I’ve been reading the arguments both for and against reducing the Tama County Board of Supervisors from five members back to three. I’d like to offer a different perspective based on my experience working in local government.

I support keeping five supervisors, and it has nothing to do with TCAT, wind turbines or political alliances. It has everything to do with representation and effective government. As a city clerk, I work with a five-member city council. There are practical reasons why having five elected representatives works well.

One conversation I haven’t seen much is Iowa’s Open Meetings Law. With a three-member board, just TWO supervisors constitute a majority. That means two supervisors discussing county policy or deliberating on county business can trigger the requirements for a public meeting. With five supervisors, that threshold is THREE.

This makes a difference when coordinating projects, gathering information, working with department heads, and dividing responsibilities. It allows more flexibility for supervisors to work individually or in pairs without automatically constituting a majority of the board. Transparency is still required, and public decisions still belong in public meetings.

Five supervisors mean five voices representing different areas, concerns and perspectives across Tama County. Reducing the board to three concentrates decision-making authority in fewer hands. Whether we agree with the current supervisors or not, I believe broader representation is a benefit to taxpayers.

I understand the argument about saving money. Government has a responsibility to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. But eliminating two elected representatives isn’t automatically better government.

I’ve also seen arguments about TCAT, zoning decisions, economic development, property rights and dissatisfaction with individual supervisors. Those issues deserve discussion and accountability, but I don’t believe they should determine the permanent structure of our county government. If we disagree with how a supervisor represents us, we have elections to address that.

And if only three of the the five supervisors are actively participating, as some have claimed, shouldn’t we be asking how to hold all five accountable rather than eliminating two positions?

In 2022, voters chose to expand representation to five supervisors. I believe we should give that structure a fair opportunity to work rather than reverse it after less than two years.

I’ll be voting NO on reducing the Board of Supervisors to three. Not because I support every decision this board has made, but because I support representation, accountability and progress for all of Tama County.

Lonika Utterback, Chelsea