Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Washington County to review fairboard governance after procedural changes they say disenfranchise shareholders
Summary
Public commenters told the Washington County Board of Commissioners that the Washington County Fair Board changed its daytime voting process without required notice or a shareholder vote, and asked the county — as property owner — to review lease or operating‑agreement terms to ensure governance transparency.
During public comment at the Washington County Board of Commissioners meeting, two residents asked the county to review governance and transparency on county‑owned fairgrounds property after they said the Washington County Fair Board unilaterally changed its longtime daytime voting process.
A public commenter identified at the start of the meeting as Christy McCoury said the fair board altered its voting process in September 2025 without providing the required 30‑day notice to shareholders and without presenting the change for a shareholder vote, in violation of the board’s bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order as asserted by the speaker. The commenter said the action risks disenfranchising long‑time shareholders and noted she has filed a Right‑to‑Know request for the lease and related records.
"If the current lease or operating agreement does not require basic governance standards, like shareholder notice, transparent elections, or public posting of meetings, that is a serious gap," the speaker said, asking the commissioners to review lease terms and require clear governance and transparency standards for entities operating on county property.
Another speaker, identified in the record as Carla Tomquist, said shareholders historically voted during the day to accommodate working agricultural stakeholders and that ballots and daytime voting were removed without notice. She asked the commissioners to ensure a fair election protocol and to allow shareholders to decide.
Commissioner Larry Madge acknowledged receipt of the commenters’ email and asked that contact information be left with county staff so commissioners or staff can follow up. No formal direction or vote to amend lease terms is recorded in the publicly posted transcript.
Why it matters: Commenters argued the fair operates on county land; the board, as property owner, sets conditions for use. If the county’s lease or operating agreement lacks governance or transparency standards, commenters urge county action to protect shareholder voting rights.
What the record shows: The transcript records public comment alleging procedural violations and a request that commissioners review relevant lease or operating‑agreement documents. The speaker said she had filed a Right‑to‑Know request seeking the lease and related records. The transcript does not show commissioners agreeing to a formal review or issuing a directive beyond asking the commenter to leave contact details for staff follow‑up.
Next steps noted on the record: The commenter stated she may escalate to state oversight if the county does not act; the county staff asked the commenter to leave contact information for follow‑up.
