After experiencing some technical issues Monday, the Washington County Board of Supervisors resumed their regular meeting Tuesday morning and faced a new set of difficulties with a disagreement among the supervisors.
On Monday, the motion made by District 1 Supervisor Lee Gordon to review the contract with IMS Engineers along with the attorney won 3 to 1, with District 4 Supervisor Mala Brooks opposing.
The challenge was reaching a consensus on the reviewing of the General Service Agreement with IMS Engineers.
Near the conclusion of Tuesday’s meeting, Gordon attempted to reiterate the board’s agreement of reviewing the contract and bringing forth concerns or inquiries at the next meeting.
Brooks, displeased, interrupted Gordon and expressed she did not agree with the decision and felt it was unwarranted.
“Now here we go again, and you want to dissect the contract,” Brooks said to Gordon. “As a supervisor, if you don’t take it upon yourself to review them, that’s on you.”
Gordon said he wanted clarification as to whether he would be admonished by Brooks in the future for speaking on county matters and Brooks insisted she interrupted Gordon because she was kept from commenting on a similar matter.
Both supervisors, in an effort to be understood and fairly heard, argued their positions vehemently.
Brooks said to Gordon it was “apparent” he had a personal issue with IMS Engineers because they are an all black engineering firm.
“Moving forward, I’d appreciate it if you don’t question my character,” Gordon said to Brooks in regard to his conduct as it pertains to county affairs.
Brooks opposed further review of the contract because it had already been voted on and approved by the BOS.
“My concern at this point is the contract was given to the county in the latter part of January,” Brooks said. “The board has voted on it, Mr. (Board President Carl) McGee has signed the contract, we’re now in the month of April and he’s saying he hadn’t read the contract and that we all need to review the contract, and at the next board meeting give our concerns.”
Brooks said she feels at this junction of the road, everything as it pertains to the contract should have already been taken care of.
Gordon said one issue he had with the contract is the fact that it’s a four-year contract, which runs beyond the supervisors’ terms.
“I don’t know if we even have the legal authority to do that, but we’ve never done that in the past,” he said. “Everyone we appoint, and we’ve got about seven or eight people we appoint, there’s no contracts for any of them.”
Another concern of Gordon’s regarding the contract with IMS is that some of the rates are higher than the county has been paying.
“I want to look at the liability insurance and things like that and make sure of what we’re entering into,” he explained.
Gordon highlighted despite what his recommendations are or would be, anything decided on would have to be a board order.
He shared he did not appreciate his integrity being questioned and would never not respond to such.
“I think it’s the right thing to do — to make sure we know what’s in the contract, what we’re signing, and to make sure that all of us make the right decisions for the county,” he added. “It’s not stopping any work whatsoever, we’re just looking over the contract to see if there’s anything we would need to change.”
Chiming in, McGee said there is still time to make adjustments to the contract.
“At yesterday’s meeting, we decided to have everybody go back and review it to see if they had any concerns with it and at the next board meeting, have a conversation about it. We still can, according to the attorney, make some adjustments to it,” McGee said.
McGee also said the supervisors need to keep the local voters’ concerns in mind and conduct themselves in professional manners at all meetings.
“We have to respect the wishes of the voters and do the best we can to work with one another … we have to be professional ourselves.”
