Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consent Agenda Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bonner County commissioners debate consent‑agenda transparency and who should pay for sheriff vehicle repairs
Summary
Commissioners debated whether certain non‑routine items should appear on the regular agenda instead of the consent agenda, and whether repeated repair bills for sheriff’s vehicles should be borne by the sheriff’s budget or the county’s self‑insurance (risk) fund. A motion to keep current consent‑agenda practice and to pursue a written definition passed.
Commissioners at the Bonner County Board meeting on Dec. 2 debated how the county uses its consent agenda and whether unusual items are being hidden from public view. The board agreed to pursue a written definition of what belongs on the consent agenda but did not change the county’s current practice.
At issue was a set of consent items the chair read aloud, including an automotive repair for a sheriff’s office vehicle ($9,698.64), case‑management software from Carpel Solutions ($7,293.75) and a confidential prosecutor item ($9,888) covered by grant funds. Commissioner (Speaker 2) pressed repeatedly that items that are not “normal everyday business” should be moved to the regular agenda so the public can hear a presentation and ask questions. “I would like to see things that are not normal everyday business … on the regular agenda just so that it could be presented for the board,” Speaker 2 said.
Other commissioners replied that the county’s written consent‑agenda process already defines what can be placed there and that departments sometimes choose where to place items. Speaker 4 said the consent agenda is still part of the public meeting and that board members retain the right to pull items for discussion: “If you had an issue … then your motion would be to remove it from the consent agenda,” Speaker 4 said. Chair (Speaker 1) said the county should clarify and communicate a consistent policy so departments know where to submit different types of items.
The discussion expanded into a disagreement about repeated vehicle‑repair claims from the sheriff’s office. Speaker 2 questioned whether routine operational risks for a vehicle‑intensive office should be charged to that department’s budget rather than the county’s self‑insurance budget. “I can see that being a great policy for most of the county … but in this case, the sheriff’s office is actually using their vehicles for their work … and they’re getting in these accidents,” Speaker 2 said, arguing that some costs “might have to be built into his budget.”
Other commissioners and staff warned that shifting every vehicle claim to the sheriff’s line item would require a broad review of the county’s self‑insurance arrangement and could significantly raise the sheriff’s budget. Speaker 4 noted the county is self‑insured and that claims adjudication and deductibles are structured per occurrence, meaning that moving the deductible burden to individual departments would be a complex, potentially costly change.
Outcome and next steps: The board approved the consent agenda as presented after debate and agreed to work on a written definition of consent‑agenda items to improve consistency and transparency. Staff indicated the county will also review self‑insurance and claims adjudication processes if the board wants to pursue changing which department budgets bear repair costs.
