Citizen Nancy Yuska (sitting front center) gave her arguments as to why the petition should not go forward to the objection board at the Friday, Aug. 22 meeting. PHOTOS BY MICHAEL D. DAVIS

At the Aug. 10, Tama County Supervisors meeting, citizen Bob Vokoun stood before the board and presented a petition to put the possibility of going back to three supervisors on the November ballot just two years after the board expanded to five members divided by districts as the result of a petition approved at the polls in 2022. Everything that has followed has been wrought with confusion, struggle, and accusations of conflicts of interest.

The petition needed the signatures of exactly 862 eligible electors of Tama County; the one presented claimed to have 930. An eligible elector is not a registered voter, just a citizen of 18 years of age who resides in the county.

At the Aug. 17 Supervisors meeting, a lengthy public comment time was had as locals let their opinions known on the subject of the petition. The supervisors, at one point, were accused of a conflict of interest with having to accept or reject the petition.

The main problem was that no one was particularly sure how to proceed, as the Iowa Code on the subject of accepting petitions is vague, and those more proficient in the code gave conflicting information. It was decided the supervisors would glance through the petition to make sure every line held a signature, date, and address. Once done, the supervisors approved the petition for filing for the November ballot.

That same day, citizen Nancy Yuska filed an objection to the petition.

The objection board made up of County Auditor Karen Rohrs, County Treasurer Amanda Kriegel, and County Attorney Brent Heeren heard all comments on the issue before deliberating.

“I have highlighted in yellow-gold the address cell on 194 rows of the 72-page PDF, as none of these signers identified the city in which they live,” Yuska stated in her written objection.

This led to the Friday, Aug. 21 meeting of the objection panel to review the petition. Yuska gave her argument against the petition at this meeting, reiterating that an address without a city should be invalid. Those in favor of the petition made statements as well.

The objection panel was made up of County Auditor Karen Rohrs, County Treasurer Amanda Kriegel, and County Attorney Brent Heeren. It is written in Iowa Code that these are the people to rule on the objection. The board seemed hesitant on how to proceed with the issue, and listened to all opinions on the subject, then went into a separate room to deliberate. A few minutes later, the three came back and said that the majority had ruled in favor of the petition, so it will go forward.

Conflict of interest was brought up as a matter of discussion in relation to the supervisor’s role with the petition; however, no one mentioned the objection panel’s relation to the petition as all three members of the panel that ruled over the petition had a direct link to it. Rohrs, Kriegel and Heeren’s wife all signed the petition.

When asked about this, Rohrs shared her perspective.

“I understand the concern, but my role on the objection panel was not to advocate for or against the proposed measure. I took my role on the objection panel seriously and made every effort to be fair, impartial, and professional throughout the process. I believe I approached my responsibilities in good faith and treated the process with the respect it deserved,” she said.

At this week’s Supervisors meeting, the petition was on the agenda for the third week in a row. The supervisors approved a resolution to put the measure on the November ballot. The measure to go back to three supervisors will pass if it receives the majority of votes in the November election.