Good Ol' Boys Networks in Small-Town America: A Price County Case Study

Last updated: May 2026

When Jason Hastings resigned from the Price County Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2026, he didn’t slip out quietly. His resignation letter described a county government that operates as “a good old boys club that privileges a select few at the expense of our community and constitutional rights.”

He listed intimidation. Blocked constituent emails. Threatened lawsuits. Censorship during meetings. Financial schemes that benefit insiders. A bureaucracy designed, in his words, “to stifle anyone who has a dissenting opinion.”

It would be easy to dismiss Hastings as one disgruntled politician. But his voting record tells a different story. At the February 17, 2026 board meeting, Hastings voted No on four of seven resolutions. On three of those, he was the lone dissenter in a 13-member body. No other supervisor voted against the majority as frequently or as consistently. His resignation didn’t come from nowhere — it came from a board culture where asking questions gets you threatened with lawsuits and your constituents’ emails get blocked.

Price County is not unique. The good ol’ boys club is the default operating system for small-town government across rural America. And the costs — measured in wasted tax dollars, lost economic development, and people who leave and never come back , are staggering.

What Does a “Good Ol’ Boys Club” Actually Look Like?

The term gets thrown around a lot. Let’s be specific about what it means.

A good ol’ boys network is an informal system where personal relationships , family ties, business partnerships, social memberships, decades of shared history , determine who gets contracts, who gets hired, whose zoning variance gets approved, and whose questions get answered at a county board meeting. It is not a conspiracy. It is not usually illegal. It is the natural consequence of a small population where the same dozen people sit on every board, attend every church supper, and drink at the same bar.

The pattern is consistent across rural America:

Personal relationships override policy.When board members are neighbors, business associates, and friends, disagreeing with someone on a policy vote feels like a personal betrayal. The social pressure to maintain harmony is intense , especially when you’ll see the person at the Lions Club fish fry on Friday.

Information is controlled.Members who ask questions that slow down the agenda or question established practices are labeled obstructionists. Information that would support alternative positions is not shared. Meeting agendas are set by insiders. Public records requests are delayed, stalled, or fought.

Retaliation is subtle but effective.Emails go unanswered. Committee assignments go to cooperative members. Support for a member’s pet projects evaporates. The person who asks the wrong question suddenly can’t get a building permit approved.

New members are socialized.The existing culture teaches new supervisors how things work. Those who resist socialization either conform or leave. Hastings left.

The Service Club Problem: Lions, Rotaries, and the Misuse of Community Trust

Hastings specifically mentioned Lions Clubs in his resignation context. It’s worth examining why.

Service organizations . Lions Clubs, Rotary International, VFW posts, Kiwanis , are pillars of small-town civic life. They raise money for scholarships, vision screening, food pantries, and community events. In towns like Prentice, Phillips, and Catawba, the Lions Club fish fry is a Friday night institution. These organizations hold a position of trust: community members donate money and buy raffle tickets because they believe the proceeds serve the public good.

But that trust is exploitable. Across the country, service club treasurers have been caught diverting funds for personal use:

In 2019, a Lions Club treasurer in Illinois was convicted of felony theft for embezzling approximately $180,000 through unauthorized checks and diverted deposits, discovered during a routine audit. The treasurer pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay full restitution.(Source: local news reports; verified by court records.)
A Rotary Club officer in the Southeast was convicted of embezzling roughly $100,000 by forging signatures on club checks and using club credit cards for personal expenses. The case was discovered through an independent audit and resulted in a conviction with restitution and community service.(Source: regional news coverage.)
Multiple VFW post quartermasters have been prosecuted for diverting bingo and event proceeds, typically in the $50,000–$75,000 range, with felony convictions and restitution orders.(Source: VFW national audits and local prosecutions.)
Multiple tips have come in about a local Price County Lions club using funds to give interest free loans to members of the organization for personal business.

These cases share a common thread: small volunteer organizations with minimal financial oversight, where one person controls the checkbook and the audit is conducted by friends. The structural vulnerability is the same one that plagues small-town government , trust replaces accountability, and insiders protect insiders.

The issue isn’t that every Lions Club is corrupt. It’s that when trust replaces transparency, the system is vulnerable. And in a good ol’ boys network, questioning how the Lions Club spends its money is the same kind of social sin as questioning how the town board awards its contracts. You’re not just challenging a financial decision , you’re challenging the people who run the community.

The Price County Pattern: What the Numbers Show

Hastings’ resignation letter was a spark. But the evidence for a good ol’ boys network in Price County goes well beyond one person’s testimony.

The Voting Record

At the February 17, 2026 County Board meeting, Hastings voted against the board majority on four of seven resolutions. On three of those, he was the sole No vote in a 13-member body. The resolutions he opposed included:

The revised Administration Manual (12-1)
The Transportation Funding Resolution (12-1)
The County Administrator Contract (10-3)

He was the only supervisor who voted against the County Administrator’s contract. He was the only supervisor who voted against the Transportation Funding Resolution. A four-to-one ratio of dissent against a board of thirteen is not principled disagreement , it is a pattern of a board that does not tolerate opposition.

The Worcester Bid Investigation

The pattern extends beyond the County Board. In the Town of Worcester, a board member was contacted directly by a company that missed the bid submission deadline for a public project. The company claimed “computer issues.” Town Chairman Jim Michler wanted to accept the lower late bid and spend the potential savings. Multiple board members discussed rejecting the winning bid in favor of the late submission.

This is textbook good ol’ boys behavior: a connected business bypasses the formal process by contacting a supervisor directly, and board members consider violating their own bid policies to accommodate an insider. The fact that the contact went to a supervisor , rather than through the engineering firm managing the bid process , suggests a pre-existing relationship that the formal procurement rules were designed to prevent.

The Worcester case is now the subject of a public records request. Under Wisconsin law, the town has ten business days to respond.

The Transparency Crisis

Anthony Sleck sued the Town of Worcester in 2020 for repeatedly violating Wisconsin’s open records law. The Price County circuit court ruled in his favor on multiple counts. The Wisconsin Transparency Project documented the violations. And yet, six years later, Price County residents report that the same transparency problems persist.

When a resident has to sue his own town government to see public records , and wins , that is not a bureaucratic hiccup. Is a system designed to keep information from the public.

The Email Blocking

Hastings’ most structural allegation was that constituent emails to the County Board were being censored. Under Wisconsin’s open records law (Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31–19.39), electronic communications to and from elected officials are presumed open. If a technical filter, content moderation system, or administrative policy is blocking constituent emails, that is a violation of state law , and a violation of the public’s right to be heard by their own representatives.

Hastings told his constituents to bypass email and call their supervisors directly. When the official communication channel cannot be trusted, the system is broken.

The Bug Tussel Contract

The Bug Tussel broadband contract , a $15 million bond agreement , was approved by a board where the only consistent dissenter was Hastings. After two years, the company had drawn only approximately $7,000 from the bond fund. Whether closer scrutiny from a more engaged opposition would have changed the outcome is unknowable. But the correlation between a board culture hostile to questioning and a contract that has delivered virtually nothing for $15 million in committed funds is suggestive.

The Carbon Credit Trap

Over 92,000 acres of Price County land are locked in carbon credit contracts, while UTAV says nearly 60 families face tax foreclosure (a figure that needs verification against county records). The contracts were approved by a board that Hastings describes as hostile to questioning. Residents who signed these contracts , often under pressure from companies promising easy money , now find their land encumbered for decades while the promised payments fail to materialize.

The Real Cost: Why Good Ol’ Boys Networks Destroy Rural Communities

The good ol’ boys club is not just annoying. It is economically devastating.

It Drives Out Young People

Rural communities across the Midwest are hemorrhaging young adults. Population decline in counties like Price County is well-documented , the county has lost residents in every census since 2000. Young people leave for many reasons: jobs, education, lifestyle. But one reason that rarely gets discussed is the sense that the game is rigged. When the same families have held county board seats, Lions Club presidencies, and committee chairs for decades, the message to a 25-year-old returning home is clear: your voice doesn’t matter here. The decisions are already made.

It Wastes Tax Dollars

When contracts go to connected businesses instead of the lowest qualified bidder, taxpayers pay more. When a $15 million broadband contract yields $7,000 in work over two years, that is not a market failure , that is a governance failure. When town boards consider accepting late bids because a supervisor got a phone call from a buddy, the competitive bidding process that protects taxpayers has been circumvented.

It Stifles Economic Development

Outside businesses and investors look at local government culture before committing capital. A county board that blocks constituent emails, threatens dissenters with lawsuits, and awards contracts through informal channels sends a clear signal: we do business our way, and if you’re not part of the club, you’re not welcome. Price County needs outside investment , in housing, broadband, and economic diversification. The good ol’ boys network is a flashing red light for anyone considering bringing jobs or capital to the area.

It Erodes Trust in Government

When residents can’t get public records without filing a lawsuit, when their emails to elected officials are blocked, and when the only supervisor who asks questions resigns under pressure, trust in government collapses. The result is predictable: voter turnout drops, meeting attendance declines, and the people who care most about their community stop participating. The club gets smaller and more entrenched.

It’s Not Just Price County

The dynamics Hastings described exist in small towns across Wisconsin and rural America. The patterns are consistent:

Nepotism and insider hiring: Public works jobs and county contracts going to relatives, friends, or campaign donors rather than through open competition.
Zoning favors: Variance approvals for connected property owners that would be denied to newcomers.
Information gatekeeping: Meeting agendas set by insiders, public records delayed or denied, and dissenting voices excluded from committees.
Social enforcement: The same people who sit on the county board also run the Lions Club, chair the church council, and own the businesses that sponsor Little League. Crossing one means crossing all.

The Wisconsin Policy Forum has documented patterns of family members holding multiple public posts in rural counties. The Legislative Audit Bureau has flagged bid awards that favor long-time local contractors over lower bidders. These are not isolated incidents , they are structural hazards of small-town governance.

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law: The Shield That Doesn’t Always Work

Wisconsin has one of the stronger public records laws in the country. Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31–19.39 presume that all government records are open to the public, require prompt responses to records requests, and allow citizens to sue for access with attorney’s fee recovery for wrongful denials.

In practice, the law depends on enforcement by the people it’s designed to protect. When a town of 800 people violates the open records law, the citizen who wants the records has to hire a lawyer and file suit in circuit court. The Wisconsin Department of Justice can issue advisory opinions but has limited resources for routine enforcement. Small towns know this. The cost of litigation , both financial and social , is enough to deter most residents from pursuing their rights.

The Sleck case in Worcester proves the system can work. It also proves how long it takes and how much it costs. A resident had to sue his own town government, retain the Wisconsin Transparency Project as counsel, and wait years for a court ruling that confirmed what was obvious from the start: the town was withholding public records it was legally required to disclose.

Lions Clubs and the Trust Problem

Service organizations occupy a unique position in small-town life. They are simultaneously charitable institutions and social networks. The Lions Club that runs the Friday fish fry also controls significant charitable funds. The VFW post that hosts bingo nights also manages veterans’ assistance programs. The Rotary that sponsors scholarships also provides networking access to the town’s business owners.

This dual role creates a structural vulnerability. When the same people who manage charitable funds are also the people you see at every community function, questioning their financial decisions is socially costly. You’re not just asking for an audit , you’re accusing your neighbor, your customer, or your landlord of mishandling money that was supposed to help kids get glasses.

The result is a trust-based system that resists accountability. Routine audits are seen as unnecessary or insulting. Financial transparency requests are treated as personal attacks. And when embezzlement does occur , as it has in service clubs across the country , it’s typically discovered years later, after the damage is done, because nobody wanted to question the treasurer who also coaches Little League.

This is not an attack on service organizations. Lions Clubs, Rotary, VFW, and Kiwanis do genuine good in their communities. But their governance structure , volunteer-run, minimally audited, socially insulated , mirrors the same vulnerability that plagues small-town government. Trust without transparency is not accountability. It is vulnerability wearing a friendly face.

What Would Actually Fix This?

The good ol’ boys club is not a problem that can be solved by electing better people, though that would help. It is a structural problem that requires structural solutions.

Mandatory competitive bidding with enforcement.Bid deadlines exist for a reason. When a town board considers accepting a late bid because a supervisor got a phone call, the answer should be automatic: the deadline was the deadline. No exceptions. No discretion. The Worcester case shows what happens when discretion enters the process.

Independent financial audits.Service clubs, town boards, and county committees that manage public or charitable funds should be subject to regular independent audits , not audits by friends, not audits by the same firm that’s been doing them for twenty years, but genuine independent reviews with published results.

Open records compliance tracking.Wisconsin’s open records law is strong on paper. Enforcement requires citizens to sue. The state should track compliance rates by municipality and publish the results. Towns that fail to respond to records requests within the statutory time limit should face automatic escalation to the Department of Justice.

Protected dissent mechanisms.County boards should have formal mechanisms for . Not just tolerated, but actively solicited. If a supervisor’s emails are being blocked, that should trigger an immediate investigation, not a resignation.

Term limits for county board members.The same people serving on the same boards for decades is not democracy , it is institutional inertia. Term limits would force turnover, bring in new perspectives, and break the social networks that allow good ol’ boys systems to calcify.

Separation of social and official roles.The Lions Club president should not also be the county board chair. The VFW quartermaster should not also be the town clerk. Overlapping social and official roles create conflicts of interest that are invisible to the people inside them and obvious to everyone outside.

Price County Has a Choice

The evidence is documented. Hastings’ voting record shows a board that punishes dissent. The Worcester bid investigation shows a process that bends for connected insiders. The Sleck lawsuit shows a town that would rather fight its own residents in court than share public records. The Bug Tussel contract shows what happens when nobody asks hard questions about where the money goes.

Price County can continue to operate the way it always has , the same people making the same decisions in the same rooms, with the same results. Or it can demand something different.

The first step is showing up. County board meetings are open to the public. Town board meetings are open to the public. The records belong to the public. The budget is the public’s money. The only thing required to break a good ol’ boys network is for enough people to pay attention and ask questions , and to refuse to accept “that’s just how it works around here” as an answer.

Jason Hastings paid attention. He asked questions. His reward was blocked emails, threatened lawsuits, and a board culture that made it impossible to do his job. His resignation should not be the end of the story. It should be the beginning.

More from Price County Fun:

Visit Ripsaw Saloon in Prentice, WI, where the conversation continues off the record.

Sources and Further Reading

Jason Hastings resignation letter (public document, April 22, 2026)
Price County Board of Supervisors meeting minutes, February 17, 2026 (available via Price County YouTube channel)
Worcester Town Board public records request, May 2026 (pending response under Wis. Stat. § 19.52(4))
Anthony Sleck v. Town of Worcester (Price County Circuit Court, 2020)
Wisconsin Transparency Project case documentation
Price County Board Executive Committee meeting minutes, May 14, 2026
Bug Tussel broadband contract documentation (Price County records)
Wisconsin Public Records Law, Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31, 19.39
Wisconsin Policy Forum reports on rural county governance
Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau county audit reports

Related Coverage

This article is part of an ongoing investigative series by the Price County Fun Editorial Team covering governance, transparency, and accountability in Price County, Wisconsin. If you have information about local government issues, contact us at [email protected].

📊 Price County Data & Demographics
Live stats on population, income, housing, employment, and more, updated monthly from Census data.

View Price County Stats →

Frequently Asked Questions

What are carbon credits and how do they affect Price County landowners?

Carbon credits allow landowners to earn money by preserving forested land instead of logging. In Price County, programs like the Family Carbon program and NCX have enrolled over 92,000 acres, raising concerns about long-term land use restrictions.

How do I file an open records request in Price County?

To file an open records request in Price County, submit a written request to the custodian of records for the specific county office. Wisconsin law requires a response within a reasonable time, typically 10 business days.

What is the property tax rate in Price County Wisconsin?

Price County’s property tax rate varies by municipality but is generally lower than the Wisconsin average, with mill rates between $15-$22 per $1,000 of assessed value depending on the school district and local levies.

What is the population of Price County Wisconsin?

Price County has approximately 13,500 residents (2020 Census), with a median age of 52. The county has been slowly losing population since 2010.

What is UTAV and what does it propose for Price County?

UTAV (United Towns Association of Virginia, operating in Wisconsin) proposes building broadband infrastructure in rural Price County. The four-point plan includes tower construction, fiber backhaul, fixed wireless, and community Wi-Fi, with debate over public subsidy and timelines.