Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement It Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County resident alleges $115,000 in unsigned IT vendor payments, urges RFP and forensic audit
Summary
In public comment, Melissa Halsey said Walker County paid roughly $115,000 to an out-of-state IT vendor without written contracts or confidentiality agreements and asked the board to open an RFP and a forensic audit, warning of potential violations of a Georgia IT security standard.
Melissa Halsey told the board she obtained Walker County bank statements through an open records request and found payments totaling about $115,000 to an out-of-state IT vendor between July and September 2025, including a single check for more than $30,000. She said the vendor’s online presence appeared minimal, payments were mailed to a rented mailbox, and she could not verify employees or an operating office.
Halsey said she found no written service agreement, confidentiality agreement or pricing terms for the vendor and that invoices were vague. She said county staff told her the work was handled verbally under a prior administration and that monthly testing reports were not provided to the county or were not produced despite requests.
"We are currently, it appears, breaking state law and putting our county's data at risk," Halsey told the board, citing what she referred to in the meeting as "Georgia s s dash o 8 dash 44," which she described as a state IT security standard requiring third‑party compliance and written security provisions in contracts.
Halsey said she sent documents to an outside IT consultant for review, who told her the invoices suggested overlapping charges (Amazon Web Services and Rackspace) and raised questions about whether the county was being charged for redundant or proprietary services. She asked the board to issue an RFP for IT services and to order a forensic audit to determine whether additional irregularities exist.
Chairwoman James and other commissioners acknowledged Halsey’s concerns during the public‑comment period; the board did not take immediate formal action during the meeting but told attendees they would research the questions and respond in January.
What's next: Halsey requested an RFP and a forensic audit; the board committed to researching her questions and reporting back at the January meeting.
