Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight It Vendor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges forensic audit after records show $115,000 paid to IT vendor with no written contract
Summary
A Walker County resident told commissioners she found $115,000 paid to a newly registered IT vendor with no written service or confidentiality agreements and asked the board to open an RFP and forensic audit, citing state IT-security standards.
Melissa Hulsey, a resident who said she obtained Walker County bank statements through an open-records request, told the Board of Commissioners that payments to an IT service vendor between July and September 2025 total $115,000 and include a $23,000 check written in September.
"We have no written agreements for this vendor — no service agreement, no confidentiality agreement, no pricing agreement, no reporting requirements," Hulsey said during public comment. She said invoices were vague, the vendor’s website appeared to be a single-page site with no staff listed, and county checks were mailed to a rented mailbox.
Hulsey said she consulted an independent IT professional who reviewed the invoices and noted the county appeared to be billed for multiple cloud services, and that the lack of contracts could put county data at risk and violate what she identified in the record as Georgia IT security guidance "SS-08-44." She asked the board to initiate a request-for-proposals process and perform a forensic audit of the county’s IT contracting and payments.
Chairwoman James did not dispute Hulsey’s figures in the meeting but said the board would research the concerns and respond at the January meeting. "We will research these questions and have a response in January," the chair said to the assembled public.
The board did not vote on any audit motion during the Dec. 4 meeting. Hulsey recommended an RFP to replace the vendor relationship and a forensic audit to verify the scope of services and whether appropriate contractual protections and state compliance steps were in place.
What the county provided in response during the meeting was limited: commissioners acknowledged the public records disclosure and said staff would review procurement and contracting records. The record provided in public comment alleges payments and missing written agreements; the board’s follow-up was limited to a pledge to investigate and report back at the next meeting.
Next steps: the board said it will research the matter and report results in January. If commissioners decide to pursue formal procurement changes or a forensic audit, those steps would arise in a future meeting or through the county procurement process.
