The Madison Report Logo

Shining a light on local government.

Court Order Delays Reorganization, Potentially Increasing County Costs

On Thursday May 28 at 3:42 pm, County Attorney Swanson filed a writ of certiorari seeking an injunction on behalf of County Auditor Michele Brant against Madison County Supervisors Heather Stancil and Jessica Hobbs; a judge granted the writ the next day and temporarily halted implementation of the challenged actions pending further proceedings. We contacted Supervisors Stancil and Hobbs for comment. Supervisor Stancil said that she was only just served these after 5 p.m. last night (Friday), that the papers still need to be reviewed by legal counsel, and that she does not comment on pending litigation.

According to the filed petition, Auditor Brant challenges the Supervisors’ budget cost-cutting decisions affecting staffing in the Buildings & Grounds and Human Resources departments—both of which report operationally to the Auditor. Brant alleges conflicts of interest by Supervisors Stancil and Hobbs and asks the court to declare their actions unlawful.

The court’s order prevents implementation of the challenged changes while the case proceeds. As a result, the county cannot remove current custodial positions until further court action. At the same time, a binding two-year custodial services contract—approved March 30 after an RFP, costing up to $5,150 per month, and set to begin Monday, June 1—remains in effect. That contract was approved as part of the county’s reorganization plan, which supervisors said was intended to reduce taxpayer costs, so taxpayers may now face paying both existing staff and the new contractor until the dispute is resolved. The filing came four days before the contract is scheduled to take effect and five days before a primary election in which County Attorney Swanson appears on the ballot.

The granting of the writ does not mean the court has determined whether the allegations in the petition are correct. Instead, it preserves the status quo while the court reviews the Board’s actions and the legal issues raised in the filing. The central questions appear to be whether the Board had authority to enact the changes and whether those actions complied with Iowa law.

After reviewing Iowa Code and approved county resolutions, we found the following provisions relevant to the dispute:

Iowa Code §331.301(2): vests county power in the board and makes county duties performable “by or under the direction of the board except as otherwise provided by law.”

Iowa Code §331.502: outlines the Auditor’s duties; subsection 1 provides that the Auditor has “general custody and control of the courthouse, subject to the direction of the board.”

Resolution AO090925A – Amended: assigns Human Resources duties to the Auditor’s office but does not expressly delegate the Board’s budgetary, legislative, or executive authority under §331.301(2).

Resolution SPV101425C: directs that Buildings & Grounds report to the Auditor for daily operations but explicitly states the department remains “subject to the continuing oversight and policy direction of the Madison County Board of Supervisors.”

Since taking office, according to approved budget amendments, Auditor Brant has requested—and the Board unanimously approved—over $87,000 in additional FY26 funding for her department.

The filing also presents an unusual situation in which the County Attorney is representing one elected county official in litigation against other elected county officials. Iowa Code §331.756(6)–(7) assigns the county attorney responsibilities relating to representation of the county and its officers. Whether that arrangement creates any legal or ethical concerns in this case may ultimately depend on facts and legal authorities beyond the scope of the petition itself.

The ultimate merits of the petition remain unresolved. However, the court’s order temporarily pauses implementation of the Board’s approved reorganization plan while the case proceeds. Meanwhile, anticipated Fiscal Year 2027 taxpayer savings associated with the custodial reorganization could be delayed or reduced while this dispute between county officials remains pending.

This is developing story and we will update as we receive additional information.

Categories: