Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracting Hr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees approve $3,905 HR invoice but decline to reaffirm HR contract amid procedural concerns
Summary
After heated debate over whether an HR consultant began work before formal board approval, Campton Hills trustees voted to pay a $3,905 invoice to HR2U (also referenced as HRTU) but rejected a resolution to reaffirm the firm’s professional‑services agreement, leaving questions about contract authorization to be reviewed later.
A divided Campton Hills Board of Trustees voted March 19 to pay a $3,905 invoice from the village’s human‑resources consultant while declining to reaffirm the underlying professional‑services agreement.
Trustee Janet pressed the board to delay payment and demanded a review after circulating a memo and an attorney‑general opinion she said warned against final action taken in closed session. “You cannot do final action in closed session,” she told the trustees, and she said parts of the vendor’s first invoice listed work performed in early December — before the board discussed or, she said, authorized the contract in open session.
Supporters of payment said the vendor performed services the village requested and should be paid. Trustee Buren said the issue was primarily internal authorization and that “the vendor shouldn’t be penalized” if staff authorized work. Trustee Nick argued the HR screening work — 143 candidates reviewed in this instance — can save the village money compared with other staffing options.
After discussion the board first approved the warrant with the HRTU invoice removed, then took a separate roll‑call vote to pay the $3,905 bill. The roll‑call record shows a majority in favor; Trustee Hassenberger recorded a no vote during the payment roll call. A later resolution (Res. 2618) intended to reaffirm the HR2U professional‑services agreement failed after a subsequent roll call in which several trustees voted no.
Village attorney Mr. Forte told the board he had reviewed the statute and earlier record and stood by his legal position that the prior 3–2 vote met legal requirements; dissenting trustees continued to say the January procedure and the timing of work raised legal and process questions.
The board did not rescind payment. Several trustees urged staff to put more specific “guard rails” around consultant use and to limit the number of candidate interviews or set tiered rates to avoid future scope creep. Administrator Rooney suggested bringing any proposed changes to contract terms back to the board in a subsequent resolution.
What happens next: The board will not reaffirm the contract tonight and several trustees asked for further legal review and clearer internal policies about when vendors may begin work and who may authorize expenditures. The invoice payment stands while the contract’s procedural history and any remedial steps will be addressed at a later meeting.
