Rock County residents call for termination after employee’s social-media post about Charlie Kirk killing

Several Rock County residents urged the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 25 to discipline a county employee after a social-media post that, they said, celebrated the fatal shooting of commentator Charlie Kirk. The public speakers asked the board to apply county conduct rules and to explain why no public disciplinary action has been taken.

The request came during the public-comment period, where nine residents addressed the board and repeatedly called for termination of the county employee identified in comments as Heather Buchholtz. Antonio Nunez, a Janesville resident, read the post aloud and said it “celebrate[d]” the killing and used profanity. “The county expects all employees to demonstrate professional, competent and reasonable behavior,” Nunez told the board, citing “county policy 1.02” and asking whether the employee’s words met that standard.

Speakers linked the post to multiple county rules. Sheila Williams, who identified herself as a Janesville resident, cited “policy 1.03” and said the conduct “severely erodes the public’s trust” in county employees. Williams and others also cited Ordinance 18.608, which they said prohibits disrespectful or bullying conduct when dealing with the public.

Other commenters framed their request as a consistency and oversight issue. Lisa Burnside, of the township of Janesville, said the employee’s conduct “eroded the trust of people here” and asked the board to ensure enforcement is “consistent and without favoritism.” Dennis Wendt and Kurt Keller said the remarks were grounds for termination and urged the county administrator to take action.

None of the presenters identified a formal disciplinary action the board had already taken; public commenters demanded termination and requested a statement from the county administrator explaining why the post had not yet been addressed. County staff interrupted only to enforce the public-comment time limit (two minutes). The county administrator reminded one commenter her time had expired but did not announce any personnel action during the meeting.

The board did not vote on any personnel matter during the meeting, and no supervisor moved to begin an official disciplinary process on the record. The comments were recorded as public input to the board; the transcript does not show any formal direction to staff or the administrator to take specific personnel action during the meeting.

Why it matters: The speakers said the incident touches on public trust and the county’s stated expectations for employee conduct. Several asked that the board apply its policies uniformly and provide an accounting of any investigation or discipline so residents know whether standards are being enforced.

What was not stated at the meeting: The transcript does not include any statement from the county administrator announcing an investigation, any internal personnel process outcomes, or any action by the board. The meeting record also does not provide the employee’s formal personnel file, any timeline for corrective action, or whether any other remedies (reprimand, suspension, termination) have been proposed or completed.

For follow-up: Residents requested a formal explanation from the county administrator about whether the county’s policies (identified in public comment as “policy 1.02” and “policy 1.03”) and Ordinance 18.608 will be enforced in this case. The board has not publicly recorded a decision on that request during this meeting.