Meet the candidates running for Scott County Board of Supervisors

Three seats on the Scott County Board of Supervisors are on the ballot this year. Incumbent Ross Paustian is not seeking re-election, while incumbents Jean Dickson and John Maxwell are seeking another term. Democrats Tim Carr, Stephen Doerscher, and Kevin Randle are vying for a spot, along with Republican Luana Stoltenberg and Independent Wendy Walljasper.

WVIK spoke with all but Tim Carr, who did not return phone calls or emails for an interview. Listen to the full interviews for each candidate below or read their responses.

Introductions and why you're running:

Carr: No response.

Dickson: Absolutely. So I have resided in the Quad Cities area for 33 years. I came to the Quad Cities a year out of law school. I am a native of Minnesota, but I've spent pretty much my entire adult life in the Quad Cities. My day job is as a practicing attorney representing employers and insurance companies in defending workers' compensation claims. However, I've also done a lot with community service over the past— during my time in the Quad Cities. So prior to joining the— or prior to becoming elected to the Board of Supervisors, I spent— I served eight years on the Pleasant Valley School Board. I'm active in my parish. I was an active parent, served on a number of other boards, etc. So I enjoyed my four years on the Board of Supervisors, learned a lot. There's a lot to be learned. And looking, I wasn't really sure when I ran the first time if I was going to, if I would pursue a second, a second term. But the time is right, and there's a lot, there's a lot to be done, especially with the legislative changes in terms of property taxes. So I think I have a lot to offer in terms of a second term, hitting the ground running and really primarily dealing with our revenue, our growth being capped.

Doerscher: Sure. Well, thanks for having me. First of all, I'm a union ironworker, so I'm involved in the labor movement. Between that and the local Scott County Democratic Party is actually how I got into the race. I was recruited and was nominated after the primary. After taking a look at things and seeing what in Scott County was happening with the board, what I agreed with, what I didn't agree with, it came to a conclusion that really, to me, in my view, the board itself is not looking out for working people in Scott County. And that's kind of an epidemic you see across all levels of government right now. And so I decided that was what I was going to be running about, is just making sure that we look out for the working people, especially in this economic climate. Everything's getting more expensive. So as a supervisor, if elected, I'd be looking to do things to try and quell some of that excessive cost on families and things like that.

Maxwell: I am a 5th generation Scott County farmer, actually. My great-great-grandfather came here in 1855. I have a grandfather that served on the county board from 1952 to 1964, and that piqued my interest. And I'm running once again this year, and I've been running all the time with keeping taxes low, reduce spending. And keeping our services high. And that is, that's my, my continued, go-to of what, what I plan on doing. Why I'm running for a third term is I want to continue those same three pillars. And more specifically on the third pillar, I want to maintain those services as in keep our communities safe by keeping the Sheriff's Department with plenty of adequate resources that he would need. And also I'm wanting to continue seeing through the medic operation that we— because medic was running into some rough financial times, we took it over and I want people to know that when you dial 911, an ambulance is going to come to help you.

Randle: Yeah, absolutely. I'm Kevin Randle. I'm running for Scott County Supervisor. I am a Davenport resident, a father, and a civil servant. I have spent my entire career working in local government. more than 10 years. I'm currently working at the City of Davenport in the Public Works Department, where I help to provide the services that people rely on every day. And also at the City of Davenport, I am the president of AFSCME Local 887, which is a labor union of government employees. And now I'd like to bring my experience and knowledge in local government and public services to the Board of Supervisors.

Stoltenberg: Yes, thank you, Brady, it's an honor to be on. But yes, I decided to run just because I love serving the people. That's part of my background, and I just felt like when this opened up, this would be a perfect fit because of my past background in the [state]house. So my background is I have owned some businesses, managed some businesses, so pretty much a business background, and I have done some other little jobs here and there as well, but then also have been very involved in pro-life issues and nonprofits as volunteers and also as helping run them as well. That is kind of what actually got me into the political realm, is that I was very active in the pro-life movement and just started seeing how hurt women can be. And so, I thought, how can we change laws? So, I started talking to different political people, seeing how we can change laws, how we can help women. And as I did that, I just got involved in campaigns of those who had the same heart and the same mind. And then years later, I thought, you know what, maybe I could run for office and I can help because I talked to people along the way. And so I ran for House when the seat came open, redistricted, I think it was four years ago. And so I though I'm going to run for House. So I ran for a House seat, District 81, and we won it. And I loved the job. I would have ran again except I knew I needed to have a hip replacement. So it was a lot of door knocking and a lot of walking, and I just didn't think I'd be able to do it. So decided not to run for reelection, and then this came open. So I thought this would be a perfect fit. I love people and I love working for them and helping them. So that's how I got into this.

Walljasper: Yeah, so I've worked in nonprofits around the Quad Cities for 19 years, and I decided to run for the County Board of Supervisors because it feels like a level that could make a really big impact on the everyday lives of people in our community. I've seen a lot of ways that the cities and counties that make up the Quad Cities work really well together, but also a lot of ways that could be improved. And I would love an opportunity to be able to be a part of those conversations about how the county can be a leader in different initiatives that can make things a little easier for the everyday people that live and work in Scott County.

What are the main issues/topics you want to address if elected to the board?

Carr: No response.

Dickson: So the main one would be that the legislature, the Iowa State Legislature, did decide to cut— cutting property taxes or capping property taxes was a big priority for them. But I totally understand, I've heard from a lot of incumbents whose property taxes have gone up because the value of their houses has gone up. That's been a big— that's been a big issue, and I understand why the legislature did that. So what the legislature did, really, they capped growth. So it's not necessarily they capped taxes, but they said municipalities, your growth is capped, which is going to, as a result, it's going to, like, taxes will not go up because growth won't go up. So that's, I mean, I think that's a big priority and that'll be a big task, especially in this first budget year next year, because that'll be the first year we're having to deal with that. Other priorities I would say are safety, keeping the county safe. As you know, the county is in charge, like the legislature has the counties in charge of the jail and the courthouse. We don't staff the courthouse, but we provide the courthouse. But we are, each county has to provide a jail and has to keep the county safe. And then I would also say preserving our agricultural, our prime agricultural ground and land is, is really a big priority too. This is a beautiful county with beautiful land and property and preserving it, that's also a priority.

Doerscher: Probably the biggest topic surrounding the entirety of the board over the last year has been this Peaker Power Plant at Hickory Grove Generating Station by CIPCO. On the record, I'm the only one that's openly for it in this race because I look at it a couple of ways. As an ironworker, I've gone all around the state and over the last 15 years or so, these data centers have been going. I've been part of building them. We are gonna be surrounded by them very soon. And a lot of them haven't turned on the lights yet. That's going to put an increase on demand. That's going to put a rising pace to your utility bills, and your energy reliability itself could be potentially at risk. And as part of trying to keep working families' costs down, things like that, I think this peaker plant is actually a good idea. Currently, CIPCO's purchasing 20% of the power they distribute to their customers from out of their own generating capabilities. This would try and quell that. When the demand goes up, it'll help keep the costs down for working families in Scott County. And when you go to turn on the lights, you can have a little more reassurance that they're actually gonna come on. That's number one for me. Other issues as far as the board's concerned, we see board members now, there's appointed boards within the county government going down the line. I don't want to see any more supervisors nominating and appointing their family members, business associates, things like that. I think it presents a conflict of interest that with— especially if you've been following anything with Davenport politics over the last couple of years, it's an issue we don't need to deal with in Scott County. So let's keep things as transparent as possible. I'd also like to look at possibly moving their board meetings to a time where actual real people can go and see them. I understand, I know they put them online after the fact, but when you have your, your board meetings at 8:30 in the morning and wonder why you don't get public attendance, well, because most people are working at that time. So let's try and move all our board meetings to a more convenient time for the citizens to actually attend and have a voice if they so choose to.

Maxwell: Well, certainly reelected to the board, you got to be thinking about, number one, the state legislature this past year, passed a law that will limit growth to 2%, and so I'm very willing to take that on. But I think having someone that has been in the trenches for a while and, and can kind of see their way through it would be helpful, and that's what I intend on doing and making it work for every Scott County citizen. And more than that, I don't want them to have to worry about whether their government is going to be overspending or anything like that. I want them to know that their taxes are going to be as low as possible and their services are going to be high.

Randle: Well, I think there's a lot of important things. I think one major issue is going to be improving the quality of life for working families. And I think there are several things that go with that, such as economic development and providing good jobs so that people can build a future here. It's also affordable housing. We need to make sure that people can afford to live here. Affordability is a big issue. And it's also making sure that we have good public services and amenities to draw people to this area so that they want to build a future here as opposed to anywhere else.

Stoltenberg: There are several issues and topics if I get elected. As I'm door knocking and talking to people, I'm really hearing— I'm hearing several things, but probably the most that I'm hearing the most is people are concerned about cost. They're concerned about their property taxes. They're concerned about their groceries, gas prices, things going up. And so I guess my main priority would be how can we lower those costs? How can we lower those property taxes? How can we be better stewards? Not that those that are there are not better stewards with it, but how can we lower those costs for the people so that we can get taxes down and people don't have to feel such a pinch? I mean, I know that gas prices and grocery prices are probably just going to be a temporary thing until Iran is settled. But yeah, people are hurting. And so that would be my main priority is how can we reduce that spending and lower those taxes?

Walljasper: I think one of the biggest issues is housing from a professional perspective and the work that I've done, but also in my personal life, I have young adult children that are trying to figure out how to launch in a world that rent is very expensive, gas is very expensive. I have friends who are delaying having children or buying their first house because the way the market works right now. It's very difficult for people to even buy a small starter home like I did when I was young. I think there are policies that could be put into place that creates some safeguards for people who are renting or buying their first home to protect them as consumers. Because right now landlords really have a lot of leeway as to whether they want to be good business owners or not. And so that's that sort of thing. Creating policy around protecting citizens is a big interest of mine.

If elected, how would you manage discussions on data center developments in the county?

Carr: No response.

Dickson: So, I mean, I, we haven't been approached by that directly. There's been discussion, like informal discussion of do we do a moratorium? What do we have to, how would we approach that? I will say one thing, if there's going to be a data center, more likely than not, it's going to be on city ground and not county ground. So I think that that's, but that said, it's certainly an issue that I think we have to be prepared to address. I think Linn County is, I, is kind of, has kind of been a leader in Iowa, at least in eastern Iowa, about how they did it. And I think I'd probably kind of follow their lead. Linn County had passed an ordinance that it— they— that I guess that required that any data center complete a water study during the planning process to make sure that there's enough water for the project and to explain how it could affect water users and groundwater, surface water, that sort of thing. Sign a water use agreement. So if we had a data center, maybe we have them sign a water use agreement to show the county and the data center, how they'll work together on water use. And then also, I think, have them sign an economic development agreement explaining how the county and the developer would work together and offer incentives. I don't know that Scott County is in that position. I don't know that we're at this point that we would pass some type of a moratorium or a data center agreement, but I think if the— or data center legislation, but I think if the issue came to us, that's what I would recommend. I would say, okay, now it's in front of us. So let's do the water study, water use agreement, and an economic development agreement. Those are the things that I think I would— on which I would focus.

Doerscher: Data center developments, that's what everybody's talking about nationwide, it seems like. First of all, these data centers for the most part are being put up by the six wealthiest individuals on the planet, right? They get no tax breaks from local government, in my opinion. They don't need them. If they really truly want to build there, they need to come to approach the communities and actually express a desire to be part of that community. So, like I said, no tax breaks. They're going to have to supply their own infrastructure improvements. They're going to have to make guarantees that their water consumption won't affect the local residents. They're going to have to power their own facilities so that that burden isn't put back down onto the constituents of the area. And it presents kind of a culture shift, I think, as far as these tech bros are concerned about just throwing money at a situation, getting the way they want. If you're going to come into our community with one of those, I'm fine with it, but you're going to be part of the community and you're going to have to want to be and prove to us that you do want that.

Maxwell: Well, we have, we have worked closely with the Planning and Zoning Department and that board, and we continue to go over comprehensive plans and revise them. And maybe we need to dig into it a little deeper. But as far as data centers and those sorts of things, we have an electrical peaking plant that has been a big issue too. So land use is very, very important. But more than that, land use to Scott County of preserving that precious, really good farmland is one of our [phone cut off]— the Scott County Board of Supervisors and Planning and Zoning. We need to be cognizant of economic development, but we also need to be aware that we're not— or taking as least amount of farmland out. And I'm, I'm convinced that data centers do not belong on prime farmland. But more than that, if they do even come about, they need to be not taking away of our precious resources, such as water, and making our electrical bills go through the sky.

Randle: Yeah, so with data centers, there can be some potential negative impacts from those developments. So with that, you'd want to make sure that we're taking steps to mitigate any of those negative impacts so that there isn't any, anything negative being put on the community. But there can be some benefits to those as well. There's good jobs that come with that, and it can increase the county tax base, which are beneficial things to be considered as well. So anytime that you're looking at one of these projects, you're going to have to have the community involved. You're going to have to listen to all of their concerns, make sure that you're mitigating all of the potential negative impacts while also being open and receptive to the benefits that they can provide.

Stoltenberg: I have been doing a lot of research on data centers. We were talking about them when I was in the House. So I know that the city has made a— I believe has a contract or has made some sort of a deal with Google with the data center. But I would love to see the county be part of that discussion as well. I know we probably need data centers in the future, but I really believe that they can be harmful to our community if it's not done correctly. So data centers take an awful lot of power. They take an awful lot of water. And for what they bring in jobs, I mean, probably a data center the size of what's coming in is we may see maybe 30 to 40 long-term jobs. There will be a good number of jobs in the construction part of it. But sometimes those don't even get to come from our community because they have crews that have worked on the data centers that travel with them. So I would just like to see us as the county piece of it to work with the city, just trying to figure out how can we maybe make ordinances so that if this data center comes in, they can— they will be responsible to pay their fair share and maybe even more of power, natural gas, rather than— sometimes they make contracts with the natural gas company and they make that contract for 10 years and then prices go up because of the amount of fuel that they are using. And then the homeowners are stuck with that cost raise. And so let's talk about that, see if that data center has a lot of money. Google has a lot of money, maybe they could foot the bill for the power and the water that they are going to consume, but above that, for the residents of the people who live here.

Walljasper: I think the biggest priority for me around data center development is slowing things down and having high levels of transparency. People are very interested in this issue. People are very concerned about these data centers. And I think the worst thing that public servants can do is rush into contracts or sign contracts without really disclosing to the public what the details are of those arrangements. And so I would just really want to be very, very mindful of the long-term impact of any business agreement, but especially those that are going to affect land use and water usage for generations to come.

More generally, Americans are concerned about transparency when it comes to elected officials discussing development plans before an official public notice. How would you ensure transparency with your constituents?

Carr: No response.

Dickson: I think being open in discussions. I had— that question had been asked of me by another, by another public— by another news source, and I hadn't even really thought of it before. Like what if we are approached by development? But I— there's not any exception to the open meetings law that I can think of that could justify us having a conversation not in the public. I think the law, that Iowa's open meetings laws are gonna provide, ensure that those discussions are. But that said, I would also just as an elected official, be committed to having any such discussions in the open because there's so many important issues like water, energy, economic development. I think it would have to be in the open. But yeah, I think it's something, I guess that's what I would say.

Doerscher: First of all, we're not— I would never sign an NDA from a developer coming in. That's not the reason I was put into government if elected. I was put there on the fact that the voters trust me enough to realize I'm going to be honest with them. I'm not going to do things behind closed doors that would affect their lives. So if a developer were to come to me with an NDA, they can just take that right back out the door with them, in my opinion.

Maxwell: So eight years ago when I ran, transparency was a big item. It has every year, and always it should be a big item. And through my time, we have gone from having meetings that are not open, not open to seeing it on our computers. Or anything like that. To— you can view us every single meeting, every time we meet, at any time, and you can see the agenda. And that to me spells transparency. That is what transparency is about, is being willing to have anything I say or do is on the computer, and you can watch me over and over again, and you know who I am. What I stand for, and never, ever, ever am I going to do anything that would be not upfront and full of transparency. I'm not about going behind the scenes. I'm not about working in the back room and coming out with some plan that doesn't meet the— hey, we need to have the public involved. So when transparency is flagged in my face, it's kind of like safety. I want everybody to know that I am transparent and I'm doing everything that I possibly can to stay transparent all the time. And so when someone says we need more transparency on the Board of Supervisors, I'm one of those people that want to listen to what more transparency sounds like and be willing to adapt it.

Randle: Well, I would always follow open records law and all the obligations that elected officials have to keep their constituents informed. I don't believe there should be anything hidden from public view. So I want to make sure that there's transparency and people are informed and that there's public meetings. And that the public is going to have all the same information that the board does when these decisions come around.

Stoltenberg: I truly believe in transparency. I really do. I believe that we are a government that is for the people, by the people, and of the people. So it's the people's government. And the reason why that government is operating and running is because of our tax dollars are paying for it. And so I will, I will always want to bring the public into decisions that are being made, even maybe above and beyond just that. Five or three minutes you get when you come to the meetings. I would really want to have public input. Talk to the citizens to say, "How do you feel about this?" I know I've been out talking to a lot of people about the CIPCO plant that is wanting to come, and there are some concerns. I mean, people are concerned about their safety. They're concerned about what that's going to bring to our community as far as you know different chemicals being put in the air and the land and their property rights. So most definitely, I will be a proponent of the people. I will be out in the public talking to people and be asking for input. And I will always listen to emails, phone calls, text messages, whatever, because I believe it's the people's community and it's the people's government, and those that are elected officials need to listen to them and do what they're asking, quite honestly.

Walljasper: I think that local government is very difficult for everyday people to understand. I don't think a lot of effective strategies are in place right now that brings attention to what's happening at city council or county board level. And the ways that people can get that information is often technical or is difficult to access. And so I think creating more opportunities to have conversations with people, but also just more publicity around these are the things that are on upcoming agendas, these are things the board is considering, and making sure that people don't have to work so hard to find out that big decisions that will affect them are about to be made.

The Iowa Utilities Commission is currently hearing from a company seeking to build a gas-fired power plant in rural Scott County. The board earlier this year voted to deny a special use permit for the development, but the commission could override the board. If the commission backs the development, how would you respond on the board?

Carr: No response.

Dickson: Well, so, as a lawyer, I would say that's a little hard to say because I don't know what the decision is going to say. Like, not necessarily is it going to be thumbs up or thumbs down, but we also don't know what the reasoning would be if they did decide to back it. I will say that we've intervened, and so we would— if the IUC, let's say they decided to issue the certification. We've intervened. So I think we would look to our counsel, which is the county attorney's office, about, okay, what's our next step? Is this something that's going to go into— because the next step would be judicial review at the district court level. Is that something— are we going to— is it appealable, or is this something that's not susceptible? Is this not— is it not going to be appealed? Do we not recommend an appeal? Let's just— let's just say hypothetically that the IUC is kind of at the end of it, like that's the final— they become the final arbiter of the decision. I mean, they really wouldn't be because they could appeal, but if hypothetically that it's the— it stopped at that level, then I think the board would, we would work— look to CIPCO as a business partner as we would any other entity or business that was constructing something on county— on unincorporated land. And I think secondary roads, like, they— secondary roads actually filed the statement. Like, they're kind of one of our witnesses in the CIPCO proceeding because we do have a concern about the roads. We have a concern about the environment, but there's a lot of different concerns that our constituents raised during this whole process. And all that, I think the county is going to have to— a lot of it, the county would have a hand in. So monitoring, making sure that they're a good business partner, and making sure that they're in compliance with Iowa law as well as Scott County ordinances.

Doerscher: If I were on the board, I think it is a good thing for the people of Scott County, for all the customers of CIPCO and by extension REC. I see it as a situation where the board themselves last year were majority for it. And then of course things got delayed and pushed into the new year, an election year. The citizens cgainst group came up, and I understand their concerns. Have you spoken to any of them? Uh, no, I have not. But I do understand their concerns with it. I understand the concerns of using up potentially rich farmland. But this is the thing that we need to look forward to the future. You know, some of the sitting members of the boards during this campaign cycle have told you, well, we're— we need to be concerned with today. Not tomorrow. I take a completely different viewpoint on that. We need to be looking down the road. We need to be looking to see what we need to do for the future or Scott County is going to get left behind. So in that, in that vein, I think it's going to be good for the, for the people of Scott County, especially, like I said before, trying to keep their costs down, trying to keep their energy reliability at a level where they can always count on it. This plant's supposed to have a 30-acre footprint. And considering that their current policies protect farmland over a 65 CSR, Corn Suitability Rating, that prevents any development of any kind really, for the most part. So, if people are worried about it being a gas plant, well, we don't— number one, we can't really logistically have— wind power in Scott County because of the location of our Doppler radar system. It screws the returns up on that thing. But they don't have anything that would allow solar either, as far as creating solar fields to generate power. In Scott County, we don't generate any of our own power. All that said, it turned to this new year, the board decided they weren't for it. In my view, that shows a willingness of this current board to play with people's financial security, their injury liability. And they're playing politics with the citizens of Scott County.

Maxwell: Well, I think actions speak louder than words, and my action of voting against it, I think, tells it all. I think that tells it that I'm very much against it being in prime farmland of Scott County. That doesn't mean that we don't need it. That means that if the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, we all need electricity, but it belongs in an industrial park, and it might be— it might not be convenient for those folks that are putting up the power plant to put it where it belongs. But I think that needs to be done. So what am I going to do about it? Everything in my power, I will explore and do. Unfortunately, that may not be enough, but you can count on me to doing everything that I possibly can do, but as a Board of Supervisors, that I'm going to try my best and try what I can to get it done.

Randle: So with the CIPCO power plant, ideally I don't think it should be located on prime agricultural land. I think there's industrial or brownfield sites available where it could have been located so that it didn't take up that farmland. I also think it would be great if the project had a project labor agreement or something to ensure that the economic development benefits would actually go to Scott County workers. And I think that all the discussion surrounding CIPCO really points to the need to discuss and overturn the— what is currently an existing ban, essentially, on solar, industrial-grade solar development in Scott County. So I think that that's something that should be revisited, because I think ideally that should be the county's path forward with energy, is to have it be more renewable, environmentally friendly, but also more friendly to human health as well.

Stoltenberg: I think, again, first of all, I don't believe that the state or the utilities commission should get to decide that. I think they should go with the county and the county's decision, because we have home rule. We in this county, we know what we want. The people know what they want. They live here, they work here, they play here. And so I really believe that the utilities board and any state legislation should consider what the county wants and what home rule is. But, I do believe that maybe we, as the board, if they do, if that utilities board decides they're going to overrule what we have to say, then I think, in fact, I think we should be talking about it now again. What are some ordinances we could put in place that the ground that they want is prime agricultural land? That's part of the reason why I'm— in fact, that's most of the reason I'm not for it. I believe our prime ag land is priceless, and it's premium, and we have to keep it. And so there's an industrial track that CIPCO could go on. They wouldn't be as close to neighbors. They're wanting to put it on that piece of land right now. And there are neighbors as close as half a mile away. There are schools very close. There are lots of emissions that come from CIPCO, like nitrous oxide, formaldehyde, things that cause asthma. I know that also it impacts crop yields, like 2 to 5% of crop yield production could go down. There are just so many things that it brings with it. And this, again, this natural gas plant will maybe employ 3 to 6 employees. So really, what is the benefit? If we need it, then yes, we need to have it, but let's put it on an industrial track or somewhere that fits what they're trying to do rather than putting our citizens and our community in harm. So I believe that the county needs to really look at some ordinances, ways that we could limit where they go and what they do.

Walljasper: I think currently there's an effort being made to hire private attorneys to try to enforce the county's decision and speak for us with the utilities commission. I think that the utilities commission trying to overrule local decisions is a very concerning trend in general. I would fight for really maintaining and strengthening the home rule that Iowa has a long tradition of. I think local decisions about economy, taxation, land use really need to be in the hands of local community members and their elected officials. SoI would continue to fight against decisions that were made against the wishes of the community.

Is there anything else you would like to share with voters?

Carr: No response.

Dickson: Well, I've like I said, I'm a transplant from Minnesota, but I've spent most of my adult life in Scott County. I have it, even though I, my day job is as an attorney, but I have a pretty diverse experience in terms of community service around the county. I've been on school board. I've done the Civil Service Commission. So I know a lot of, I know a lot about law enforcement and department heads. I volunteer in the jail once, once a month. So I even have that, and I have that perspective. It's, I think I have a pretty broad-based perspective of all that is in Scott County. It's a great county. It's a great place to live. And I just look forward to another opportunity to represent the county.

Doerscher: Think about who you'd like representing you in Scott County. I am an everyday working individual. Like I said, I'm a union ironworker. I'm really involved in the labor movement, looking out for not just union people, but the labor movement is there to look out for all workers. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a millionaire. I'd bring a definitely a different perspective to the Board of Supervisors, and hopefully that's what the citizens want.

Maxwell: Sure, I would love to. First of all, as your past Scott County Supervisor, I have always tried to keep all of my constituents in mind. Everything about what they stand for, I'm always listening. And furthermore, the classic case was this gas-fired power peak plant in rural Scott County. I listened to my fellow farmers. I listened to these folks. And I, knew for right, right away when my constituents are against it, as am I. When I want to hear from those folks and when I get hundreds of emails from them saying, we do not want it here, it doesn't belong here, and here are the reasons why, I want to be the person that listens and listens to everybody, what they have to say and everything else. And I'm going to tell you, I don't, I don't really care where it came from. If it's a good idea, we need to be part of that. We need to take care of that. So I want to be that supervisor once again for four more years that represents all of my folks in Scott County and trying to do the best job for every citizen that we have, every single one of them. And I'm also real proud through my years that we have done things for the homeless. We've done— we've put a lot of money into the underprivileged, and we've also done a lot for the youth justice program and helping our kids get back on their feet rather than having them become institutionalized for many, many years. And I'm proud to be part of that as well.

Randle: I think I'd just like to remind everyone to go out and vote. Early voting has started, so please let your voice be heard. It's very important. So hopefully everyone can have a chance to go out and vote.

Stoltenberg: I would just say make sure you get out and vote November 3rd. That is our privilege, and it's also our responsibility. Get out and vote. Really look at the issues and see who fits what you think and what you want, and vote. And I would really appreciate their vote. Other than that, I would say really keep your ear to the ground and listen about this CIPCO plant. I believe there's a hearing on November 17th that's going to be here in the Quad Cities about it. Also, the data center as well. These things are going to affect our citizens and our community and our quality of life. So be listening for it and get involved. Get involved.

Walljasper: Yeah, I'm running as an independent, and I made that decision because I know that whoever is paying your bills has a lot of say over your life. And whether that's your boss at work, whether that's a funder in a nonprofit, I don't want to be held to decisions based on the Republican or Democrat Party. I want to be held to decisions based on what's best for the people who live and work in Scott County. And as an independent, it's a really interesting race because there are three spots opening on the board. And so someone could vote for two Democrats and an independent. They could vote for two Republicans and an independent. They could vote for three women regardless of party affiliation. You really have an option to research the candidates. And there's been some really nice coverage in the local media of all of the seven of us who are running. And so I really encourage people to make a decision based on personal philosophy and principles and history of what people have done for our community, instead of just voting one party or the other down the ballot for local elections.

Early voting is underway in Iowa. Election Day is November 3. Links to the Auditor's website for more election information: Scott.