Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Affidavit challenges Tyler Technologies contracts; commissioners approve claims with dispute over public-record names
Summary
A March affidavit, read into the July 6 meeting record, asserted that previously approved Tyler Technologies appraisal contracts are "without any effect and completely void," prompting debate among commissioners over whether the affidavit’s submitters’ names should be read aloud; commissioners approved claims with the contested Tyler item handled separately.
An affidavit alleging that Tyler Technologies appraisal and reassessment contracts are void was read into the record at the Boone County Board of Commissioners’ July 6 meeting, prompting debate among commissioners about public‑records transparency and whether the affidavit’s submitters’ names should be read aloud during the meeting.
Chair (S3) read portions of an affidavit the board received March 5 that challenges two previously approved contracts for appraisal services, citing amounts referenced in the affidavit of "$783,000 and $2,122,500." The affidavit, as read, states the contracts "are without any effect and completely void," and demands that the county "cease and desist" work tied to the Tyler Technologies contracts and that responses be made by sworn affidavit within five days.
Commissioner (S2) pressed for transparency and asked that the names on the scanned affidavit be read into the public record, saying the public should have access to the full document: "I'm requesting the names now be put on record like everybody else's name is being put on record." The chair and other commissioners discussed whether printed copies had been circulated to all commissioners and whether the scanned file was immediately accessible; staff said a scanned copy exists and could be produced via public‑records request.
Despite the affidavit and the question about the Tyler payment on the claims list, the board first moved to approve claims with the Tyler item considered separately; that motion passed on a voice vote. The meeting record shows subsequent action on the contested claims item was discussed and voted on in the meeting; the transcript records commissioners saying "Aye" when that item was put to a voice vote.
The affidavit asserts legal and constitutional arguments against the use of public funds for the contracts and sets aggressive timelines for sworn responses; commissioners noted the affidavit had been received in March and debated procedure for handling submitted documents in public meetings. The board did not announce additional legal action during the meeting; staff indicated the scanned affidavit can be retrieved through a public‑records request.
