Geary County Schools board approves monthly bills after member raises concern over GovLink payments
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Board members approved the district’s routine monthly bills, but one member urged a follow-up review, saying the district appears to be paying invoices against a GovLink contract much larger than its available cash and that about $3,000,000 of work remains unclosed.
Geary County Schools board members voted to approve the district’s monthly bills during the meeting, even as one member asked for a closer look at payments tied to a GovLink contract.
Speaker 1 opened the item by recommending approval of the monthly bills as presented. Speaker 3 raised concerns about how payments are being made under a GovLink contract, saying the district appears to be paying on the original contract price despite not having equivalent cash on hand. "Currently, there's over, I mean, 100,000,000 in contract under contract. However, we're only sitting with about 55,000,000 in our bank," Speaker 3 said, adding that "we still haven't even closed out $3,000,000 worth" of projects over the past three years.
Speaker 4 agreed the topic should be discussed further and Speaker 5 said the member intended to address it at the July 7 meeting, warning costs may rise. Speaker 1 said he would contact the colonel to see if there is additional information or narrative that could clarify the contract status.
After the exchange, Speaker 3 moved to approve the bills and the board voted in favor; the transcript records members saying "Aye," and the motion carried. The minutes provided in the transcript do not include a formal, itemized tally for this motion.
Why it matters: the exchange links recurring monthly payments to a contract that a board member described as substantially larger than current cash balances and flagged unclosed work. That raises questions for the district’s financial oversight: whether payments match completed work, whether invoicing aligns with cash-flow realities, and whether contract closeouts and retainage practices need review.
What the board said it would do next: Speaker 4 asked for the topic to be discussed further, Speaker 5 signaled intent to address it on July 7, and Speaker 1 said he would reach out to the colonel for updates or explanatory documentation. No formal directive or further investigation assignment appears in the transcript.