Adams County committee forwards treasurer appointment resolution after public objections

A committee of the Adams County Board voted to forward Resolution 12, which would appoint a county treasurer, to the full County Board after public comment and committee discussion.

The vote to send the resolution on was made by Supervisor Poehler and seconded by Supervisor Skibarski; the committee approved the motion by voice vote and scheduled the item for the County Board meeting at 6:00 p.m.

Public commenters urged the committee to reject the resolution. Jody Shaepe, an online public commenter, said, "I'm very hopeful that you vote no on Resolution 12." Hope Ekersdorf, who identified herself with a local address during public comment, argued there is no incompatibility between holding municipal and county treasurer offices and cited state law and older attorney-general guidance in support: "There are not conflicts of interest and that each government unit is responsible for itself." Ekersdorf referenced what she described in the record as state statute 60.34 and payment rules in state statute 66.0607 and cited a 1941 Attorney General opinion and the case Otradovich v. City of Green Bay in explaining her position.

Committee members debated the legal and procedural basis for the resolution and the timing of notification. Supervisor Dozle said the action amounted to overturning voter intent: "We're going against the will of the voters," referencing an election in which the speaker said 6,589 Adams County voters had chosen the current treasurer. Supervisor McLaughlin described workplace concerns and what he called an effort to remove the incumbent: "There are numerous employees that work here that are not happy," and said the process had become "toxic and unhealthy." Several members questioned relying on a single attorney opinion and requested fuller legal discussion at the upcoming County Board meeting.

County staff indicated outside attorneys from the law firm noted in the packet were available to answer questions; the packet and discussion included references to past attorney-general opinions and case law addressing compatibility of offices. A committee member said the treasurer had been informed by email at about 4:30 a.m. the day of the meeting that this issue was being considered.

The committee did not remove or replace the county treasurer at the meeting. Instead, the committee voted to forward Resolution 12 to the full County Board for consideration at its evening meeting. No individual roll-call vote on the resolution was recorded in the committee minutes; the committee used a voice vote to approve forwarding the item.