Mount Pleasant council presses Datamax over missing statements of work and documentation

Datamax, the technology vendor that manages the city's IT infrastructure, told the Mount Pleasant City Council it had received a notice alleging breaches in documentation and asked for more time to discuss the concerns.

The council put the item on the agenda as a formal response to a letter alleging a breach, and a company representative said: "I am in receipt of your letter, but I am not quite sure what to do with it other than have a conversation about it." He added that Datamax has provided licensed Microsoft services and routine backups in daily use and said the company historically does not retain signed documents once work is completed.

Council member Jonathan Hickman said his concerns began during his campaign after he filed multiple public-records requests and that he had asked Datamax for statements of work. "I simply asked for statements of work that I think your company was supposed to provide and to date I think I've only received 1 and, it was not executed," Hickman said. Council members also flagged substantial recurring charges in the invoices, including cloud-storage and licensing fees that they said were not clearly documented in the original contract.

City legal counsel told the council the contract requires executed statements of work and that the city's notice was issued under the contract provisions. "The City's requested it. They've provided notice in accordance with the provisions of the contract," counsel said, noting there remains a cure period.

Datamax's representative said the company is willing to continue discussions and provide original documents and quarterly documentation it typically supplies, but said it does not maintain a formal retention system for signed records for all clients. He emphasized the company often works by ongoing agreement and "based on a handshake and doing what I need to do for my clients to get authorization and then doing the work."

Council members suggested the matter could be discussed in executive session or revisited once more documentation is collected; counsel reminded the body that the letter includes a cure period of about 30 days. No formal dismissal or contract termination occurred during the public session; the council left the item open for further follow-up and possible executive-session discussion.

What happens next: Council members and staff said they expect to gather the requested documentation, and the city attorney indicated the 30-day cure period will govern next steps. The item may return to a public or executive session depending on what the parties exchange.