Adams County Board votes to replace treasurer elected by voters with candidate she beat in November

The treasurer of rural Adams County in central Wisconsin says she has no plans to leave office despite the county board’s vote to replace her with the person she defeated in the most recent election.

At a special meeting last week, the Adams County Board voted 14-6 to approve a resolution saying County Treasurer Kara Dolezal’s post with the county had been “vacated” and that her former opponent Kim Meinhardt was being appointed for the remainder of Dolezal’s term.

Before the vote, state Rep. Scott Krug argued the board was following a “fundamentally illegal” process in attempting to remove an elected official. But attorneys for the county said the resolution was legal at the April 29 board meeting.

Dolezal was still performing her duties as county treasurer as of Tuesday afternoon. She said she has been told she can continue to act as treasurer until there is a court order saying that she cannot.

She said the board’s actions had come as a surprise.

“I was not warned that the county had even been discussing this,” Dolezal told WPR. “The day before the meeting, I was sent an email asking if I wanted to step down before they had this scheduled meeting the following day.”

Dolezal, a Republican, defeated Meinhardt, an independent, in the November 2024 election by 980 votes. When Dolezal took office, she was also serving as the treasurer for the town of Lincoln in Adams County. 

She won reelection to her position with the town in April.

According to Krug, it’s been common in Wisconsin’s history for county treasurers to also serve in municipal roles.

But the county board resolution states that the two roles were “legally incompatible.” An April 28 memo from a law firm hired by the county said there were conflicts of interest “that may arise in the performance of the duties of both offices.”

For example, municipal treasurers are responsible for delivering taxes collected on behalf of the county and state to the county treasurer, said Matt Thome, an attorney for the outside firm.

“Who’s making the determination as to whether or not a town treasurer has provided the appropriate amount of funds that are owed to the county and the state to the county treasurer?  It’s the county treasurer,” Thome told the board. “Is that a conflict of interest when it’s the same person holding the position of town treasurer and county treasurer?”

By accepting the “incompatible” office of town treasurer, he said Dolezal “implicitly resigned” as county treasurer and created a vacancy in that office.

Dolezal told WPR she was transparent in her campaign for county treasurer that she was also a town treasurer. She says she was not asked to resign from her role with the town of Lincoln when she took office with the county in January. 

“It wasn’t hidden — it was public, and [voters] still chose me as their county treasurer,” she said. “I think the county board just needs to accept and our county administrator just needs to start working with me and give me the tools to do my job.”

Had she been told by someone within the county that holding both offices would be an issue, Dolezal said she would not have sought reelection as town treasurer. 

“I don’t think one lawyer should be able to negate the votes of 6,000 Adams County residents, because he believes that there is a conflict,” she said.

Even though the resolution passed, Adams County Corporation Counsel Nancy Thome told the board that there was “no intent” to keep Dolezal from “performing her duties until a court weighs in” on the resolution.

In an email Tuesday, she said the county could not comment at this time “because this matter is in pre-litigation.”

If Dolezal doesn’t “acknowledge that she has vacated the office” and does not cooperate with the transition, the county could file a lawsuit to test her ability to hold the office, the legal memo to the county stated.

Dolezal said Tuesday she had no plans to take the county to court. If the county wants to challenge the legality of her continuing in office, she said, they will have to take that action.

“I’m not the one that said I was going to take it to court,” she said. “The county is definitely the one that initiated this through the special meeting and the warnings in the email.”

During the meeting, local residents spent about half an hour calling on the board to vote down the resolution.

That included Krug, a Republican whose Assembly district covers a portion of Adams County. Krug told the board the resolution violated a state statute on the process governing how local governments can remove an elected official. 

Krug said the county board can remove an elected official for cause, such as holding incompatible office, if they provide notice to the individual, hold a public hearing and secure a two-thirds majority vote.

In written testimony, Krug urged county officials to retract the resolution and comply with state statute. 

“We have to go through the democratic process. We can’t just ignore state law,” Krug told WPR. “We can’t just say, ‘I don’t like you. You can’t be the elected anymore.’ … It’s rather chilling to know that something like this could happen.”

Krug also said there are at least nine county treasurers across Wisconsin who also serve their municipality in the same role. He said it’s something that happens everywhere in Wisconsin and has happened “since statehood.”

“The reality in Wisconsin right now is that many places rely on these people who have a certain limited skill set, who are willing to exercise it in multiple capacities,” he said. “To tell them they can’t anymore would be just a scary proposition for all the small municipalities in Wisconsin who just don’t have the pool of people.”

Krug said he is working with his colleagues in the Legislature from the Adams County area, both Democrats and Republicans, to address the issue.

“We are drafting a piece of legislation just to say, ‘Hey, we don’t find that there’s some inconsistency or incompatibility with these offices,’” he said. “We’re not sure how the draft will look in the end because the legislative process always changes from start to finish. But I just think we can definitely clear that up even more in statute.”