Aug. 28, 2026
By Tim Hundt
VERNON COUNTY, Wis. – In what has been a year of significant transition for Vernon County government, the County Board of Supervisors approved a revision of its official board rules at its August 20 meeting. While many of the changes were designed to modernize the rules and align them with new county policies, a proposal to restrict supervisors from speaking during public comment sessions sparked a debate over free speech before being sent back to committee.
The vote on Resolution 2026-52 represents the latest step in a multi-year effort to reform the county’s legislative procedures. Just a few years ago, the county downsized the board from 29 members to 19 and consolidated several major committees. Last November, the board also amended its rules under Resolution 2025-59 to clarify the duties of the board chair, an action prompted when Supervisor Nathaniel Slack questioned the lack of a formal job description to justify the chair’s annual stipend of $8,580.
The most recent update began with a complete visual and organizational reformatting of the board rules document. County Clerk Jerry Pedretti credited Community Development Director Amy Oliver for upgrading the document’s presentation and making the rules much easier for supervisors and the public to navigate.
Pedretti noted that while most of the first three pages of the document remained unchanged, a small but important update was made on page four to address personal decorum during meetings. The revised rule explicitly bans personal attacks on county staff and clarifies the chair’s authority to police disruptive behavior.
“Personal attacks on county personnel are not allowed,” said Pedretti. “Comments that are out of order will be so ruled by the chair.”
The board then turned its attention to a new procedural rule regarding the practice of calling the question, which is a parliamentary motion used to end debate and force an immediate vote. Under standard Robert’s Rules of Order, stopping debate requires a two-thirds majority vote. However, the General Government Committee proposed a local rule that would allow a simple majority of supervisors to end debate.
Corporation Counsel Brian Weber explained that the county has the legal authority to establish its own rules that deviate from standard parliamentary manuals. Weber noted that the vote threshold was the only real difference between the standard rule and the proposed local guideline.
“The board certainly has the right to create its own rule that’s different from Robert’s rules,” said Weber. “If you wanted to follow Robert’s rules, it would be amended to be a two-thirds vote. If you wanted to have the rule that the General Government Committee came up with, it would be this majority vote, and that’s really the only difference that we’re talking about.”
Supervisor Wayde Lawler advocated for keeping the explicit local rule in the board document. Lawler argued that having the procedure clearly spelled out in a local pamphlet makes the process much more transparent for the public and supervisors who may not be experts in complex parliamentary law.
“Robert’s rules is available to all of us,” said Lawler. “But I think there’s an advantage in it being present in the board rules, this is a more surface-level document. It’s something that I think is more accessible to most people, certainly to members of the public, but even to board members. I think this is something that’s just a little bit more transparent. You know, independent of the content of the rule, having something clarified here because we’ve had confusion about it in the past, I think is is a smart move.”
Supervisor David Strudthoff strongly opposed creating a custom county rule for stopping debate. Strudthoff argued that the county should adhere strictly to standard Robert’s Rules of Order to prevent confusion for future boards and to maintain consistency with other government bodies.
“Yes,” said Strudthoff. “Because again, another reason is it’s not about us. It’s about people following us. What rules do. So if we kind of create our own, it confuses the people following us.”
The most contentious debate of the morning centered on a proposal to ban county board supervisors from addressing the board or any of its committees during the public audience to visitors session. The proposed rule stated that because supervisors have legislative avenues to voice their opinions on county business, they should not use the public comment line.
Supervisor Alycann Taylor voiced some opposition to the restriction, questioning the motives behind the change. Taylor argued that the rule would unnecessarily limit communication and suggested it felt like a retaliatory measure aimed at supervisors who had recently expressed dissenting opinions.
“This section is curious to me, so I’m so I’m gonna voice my thoughts on it and ask that to GenGov (General Government Committee) why they have come to this.” said Taylor. “I think in a time where hearing other people’s opinions and thoughts and gaining understanding should not be eliminated from a process, and this feels like a measure to like reduce conversation. So I don’t really like that part, and I also like to mention we as county board supervisors are citizens and constituents, and we have voices as citizens and constituents that may not be fully in your county board role. So I think that audience to visitors spot gives us the opportunity to speak as constituents.”
Supervisor Bruce Kilmer defended the proposed restriction, arguing that supervisors speaking during public comment actually undermines the board’s commitment to open, two-way debate. Kilmer pointed out that by rule, supervisors and staff are not allowed to respond to comments made during the audience to visitors session, meaning a supervisor who uses that time to speak prevents any immediate rebuttal or discussion.
“If you recall, there was some discussion earlier in our meeting about robust discussion amongst the board members, and it’s common knowledge that audience to visitors does not allow a response,” said Kilmer. “So it doesn’t really, if we’re saying we’re encouraging robust discussion amongst board members, and we’re saying it’s okay for a board member to get up during the public session, and we can’t respond to that. Aren’t we discouraging robust discussion?”
Board Chair Lorn Goede agreed that there are more appropriate ways for supervisors to bring forward issues that are not on the agenda. Goede noted that supervisors should utilize the committee structure to place items on official agendas for open debate rather than using public comment.
“It was also brought up that a board member, the more proper way of bringing it to board discussion would be to bring it to the proper committee, and then get that on an agenda for discussion,” said Goede.
Supervisor Paul Wilson agreed that allowing supervisors to speak during audience to visitors can lead to procedural issues. Wilson noted that it allows a supervisor to present their personal thoughts on an upcoming resolution before the sponsoring committee has had a chance to present its official report and reasoning.
“There was that, and along with what Bruce said, it gives an opportunity,” said Wilson. “Let’s say I watched a committee last month. I don’t agree with it. I speak up, audience to visitors. We have a resolution to look at, and before the committee gives a chance to give a presentation or their thoughts or how they ended up where they were, there is no response back, and it’s it’s not following the proper process.”
Supervisor Sandy Schweiger also supported the restriction, pointing out that public comment is a unique space reserved exclusively for residents who have no other way to address the government. Schweiger noted that both the current and previous corporation counsels had flagged supervisor participation in public comment as highly irregular.
“The audience to visitor is the only time that the general public is allowed to talk,” said Schweiger. “The rest of us can talk throughout the discussion. So even our previous corp council recognized that it was very unusual for supervisors to speak during audience to visitors.”
Supervisor Charles Jacobson suggested that supervisors should be able to speak as private citizens if they do not expect a response, but agreed that any official debate belongs on the floor.
“I guess I’m trying to simplify this, but to Alycann’s point, if you’re if you’re speaking as a citizen, which you should have the right to, and you do not expect to be responded to,” said Jacobson. “You should be able to use audience to visitors. If you want it to become a debate on or a discussion on the floor, then make an agenda item, and that way you could do both because we’re lumping things, and I don’t know if they’re necessarily the same avenue.”
To resolve the impasse, Supervisor Nathaniel Slack proposed an amendment to strike the controversial public comment restriction from the resolution and send it back to the General Government Committee for further refinement.
“I’d feel comfortable moving for an amendment to pull this out of the current resolution and send it back to GenGov for a little polishing and expansion,” said Slack.
The board voted to approve Slack’s amendment, successfully removing the restriction from the immediate updates.
The board then approved several new rules governing remote participation. Under the updated guidelines, supervisors who join meetings electronically can be counted toward establishing a quorum for open sessions. However, the board established a stricter standard for closed sessions, requiring a physical in-person quorum to be present in the boardroom.
The new rules also address security concerns regarding closed sessions, which are held to discuss confidential matters like legal strategies or personnel evaluations. While the committee originally considered banning remote participation in closed sessions entirely due to the risk of unauthorized people listening off-screen, they ultimately agreed to an honor system. Under the approved policy, supervisors may participate in closed sessions remotely, but they must ensure they are in a private, secure room and are bound by all standard confidentiality requirements.
Supervisors who participate remotely do so at their own risk and will receive their standard per diem allowance but no travel or mileage reimbursement. Additionally, the board codified a 15-minute technical difficulty rule, which states that meetings will start no later than 15 minutes past the scheduled time regardless of remote connection issues, and will proceed as long as an in-person quorum remains.
Following the approval of Slack’s amendment, the county board voted to adopt the remainder of the revised board rules under Resolution 2026-52.
Add comment