Wabasha County Study Commission Interim Report

1. Wabasha County Government Study Commission
Government Study Commission
Wabasha County Justice Center
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 8/3/2010 848 17th St. E.
Wabasha, MN 55981
Contact: Public Relations Committee
Email: wabashacommission@gmail.com
Website: http://www.co.wabasha.mn.us/
With the goal of government that fits people’s needs--
Commission’s interim report looks at process and outcomes
WABASHA, MINNESOTA —The preliminary findings of the Wabasha County Government Structure Commission
have been released to the public. This interim report summarizes findings related to the County Board’s decision to
abolish the administrator form of government, which is one of several forms that the Commission was charged with
considering when it was formed in January 2012.
Commission members say that they hope this report puts to rest questions of why the administrator form of
government should be considered along with other forms available to counties under Minnesota law. Wabasha
County operated under the administrator form for eighteen years until December of 2011 when the County Board
abolished the position of county administrator.
In the administrator form of government, a professional administrator handles day-to-day management of county
government and supervises non-elected department heads. The Wabasha County Board can manage and supervise,
but it does so only when it gathers as a body during posted public meetings.
The Survey Committee, which prepared the report, wanted to understand why the administrator form of
government was abolished in Wabasha County.
“They hoped the County Board would share its information that supported the Board’s belief that the administrator
form of government needed to be abolished,” said Katie Himanga, Commission chairperson, “but when the
committee asked the board members who supported the decision for the information, they were referred to the
Board’s strategic plan done in 2011 with the assistance of Rev. Rick Carlson.”
After reviewing available data and interviewing two board members and all department heads, the committee
concluded: 1) that Wabasha County is in good financial shape; its finances have been managed conservatively and
the County has adequate reserves; 2) the strategic planning process the County Board used was flawed, which
brings into question the plan’s proposed changes to county services; and 3) the Board’s desire to reduce cost may
have contributed to abolishing the administrator form of government, but it was not the primary reason.
“The entire Study Commission has looked at state laws, information on ethical decision-making, the Minnesota
Accountable Government Innovation and Collaboration (MAGIC) Act, legal opinions and information on all
aspects of our current county organization and governance. It’s been a steep learning curve,” Himanga said.
To try and get an outside perspective on the effectiveness of the administrator, coordinator and county board-run
forms of government, the Survey Committee also gathered information from 25 similarly sized counties.
Perhaps the greatest assistance the Commission has received has been feedback from county staff about what they
do, the number of citizens served, the services provided and the support they need on a day-to-day basis to work
efficiently and effectively.
The full Commission will now continue the process of evaluating the individual options available to Wabasha
County with the goal of having a recommendation ready by the end of the year.
/Users/newsweb03/Desktop/Wabasha report/interim_report_PR_final_final.doc

2. On August 2, the Study Commission met with Ramsey County Manager Julie Kleinschmidt to learn about the
manager form of government.
For more information about the interim report and the Wabasha County Government Study Commission, contact
Katie Himanga at (651) 380-9680.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMISSION:
The Government Study Commission was created by court order January 27th, 2012 in response to citizens’
concerns. According to the order, “the Commission is to conduct its study in an objective way, and its findings and
recommendations are to be fact based after thorough study.”
The Commission’s purpose is to study the form of county government as described in Minnesota Statutes 375A.0-
375A.13, which allows for five different forms---or options----for county government. If the Commission’s final
report “contains a recommendation that a referendum be held on an option, the referendum shall be held as
provided in section 375A.12. A referendum on an option may not be initiated by a resolution of the county board or
a petition of voters until after the study commission has completed its study.” The Commission has one year to
finish its work.
Members of the Commission are: Katie Himiaga – Chair; Steve Erwin J.D. – Vice-Chair; Shirley Anderson –
Secretary; Commissioners Merl Norman, Mike Wobbe and Richard Hall; County Attorney James Nordstrom;
Sheriff Rodney Bartsh; and Wabasha County residents Thomas Peyla, M.D., Judith Schotzko, J.D., Charles
Springer, Randy Eggenberger, Judith O. Jordan, Mike Morath, D.V.M., and William Hager.
##
/Users/newsweb03/Desktop/Wabasha report/interim_report_PR_final_final.doc

3. Page 1 of 8
Wabasha County Study Commission - Interim Report
Findings and Conclusions
Phase 1—Discovery
July 26, 2012
BACKGROUND
The Wabasha County Study Commission was appointed by Judge
Terrence Walters on January 27, 2012, to objectively study and
recommend the best “form and structure of county government”
for Wabasha County, Minnesota. The Commission was appointed as a
r e s u l t o f a p e t i t i o n f i l e d b y a n u m b e r o f Wa b a s h a C o u n t y r e g i s t e r e d
voters. The petition was filed in response to a 3-2 decision by the
Wabasha County Board, supported by majority Board members
Roschen, Norman and Harms and opposed by Board members Hall
and Wobbe, to abolish the Administrator form of government in
Wa b a s h a C o u n t y, t h e r e b y e ff e c t i v e l y t e r m i n a t i n g e m p l o y m e n t o f t h e
t h e n - i n c u m b e n t C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r.
Majority Board members, collectively or as individuals, have
repeatedly cited the need for cost reduction as the primary reason
for their action, stating that the County could not afford the
Administrator salary due to the poor condition of its finances.
They have also stated that a strategic planning process was utilized
t o a r r i v e a t t h e i r d e c i s i o n . H o w e v e r, a l l t h r e e m a j o r i t y m e m b e r s
refused to be interviewed by the Study Commission t o c o n f i r m a n d
further discuss their rationale and process. Majority Board
members Harms and Norman had been appointed to serve on the
Study Commission, however, Harms resigned shortly after the
process began and Norman chose to quit attending meetings.
In order to accomplish its goal of making an informed and
objective recommendation of the best form and structure of
g o v e r n m e n t f o r Wa b a s h a C o u n t y, t h e S t u d y C o m m i s s i o n d e t e r m i n e d
that it first needed to:
1. Seek facts to fully understand the rationale behind the
Wabasha County Board’s majority decision to abolish the
Administrator form of government.
2. Seek facts to fully understand the process used by the
Wabasha County Board’s majority members to determine the
type of changes to be made.
3. Seek facts to fully understand the financial condition of
Wabasha County.

4. Page 2 of 8
METHODOLOGY
The Study Commission’s approach encompassed extensive surveys and
i n - d e p t h i n t e r v i e w s w i t h a l l c o o p e r a t i n g Wa b a s h a C o u n t y B o a r d
members, all Wabasha County Department Heads, and the former
Wa b a s h a C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e C o m m i s s i o n
surveyed board members and department heads from twenty-five
Minnesota counties of similar size to Wabasha County. The
C o m m i s s i o n a l s o r e v i e w e d Wa b a s h a C o u n t y f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s a n d
s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s f r o m i t s m o s t r e c e n t f i s c a l y e a r, a l o n g w i t h
various other sources of information.
SUMMARY FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS
Based on its review, the Wabasha County Study Commission has
concluded that while cost-reduction may have been a contributing
reason to abolish the Administrator form of government, it found
no convincing evidence to support the contention that it was the
primary reason. Rather, the Commission found considerable
evidence to support its conclusion that the Administrator form
was abolished primarily as a means of terminating the employment
o f t h e t h e n - i n c u m b e n t A d m i n i s t r a t o r, w h o s e p u b l i c l y - s t a t e d v i e w s
did not always agree with the philosophical and ideological views
of majority Board members Roschen, Norman and Harms. The
Commission based its conclusion on highly consistent survey and
interview response findings, along with a detailed analysis of the
actual reduction in cost resulting from the change, which has
turned out to be far less than what had been claimed by the
majority Board members at the time their action was taken.
The Study Commission has further concluded that the process used
by the Board to determine what changes were to be made, did not
conform in any way to generally accepted, best-practices strategic
p l a n n i n g . M o s t n o t a b l y, C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t h e a d s w e r e n o t
allowed to participate other than to provide a brief description of
their respective departments and fill out a survey. The process was
f a c i l i t a t e d b y M r. R i c k C a r l s o n o f H e a r t a n d M i n d C o u n s e l i n g i n N e w
Prague, MN. The Commission found no evidence that Mr. Carlson
had relevant strategic-planning experience, and he refused our
request seeking additional information. The Heart and Mind
website describes Mr. Carlson as a therapeutic counselor with a
Master of Arts in Counseling from Sioux Falls Seminary and a
Master of Divinity & Doctor of Ministry from Bethel Theological
Seminary. The site makes no mention of strategic planning. The
Study Commission has, therefore, concluded that the process used
by the County Board to determine the changes to be made was not a
legitimate strategic planning process, nor do we believe its
conclusions were based on an objective, well-reasoned analysis of
the situation.

5. Page 3 of 8
A n d f i n a l l y, w h i l e t h e C o m m i s s i o n w e l c o m e s a n d e n c o u r a g e s
thoughtful, legitimate efforts to control costs, it has found no
evidence to support the majority Board’s contention that Wabasha
County’s finances are in poor condition. In fact, the Commission
h a s f o u n d c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y. T h e M i n n e s o t a
State Auditor has noted in its most recent annual audit that the
County has more than adequate reserves in its General fund and its
Human Services fund. Wabasha County benefits from an AA bond
rating by Standard and Poor ’s, the best rating earned among
similar-sized Counties in the State. The County has relatively low
debt and is current on all financial obligations including monthly
expenses. Despite ever-growing increases in demand for County
services and annual cuts in operating budgets dating back to 2009,
Department Heads have consistently stayed within their approved
spending limits while providing quality services to the residents of
the County. Based on its analyses and findings, the Study
Commission has concluded that Wabasha County’s finances are very
strong and rate well-above most other Minnesota counties of
c o m p a r a b l e s i z e , t h a n k s i n p a r t t o t h e e ff e c t i v e f i n a n c i a l
s t e w a r d s h i p o f t h e f o r m e r C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r.
DETAILED FINDINGS
The following section expands on the Summary Findings and
Conclusions noted above.
1. Seek facts to fully understand the rationale behind the
Wabasha County Board’s majority decision to abolish the
Administrator form of government.
a. Findings from interviews conducted by the Survey Sub-
committee:
DEPARTMENT HEADS: Twelve Wabasha County Department Heads
were interviewed. All of them indicated that the former
C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r w a s a n e ff e c t i v e a n d e ff i c i e n t m a n a g e r
t h r o u g h o u t h i s y e a r s o f s e r v i c e t o t h e C o u n t y. O n e
D e p a r t m e n t H e a d , w h o h a s w o r k e d f o r t h i r t e e n d i ff e r e n t
Administrators spanning two counties and thirty-two years
of public service, cited him as the best. As with the Board
members who provided interviews, nearly all Department
Heads cited philosophical and ideological differences between
the majority Board members and the former Administrator as
the primary reason the Administrator form of government
was abolished. Several believed the decision was based, at least
in part, on the majority Board members’ desire to have more
control over the day-to-day operations of County
government. No Department Head believed the position was
eliminated primarily to reduce costs.

6. Page 4 of 8
Department Heads also consistently expressed concerns that
since the Administrator form of government was abolished,
there has been no single go-to person they can depend on for
timely decision-making and functional expertise. Many cited
the strong organizational foundation established by the
former Administrator as one reason they have been able to
continue to operate with minimal leadership. They also
consistently pointed out that because they are unable to go
to the Administrator for support, they now frequently seek
answers and direction from the County Attorney’s office if
they are unable to handle a situation on their own. While
this arrangement has been adequate for now, some expressed
doubts as to whether it represented a permanent solution in
view of the markedly increased workload it has placed on the
County Attorney’s office. All department heads mentioned the
need to have decisions made in a timely manner—particularly
in emergency situations—and the increased liability risk the
County has incurred as a result of the elimination of the
County Administrator position.
COUNTY BOARD: Only Board members Hall and Wobbe agreed to
be interviewed by the Study Commission. Both cited
p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d i d e o l o g i c a l d i ff e r e n c e s b e t w e e n m a j o r i t y
b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d t h e f o r m e r C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r, a s t h e
primary reason the Board voted 3-2 to abolish the
Administrator form of government. Neither Hall nor Wobbe
believed the position was eliminated primarily for cost-
reduction purposes or as a result of a credible strategic
planning process. Both stated that the majority Board
Members who voted to abolish the Administrator form
wanted more direct control over all aspects of County
operations.
The three Board members who declined to be interviewed,
Norman, Roschen and Harms, have in the past cited the
County’s financial condition and the need for cost-cutting as
the reasons for the elimination of the Administrator position.
Additional information about their rationale including
clarification about why their statements differed from those
of Department Heads and other Board Members could not be
obtained due of their refusal to be interviewed by the Survey
Sub-committee.
b. Findings from financial research:
Despite frequent statements by the majority County Board
members that abolishing the Administrator form of
government would result in substantial cost savings for the
C o u n t y, l i t t l e f i n a n c i a l m o d e l i n g o r o t h e r d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f
expected savings has been provided to the Study Commission.
Since abolishing the Administrator form of government,
majority members Norman, Roschen and Harms have, on a 3-2

7. Page 5 of 8
vote, established a new position and hired a County
C o o r d i n a t o r. T h e B o a r d h a s r e t a i n e d o u t s i d e l e g a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f r o m M r. E r i c k K a a r d a l , a M i n n e a p o l i s l a w y e r,
to provide legal opinions about the Coordinator form of
government, and to prepare the Board for a prospective
referendum in the event the Study Commission recommends a
form of government other than the Coordinator form. Since
December of 2011, the County has been billed nearly $20,000 in
legal fees by Mr. Kaardal.
Abolishing the Administrator form of government and
establishing the new Coordinator position does not appear to
have resulted in the level of savings initially claimed by the
majority Board. At various times, those members have stated
that their actions would save the county $100,000 or more
annually. However, a comparison of the $71,000 starting
salary of the terminated Administrator position with the
approved $52,000-$55,000 starting salary for the newly-
established Coordinator position yields a maximum starting
salary savings of $19,000, or less than $1.00 per year for each
resident of Wabasha County. Even when comparing the $92,000
t h e n - c u r r e n t s a l a r y o f t h e f o r m e r C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r,
whose experience encompassed thirty years of public
administration, with the approved starting salary for the
Coordinator position, the maximum savings would be $40,000,
or less than $2.00 per year for each County resident. In both
examples, the maximum savings were calculated before the
$20,000 additional costs in outside legal fees and also do not
consider the additional liability risk placed on the County
due to the lack of experience and expertise at the executive
level. The newly hired Coordinator has acknowledged in the
interview process that she has no prior supervisory experience.
Other Coordinator salary ranges in Minnesota start at $53,000
and go as high as $112,000, making the newly-approved
Wa b a s h a C o u n t y C o o r d i n a t o r s a l a r y r a n g e a m o n g t h e l o w e s t
in the State. Actual current salaries of Coordinators in
Minnesota counties of similar size to Wabasha County appear
to range from $70,000 to $79,000, which raises a concern about
the level of expertise the County can attract and retain for its
newly-established Coordinator position.
A n d f i n a l l y, t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s f o u n d n o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e
County Board gave any consideration to ongoing cost savings
a n d o v e r a l l e ff i c i e n c i e s b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f a
highly-experienced Administrator.
It is the conclusion of the Study Commission that the majority
Board members did not base their decision to abolish the
Administrator form of government on a well-reasoned
analysis of the actual financial impact of the change.

8. Page 6 of 8
c. Findings regarding Personnel Comparisons:
A comparison of duties between the former Wabasha County
Administrator position and the new Coordinator job
description shows significant similarities. Both jobs include
Human Resource functions. The principal differences between
the two positions are that the Coordinator position cannot
make decisions independent of the County Board, nor does the
Coordinator position supervise Department Heads generally,
a l t h o u g h i t m a y s u p e r v i s e c e r t a i n s t a ff i f d i r e c t e d t o d o s o b y
the County Board. By contrast, Minnesota statute provides
that County Administrators have supervisory responsibility
over all Department Heads.
A n o t h e r d i ff e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e j o b d e s c r i p t i o n s i s t h e l a c k o f
e d u c a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f C o o r d i n a t o r.
The Coordinator job description as developed by the County
Board in May 2012 states that a bachelor’s degree in business,
human service or a related discipline is “desired and a minimum
of three years experience functioning as a human resources
g e n e r a l i s t , o r, i n l i e u o f t h e a f o r e s t a t e d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , a
background and experience that clearly demonstrates the
ability to perform the stated functions of the position.” By
contrast, the abolished Administrator position required a
degree in Public Administration, plus at least eight years of
public administration experience. A Masters degree in Public
Administration was preferred.
T h e n e w l y c r e a t e d Wa b a s h a C o u n t y C o o r d i n a t o r p o s i t i o n w i l l
oversee a governmental unit that has a budget of $29.1 million
in 2012, and provides essential services to 22,000 Wabasha
County residents.
2. Seek facts to fully understand the process used by the Wabasha
County Board’s majority members to determine the type of
changes to be made.
a. Findings from surveys and analyses of the 2011 Strategic
Planning Process
A complete understanding of the strategic planning process
from the majority Board members’ perspective is not possible
because Board members Norman, Roschen and Harms refused
the Government Study Sub-Committee’s request for an
interview. Despite having applied to the Court to be appointed
to the Study Commission, Board member Harms resigned after
two meetings and Board member Norman attempted to resign.
When the Court would not allow Norman to resign, he
stopped attending meetings and has said he will not attend
future meetings. No information was provided to the
Commission by those Board members.

9. Page 7 of 8
The strategic planning process was facilitated by an individual
who, to the best of the Study Commission’s knowledge, had
never completed a strategic planning process for a
government board. Five strategic planning sessions were held
between May 26t h a n d A u g u s t 9t h , 2011, at a cost of $5,000. The
sessions were attended by all members of the County Board. No
sessions were recorded despite advice from the County
Attorney to the facilitator and the Board that they should
be. Interviews of department heads who had attended the
strategic planning sessions revealed that there was no
discussion about the advantages or disadvantages of
abolishing the Administrator form of government or the
h i r i n g o f a n e w C o o r d i n a t o r. A l l D e p a r t m e n t H e a d s s a i d t h e y
were not allowed to participate in the process, but were
allowed to observe the sessions as long as they took vacation
time to attend. Board Members Norman, Roschen and Harms
have stated at several County Board meetings that the
strategic planning process provided the reasons for abolishing
the Administrator form of government. Department heads
who attended the sessions stated that the Board at no time
during the process discussed their reasons or rationale for
abolishing the County Administrator form of government.
County Board members Hall and Wobbe expressed concerns
about the effectiveness of the process facilitated by Mr.
Carlson citing a lack of statistical and anecdotal
information upon which decisions could be based. All
Department Heads said that they had little or no input into
the process, their only opportunity being the second to last
session on July 22, 2011, when they were given ten to fifteen
minutes to present information about the duties and
responsibilities of their departments. Notes taken by the
former County Administrator and the facilitator had
conflicting information. The majority Board members chose
to approve the facilitator ’s version as official minutes.
Outcomes of the process included new vision, mission and
v a l u e s s t a t e m e n t s a s d e v e l o p e d b y t h e f a c i l i t a t o r, a l o n g w i t h a
list of sixty-nine action items which included elimination of
staff and programs, as well as operational changes. The list
was not prioritized. The facilitator instructed the Board to
start making changes immediately despite the fact that none
of the sixty-nine items had been debated or discussed as part of
the process.
It is the conclusion of the Study Commission that the process
used by the County Board to determine the changes to be made
was a highly arbitrary process that did not conform in any
way to generally-accepted, best-practices strategic planning.

10. Page 8 of 8
3. Seek facts to fully understand the financial condition of
Wabasha County.
a. Findings regarding the County’s financial condition:
Some members of the County Board, particularly members
Norman and Roschen, have repeatedly characterized the
County as being in poor financial condition. The Commission
has found considerable evidence that the County’s financial
status is actually very strong. The State Auditor ’s office has
n o t e d i n i t s m o s t r e c e n t a n n u a l a u d i t t h a t Wa b a s h a C o u n t y
has adequate reserves in its General fund as well as its Human
Services fund. Wabasha County was recently upgraded by
Standard and Poor ’s rating agency to an AA bond rating—the
best rating of any county of similar size in the State of
Minnesota—based on 2011 financial performance which was
prior to the abolishment of the Administrator form of
government. The County’s asset-to-debt ratio is excellent. The
County has relatively low debt and is up-to-date on all of its
financial obligations, including monthly expenses.
Department heads consistently stay within their approved
budgets, despite annual budget cuts dating back to 2009. The
Commission found absolutely no evidence that the County
Board completed any financial analysis that would support
t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t Wa b a s h a C o u n t y i s i n p o o r f i n a n c i a l
condition.
WRAP UP and NEXT STEP
This report concludes Phase 1 of the Wabasha County Study
Commission’s work encompassing findings and conclusions from its
evidence discovery phase. Phase 2 of the Commission’s work will
utilize these findings along with other sources of information,
including public input, to arrive at its final conclusions. Phase 2
will encompass a detailed analysis of all forms of County
government allowed under Minnesota statute, with the final
result being the Study Commission’s recommendation of the best
f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t f o r Wa b a s h a C o u n t y. We e x p e c t p u b l i c a t i o n o f
the final report in fall 2012.