The Linn County Board of Supervisors

There has been a storm brewing in Linn County. Last year, I along with a majority of Linn County voters approved a plan to increase the number of county supervisors from 3 to 5.

According to the Gazette:

Supervisors changed their status to part-time and lowered their salaries to about $70,000. In December, they rescinded that motion and restored their $87,662 salaries.

Before I go further let me say this. I supported the increase in supervisors in order to elect them from districts and increase their number. My goal was to have a board that better represented Linn County including smaller cities and rural areas. The gerrymandering that occurred is a discussion for a later date. I do not have a problem with supervisors making $87,000 a year. I did not believe that increasing the number of supervisors would significantly reduce their workload.

The problem is that the three (did I say Democrat) incumbent supervisors lied. They declared themselves to be part-time and lowered their salaries in order to get elected. As soon as they got re-elected they made themselves full-time again and now they have accepted the County Compensation Board's recommendation to re-increase their salaries to $87,662.

While I have no problem with the salary amount — I am outraged that the incumbents on the board pulled this stunt. Apparently I am not the only one.

Today, Republican House Minority Leader, Kraig Paulsen, plans to introduce a bill giving voters the right to petition and recall local elected officials. On similar lines, all Linn County legislators, except Democrat Nate Willems, have signed on as co-sponsors with freshman Republican representative Nick Wagner on a bill to decouple Supervisors salaries from other county employees.

I understand why people are mad. As a voter, I don't like to be lied to. If the election were held again today, none of the three incumbents would be re-elected. The lone Republican on the Board of Supervisors, Brent Oelson noted that was elected in November and neither he nor Supervisor Rogers were a part of this fiasco. 

Interviewed about Paulsen's proposed bill on KCRG, Oleson said:

Isn't that convenient the people writing the law aren't applying it to themselves ...

I don't mean this as a criticism of Kraig, I am a friend and supporter, but I agree with Brent. If the petition and recall bill included state officials, I would be all for it.

Comments

[Wes]

I think the problem with the suggestion of a recall law for legislators in conjunction with a recall law for local officials is that constitutionally, they are 2 separate issues.

Article 3, Section 38A grants municipalities home rule so long as the their process of elective leadership does not conflict with legislative law. This suggests that the legislature has the power to dictate election policy issues to municipalities. However, the constitution has expressed method for the election of legislators and does not provide a recall mechanism for elected legislators.

It would seem therefore, that any proposal to provide a recall mechanism for legislators would reuire a constitutional amendment. A proposal to provide a recall mechanism for municipal elected officials would not.

[HawkeyeGOP]

Wes,

I know, see my next post.

[Yoda]

Dave, your "friend" Brent Oelson has been very publicly critical of any critisicm of the current board's action to increase their salaries from 70k back to 87k. He called it a "sideshow" and in today's Gazette towards Rep. Paulsen, "political grandstanding". What your "friend" fails to understand is something called principle. Paulsen understands it and Brent Oelson clearly does not.

I stand on the side of Paulsen, Schulte, Wagner and the taxpayer's whose trust have been betrayed by these county supervisors for the last time.

[HawkeyeGOP]

As I said in my post, IO have no problem with the supervisor's salaries being set at 87k. My issue is with the three (Democrat) incumbents and the way they handled the issue before and after the election. Oelson did not promise or pretend that he would oppose the 87k. His actions were consistent with his pre-election statements.

[Yoda]

Yes Dave you are correct. Oelson was wrong then and is wrong now.