the contract while the state completes its review. “I have a problem approving a contract that’s under investigation,” Daniels said.
District administrators and legal counsel explained StaffEZ operates as a third-party staffing vendor: the staff work for the vendor rather than directly for the district, and the vendor does not remit employee contributions to the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System. The district’s attorney and representatives said there was no definitive legal opinion from the state yet and that the law, as written, does not explicitly reference third-party vendors. “The state treasury told us they didn’t really know what to do with it,” a district administrator said, describing conversations with the Tennessee Department of Treasury.
Board members weighed the practical consequences of immediate termination. Administrators warned that canceling the contract without a transition plan would leave the district short several employees in the near term; they described 6 employees still under the contract and noted others had already retired. Administrators recommended “grandfathering” current staff (allowing existing engagements to continue without adding new hires under the vendor) while stopping new placements and preparing to absorb positions back into district payroll if needed.
Mr. Daniels moved that the contract be placed on the agenda for a vote at the next board meeting; the motion was seconded and will appear on the next meeting’s agenda. The board did not take a final vote on the contract on June 2.
