The Good Old Boys Club: How the Numbers Prove Hastings Was R

Jason Hastings called it a “good old boys club” in his resignation letter. His voting record shows he was almost always the lone dissenter. The question is whether that makes him a troublemaker or an outlier in a system that punishes independent thinking. Read more Price County stories from across the web.

—

When Jason Hastings resigned from the Price County Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2026, he described the board culture as a “good old boys club that privileges a select few at the expense of our community and constitutional rights.”

It is the kind of accusation that is difficult to prove but easy to test. If Hastings was telling the truth, his voting record should show a pattern of dissent against a unified majority. If he was exaggerating, his votes should blend in with the rest of the board’s.

The official minutes from the February 17, 2026 County Board meeting provide a test case. The results are striking.

The Votes

At that meeting, the board voted on seven resolutions. Here is how Hastings voted compared to the majority:

| Resolution | Hastings | Board Majority |
|————|———-|—————-|
| Adopt Revised Admin Manual | No | Yes (12-1) |
| Elected Official Salaries 2027-2030 | No | Yes (10-3) |
| Georgetown Bridge Culvert Aid | Yes | Yes (13-0) |
| Highway Construction Projects | Yes | Yes (13-0) |
| Capital Projects/Short-term Debt | Yes | Yes (12-1) |
| Transportation Funding Resolution | No | Yes (12-1) |
| County Administrator Contract | No | Yes (10-3) |

Hastings voted No on four of seven resolutions. On three of those four, he was the lone dissenter. No other supervisor voted against the board majority as frequently or as consistently.

This is a four-to-one ratio against a board of thirteen. By any measure, Hastings was far outside the board’s consensus.

What Dissenters Face

Hastings described what happens to supervisors who ask questions: “threatening lawsuits,” “blocked incoming emails,” “censorship during meetings,” “failing to respond to emails that posed questions.”

These are structural pressures that create a board culture where compliance is rewarded and dissent is punished. The mechanism does not have to be explicit. When a supervisor sees the lone dissenter receiving no response to emails, facing threatened legal action, and having constituent communications blocked, the message is clear: fall in line or face the consequences.

The effect on governance is measurable. Boards that suppress dissent make worse decisions. Groupthink, the psychological phenomenon where consensus-seeking overrides critical thinking, is well-documented in organizational behavior. When a board punishes dissenters, it loses the information, analysis, and alternative perspectives that dissent provides.

The “Good Old Boys” Mechanism

The “good old boys club” Hastings described is not unique to Price County. It is a pattern found in small government bodies across rural America. The characteristics are consistent:

Personal relationships override policy disagreements. 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.

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.

Retaliation is subtle but effective. Emails go unanswered. Committee assignments go to more cooperative members. Support for a member’s pet projects evaporates.

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

Hastings left.

What the County Loses

When a supervisor who consistently voted against the board majority resigns, the county loses someone who was paying attention. Dissenters force thoroughness. They require the majority to defend its positions. They catch mistakes. They represent constituents who are not part of the governing consensus.

The board’s response to Hastings’ resignation, appointing an interim supervisor and moving on, suggests the institution is more focused on filling the seat than examining why it became vacant.

Questions for the Board

1. Did any board member attempt to address Hastings’ concerns before his resignation?
2. Who was appointed as interim supervisor, and what is their relationship with the board majority?
3. Will the new District 5 supervisor face the same communication barriers Hastings described?
4. Does the board have any mechanism for ensuring dissenting views are heard and responded to?
5. How many supervisors in the past decade have resigned mid-term, and what were their stated reasons?
6. Are there any pending or threatened legal actions involving board members or county staff?

What “Good Old Boys” Costs Taxpayers

When dissent is suppressed, bad decisions go unchallenged. The Bug Tussel contract, a $15 million commitment with no timeline and $7,000 in work completed after two years, was approved by a board where the only consistent dissenter was Hastings. Whether that contract would have received closer scrutiny with a more engaged opposition is unknowable. But the correlation between the board culture Hastings described and the outcome the county is now experiencing is suggestive.

The carbon credit contract, the Solberg Lake ARPA funding, the radio system crisis. Each of these was approved by a board that Hastings describes as hostile to questioning. Each is now the subject of controversy. Whether another supervisor asking hard questions would have changed any of these outcomes is a question the county will never have the answer to.

—

This article is part of an ongoing investigative series by Northwoods Explorer covering Price County governance, transparency, and accountability. Related coverage: The Hastings Resignation, Bug Tussel Broadband, U.T.A.V. Proposal Analysis.

Sources: Price County Board of Supervisors meeting minutes (Feb 17, 2026), Jason Hastings resignation letter (public document), Price County YouTube channel (@pricecountywigovernment).

\n\n

Related Coverage

This investigation connects to our ongoing series:

For more, see how Price County will spend its opioid settlement funds.
For more, see Price County’s self-insured health plan started the year underwater.
For more, see Town of Emery postpones its 2026 Board of Review.
For more, see tax-delinquent property deal in Catawba.

Frequently Asked Questions

How is Price County government structured?

Price County is governed by a Board of Supervisors elected from districts across the county. The board oversees county operations, approves budgets, and sets policy. Supervisors are elected to two-year terms, and the board operates under Robert’s Rules of Order.

Can the public attend Price County board meetings?

Yes, all Price County board meetings are open to the public under Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law. Agendas are posted in advance, and public comment periods allow residents to address the board on agenda items and other county matters.

What rights do county supervisors have to dissent?

County supervisors have the right to vote against proposals, request information, propose amendments, and publicly express their positions. Wisconsin’s open meetings and open records laws protect supervisors’ ability to access county financial documents and challenge majority decisions.

How can residents engage with Price County government?

Residents can attend board meetings, contact their district supervisors, submit public records requests, speak during public comment periods, and run for elected office. Meeting schedules and contact information are available on the Price County website.

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

View Price County Stats →