Something to hide

At a moment when Weston County should be moving decisively to restore public trust after the resignation and criminal charges against its elected clerk, the Board of County Commissioners has instead chosen a path that raises even more serious questions about its commitment to accountability, its respect for the rule of law and, ultimately, whether it is working to uncover the truth or to keep it contained.

That perception does not arise from a single decision, but from a sequence of actions — most notably the commissioners’ handling of efforts to advance a special
prosecutor and their subsequent refusal to appoint any of the three independent nominees submitted by the Weston County Republican Party — which, taken together, suggest a deliberate effort to slow scrutiny, limit outside oversight and maintain control over an office that is now under legitimate legal and public examination.

When a public official is accused of felony misconduct tied directly to the administration of an election, the obligation of those in power is clear: Act swiftly, cooperate fully and ensure that any investigation proceeds without interference or delay. Yet in Weston County, the opposite impression has taken hold, as actions by the commissioners have had the practical effect of hindering prosecution and obstructing justice. It also makes it appear that they are protecting themselves from accountability while also preventing further revelations about wrong-doing in the Clerk’s office.

Following Becky Hadlock’s resignation amid criminal charges and a civil action seeking her removal, the Republican Party carried out its statutory duty by submitting three nominees — all from outside the Clerk’s Office — in what was plainly an effort to introduce independence, credibility and a clean break from a system that has been called into question. The commissioners’ decision to reject those nominees and instead signal their intent to appoint from within that same office is not simply a difference of opinion but a continuation of a pattern that is impossible to defend.

The purpose of the party’s role in this process is not ceremonial, but structural, serving as a check on the concentration of power and ensuring that vacancies are filled in a manner that reflects the public’s interest rather than the convenience of those already in office. By disregarding that check and dismissing candidates positioned to provide independent oversight, the commissioners have effectively chosen continuity over credibility at the very moment when credibility is most needed — and when there appears to be no value to the citizens in
promoting continuity.

That choice demands an explanation.

When leaders reject transparency, resist outside review and insist on maintaining control of an office under investigation, the natural and unavoidable question is not whether they intend to raise suspicion, but why they appear so willing to invite it.

And that question is not without foundation.

For years, the Clerk’s Office and the commissioners have been connected through a series of actions that consistently limited public access to information and avoided meaningful scrutiny, including the use of a secret ballot — facilitated through the Clerk’s Office — to fill a legislative vacancy. The News Letter Journal successfully challenged that action in court in order to bring the process into the open, and also uncovered the existence of an unlawful group chat — also orchestrated by the Clerk — in which public business was conducted outside the public’s view.

Those incidents were not isolated. They were accompanied by repeated disputes over access to records, including delays and resistance in providing documents tied to bonding requirements and, more recently, records essential to understanding the discrepancies and certification issues that emerged from the 2024 election — an election that has now become the subject of both criminal prosecution and
civil action.

At the same time, routine transparency declined, as fewer documents were made available to the public online and explanations offered for that reduction failed to withstand even basic scrutiny, confirming the perception that access to information was being restricted deliberately. During a public town hall to discuss financial challenges at the fairgrounds, Commissioner Marty Ertman recently doubled down on Hadlock’s false claims that the amount of financial information the county makes available online was decreased for financial reasons.

These actions form a pattern that cannot be ignored, and continued efforts to prevent outside scrutiny of county records and practices are clearly designed to avoid further revelations of abuse, incompetence or neglect on the part of county officials.

This consistent reluctance to operate in the open and the commissioners’ repeated tendency to limit public visibility into decisions that demand it most is precisely the pattern that makes the commissioners’ current course downright alarming.

This is no longer about a single official or a single election. It is about whether the system itself — the practices, procedures and relationships that have governed the Clerk’s Office for years — can be trusted to examine its own conduct and provide a full and honest accounting to the public.

There is no reasonable basis to believe that it can.

Staff members within the office may have acted in good faith, or they may not have, but what is beyond dispute is that they were trained, directed and shaped within a system now under serious legal scrutiny, and that reality alone makes it impossible for an internal appointment to deliver the level of independence required to restore confidence.

Only an outsider — someone with no ties to the existing structure and no stake in preserving it — can credibly undertake the work that now needs to be done, including a thorough review of election procedures, records management practices and compliance with open government laws, followed by a full and transparent accounting to the public.

Anything less will leave too many questions unanswered, but instead of seeking those answers, the commissioners’ recent actions are only raising more questions.

Why were efforts to advance prosecution slowed?

Why were independent nominees rejected?

Why is there such a strong insistence on maintaining internal control of an office that should, by all appearances, be opened to independent review?

Each of those questions points to the same underlying concern: that transparency is being resisted not because it is unnecessary, but because it may reveal more than some are prepared to confront — that there may have been more crimes committed, and that others were complicit in at least some of them. The path forward is not complicated, but it is uncomfortable, and that’s why county leaders continue to avoid it.

Weston County residents deserve to know, and it is disgraceful that instead of meeting scrutiny with openness, the commissioners are offering further resistance. Instead of responding to crisis with accountability, they are instead exercising control. We encourage citizens to help their elected leaders understand that trust is restored not by managing perception but by exposing the truth. 

The commissioners should appoint an outsider, and they should empower that individual to review the office fully, operate transparently and report findings openly, without limitation or interference. It is time to stop protecting the system, and start restoring the public’s confidence in it.

Until that happens, the cloud over Weston County government will remain, and the question that now follows every decision will continue to grow louder:

Who, exactly, is being protected — and from what?