Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate over Malden & Jenkins engagement ends as reconsideration fails amid calls for forensic audit
Summary
Councilman Buckner asked to change his vote on a letter of engagement for Malden & Jenkins, saying he read it as a four‑year extension; the council voted not to reconsider. The exchange exposed deeper tensions about procurement, council rules and calls for a forensic audit.
A motion to reconsider a previously approved engagement with auditing firm Malden & Jenkins stalled on procedural grounds and did not change the outcome, exposing sharp divisions among council members over procurement transparency and the need for a forensic audit.
Councilman Buckner said he wanted to change his vote because he believed approving the resolution would extend Malden & Jenkins for an additional four years. "I wanted to reconsider my vote... I would like to change my vote on this resolution from a yay to a nay," he said. Members debated whether the proper path was unanimous consent or a motion to reconsider; the council voted on the motion to reconsider and it failed to carry.
Administration staff and another council member said the engagement letter before the council covers the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2025, and that the procurement RFP had established the vendor as eligible for up to five years but that each year requires council approval of an engagement letter. A staff member read the resolution and the engagement letter aloud and emphasized the difference between procurement authority and the single‑year engagement being approved.
The discussion became heated as some council members criticized others’ procedure and decorum. Multiple speakers and members of the public reiterated requests for a forensic audit of city finances; one council member said new members’ opposition to Malden & Jenkins was "very telling" and used it as further reason to pursue a forensic audit.
The council ultimately proceeded to other agenda items. No additional contract terms were adopted on the floor during the meeting; staff said they would double‑check the documents and that the engagement approved covered FYE 2025.
