Supervisors discuss replacing county attorney

WASHINGTON — Friday morning, the Washington County Board of Supervisors met for a work sessions to discuss filling the vacancy created by current County Attorney John Gish’s resignation effective January 29.

“Today’s work session will help decide a plan of action of how to fill John Gish’s vacancy,” Board of Supervisor’s Chair Bob Yoder began shortly after 10 a.m.

After discussing the positives and negatives of either a special election or an appointment, the board reached an unofficial consensus. At the regular board of supervisor’s meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 10, the board will vote to move forward with the appointment process.

“Should the board decide to do an appointment, that appointment under Iowa Law would only last until the next general election so you would not be filling the vacancy for a full four-year term, it would be for just not quite two years,” Gish explained. “Whoever would be appointed would have to run for re-election in 2024 and again in 2026.”

“You might get a broader pool of applicants for appointment, and you might get a smaller pool for a special election, but they might have more interest and willingness to run a campaign,” he said.

“The special election, I don’t have a whole lot of input, certainly Dan might have some thoughts on that,” Gish said.

“In terms of who you might attract,” Gish said, “my experience with lawyers and from when I was hired, which was through the appointment process, I think more lawyers will show interest in an appointment because that doesn’t take up too much effort and time away from their work and practice. Whereas, if you do a special election, you’ll probably be getting just those who are willing to take the time to campaign, get petitions, signatures, and that kind of thing.”

“I had made the statement at last Tuesday’s meeting that I was all for leaving it up to the public,” Stoops said, and then asked County Auditor Dan Widmer about the cost of a special election.

“Sure, there is an expense, but like I told someone this morning,” Widmer said. “When you look at the big picture of what this county’s budget is, it’s not that much.”

According to Widmer, hosting a special election would cost the county $2,000-$3,000.

“If you gentlemen decide to appoint someone the public would still have the right to request either before the appointment took place or they could wait and see who is appointed and they would still have 14 days after the appointment to present the petition to call for a special election,” Widmer said.

“If you gentlemen choose to hold an election, I think it would be better to wait and hold an election for county attorney later in March since we already have a special election coming up in February,” Widmer said.

The special election already on the books is set for Feb. 14 to fill a recently vacated city council seat.

The proposed date for a county attorney special election was March 21, however, after further discussion the whole board came to an unofficial agreement that an appointment would be the best course of action.

According to Gish the public still has up to 14 days following the appointment to gather a petition with 888 signatures to force a special election.

Board members Richard Young and Vice-Chair Jack Seward offered straightforward opinions on preceding with an appointment process.

“It is what we did last time,” Young said. “Then after two years they can run and let the people decide.”

“I think we are elected by the people of the county to make decisions for them, and we probably sit in the best spot right now to be able to, in thirty days or forty days, make a judgment on candidates that present themselves and it will only be for two years,” Seward said.

While board member Marcus Fedler said he would be OK with either outcome, his reasoning supported an appointment over a special election.

“Special elections generally don’t have a whole lot of people show up to them,” Fedler said. “Having a two-year time frame on an appointment then a general election would give time for whoever was appointed to get their feet under them and potentially be in a better position to campaign.”

“The other part of that is that the efforts of the county attorney would be widely shown to the public and give them the opportunity to have a conversation about it,” Fedler added.

“Two years is the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things,” he said. “I think a special election probably wouldn’t give us the benefit of a qualified candidate immediately, and then in two years it would give us a better feel for that position from the public’s perspective.”

Overall, Fedler hypothesized that an appointment would, “give us a better pool of candidates.”

After participating in the work session, asking questions, and learning more about the processes for the special election and the appointment process, Stoops concluded, “I’m for appointment.”

According to Stoops, the board received many compliments in the way they appointed John Gish.

“When we were all on that board up there in that courtroom, we all gave reasons for why we were choosing who we were choosing and how we reached that decision,” he said. “This board has the confidence of the public.”

According to Gish, he has heard of two attorneys that may be interested in the role of County Attorney.

“I’ve spent the last six years cultivating the culture in that office,” Gish said. “ … it means a lot to me and the people in there mean a lot to me. I hope that whoever does take over appreciates what we’ve done there, and that they aren’t too hasty to take it apart.”

For now, an interim

According to Stoop, currently County Attorney John Gish had suggested Anthony Janney as an interim county attorney.

“He’s undoubtedly a good man,” Stoops said. “He led us through COVID. He gave us good council. We have problems, but he gave us good council.”

Stoops then posed a question asking how long this interim appointment could last. Could Janney then fill the vacancy until the next general election?

“With respect to Tony, Mr. Janney, my recommendation was that he was the temporary or acting county attorney to fill in the likely period after my departure and before somebody is either elected or appointed by this board,” Gish clarified during the work sessions Friday.

“My recommendation is not for him to become the county attorney, but to just be the person that has the responsibility of the office until somebody comes in,” he said.

According to Gish, there are time restraints for how long the position can remain vacant. With a temporary appointment like that of Janney, the position would still officially remain vacant.

With that understanding, an interim appointment could only be temporary.

“When Shawn Shower’s was appointed to the bench in 2016, you all selected Jen Learner to serve as acting county attorney for the period of two months until I was appointed,” Gish further explained. “So, it’d be in a similar fashion to that.”

Only two department heads attended the work session. Executive Director of Washington County Conservation Zach Rozmus weighed in with his opinion the appointment of an interim county attorney.

“I like the idea of another attorney even in an interim basis,” Rozmus said. “The interim thing is a good idea in having some type of continuity with Tony [Janney] where he can come in and have it be kind of seamless.”

“He knows what he is getting into, he’s been here,” Rozums said. “I think that he has the relationships with the people here and that is something you can’t replicate with an unknown.”

Comments: AnnaMarie.Ward@southeastiowaunion.com