Wright County commissioners approve probation hire amid public dispute with Minnesota DOC
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The Wright County Board approved filling a probation‑agent position while a dispute over leave-transfer obligations tied to a Community Corrections Act (CCA) conversion played out publicly, with the county characterizing DOC demands as a de facto "quid pro quo" and the DOC disputing that framing in a letter citing Minnesota statute 401.04, subd. 2.
Wright County commissioners on Dec. 16 authorized hiring a probation agent as part of the county’s transition to the Community Corrections Act model, even as a public exchange unfolded over whether the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) is required to transfer accrued leave for displaced probation staff.
Commissioner Moynihan read a Dec. 10 letter from DOC Commissioner Paul Schnell disputing the county’s public characterization of DOC conduct and citing Minnesota Statute 401.04, subd. 2, which the letter said directs how displaced state probation staff are handled when a county converts to CCA. The letter said, in part, that “in my decades long policing career… I am dismayed by your recent public comments, asserting an extortion plot,” and urged resolution "so we can focus and assist [the county’s] transition to the CCA model.”
Moynihan responded by describing the county’s position as a disagreement over cost and access to DOC systems and said the county perceived DOC’s conditions as an attempt to shift costs to local taxpayers. Moynihan used blunt language saying the situation “stinks like extortion” and suggested the county would resist having to pay for DOC‑administered obligations as a precondition to transition.
After the exchange the board moved to approve authorization to fill the probation‑agent position (the item that had been removed from the consent agenda for discussion). Commissioner Moynihan made the motion and Commissioner Holland seconded it; the board approved the hiring authorization unanimously.
County Administrator Kreiser and other commissioners thanked Moynihan for pursuing the matter and acknowledged state statute was central to both sides’ positions. The record shows DOC’s response came by letter and asserted the department’s interpretation is grounded in state law; the county framed its concerns around local budgetary impact and access to offender‑management systems.
The board did not take any additional formal action on the statutory dispute during the meeting. Commissioners indicated they expected further discussions with the DOC and noted a desire to resolve the matter so the county can proceed with its CCA transition.