County commissioners on Thursday pressed officials over why the county contracted with Korn Ferry for specialized recruitment work rather than assigning the work to the internal human resources department.

During Ways and Means discussion of item 1, several commissioners said $329,000 was a substantial amount to pay an outside firm and asked whether the county’s HR staff could perform recruiting work in house. "As you look at $329,000 paid to an outside company, it appears to me ... that's a hefty amount to pay for folks that our own HR department should be qualified to determine," Commissioner Wilson said.

County staff and counsel responded that the positions in question are "specialized" and that Korn Ferry provides vendor services — interview, vetting, assessments — the county currently relies on to fill difficult vacancies. Jeanette Colsar, identified in the meeting as "chief of staff for M and B," said the firm still conducts full candidate vetting even when a county employee refers an applicant. She added that a 20% fee applies when a county employee refers an outside candidate rather than when a current county employee is placed in a county role. "There was still a role for Korn Ferry even though it was a referral by a county employee," Colsar said.

Several commissioners sought clarity on procurement method. Counsel said the procurement was handled as a "comparable source" procurement, which the procurement ordinance allows and which does not require a traditional three‑bid competitive process. "The procurement ordinance allows for comparable source procurements, which do not require bidding, and this was a comparable source procurement," counsel stated.

Commissioners also recorded a mix of votes on item 1: one commissioner registered a 'no,' another abstained, and the clerk noted Commissioner Peterson Mayberry as a 'no' and Commissioner Baker McCormick as abstaining. The motion ultimately carried.

The discussion did not change the county's immediate course: staff said the Korn Ferry engagement would continue under the terms described. The commission requested clarity on internal staffing and procurement documentation; staff said the department had previously provided committee‑level responses and that the date in the record had been adjusted to reflect what occurred.

Next steps: commissioners asked staff to explore whether similar recruitment work can be brought in house in the future and to provide procurement documentation on comparable‑source decisions.