Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners review dispute with third‑party records vendor after missing payments since April
Summary
Weston County commissioners spent a substantial portion of their Dec. 3 meeting addressing discrepancies and missing payments connected to a third‑party online records vendor; staff said the county had not received expected payments since April and that recent vendor reports show far fewer users than earlier records.
County officials told the Board of Commissioners at the Dec. 3 meeting that they have not received expected payments from a third‑party records host (referred to in meeting discussion as "VaultSide") since April, and that reports provided by the vendor show dramatically lower user counts than historical records.
The county clerk’s office has historically received monthly check payments and accompanying user logs that documented how many customers accessed the online records service and supported a revenue split. Meeting participants said that recent vendor reports showed "probably 10 people in a whole month," compared with prior months with higher activity. "What he just sent us is, like, a 10th of what it was the prior year," a county official told commissioners.
County staff and commissioners discussed options including ordering a cease‑and‑desist, pursuing collection for back payments, terminating the contract and migrating records to a different vendor (a vendor name mentioned in the meeting was Iglot/IDOC as a potential replacement), or negotiating new contract terms that would allow the county to verify usage and receipts. A county attorney (Michael) said he would "talk to the chair and probably the board and see exactly what's going on and make sure we can get it figured out." Staff said they would continue to pursue a solution and update the board at the next meeting.
County staff reported scanning and archiving records internally and that uploads to the third‑party service had paused in April. Commissioners noted the service remains valuable to users even as the county seeks to protect its records and revenue. One commissioner urged moving to an alternative product if the verification and payment issues cannot be resolved: "If we switch over to Iglot, will we be able to block all sides from basically selling our product?" a commissioner asked; staff indicated legal steps such as a cease‑and‑desist letter could be used to protect county content.
No formal vote was recorded to terminate the vendor contract during the meeting. County staff said they would explore options including (1) obtaining the vendor's detailed log of users and payments, (2) seeking to verify amounts owed back to April, (3) preparing a possible cease‑and‑desist and (4) preparing for migration to an alternate system if necessary. The county also discussed potential legal limits of collection because the contract did not require verifiable independent logs in the original agreement.
Commissioners asked staff for monthly updates; county staff said they would return with more information and legal recommendations at the board's next meeting.
