For the second time in two weeks, Hamilton County Commissioner Bill Hullander pounded questions at county Trustee Carl Levi over the county's banking contracts.
Mr. Hullander is running against Mr. Levi in the May 4 Republican primary for the trustee position.
At the commission's meeting last week, Mr. Hullander pointed to things about the contract he thought were flawed, including that it was for four years when the previous contracts were for three. Mr. Levi said the county got a better interest rate with a four-year contract.
During the commission meeting Wednesday, Mr. Hullander raised a new set of problems he had with the contract for the county's checking account.
He started by calling for a 30-day delay before awarding a contract to First Tennessee Bank, saying he thought the delay was needed to give time to answer all his questions.
In the end, however, he voted to approve it.
Mr. Hullander said Wednesday his questions had nothing to do with politics.
"I don't mean to be so picky," he told Mr. Levi, who said very little. "I'm not on a stump. I'm looking out for the taxpayers."
Asked if he thought Mr. Hullander's questions were political, Mr. Levi said, "I can't read his mind."
On Wednesday, Mr. Hullander said a contract with Regions Bank could have produced a better interest rate for the county. But county Auditor Bill McGriff and Assistant Auditor Lee Brouner, who were at the meeting, said afterward that Mr. Hullander was confused.
What Mr. Hullander thought was a better interest rate actually was a rate for an investment account that was separate from the checking account, they said.
Regions Bank was the only company that offered a separate investment account, so they didn't include it in the presentation they made last Wednesday to the commission, they said.
"We made a conscious decision to pull that out of the evaluation because it was apples and oranges," Mr. Brouner said.
Mr. Hullander also asked why the county's requests for proposals were sent to different banks by e-mail, saying that one of the banks that had been asked for a proposal did not respond.
The auditors said they had received notices that all e-mails sent to the banks had been received.
He said he also wanted to make sure there was a provision in the contract that said it could be changed in 90 days if it was unsatisfactory.
There is, the two auditors said.
Continue reading by following this link to a related story: