Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marlboro County council pauses on telehealth opioid‑recovery pitch after members flag $10,000 wiring request
Summary
Council members raised procurement and due‑diligence concerns about a telehealth vendor pitching use of state opioid‑recovery funds, saying the company requested a $10,000 wire to secure grant help; members noted the county has its own grant writer and cited a Secretary of State filing date for the vendor as an additional red flag.
Marlboro County councilors debated whether to pursue a state opioid‑recovery telehealth program after an outside vendor asked the county to wire $10,000 to secure grant assistance.
During discussion added to the agenda as item 6(d), Councilwoman Lawson said the county had an opportunity to pursue state funds — which she described in the meeting as roughly $303,000 allocated to the county with a potential additional $1.2 million — but expressed concern that the county had "missed" a chance because of how the vendor presented the proposal and the vendor’s insistence on a fee arrangement. She warned against favoritism and nepotism in procurement.
Other members sharply criticized the vendor’s solicitation. One councilor said the company "wanted us to wire them $10,000 to get a grant that was not guaranteed" within a 24–48 hour window and called that a "red flag" and an example of "strong‑arming". Multiple speakers said the county already employs a successful grant writer who has secured opioid recovery and other grants for the county and that paying an outside consultant under those terms would be inappropriate.
When asked whether the county had checked the vendor’s registration, the administrator said the company’s Secretary of State filing date was 06/15/2024. Council members cited that recent formation date as a reason to proceed cautiously.
Supporters of pursuing the state allocation emphasized that the funds are "Marlboro County's money," and urged staff to pursue the funding in a manner consistent with county procurement rules. The transcript records a motion to table the item amid the concerns; the provided record does not show a final formal vote on tabling within the available segments.
Next steps: councilors asked staff to continue due diligence and to prioritize using the county’s own grant‑writing capacity; no contract or payment was authorized in the recorded discussion.
