Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Payment to Commissioner flagged repeatedly; board debates emergency purchasing rules
Summary
A major vendor claim from Commissioner Joe Leslie for machine hire and hauling after March floods prompted repeated abstentions and votes; the board debated whether the March emergency declaration allows waiving standard purchasing rules and ultimately split on approvals.
GREELEY COUNTY, Neb. — Over several meetings in late 2019 the Greeley County Board of Commissioners repeatedly confronted a large claim submitted by Commissioner Joe Leslie for machine hire, backhoe and hauling work related to post‑flood repairs.
The claim (entered as vendor "Joe Leslie" on the minutes) appeared on multiple agendas with amounts reported as high as $80,375. Motions to approve payment were routinely handled with conflicted voting: whenever Commissioner Leslie moved to pay the claim he abstained from votes on payment and other commissioners recorded abstentions or failed motions in some instances.
The recurring dispute included two linked issues: whether the procurement thresholds in the County Purchasing Act required competitive bidding or multiple informal bids for the work, and whether the March flooding and the county’s emergency declaration effectively authorized an expedited procurement process.
Commissioner Jordan Foltz argued the March emergency justified waiving some procurement rules. In late November he made a motion and said the March flood declaration "should trump all purchasing acts until somebody comes along and declares that we are out of an emergency," framing the flood as the basis for emergency procurement authority. Other board members disagreed about the scope and duration of any purchasing exemptions and emphasized statutory thresholds and documentation requirements.
Board minutes show motions to approve the vendor claim were moved, tabled or defeated at different meetings; in several votes the board excluded the disputed claim from a batch of approvals and then considered it separately. At times the minutes record abstentions by the commissioner who was also the vendor, and other commissioners recused or abstained depending on the motion.
Next steps: The minutes show continued negotiation and periodic attempts to approve partial or full payments; the board discussed written procurement policies for emergencies and asked the county attorney to clarify documentation requirements. The county must still reconcile procurement statute requirements with emergency response expenditures and ensure minutes reflect conflict‑of‑interest handling and compliance with state law.
