Editorial: County officials shouldn’t have to Google their way through appointments
By Brandi Makuski
Tuesday’s Portage County Board meeting exposed a breakdown in a process that should be routine: appointing citizens to county committees.
County Executive Eric Olson submitted an appointment to the Local Emergency Planning Committee without a resume, letter of interest, or any other background information on the person he was asking supervisors to confirm.
The appointment had already passed through the Executive Operations Committee, or Ex-Ops, earlier this month without discussion. It then reached the full County Board with essentially the same lack of information.
That’s where the process fell apart.
Supervisor Matt Jacowski searched the appointee’s name and found a person with the same name and a Portage County address who was convicted in 2019 of serious felonies, including conspiracy to manufacture or deliver more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. That person was sentenced to more than five years in prison and also was convicted of receiving compensation for human trafficking and manufacture or delivery of amphetamine.
Jacowski could not confirm during Tuesday’s meeting that the person in those court records was the same person Olson appointed. That distinction matters, and until the county verifies the identity, no one should claim otherwise.
But the larger failure occurred long before Jacowski raised the issue.
Why was a county supervisor left searching the internet to learn basic information about someone the county executive wanted him to confirm to a four-year term?
Previous county executives John Pavelski, Chris Holman, and Patty Drier routinely provided background information on their appointees. Olson did not do so here.
These are Olson’s appointments, and ensuring supervisors have enough information to evaluate them is his responsibility. The omission reflects both inexperience and a troubling lack of attention to detail from an office that should have had this information assembled before the appointment ever reached Ex-Ops.
Supervisor Steve Fritz later called the attempted vote “absolutely ridiculous,” saying board members deserved background on the appointee regardless of whether that background included a felony conviction.
He’s right.
A criminal record does not automatically answer whether someone is qualified to serve on a county committee. But supervisors cannot make an informed decision about information they were never given.
Olson was absent Tuesday, so he was not available to explain why no background accompanied the appointment.
Responsibility doesn’t stop with the county executive’s office, however. Ex-Ops approved the appointment without discussion or demanding the missing information. County Board Chair Dax Burroughs also should have recognized that the full board was being asked to vote on an appointee with no supporting background.
Instead, the appointment moved through each level until a supervisor raised the issue on the County Board floor.
Olson failed to provide the information. Ex-Ops failed to demand it. Burroughs failed to catch the omission before the vote.
That’s too many layers of county government overlooking the same basic problem.
The board ultimately voted unanimously to send the appointment back for further review. That was the correct decision.
County officials now need to determine whether the person identified in the criminal court records is the same person Olson appointed. Whatever the answer, the appointment process itself needs to change.
Every appointee should come before Ex-Ops and the County Board with basic background information explaining who the person is, what experience he or she brings and why the county executive selected that person. If that information isn’t provided, the appointment shouldn’t advance to a vote.
That’s not excessive vetting. It’s the minimum information elected officials should expect before being asked to exercise their authority on behalf of the public.