Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wca Enbridge Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Ashland County to reconsider WCA–Enbridge agreement; board says reconsideration is out of order
Summary
Several members of the public urged the county board to reconsider a recently approved agreement involving the Wisconsin Counties Association and Enbridge, raising transparency concerns and calling for motions to revisit the contract; county staff said a formal motion to reconsider would have had to be made at the original meeting.
Multiple members of the public used the county’s public‑comment period to press the board to revisit an agreement between the county, the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) and Enbridge.
Anders, speaking as a longtime local educator, said he was “feeling quite frustrated” that the public had not been asked to comment before the vote and that the county had “operated on someone else's timeline and prioritized Canadian money and Canadian people over the constituents of the city of Ashland and the county of Ashland.”
Sean Van Zealand, a resident who reviewed the previous meeting, urged the board to make “a motion to reconsider that agreement,” citing unanswered questions about whether costs for off‑duty Enbridge activities would be reimbursed and about transparency for communications involving WCA and Enbridge. Bailey Kroll also asked the board to explore direct agreements with Enbridge and to limit how funds are used so they remain subject to open‑records requests.
Administrator and other staff responded that the WCA contract had been posted in advance, that Ashland County remains subject to open‑records laws for any funds it receives or disburses, and that a motion to reconsider would have needed to be made at the prior meeting under Robert’s Rules and therefore could not be addressed at this session. The administrator said staff could place items on a future agenda if the board requests it.
No formal rescission or amendment was made during the meeting; members of the public were advised on options for follow‑up, including asking the board to place reconsideration on a future agenda.
