Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sunshine Request topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jackson County legislators seek legal opinion after county executive requests recall petition records
Summary
Legislators pressed county officials over a sunshine request from the county executive for recall petition records, raising concerns that using county resources to obtain and review signatures could risk retaliation, increase liability and blur the separation between election boards and executive duties.
During the May 19 Jackson County legislative meeting, several legislators questioned the county executive’s recent sunshine request for recall-petition records from the county clerk and local election boards and asked county counsel to provide an opinion on whether that request fits within the executive’s official duties.
"It seems, to me like a very inappropriate use of county resources to request those copies," Legislator Smith said, arguing that signature validation and petition review historically fall to election officials, not the executive branch. Smith said she was concerned about both the appropriateness of the request and the risk of perceived or actual retaliation if county staff or contractors who signed the petition were identified and reviewed.
A county official in the county executive’s office said the letter requesting records sets out the executive’s responsibilities to ensure county laws and ordinances are followed and noted the executive has asked for information from the Election Board and expects to receive it. The official said: "As County Executive, the Charter clearly states that he has a responsibility to ensure that all laws, ordinances, and county codes are followed." The official did not state whether county staff would be used to review individual pages or whether the county would pay for copies.
At the meeting legislators pressed for clarity about whether county staff or funds would be used to obtain and review signature pages and whether such actions are appropriate under the county charter. Legislator Smith asked whether county resources might be used to review signatures "and pay for those copies" and said that, if so, the expense should be borne by the executive’s campaign or committee rather than county government.
Legislators voted in favor of requesting a legal opinion on the matter from county counsel. Several members also asked that counsel review whether expenditures for producing copies of petition pages were budgeted and, if so, from which line items the costs would be charged.
Why it matters: Use of county resources to obtain or review election petition records raises legal and reputational risks for the county, including potential claims of improper use of public funds or perceived retaliation against citizens or contractors who participated in recall efforts.
Ending: County counsel was asked to provide a written legal opinion as soon as possible and to advise the chair and clerk before any records request is fulfilled, and legislators asked staff to report back with information about the potential budget lines that would pay for any copies or review.
