Commissioners debate contract-review language after allegations Auditor threatened to sue over EDC appointment; auditor denies claim

A tense exchange at the end of the briefing centered on proposed changes to county contract boilerplate and allegations involving the county auditor.

One commissioner asked to change contract language to state explicitly that "the county, or its designee, shall have the right to review and monitor the financial and service components" of programs and to require the board to appoint a designee if the county initiates a review. The commissioner said the request was driven by a chain of events he described as follows: the county auditor (referred to in the transcript as "Auditor Dunkel") allegedly told him he would "sue the taxpayers of Mason County" if the commission appointed Kevin Schuette as county administrator; a private citizen, Jack Johnson, sought records from the Economic Development Council (EDC) and later sued, and the auditor provided audit material that the commissioner said was turned over to an outside group.

The county auditor, identified in the discussion by other speakers as "Dunkel," denied the threatened-suit allegation and said his actions were initiated by a public request and standard oversight duties. "What you relayed happened in your office is not true," the auditor said. He added his review of the EDC was triggered by a formal request from an organization called Advocates for Responsible Government and by a top-20 list from the financial-services team; the auditor said his office is responsible for overseeing county payments and that he will respond to public records and audit requests in the same way he would for any citizen.

Commissioners debated the legal and practical consequences of changing contract boilerplate so the county (or a designee) could perform reviews. Several commissioners warned that removing or restricting auditor authority could create the appearance of protecting friends or interfering with an independent, elected auditor's duties under state law. One commissioner asked for time to research the RCW statutes that define the auditor's role and suggested tempering the board's response; another said the board should require updates when audits are initiated so commissioners are not blindsided.

No formal action was taken. The chair said he would "allow this to percolate" and commissioners agreed to take time to consider alternatives and legal implications before proposing contract-language changes. The meeting adjourned without a vote on the matter.