For more than a year now, Madison County citizens have heard repeated complaints about an “unauthorized” contract signed by former Auditor Teri Kaczinski. Just last month during public comment, Vicky Brenner stated that “we are still in recovery mode from the unauthorized contract with Bergman signed by former auditor Kaczinski without board approval.” And yet the week before, when Supervisor Heather Stancil brought up contracts still being signed without Board approval, Brenner’s response was “we get it, we get it, we get it, move on, we get it.” Which is it? Are we still recovering or do we need to move on? Video of those comments is here for reference.
Why the disparity over two different contracts signed without Board approval? The answer appears to be politics.
We should have the same set of standards for our government regardless of whether or not we agree with those in power. Political alliances should not dictate what is right or wrong, or what gets a pass vs. what receives ongoing scrutiny.
For those who were not following Madison County politics in early 2025, here is a recap of the contract issue and what has followed over the past year.
Then Auditor Teri Kaczinski signed a contract for Craig Bergman to provide consulting work in her office. She had the money in her budget to do so and, according to Resolution SPV-071321E from July of 2021, the resolution did not clearly prohibit it. There have been references in public meetings suggesting that related discussions may have occurred in closed session regarding how contracts should be handled going forward. However, no public clarification was provided, leaving uncertainty about how the standard was intended to be applied.
Nevertheless, given the public outcry, one would think that either contracts would no longer be signed without Board approval or the Board would have drafted and approved a resolution to clarify the circumstances under which the county could enter into a contract without Board approval.
Neither of those things happened.
Yet the criticism over the Kaczinski contract continues.
Here’s where we are in 2026….
During the Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Stancil brought up a concern that contracts continue to be signed without Board approval. Stancil stated that there have been three contracts signed in the past year, all “after the DCI complaints last year” that brought this issue to light in Madison County.
Supervisor Stancil referenced contracts signed by Sheriff Jason Barnes, Auditor Michele Brant, and the Head Custodian in the past year that were not authorized by the Board. It was during this meeting that Vicky Brenner interrupted the meeting, attempting to get the Board to move on. The Board’s contract disparity discussion is here for reference.
After the continual criticism of Kaczinski last year, it is striking that the county has not resolved the underlying questions about contract authority. I reached out to Sheriff Barnes, Auditor Brant, and the custodian for comment on the contracts they had signed.
Sheriff Barnes responded that he had approval for the contract signed by him and referred me to Resolution SPV-071321E from July of 2021. That resolution states in part:
“All departments that report to and/or are controlled by the Madison County Board of Supervisors shall obtain the Madison County Board of Supervisors approval for all contracts.”
I asked for clarification:
“The language on this one sounds like it doesn’t apply to Elected Officials since you don’t report to the Board. Is there another resolution that gave you approval? Or by virtue that this one states that Elected Officials are not included in the directive to have the Board approve contracts, does that mean you don’t need approval?”
Sheriff Barnes replied:
“Correct the resolution is clear. It gives any office that doesn’t answer to the BOS the discretion to sign agreements. It only encourages them to have the county attorney review. Iowa code allows the BOS to do this. If the BOS wants to go another direction, they need to amend the resolution.”
However, the wording of Resolution SPV-071321E focuses on requiring Board approval for departments that report to or are controlled by the Board and encourages legal review of agreements. It does not clearly define whether or how that requirement applies to elected officials acting independently, leaving ambiguity in how the policy is applied across offices.
I do think an amended resolution is needed. SPV-071321E cannot be read as clearly granting elected officials discretion to sign contracts without Board approval. It does not prohibit the practice, but it also does not clearly establish or delegate that authority. As written, the resolution leaves important questions unresolved and would benefit from clarification so it can be applied consistently across county offices.
I forwarded Sheriff Barnes’ email response to Supervisor Stancil and asked if she would like to comment.
Stancil’s response:
“I think there may be a misunderstanding. This policy was developed with former County Attorney Matt Schultz to ensure contracts were reviewed before execution to confirm they were not adverse to the county’s interests. It was not intended to delegate Board of Supervisors (BOS) signature authority to elected officials, but rather reflected the belief at the time that the BOS could not require elected officials’ contracts to be presented for legal review or approval as long as the funds were in the budget. Shortly after the consultant contract executed by former Auditor Kaczinski in January 2025, the county learned that this understanding was incorrect.”
Regarding my inquiry to Auditor Brant, I did not receive a response. However, due to a damaged The Madison Report video file for the March 24 meeting video, I obtained the meeting audio from Auditor Brant to fill in some gaps so the meeting could be posted on YouTube.
When reviewing the meeting audio for upload, I noticed Auditor Brant stating:
“I think there’s absolutely no reason that an elected sitting official cannot sign if something’s been approved for your budget….. and nobody’s gonna give a sh*t”
It is unclear to me whether Brant believes this standard applies to all departments—or only to departments where Teri Kaczinski was not the Auditor.
It is my understanding that Kaczinski, Barnes and Brant had the money in their budgets to sign the contracts in question. Therefore, if Sheriff Barnes and Auditor Brant are correct that they do not need Board approval for contracts for their departments, then the same would hold true for Auditor Kaczinski when she was in office.
It appears that the county still has some work to do on this issue so that all elected officials, department heads, and the public know and understand what the rules are.
What this episode ultimately reveals is not just confusion about a resolution—it is inconsistency in how contract authority is understood and applied. When former Auditor Teri Kaczinski signed a contract within her budget, it triggered months of criticism, complaints to the state, and public accusations of wrongdoing. Yet when contracts were signed later by other officials without Board approval, the response from some of the same voices was to “move on.”
Madison County residents deserve clear, consistently applied rules governing contracts, regardless of which office is involved or who holds it.
If the current resolution is unclear, it should be amended immediately so that every elected official, department head, and taxpayer understands exactly when and how Madison County can enter into contracts.
Leslie Beck
Winterset, Iowa
