Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Duet Financial Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises allegations of years-long DUET deficits as county rescinds earlier intent to end agreement
Summary
Public commenters urged scrutiny of DUET’s finances and ENSA governance after auditors flagged concerns; the board voted to rescind a prior statement of intent to withdraw from the interlocal agreement while leaving compliance requirements in place.
The Douglas County Board voted on a motion to rescind its earlier stated intent to rescind the county’s agreement with ENSA concerning DUET funding after weeks of public concern about the nonprofit’s finances. County Administrator Patrick Bloomingdale told the board the action rescinds the board’s prior “statement of intent to rescind the agreement,” not the resolution’s substantive compliance requirements for DUET to meet.
Laura McCormick, a public commenter who identified herself during the meeting, urged deeper investigation into DUET’s finances, saying the provider “has been running year over year deficits for at least 3 years” and that external auditors had issued an adverse opinion earlier this year. McCormick asked whether long-serving ENSA governing-board members, including Commissioner Borgeson (who she said had served as ENSA chair for decades), had alerted county leadership to the financial problems. She also listed several DUET property sales and said records of those sales, commissions paid and proceeds had not been provided.
Patrick Bloomingdale, the county administrator, said the board’s intent-language was being rescinded because DUET still must comply with specified elements in the resolution and remain under monitoring. “You're not rescinding the resolution. You're simply rescinding your previous stated intent to rescind the agreement with ENSA,” Bloomingdale said, clarifying that the agency remained subject to compliance obligations.
The motion passed with the clerk recording Commissioner Cavanaugh (as noted in the transcript) as voting no and other commissioners voting yes. The board did not take substantive enforcement action during the meeting beyond rescinding the prior stated intent; public commenters urged the county to demand detailed financial records, property-sale histories and explanations for how multi-year deficits occurred.
Next steps were not set on the record; the transcript shows public concern and requests for further oversight but does not record a directive for a particular audit, forensic review, or timeline for follow-up.
