The Suffolk Public School Board on Dec. 11 voted to award a contract to the vendor identified in RFP 19‑10‑P to conduct a forensic audit of the district’s financial records for a not‑to‑exceed amount of $175,000.

Why it mattered: The contract and the process for awarding it were the subject of heated debate. Several board members argued that the public should have a formal opportunity to weigh in before the board commits operating funds, citing previous statements that the board would hold a town hall on the matter. Advocates for the audit said the review is a standard stewardship practice intended to ensure sound fiscal management.

What happened in the meeting: Board Member Riddick first moved to award a contract to Beckert (named variously in the transcript as Terry/Cherry Beckert) for up to $175,000, with the award made contingent on the results of a public hearing. That initial motion failed in a roll call: Birtingham — No; Fields — No; Jenkins — Yes; Riddick — Yes; Slinglove — No; Vice Chair McGee — No; Chair Howell — No. Members who opposed the contingency said it would delay needed action and that the public could use regular podium opportunities; supporters of the contingency emphasized transparency and the board’s prior commitment to a town hall.

Board Member Brittingham then offered a revised motion without the contingency, moving to award a contract to Beckert under RFP 19‑10‑P for up to $175,000 and authorizing the school board attorney to prepare a contract consistent with Virginia law. After extended discussion about budget sources, the public notice process, and possible reallocation (including Vice Chair McGee’s suggestion that board members consider returning their recently approved raise to fund the audit), the board adopted the motion in a recorded vote that produced a majority in favor (final roll call recorded in the transcript showed a majority voting Yes and the motion was declared passed).

Vote detail (recorded in meeting transcript):
- First (conditional) motion — outcome: failed. Recorded votes: Birtingham — No; Fields — No; Jenkins — Yes; Riddick — Yes; Slinglove — No; Vice Chair McGee — No; Chair Howell — No.
- Second (revised) motion — outcome: approved (final recorded roll call in transcript showed a majority voting Yes; the board chair declared the motion passed).

Procedure and legal context: Attorney Waller read the Virginia Freedom of Information Act provisions authorizing closed session discussion for procurement negotiation (Va. Code § 2.2‑3711); the board conducted an earlier closed meeting on procurement prior to the public vote. Some board members asked the Policy Review Committee to draft clearer procedures on when separate public hearings are required for budget transfers.

What the motion does not yet specify: The transcript records that the contract award is to be prepared by the board attorney consistent with the RFP terms; it does not specify contract‑execution dates, payment schedule, or the precise budget line(s) that will be used to fund the work. Board members asked staff to clarify funding sources and whether a separate public hearing should be required for budget transfers tied to the award.

Next steps: The board attorney is to prepare the contract for execution; staff will provide details on payment timing and the proposed budget impact. Board Member Riddick requested the matter be referred to PRC for policy work on public hearings for budget transfers.

Ending: The board’s approval ends the immediate procurement question but leaves unresolved public‑notice and budget‑sourcing concerns that members asked the Policy Review Committee and staff to address.