Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions $5.04 million accounts-payable report as member flags vendor ties
Summary
Board members pressed administration about the $5,035,479.70 accounts-payable report, naming vendors and asking whether cumulative purchases had bypassed the district's bidding thresholds; one member said repeated payments to related parties could "diminish public trust."
The Turtle Mountain School Board examined a $5,035,479.70 accounts-payable report and spent more than thirty minutes pressing staff on specific vendors, purchasing thresholds and the potential for perceived conflicts of interest.
"The accounts payable in total are the reports in total is 5,035,479.7," said Natasha, who presented the accounts-payable packet and line-item invoices. Board member Dennis questioned multiple entries and asked whether cumulative spending had exceeded the district's $25,000 single-purchase threshold that ordinarily triggers formal bidding.
"Has it exceeded your threshold outlined in your school board policy, which is 25,000 which requires a request for bids advertising for bids? Has it exceeded that amount?" Dennis asked. He singled out individual line items, including classified cleaning ($87.50 for the month), a $9,401.25 invoice to Sonoma LaRocque and $22,030 to Michael Lee Contracting.
Natasha and other staff explained those expenditures represent separate purchase events across individual schools or projects rather than a single, consolidated contract. "They're all separate purchasing agents," Natasha said, describing how different buildings and administrators manage their own budgets and small purchases.
Administration also noted the federal micro-purchase threshold and fund source can change procurement requirements. "When you're using the federal funds... that used to be 10,000 that was increased to 15 that would require those types of... it would require bids regardless of what our policy would say," Dwayne said. He told the board purchasing agents are responsible for ensuring compliance and that staff could report back if patterns suggested escalation beyond policy.
Dennis pressed beyond procurement technicalities to raise an ethics and public-trust concern. "It seems a little bit unethical because they're related to board members and employees of the school," he said. "When you get into a situation like that... it diminishes the public trust in school boards." He asked the board's policy-review committee to revisit purchasing and conflict rules.
Other members stressed the board's longstanding preference to "go local" to support community businesses, noting local vendors sometimes cost slightly more but supply important local jobs. "If I've got a technology company bill bidding on laptops and another one over here and this one is local and they're $3,000 over, we tend to go local to support local companies and local people," one board member said.
The board did not record a detailed roll-call vote tied to the line-item discussion in the transcript, but the accounts-payable packet was presented for approval. Members requested staff bring any evidence of procurement thresholds being exceeded and any potential family- or employee-related vendor relationships to the policy committee for review.
Next steps: staff agreed to monitor cumulative vendor payments more closely, provide procurement-threshold clarifications, and bring recommended policy language back to the board's policy committee for review.
