Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table Morton County park-board ordinance after debate over membership and terms
Summary
After more than an hour of discussion about who should sit on a proposed Morton County Park Board and how long members should serve, the board voted 3-0 to table Ordinance 2025-8 for two weeks to resolve questions about ex officio membership, term lengths and authority over county employees.
Morton County commissioners voted 3-0 to table Ordinance 2025-8, which would create a Morton County Park Board, after extended discussion about board makeup, term lengths and whether ex officio members should have voting authority.
The debate centered on language in the draft ordinance and how it aligns with the county’s reading of state statute. “One size fits all doesn’t quite work,” Mr. Adams said while reviewing the draft, noting differences between municipal and county applications of the statute. He urged the group to consider rotating the fifth seat, which the draft would fill from one of three options each year.
Legal staff cautioned that parts of the statute limit how the county may structure appointments. “The creating ordinance may provide for one other elected county official to appoint a member,” Anne, legal staff, explained when asked about alternatives. She also described how the statute staggers initial two- and four-year terms to prevent all appointments from expiring at once. Anne clarified the meaning of ex officio membership: “Ex officio members means that you are…a member as a result of a position,” and said the draft should specify whether such a member would have a vote.
Commissioners debated two options in the statute: allowing an elected official to appoint the fifth member or naming the county cooperative extension coordinator, county extension educator, or a soil-and-water conservation district designee. Several commissioners, including Don, said they preferred keeping appointment authority with elected officials to allow the county flexibility. Mr. Adams raised a concern that annual appointment for the fifth seat could hinder continuity and asked whether a rotation or multi-year approach was legally permissible.
The draft also prompted questions about the park department’s relationship with county human-resources policies. Bill Mitchell asked how the ordinance would ensure park employees—who are paid through the county—follow the county handbook. Commissioners noted that while appointed board members can be reappointed or removed, county employees remain subject to county policies.
The commission asked staff to check statute citations and return with a redlined draft clarifying: (1) whether ex officio members have voting rights; (2) the intended term lengths for all seats and how the first staggered terms will be set; and (3) whether the ordinance can include a rotation for the fifth seat. A motion to table Ordinance 2025-8 for two weeks carried 3-0.
The commission also asked staff to add a line item in the forthcoming park budget for meeting stipends, noting a tentative suggestion of about $25.50 per meeting, and to confirm the 90-day appointment window triggered after the ordinance is adopted.
If commissioners do not resolve statutory questions in two weeks, they said they will ask county legal counsel to provide a written interpretation and will bring a revised ordinance back for action.
