June 24, 2025, Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

I attended the June 24, 2025, Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

All commissioners were present.

The first agenda item was “Bid Opening – 250624 – Lab Testing Services.”

This bid opening was for lab testing for the Camden County Health Department.

Commissioner Gohagan explained that this bidding qualified under Missouri statute as professional services.

No bids were received. From what the Health Department representative had to say, they tried to contact a variety of lab companies. It sounded like the lab companies are not really in the habit of submitting bids and none of them opted to submit one.

The Health Department currently uses Lab Corp for their medical testing and their prices seem to be the best. Presiding Commissioner Skelton advised them to continue using them for the time being and let the Commission know if they become aware of a better vendor.

The second agenda item was “Surplus Funds Request.”

This request was for a property on Bruner Drive in Camdenton. The surplus amount was $22,511.22. The request had been reviewed by the County Attorney and the Treasurer.

It was approved unanimously by the Commission.

The final agenda item was “General Discussion of Purchasing, Contracting, & Appointment of Purchasing Agent.”

Presiding Commissioner Skelton stated that he had read the relevant statutes and Camden County was not handling purchasing exactly in accordance with them. The County Attorney had called Platte County and reported that they conduct purchasing similarly to Camden County.

Skelton explained that Camden County could appoint a purchasing agent, but if Camden County decided to have a purchasing agent, nothing could be purchased unless it went through that agent. Each year, the county departments would submit their purchasing needs to the purchasing agent who would review them. The purchasing agent could then reject or approve the purchasing requests. Any individual who made a purchase without using the purchasing agent would be personally liable for making the payment.

The purchasing agent would be approved by and serve at the pleasure of the Commission. The purchasing agent would be appointed by the Commission each February.

Skelton also stated that based on his reading of Missouri statute, the Commission has the right to reject all bids if they are not satisfied with any of the bids that were received. He pointed out that in a First Class county, the Auditor is the Accounting Officer and in a First Class county with a population under 100,000, the Auditor is the Chief Budget Officer.

Commissioner Gohagan asked if the Purchasing Agent would be required to take an oath? Skelton said the statute did not discuss that. Presiding Skelton stressed that he just wanted to be sure that Camden County was operating in accordance with Missouri statute.

Presiding Commissioner Skelton also explained that if the county does not appoint a purchasing agent, all purchasing contracts would have to be approved and established by the Commission in the month of March. Only emergency purchases would be allowed outside of that period.

The county elected officials in attendance did not seem particularly excited about the idea of submitting their budgeted purchases through a purchasing agent for approval. It was also mentioned that it would be difficult to estimate in March what would be needed throughout the year.

Commissioner Gohagan pointed out that emergency purchases would be allowed, but there was a lengthy discussion about what would truly constitute an emergency for budgetary purchases. Both Skelton and Gohagan agreed that the county’s accounting policy could be more restrictive than Missouri statute, but could not be more permissive.

In Public Comment, Commissioner Gohagan mentioned that the budget might be re-opened in July, but the county needed to stop the habit of county departments rushing to spend all of their remaining money at the end of the fiscal year.

The Sheriff’s Representative asked how the purchasing agent would know which purchases were appropriate for their office if they did not have any law enforcement experience? Presiding Commissioner Skelton responded that the statute allows the Commission to appoint purchasing assistants for specialized departments. Skelton observed that in the current system, elected officials can spend their budget money before the Commission can review it and ensure that it’s a proper expenditure.

The Tax Assessor said that he felt that since it was his budget, he should be able to decide how that money should be spent. If the purchases were deemed to not be appropriate, it was up to the voters to hold that particular elected official accountable. Skelton questioned how most voters would ever know how and why the money was spent?

There were some concerns that adding a purchasing agent into the decision process might slow down time-sensitive spending. Presiding Commissioner Skelton did not feel that it would, but he stressed that financial oversight is one of the responsibilities of the Commission and any minor delays would be worth ensuring that checks and balances were in place.

And that was that.