Leslie Van Beek

COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1: Commissioner Van Beek is concluding a 4 year term, from 2020 to 2024. She was elected to a 2 year term and will serve from 2024 to 2026.

In the coming months we will be rating Commissioner Van Beek on the following:

• LEADERSHIP           

• TRANSPARENCY     

• FARMLAND PROTECTION 

Please note that commissioners vote to raise or decrease their salary. Secondly, being a County Commissioner is a full time position.

Salaries in 2022/early 2023 = $90,000 (Salary Reduction, however Ms. Van Beek voted against this reduction)

Salaries in 2023 = $112,360 (Salary Increase of $22,360)

Salaries in 2024 = $112,360

Observations

Commissioner Van Beek has made some sold land decisions in protecting farmland. Where she falls short is the consistency of those decisions by following standard guidelines of zoning and comprehensive planning. Ms. Van Beek also lacks consistency in her leadership and communicaitons skills.

You may have seen Commissioner Van Beek in the news for a slip up and not thought much of it. But when you look at the summation of Ms. Van Beek’s career, you can understand why all of her fellow elected officials requested her resignation in 2022. We need to say this again, all of the elected officials, from the sheriff to the commissioners, signed the request for resignation. This alone should raise alarm on Ms. Van Beek’s fitness for office. (You can see the accusations and offenses of Ms. Van Beek here)

• Commissioner Van Beek is facing a lawsuit for allegedly creating a hostile work environment. This eventually led to the county losing its insurance and now facing increasing legal costs. Ms. Van Beek cannot comment on the lawsuit, but this has not stopped her in blaming others. We look forward to following Ms. Van Beek’s comments in court.

• Many times Ms. Van Beek has had questionable behavior in hearings, convoluting topics with statements of little to no substance and repeating herself. This behavior can hijack hearings and impair the ability for the to the public to be heard and this is a road block to the rights of the public.

• Ms. Van Beek is known to lean into the advice and agendas of outside interests and this can lead to a shadow government. It also makes truth more of a convenience than a conviction as Ms. Van Beek must keep her platforms and policy fluid to meet the demands of these interests. This, in turn, makes transparency difficult on many levels.

• Throughout Ms. Van Beek’s career there is difficulty in respecting the duties of the office. This translates into a disrespect for the rights of the people. This is seen in the disregard for open meeting laws, (lack of transparency), and using the county services for her election campaign.

• Ms. Van Beek has made some good decisions in farmland protection in the past and is commended for this. However, she did not support the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and could not give a reason as to why she didn’t. She did quote Senator Lakey’s opposition a good deal during the hearings for the comprehensive plan, and she appears to defer to the Senator, but uncertainty remains here. Ms. Van Beek states that she adheres to a 5 year plans with the county and surrounding cities. 5 years is sorely inadequate in planning, especially for agricultural economies and communities who want to keep their conservative rural character. Many growth interests want to give commissioners more power as this allows them to bust through comprehensive plans, zoning laws, and ordinances, while passing costs to taxpayers. Ms. Van Beek appears to agree with this imbalance of power. She, like many politicians that have held power for several terms, can get accustomed to the clout the position brings.