Clark’s “One of Three” Defense Draws Pushback From Fellow Clinton County Commissioners

By Sean P. Shaughnessey
Across the County Line

Maysville, Mo - Patrick Clark’s closing argument at the July 7 Republican primary forum was intended to explain the limits of the Clinton County presiding commissioner’s office.

Instead, it may have created a larger problem for his reelection campaign.

Clark emphasized his structural limitations, arguing that as one member of a three-person commission, he cannot advance Road and Bridge improvements without support from an associate commissioner. He suggested that his efforts have been hindered by a lack of such support.

The implication was clear enough to several people in attendance: Clark believed meaningful improvements had been hindered because the other two commissioners had not supported him.

Both associate commissioners dispute this. In exclusive interviews with Across the County Line, 1st District Commissioner Tyler Walock stated that no Road and Bridge proposal has failed for lack of a second or been defeated by a 2-1 vote during his tenure. 2nd District Commissioner Richard Riddell similarly noted that he does not recall such motions being blocked and maintains that the commission remains functional despite disagreements.

Commissioner Walock issued a public statement saying the commission’s record does not show Road and Bridge proposals being defeated by 2-1 votes. Commissioner Riddell, while more measured, said he does not recall such a motion and has never viewed the commission as so divided that it could not get things done.

Ultimately, it seems that Mr. Clark is trying to create a problem his fellow commissioners do not believe exists.

Walock says the record does not support Clark’s narrative

Walock said he issued his statement after receiving calls from people who attended the forum and believed Clark had blamed him and Riddell for failing to support Road and Bridge changes.

He said the impression conveyed to the audience was that Clark had ideas or proposals but could not move them forward because the associate commissioners would not support him.

Walock rejected that premise.

He said no Road and Bridge motion has failed for lack of a second since he joined the commission and that he cannot identify a formal Road and Bridge proposal from Clark that was defeated 2-1.

His broader criticism was that Clark’s remarks shifted responsibility to the associate commissioners without identifying a specific action they blocked.

That makes the dispute less about a commission divided into permanent camps and more about whether Clark portrayed the internal process accurately.

Riddell says Walock’s response was “probably fair”

Riddell, who did not attend the forum, said Clark called him afterward and told him he had made comments that “may not have put you in a good light.”

After Walock’s statement was read to him, Riddell described it as “probably fair.”

Riddell said he did not recall a motion being made to address the Road and Bridge issue Clark may have been referencing. He also rejected the broader idea that disagreement among the commissioners has prevented the county from functioning.

“I’ve never had that feeling that we’ve had so much disagreement we can’t get anything done because of that,” Riddell said.

He defended Clark’s experience and institutional knowledge and suggested Clark may have phrased his remarks differently if he had more time to consider them.

Road and Bridge changes have occurred, but long-term planning remains weak

Walock’s interviews also reveal a more complicated Road and Bridge story than either campaign presented at the forum.

It is true, the commission has made some operational changes.

Walock said the county has added traffic counters, created regular gravel and culvert reports, formalized resident call records, raised starting wages for Road and Bridge workers and expanded the department’s management structure.

He said the department now has separate responsibilities for road supervision, projects and overall management rather than placing nearly every function on one superintendent.

But Walock said the county still struggles to convert information into a dependable long-term plan.

According to Walock, projects are recognized, evaluated, and given a tentative timeline, though the subsequent follow-up can lack consistency. He noted that he personally maintains a tracking sheet for previous initiatives to revisit them and request progress updates during commission sessions. Nevertheless, whether the commission as a whole effectively monitors active and upcoming projects remains uncertain.

He described that as a failure at the commission level rather than simply a failure of Road and Bridge employees.

The county may know where problems exist, but it does not yet have a fully developed system for prioritizing, funding, tracking and completing them.

That is a more serious management issue than whether one commissioner was occasionally frustrated by the other two.

Traffic counts show why some gravel roads cannot be treated alike

Walock also provided details about the county’s use of pneumatic traffic counters.

He said the county began gathering traffic data this spring to identify roads with the greatest use and the greatest need for long-term investment.

During a follow-up interview, Walock reviewed a written Road and Bridge report for Perrin Road between 207th and 209th streets. The report showed 897 vehicles over a seven-day period from May 29 through June 6, an average of 122 per day.

The county’s pneumatic counters record the number of vehicles but do not distinguish passenger cars from farm equipment, buses or heavy trucks. An electronic counter, while a more expensive option, could help differentiate between vehicles and ultimately offer a more comprehensive view of traffic patterns  

A gravel road carrying 150 passenger vehicles does not face the same wear as a road carrying 150 heavy industrial or agricultural vehicles.

The dispute is now about accuracy as well as leadership

The original political weakness in Clark’s argument was that he portrayed himself as constrained by the structure of county government.

An incumbent asking for another term must show that he can work within that structure, not merely explain its limitations.

Walock’s rebuttal and Riddell’s comments raise a second issue.

If no Road and Bridge motion failed 2-1, no motion died for lack of a second and no formal proposal was brought forward and rejected, then Clark’s remarks may have created a misleading impression about the associate commissioners’ record.

That does not necessarily mean Clark deliberately misled the audience. It is possible he was referring to informal resistance, discussions that never became motions or ideas he believed would not receive support.

But if that is the case, he must explain it.

The burden is now on Clark to identify what he attempted to do and how the other commissioners prevented it.

Without that answer, his closing argument remains politically damaging.

Clark said he cannot act alone.

His fellow commissioners are now asking, in effect, what action he tried to take.