County Commission Declines to Revisit RFP Process for Insurance

By: Shelia Mader

Despite mounting public pressure and impassioned appeals from citizens, industry professionals, and even some commissioners, the Jackson County Board of County Commissioners declined to revisit their controversial decision not to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the county’s insurance coverage.

At Tuesday’s commission meeting, the room was packed with insurance representatives, concerned residents, and local business owners, many of whom came seeking answers and accountability following the board’s previous decision to forego competitive bidding for the county’s insurance contracts. Although the item bringing so much concern wasn’t on the agenda, it was reopened by Commissioner Donnie Branch during round table. Branch said that he had received a flood of calls and in-person inquiries from citizens upset by the board’s decision.

“We’re trying to find money to run this county with. People have said, ‘Why did y’all do that?’ And I can’t really tell them,” Branch said. “I think we need to take another look. I’m not saying we should go with this one or that one, but at least we ought to look at it and make an informed decision.”

Branch emphasized that, with budget hearings imminent, potential cost savings should be explored more openly and transparently. “We’re trying to find money around this county.  Why wouldn’t we look at the possibility of saving?”

However, the discussion quickly became mired in procedural debate. Commissioner Dr. Willie Spires cited Robert’s Rules of Order, noting that only a member on the prevailing side of the original vote could bring the issue back for reconsideration.

Chairman Jamey Westbrook countered that interpretation, stating he had consulted a “guru” on Robert’s Rules who told him a new motion could be introduced regardless of previous vote position.

Commissioner Paul Donofro sided with Spires on the procedural point and expressed additional concern: “I'm not an attorney, but I'm not so sure that we followed the legal requirements. There may be contractual obligations that we’ve overlooked.”

County Attorney Michelle Jordan acknowledged she had not been asked to review the contract terms related to the county’s insurance, nor could she confirm whether proper notice had been given to existing providers in the event of termination.

Among the first speakers from the public was Grand Ridge businessman and farmer Trent Childs, who said, “Transparency on this board has been tough. The voters deserve an answer.”

Contractor Jack Staber echoed that sentiment: “In 55 years in construction, I’ve never not bid a project. Why would you ignore that process with public money? It’s everybody’s money.”

The most detailed public plea came from a representative of Boyd Insurance, the firm seeking an opportunity to compete for the contract. The representative said he had been working on this initiative for two years and stressed that an RFP wouldn’t bind the board to accept any bid, it would simply allow for a formal comparison.

“Status quo mentality means no growth or improvement,” he said. “You cannot improve without change. This RFP is about transparency, service, and value, not just price.”

He directly addressed Commissioner Spires as the perceived swing vote: “I’ve seen you govern with consistency and fairness. What changed?”

Commissioner Donofro raised concerns about whether the county was legally able to switch carriers mid-term, citing documents that suggested proper notice had not been given.

Boyd Insurance pushed back, stating such transitions were standard in the industry and that a 30-day notice was typically sufficient.

But additional perspective was provided by Albert Milton, representative for the current provider, the Florida Association of Counties Trust (FACT). He emphasized the day-to-day support provided to the county by dedicated staff and the value-added legal resources included in the existing policy.

“In 2024, they settled or answered 54 high-level legal issues for Jackson County at no cost,” Milton noted. “To replace the services we provide, you’d probably need to hire one or two more employees.”

County Attorney Jordan confirmed the county has had a high number of claims and frequently benefits from FACT’s legal advisory services.

Ultimately, no formal motion was made to reconsider the RFP decision, and the board proceeded without further action on the matter.

Chairman Westbrook closed the discussion with a reflection on accountability: “I’m very proud of every vote I’ve taken, not because it helped an insurance company, but because I believed it was in the best interest of Jackson County.”

While the vote remains unchanged, the public scrutiny, and the division among board members, suggests the issue is far from settled in the eyes of the community. Whether the commission will revisit the matter in the future remains to be seen, especially as budgetary pressures mount.

For now, Jackson County continues its partnership with its longstanding insurance provider, but not without a chorus of voices asking whether a better deal might be just out of reach.