Haskell County commissioners debate payment of PO #3305 and ARPA accounting ahead of audit

Haskell County commissioners spent a sizable portion of their meeting debating whether a purchase order issued last week (PO #3305) was paid in a way that could prompt adverse findings in the next audit cycle.

The chair raised the issue, saying the PO had been paid "against the recommendation of the district attorney's office and the state auditor's office" and that because the funds were federal the payment would likely be noted in the audit record. He asked that the discussion be reflected in the minutes so officials could explain the circumstances later.

The treasurer and a commissioner disagreed over how American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds were tracked in county accounts. One commissioner said "all of the $2,400,000 of ARPA money has already been expended" and that subsequent disbursements would therefore be paid from interest; the treasurer responded that county accounting treats the first $2,400,000 spent as federal dollars and that interest funds belong to the county and are spent under county rules.

Commissioners also questioned whether vendor selection followed bidding rules. The chair asked whether Bumpers Construction had been an approved vendor through any bidding procedure; other speakers said the materials in question had not been ordered through the county's construction manager, Jim Newcomb, and that several reimbursements were recorded with receipts for materials (interstate steel plates, concrete work, paint and support brackets).

One commissioner defended the reimbursements, saying the county received and possesses the materials and that payments represented reimbursement for those purchases. That commissioner characterized the scrutiny as "nothing but a harassment" and said they had original receipts showing the purchases, listing costs such as $2,625 for five steel plates and $746 for concrete work from a Fort Smith company.

Participants differed over whether the PO covered supplies (which typically fall below bidding thresholds) or contracted construction work that would require competitive bidding and prior board approval. The meeting record shows the commissioners did not rescind the payment and closed the discussion after recording the dispute in the minutes.

The exchange demonstrates a procedural disagreement about ARPA accounting and procurement practice that county officials said they expect to clarify in the next audit cycle. The commission proceeded to other agenda items after the discussion.