Carter County commissioners flag liability, confidentiality concerns in state public‑health master contract

Carter County commissioners and public‑health staff spent much of their March 4 meeting scrutinizing a newly issued master contract from the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services that counties are being asked to review and negotiate.

Staff members said the contract, which counties received recently and replaces a 2019 agreement running through June 30, 2026, is structurally different and contains provisions they described as one‑sided. “This contract is very one‑sided,” said Speaker 7, who advised close, line‑by‑line review and suggested setting aside additional time to draft redlines for the state.

Why it matters: if the master contract is executed as written, counties would operate as contractors under broad new terms that could change reporting obligations, data‑sharing limits, insurance and indemnity exposure, and the scope of audit access. Staff warned those terms could affect ongoing task orders by specifying that, in the event of a conflict, the new master contract would take precedence over earlier task orders.

Public‑health staff described several specific concerns. They said the contract appears to incorporate active task orders and sets the master contract as the governing document in any conflict, potentially altering previously agreed scopes of work and reporting frequency. On confidentiality and data use, Speaker 5 read contract language noting contractors “may not access or use personal, confidential, or other information obtained through the department” without specified permissions and approvals; staff worried the clause is too restrictive for routine public‑health operations and could conflict with public‑records responsibilities.

Liability and indemnity were also flagged. Speaker 7 said the new indemnification language shifts broad liability to contractors, leaving counties responsible for defense and costs while removing reciprocal indemnities from the state. “The contractor is liable for everything,” Speaker 7 said, adding that insurance requirements and limits are unclear for self‑insured counties and will need redlines to reflect local policy.

Board members acknowledged the concerns and discussed a negotiated approach. Speaker 5 recommended legal review and redlining sections that conflict with county practices, and several commissioners requested additional meetings to work through the contract’s pages. The county did not authorize signing the master contract at the meeting; staff were asked to prepare comments, gather insurance data, and schedule follow‑up sessions for negotiation and legal review.

Next steps: staff indicated they will compile suggested changes and consult county legal counsel before returning recommendations to the board. One county official asked for a dedicated hour to begin the redlining process and confirmed the county will aim to submit feedback to the state in the weeks ahead.

The meeting moved on after the discussion; no final action occurred on the state master contract during the session.