Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Hiring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Knox County board approves contract for hearing administrative officer amid questions about vetting and conflicts
Summary
After public comments and board questions about resume materials and potential conflicts of interest, the board approved a contract for an administrative hearing officer (John Robertson) 6-5-2 (ayes-nays-abstentions) with several members abstaining and others arguing for a public bid.
The Knox County Board approved a professional-services contract March 26 to appoint an administrative hearing officer, John Robertson, by roll call (6 ayes, 5 nays, 2 abstentions). The decision followed public comment and multiple board members' questions over vetting, possible conflicts of interest and whether the role should have been advertised.
During public comment Patty Boone urged an open, competitive selection process before hiring Robertson, citing concerns about his current role with the City of Galesburg and prior representation of local associations. "It is imperative that we adhere to our duty to serve the best interest of the citizens of Knox County" she told the board, and she recommended advertising the position and soliciting interviews.
Several board members raised similar concerns during debate. One board member said the board had not been provided a resume or background materials in the packet and asked how the county could be sure the candidate's qualifications and potential conflicts had been vetted. Chair Jared Hawkinson responded that Robertson contacted him, described his certification to perform adjudication, and that the county's state's attorney had been consulted on bidding rules for professional services. The chair also noted that Robertson serves as an administrative hearing officer for the City of Galesburg and that "Knox County zoning ordinances do not cover the City of Galesburg," a point offered as a limit on direct zoning conflicts.
Several members abstained citing prior attorney-client relationships; one member (who identified herself as Kimberly) said she would abstain because Robertson had represented her in the past. Another member asked whether the position should have been put out to bid; the chair said professional services are not required to be publicly bid under the state's guidance but offered to follow board direction if members wanted a formal procurement.
The board voted to approve the contract; the motion passed with 6 ayes, 5 nays and 2 abstentions. The contract was described in the meeting as a professional-services agreement at $200 per hour for adjudication work. Several board members signaled they still wanted clearer documentation of qualifications and declared readiness to direct staff to solicit broader proposals if the board requested it later.
