Several board members asked the department for more detailed and earlier information about contracts, procurements and grant awards, and department staff agreed to compile and deliver what they requested.

Board member Stephanie Bell asked for “a list of all contracts starting at $100,000” with five years of history, the vendor contact, signature authority and a short purpose summary. Board members said a concise ledger would save staff time and let members identify items for further inquiry rather than requesting full agendas or documents case‑by‑case.

Board members and staff also discussed when the board should be looped in on procurement planning. Doctor McCarty requested earlier notice during the inception of contract discussions (before RFPs are issued or sole‑source determinations are finalized) so members can provide input without micromanaging. Craig and other staff agreed to propose a mechanism to deliver timely contract information and a running log so the board sees contracts during development rather than only at contract review.

Staff said the process varies by contract type (formula vs. discretionary grants, federal vs. state procurements) but committed to providing the board with explanations of contract selection processes, when RFPs are required, and how sole‑source awards are justified. "We'll provide you with the process that that that takes place," a department official said, offering to build documentation for board review.

Why it matters: Board members emphasized oversight and public transparency. The requested ledger and a proposed delivery cadence aim to give the board practical visibility into recurrent vendors, large commitments and the timing of procurement decisions.