Start discussions on expanding the Board of Supervisors

One issue that won’t be on the ballot in November is a measure increasing the number of members serving on the Linn County Board of Supervisors from three to five.

We urge the board to remedy that omission in 2026.

By then it will be 10 years since 50,596 county residents voted in 2016 to shrink the Linn board to its current three members. And 48,246 voted no.

The measure was sought by a group of residents who wanted the board to be more responsive to the needs of its constituents. Backers of shrinkage also argued supervisor salaries are too large.

But it hasn’t turned out that way.

Thanks to Iowa’s open meetings law, which we fully support, two supervisors make up a quorum that can only discuss policy in an open public meeting. Public discussions are a good thing, but the three-member board has been less responsive due to those logistics.

No two supervisors can speak with each other about policy outside a public meeting. That’s a barrier to cooperation with local organizations and other local governments. Bipartisanship suffers when a Republican supervisor can’t speak with a Democrat on the board outside of an open meeting.

Open discussions are something we support. But making those conversations more difficult hasn’t served the county and its residents well. It’s barrier, at times, to commence the process of addressing county needs and innovative ideas.

The size of the board isn’t a partisan issue or a rural-urban issue, it’s a practicality issue. Additional supervisors means additional representation for residents, and the opportunity for more perspectives to come to the table. That includes former supervisors who worked on three-member and five-member boards.

The cost of two additional supervisors is a tiny fraction of the county’s budget. Making the board more efficient would be worth the expense.

A new supervisor will be elected in November. We think that will make it a good time to revisit the size of the board, It’s true s vote must wait until the 2026 general election. But there’s no reason wait in starting public discussions and laying the groundwork needed for change.

We wish state law would allow a vote at the 2025 general election, but it doesn’t But that shouldn’t stop the discussions of the board’s future and the experiment that clearly has failed.