Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County finance says it has paused consultant payments, cites HR and legal concerns
Summary
Finance staff told commissioners that payments to Diamond Point Consulting were paused after an April 1 memo because the consultant reportedly performed HR and legal-like functions for the auditor's office; an invoice of about $5,100 was denied pending documentation that statutory steps (such as prosecutor recusal or formal resolutions) were followed.
County finance staff reported to the Board of Commissioners that they have stopped payment on invoices from Diamond Point Consulting — described in the meeting as an LLC for an attorney-consultant identified as Dennis (Di)Camillo/DeCamillo — after concluding some of the consultant's work included human-resources functions and potentially legal work outside the county prosecutor's authority.
Finance director Brett Thomas said the pause stems from an April 1 memo to the auditor's office that flagged two categories of questionable payments and recommended the county stop approving those invoices until appropriate statutory steps were completed. "We will no longer be allowing those invoices to be paid," Thomas said in explanation of the memo; he told the board he had identified two verified instances of HR functions continuing after the memo and that one subsequent invoice was for "$5,100 and some odd dollars." Thomas said those invoices were processed by auditor staff and later denied on the finance side.
Why it matters: Thomas told commissioners that outside performance of HR or legal work for a county office can create audit findings, potential recovery liabilities and other legal exposure unless the county follows statutory processes such as a prosecutor recusal or a formal resolution authorizing outside counsel. Thomas said the finance office denied the cost to avoid potential county exposure while questions remain unresolved.
Commissioners pressed for clarification about what the consulting agreement authorized and whether the county had documentation showing the prosecutor had recused himself or a formal resolution authorizing outside counsel. One commissioner said they remember being told during budget review that the consultant was not performing HR functions; finance staff stated the current evidence indicates otherwise and that they will continue to withhold payment until the matter is clarified.
No formal disciplinary action, settlement, or contract termination was recorded in the public portion of the meeting; finance staff said they had not yet received responses to follow-up requests to the auditor's office and would continue to pursue documentary clarification.
