Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dunn County supervisors review proposed rewrite of board rules, raise concerns about vice‑chair authority and petition timing
Summary
Supervisors reviewed the first two sections of a proposed rewrite of Dunn County Board rules and discussed several points including the vice chair’s authority to act for the chair, a new petition process for adding items to agendas, clerk notification timing, and enforcement of closed‑session confidentiality.
The Dunn County Board’s rules‑rewrite effort moved forward March 12 as supervisors reviewed sections 1 and 2 of a consolidated document that merges the board’s existing rules with the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) model rules.
Author and presenter Dan (staff) explained that the rewrite aims to modernize and reorder the county’s rules, remove obsolete language and fold committee listings into an appendix. The committee walked through proposed changes including: clarifying how to add items to the county board agenda (a petition process permitting supervisors to gather signatures to place items on a future board agenda), updating rules on meeting scheduling and special meetings, and naming the county clerk as interim presiding officer (road tempore).
Several supervisors raised substantive concerns. Supervisor Kinnear asked for time to consider the proposal that the vice chair have full authority of the chair when the chair is absent; he said the change increases the power of a single office and asked the committee to consider eliminating or limiting that language. Others noted that remote participation since COVID has increased the likelihood of quorums, which bears on whether the vice chair should have expanded authority.
Supervisors also asked for clarification about the new petition process (how long the clerk has to notify the board after receiving a petition) and about a sentence that would invalidate a petition signed prior to the organizational meeting for the next board. Dan said staff would add a notification timeframe for the clerk and clarify that a petition signed by one board would not bind a newly constituted board after the organizational meeting.
Another recurring issue: the draft reinstates enforcement language for closed‑session confidentiality, which the presenter said was deliberately included because state law provides limited enforcement tools and the county must rely on local mechanisms if it expects confidentiality to be maintained.
Why it matters: The rewrite could change internal board procedure, special‑meeting options and the balance of authority among officers; supervisors asked staff to return with clarifications and further edits to the draft.
Ending: The committee agreed to continue work on sections 3 and 4 and the appendices at a future meeting; staff will update the draft to address the clerk notification timing, vice‑chair authority language and closed‑session enforcement clauses before further consideration.
