Board cites misuse of office in investigation, votes to censure and strip committee duties

The Pine County Board voted to censure a commissioner and remove him from committee assignments after an independent investigation found the elected official improperly used his position to influence county staff.

Labor attorney Margaret Skelton and investigator Lauren Kingsbeck presented the report to the board. Kingsbeck, the outside investigator, told commissioners she interviewed seven people, reviewed staff records and attempted multiple times to contact the commissioner for an interview; she completed the report without his participation. "The report substantiated that commissioner Waldham attempted to use his position as an elected official to pressure a county assessor's office staff member to change the property tax classification of a parcel," Kingsbeck said during the presentation.

The investigator described a June 25, 2025 phone call in which the commissioner repeatedly asked the assessor's staff member to reclassify a parcel as agricultural and to apply the tax benefit immediately, despite being told that, under state guidance, any approved change would not be effective until taxes payable in 2027. The report also found the commissioner raised complaints about signage posted on utility poles and referenced a county employee's recent hire and probationary status in a way that staff perceived as threatening.

Skelton summarized legal context, saying the evidence could meet the statutory definition of malfeasance and recommending board remedies including removal from committee assignments or censure. "There is concern this conduct, if it continues, could result in liability against Pine County," Skelton told the board, citing Minnesota statutory standards for malfeasance.

The commissioner defended his actions in the meeting and denied wrongdoing. "I deny harassing anyone," he said, arguing that commissioners are not supervisors and that he was acting on constituent concerns.

Board members discussed options including requiring completion of new-commissioner training as a condition for reassignment to committees. One commissioner said the underlying policy positions the commissioner advanced may have been defensible, but "the methodology about going about getting something done" crossed a line.

A motion to censure the commissioner and remove him from committee assignments until he completes new commissioner training was moved, seconded and approved; one member recorded an opposition. The board also directed staff and counsel to prepare a resolution outlining the action and to specify the duration and assignments affected.

The board's decision addresses formal consequences but did not impose additional legal penalties; the county attorney had declined to prosecute an earlier signage complaint. The board said it would follow up internally on implementation and report to the public at a future meeting.