Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Madison County supervisors on hiring practices, auditor lawsuit and a $7,300 consultant payment
Summary
Public commenters at the Madison County meeting criticized supervisors’ hiring practices, raised questions about a recent auditor lawsuit and asked for an accounting of a $7,300 payment to a consultant; several residents urged greater transparency and some called for recalls.
During the public comment period at the Madison County Board of Supervisors meeting, several residents urged greater transparency in hiring and questioned recent contracting and litigation.
Mike Fletcher of Riverside asked the board to explain a $7,300 payment to consultant Craig Bergman and what services taxpayers received: "I would like for all of us to eventually get some answers on Craig Bergman and what the services we actually received as taxpayers for that $7,300," Fletcher said. He asked for an accounting of the work performed.
Susan Merzina (who identified herself during public comment) told the board residents were "embarrassed by the behavior of our so called supervisors" and said underhanded or secretive hiring practices were not acceptable. "We don't want to see it go on anymore," she said, and suggested residents are considering recall options because of dissatisfaction with elected officials.
Other commenters voiced a mix of praise and criticism: Marissa Schneider thanked the board for holding an evening meeting that enabled more public participation and commended the supervisors for actions to lower taxes, while Carol Fran urged the board to ensure hiring practices are legal and equitable and to address the auditor's recently filed lawsuit. Chris Bourne (joining by phone) expressed appreciation for the supervisors' work and for lowering taxes.
Board members acknowledged concerns. One board member noted that county employees received a general 2.5% raise this year (elected officials did not take raises), and during later personnel discussion a board member apologized for an oversight that allowed a new deputy auditor to work 11.5 hours before a background check cleared and said the mistake would not recur.
No formal action on recall or contracting was taken during the meeting; several speakers asked for follow-up information and public records to clarify contracting and hiring procedures.
