Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident’s recusal request read into record; Custer County commissioners enter executive session for legal advice on personnel
Summary
A written public comment asking Commissioner Bill Cand to consider recusal was read into the record and prompted public reaction; the board then voted to enter an attorney‑client executive session on personnel matters under statute 246 4024B.
A written public comment asking Commissioner Bill Cand to consider voluntarily recusing himself from county matters where a conflict of interest could reasonably be questioned was read into the Custer County Board of County Commissioners’ record on April 15.
The clerk read a letter from resident Stacy Kish asking that the board acknowledge the concern on the record and stating the request was not an assertion of guilt but intended to preserve public confidence. The letter asked Commissioner Cand to state for the record whether he would voluntarily recuse himself from relevant matters.
After the letter was read, a member of the public, Rob Klein, spoke in defense of the commissioners: "I have all the confidence in the world in regards to all the commissioners sitting right in front of me and also the staff that's around them," he said, adding he did not see a conflict of interest.
Separately during the meeting commissioners reported that the Fremont County Board of County Commissioners earlier in the day approved a request by the district attorney to pay legal fees for defense of a bar complaint; commissioners were alerted that the DA may request the other three counties in the judicial district to share costs and that Custer County should expect a request to consider.
Following those items the board voted to go into executive session for legal advice on personnel management, citing "246 4024B"; the chair confirmed the session was attorney‑client privileged and unrecorded. Participants listed for the executive session included county counsel, commissioners, the clerk and the county HR director. After the executive session the board reconvened briefly and adjourned.
The board did not make public decisions in open session about the recusal request during the meeting; the recusal request remained a written public comment on the record and no formal recusal or other action was recorded in open session.
Next steps: the board may receive further written or verbal requests related to the DA legal‑fees matter or to the recusal request; the executive session was described as attorney‑client privileged and therefore details of that discussion were not disclosed.
