Who Blocked the Emails? Inside the Price County Constituent

On April 22, 2026, Jason Hastings resigned from the Price County Board of Supervisors representing District 5 (Town of Fifield and Town of Eisenstein Ward 2). His resignation letter didn’t mince words: “Call your supervisors, because your emails are now being censored.” That’s not a vague complaint about government transparency, it’s a specific allegation that constituent emails to elected officials were being blocked.

TLDR: Former Supervisor Jason Hastings alleges Price County blocked constituent emails, threatened him with lawsuits for asking questions, and silenced dissent through procedural roadblocks. County records from February 2024 and February 2026 board meetings corroborate parts of his account.

By Price County Fun Editorial Team | Price County, Wisconsin

We’ve tracked Price County governance for months from our base in Phillips, and Hastings’ resignation letter is the most explosive document we’ve seen come out of the county building. The email censorship allegation isn’t just one complaint, it’s part of a pattern Hastings describes: blocked emails, lawsuit threats, censorship during meetings, and a “good old boys club” that punishes anyone who asks difficult questions.

What Hastings Actually Said

Hastings didn’t quietly exit. His resignation letter, addressed to his constituents in Fifield and shared publicly, paints a picture of a county government that actively silences dissent. Here’s what he wrote about the email issue specifically:

“Roadblocks are intentionally set to silence any attempt at change, as seen through blocked incoming emails from my constituents, threatening lawsuits, and censorship during meetings, failing to respond to emails that posed questions.”

He told his constituents to bypass email entirely and call their supervisors directly. That’s not how government communication should work in 2026! If a sitting supervisor tells you the email system is compromised, that’s not a minor IT complaint, it’s a democratic crisis.

Hastings also named specific grievances beyond email. He flagged the Solberg Lake project, which he said proceeded “without board approval in different ways.” He questioned ARPA fund misuse. He raised concerns about a carbon credit deal with Anew Climate covering 92,000 acres of county forest land. And he called out “Bug Tussel tower projects that don’t come to fruition.”

What County Records Show

We dug into the Price County Board of Supervisors meeting minutes, and here’s what we found:

February 20, 2024: Hastings made a motion to remove gender-specific pronouns from the County Board Policy and Procedure Manual, replacing them with “they.” The motion passed 12-1. This shows Hastings actively engaged in procedural governance, not just grandstanding.
February 17, 2026: Hastings voted No on 4 of 7 resolutions. He was the lone dissenter on the Administration Manual, the Transportation Funding Resolution, and the County Administrator Contract. A supervisor who consistently votes against the majority and asks difficult questions creates real structural pressure to marginalize him.
December 2021: Price County entered a carbon credit contract with Bluesource (now Anew Climate) covering approximately 92,000 acres of county forest land. As of June 2023, no payments had been received.
February 2024: The Forestry and Parks Committee approved a resolution requesting $650,000 in ARPA funding for Solberg Lake and Smith Lake County Park expansions. Hastings questioned whether COVID-relief dollars should fund campground expansion.

The voting record matters. When a supervisor dissents on 57% of resolutions and then alleges censorship, the pattern fits. You don’t have to take Hastings’ word for it, the minutes show a board that consistently moved against his positions.

The Legal Framework: Wisconsin Statutes 19.31-19.39

Under Wisconsin’s open records law, Wisconsin Statutes 19.31 through 19.39, most government records carry a presumption of public access. Electronic communications fit within that presumption. That includes emails sent to and from elected officials.

If constituent emails to the County Board hit a technical filter, a content moderation system, or an administrative policy, that system should be public. Deleting, ignoring, or not forwarding emails intended for a supervisor could violate the open records law’s prohibition on destroying or concealing public records.

We think that’s the core issue here. We’re not alleging specific violations, but Hastings’ claim deserves a real investigation, not a brush-off.

How Could Emails Actually Be Blocked?

We looked into the technical and administrative ways constituent emails could fail to reach supervisors in Price County. Here’s what we found:

Spam filters: County email systems use security filters that can catch legitimate emails. If filters run too aggressive, constituent communications disappear into a spam folder nobody checks.
Central routing: If emails to individual supervisors route through a central administrative office, that office can fail to forward them. Whether that’s intentional or just understaffing, the result is identical: the constituent’s message never reaches their representative.
Policy-based blocking: A county policy could restrict which emails reach supervisors, prioritizing certain topics or senders over others.
Deliberate censorship: The most serious possibility. Someone within the county administration or board intentionally blocks or deletes emails from specific constituents or about specific topics.

We don’t know which of these happened in Price County. But Hastings’ allegation demands answers, and the county hasn’t provided them. For what it’s worth, silence from county officials on a specific allegation like this speaks volumes.

The First Amendment Dimension

The First Amendment protects the right of citizens to petition their government. When a Price County resident sends an email to their elected supervisor, they’re exercising that right. If the government blocks that communication, it’s interfering with a protected activity.

Hastings’ allegation isn’t just about email technology. It’s about the broader environment for public participation in local government. He described a “good old boys club” that silences dissent through “bureaucracy” and “roadblocks.” The mechanism could be email filtering, lawsuit threats, or parliamentary procedure. The effect on public participation is the same.

In our view, this is the most structurally damaging allegation in Hastings’ entire letter, because it doesn’t just affect one supervisor, it affects every constituent who tries to contact their representative.

What Needs to Happen Next

We’re calling for specific, concrete steps to resolve this. Here’s our list:

Independent audit of the county’s email system. Who administers the email server? What filtering rules are active? Has any administrator ever blocked, deleted, or redirected emails intended for a supervisor?
Public records request for all email management policies. The county should disclose any policies governing constituent email handling, including spam filtering, forwarding, archiving, and deletion.
Direct response from the County Clerk and County Administrator. Does the county acknowledge Hastings’ claim? If not, what’s their explanation?
Open records request for Hastings’ own emails. If Hastings received threatening communications, those are public records.
Technical review of email delivery. Constituents who sent emails to supervisors around the time of Hastings’ resignation should test whether their messages went through.

Questions the Board Must Answer

The Board of Supervisors meets at the Price County Courthouse in Phillips. Here are questions that deserve public answers:

Has any supervisor been told they can’t receive emails from constituents on specific topics?
Is there a central email intake system that screens or routes constituent messages before they reach supervisors?
Have any emails sent to the County Board been blocked by security filters, and if so, what rules triggered the blocks?
Is there a policy for responding to constituent emails, and what’s the expected timeframe?
How does the county handle emails from constituents who criticize county administration or specific supervisors?

The Larger Pattern

Hastings’ email censorship allegation doesn’t exist in isolation. It connects to his broader claims about intimidation and lawsuit threats. If a supervisor can face legal action for asking questions during a public meeting, that’s a problem. If his constituents can’t reliably reach him by email, that’s a bigger one. The democratic function of county government breaks down.

We’ve reported on Price County’s governance issues before, including the numbers that prove Hastings was right about the dissent problem. We’ve also covered the 8-month gap without a DA that left Price County residents without prosecutorial coverage. This email allegation is the most concrete, testable claim he’s made. Either the county’s email system blocked constituent communications or it didn’t. That’s verifiable, plain and simple.

The board meets again at the Price County Courthouse in Phillips on May 19, 2026. The U.T.A.V. proposal includes items related to transparency and accountability. That meeting is the appropriate forum for the board to address the email allegation directly. Until that happens, the question stands: who blocked the emails, and why?

We’ll keep pressing for answers. If you’ve sent an email to a Price County supervisor and it went unanswered, we want to hear about it.

Sources: Jason Hastings resignation letter (April 22, 2026, public document), Price County Board of Supervisors meeting minutes (February 20, 2024; February 17, 2026), Wisconsin Statutes 19.31-19.39 (Open Records Law), Price County YouTube channel (@pricecountywigovernment), Marshfield News-Herald.