Published: July 28, 2007 01:07 am      

County approves hiring of purchasing agent

More than a dozen people — many as divided the Hunt County Commissioners were themselves — attended the Hunt County budget workshop Friday to speak their minds and hear for themselves if the county would hire a purchasing agent.

After listening to public input and more discussion from of members of the Hunt County Commissioners Court, the Court decided by a narrow 3-2 margin to hire a purchasing agent.

The Court has been meeting and discussing hiring a purchasing agent, who would help control county spending and regulate the county’s bidding process, for more than two weeks. County officials in support of position have said the position will add an additional degree of accountability in the spending of tax payer monies.

But, if the people, who attended the meeting, represent the general public opinion, the decision to hire a purchasing agent may not be popular.

Many Hunt County residents and officials that addressed the Court during Friday’s meeting publicly spoke against hiring a purchasing agent.

Pct. 4 Constable Cullen Smith told commissioners that he was against the addition of the position because he feels hiring a purchasing agent indicates that public officials aren’t properly spending money, which isn’t the case.

“I don’t believe I’ve ever messed up with it,” he said, saying he wished he made $40,000 — the normal salary of a purchasing agent.

Hunt County resident Mickey Mixson also spoke against the position.

“I feel that a purchasing agent is not in the best of our interests,” he said.

A local business owner also addressed the court questioning the need to fund a $40,000 per year purchasing agent salary and inquiring if hiring one is going to hurt small businesses throughout the county.

“I’ve always believed in loyalty,” he told commissioners. “Loyalty is a two-way street. Please remember us because we will certainly remember you.”

After listening to initial public response, County Judge John Horn, who initially proposed hiring a purchasing agent, said the position is not in place to question the integrity of public officials. And, he said, it is not being put into place to eliminate local business’s role in the government.

He said it is needed because it will upgrade and professionalize the county’s spending system, which is responsible for $30 million of tax payer monies.

Also, Horn stressed that the position will only add $37,535 to the overall budget — $15,000 of that will be a one-time expense to buy a purchase order system. The rest of the cost is already built into the budget.

“Nothing is growing,” he said, saying there has always been someone acting as a purchasing agent in an unofficial manner.

Pct. 2 Commissioner Ralph Green spoke against the proposal, saying the county has never had a purchasing agent before and has done just fine without one.

At that point Pct. 3 Commissioner Phillip Martin pulled out and waved a pile of papers around from as early as 2001 that he said showed someone in the county signed as the county’s purchasing agent.

“We’ve had one, but it hasn’t been right,” he told Green gesturing to the papers. “Let’s do it right.”

Green also argued that the county’s two district judges, who will oversee the purchasing agent along with the county judge, have told him that they are not interested in overseeing the position once the person has been hired.

Horn disputed that saying district court judge Richard Beacom has told him he’s not against hiring a purchasing agent.

Pct. 3 Justice of the Peace Aaron Williams spoke up saying he has mixed opinions about the position.

He said on the one hand it could be good, but is concerned about getting a bad purchasing agent who doesn’t listen to the needs of county officials and buys supplies that aren’t needed.

Pct. 4 Commissioner Jim Latham also spoke against the position.

“I believe we’ve been good stewards of the county’s money,” he said, saying the position wouldn’t be a good addition at this time.

County Clerk Linda Brooks also spoke her mind on the issue.

“Let’s not forget who put us in these jobs,” she told the Court, saying her office is already successfully doing what the purchasing agent would do — requisitioning supplies, paying good rates for those items and purchasing what is needed.

“I already feel like we’re doing that,” she said, saying her office is careful to stay within budgetary authority. She said her office does not overspend.

Debbie Thomas, who works for the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office, spoke in favor of the addition though, saying under the county’s current spending system each office spends without alerting the county auditor’s office. That can create problems because if a person does not have the authority to spend tax payer money or has overspent, the county has to pay anyway because the product has already been delivered, she pointed out.

“The system we have right now doesn’t really have checks and balances,” she said.

Assistant County Auditor Tammi Byrd backed Thomas’ sentiment saying a purchasing agent may give county officials and tax payers a truer picture of spending and accountability with funds. Right now, when the office gets a bill, “we’ve pretty much got to pay it,” she said.

Byrd pointed out that with someone else responsible for purchasing, county officials will have more time to do what citizens elected them to do.

Pct. 1 Commissioner Kenneth Thornton, who up until the meeting, hadn’t publicly taken a stance, said after careful thought, he is in favor of the position for several reasons.

The first, he said is because people elected him to be good stewards of their money.

“I see (the purchasing agent) as a tool,” he said, also saying that he will have more time to devote to the needs of his precinct instead of spending time making purchases.

Second, he said, the Commissioners Court will set the policy the purchasing agent will have to follow. That policy will allow the Court to make sure small, local businesses can remain competitive.

“I’ve learned a lot in a short time about setting policy,” he said. “I’m ready to do what my voters (want) done — (spend money responsibly). I definitely don’t want to hurt my local people. It’s up to us to see that our policy allows us to use our local services.”

After it became clear the Court was still divided on the issue, but was ready to reach a decision, Horn said he hopes the Court can move forward and work together to embrace the change.

Green then again stressed fears that local businesses would be hurt, and said he thought for a purchasing agent to be effective, it would have to have unanimous support from the Court.

Martin said he expected that the Court would have to agree to disagree, but hopes the Court will live with the decision and work together.

“That’s what we do,” he said. “That’s what we need to do.”