Before candidates ask Carlton County voters for their support in 2026, we think they should answer two straightforward questions: Will you support reasonable term limits? And can you show taxpayers what your office would look like with a 25% smaller budget? Forget the slogans about fiscal responsibility and accountability. Show us the numbers. Show us the cuts. Show us the plan. Then let voters decide whether the answers are good enough.

Carlton County keeps asking taxpayers for more. But when does government ever ask itself to spend less? As the County Attorney’s budget climbs (> 10%), Carlton County Watch examines the missing question in the annual budget debate: what would happen if county government were required to cut costs instead of automatically increasing them?

Carlton County commissioners say the proposed 9.02% levy increase needs to come down — and Commissioner Dan Reed says the County must “grow somehow.” But what does economic growth actually look like in Carlton County? Just weeks after unanimously approving a one-year pause on data-center development, the Board now faces a larger question: if expanding the tax base is part of the answer to rising property taxes, what industries and investments is the County prepared to welcome? Carlton County Watch looks beyond the slogans and asks where the economic-development strategy is.

This November, Minnesotans will vote on a constitutional amendment involving one of the state's largest — and least understood — public assets: the approximately $2.4 billion Minnesota Permanent School Fund.

Created from lands granted for the support of public schools, the fund has grown for generations through timber, mineral royalties, land transactions and investment returns. Today, its principal is constitutionally protected as “perpetual and inviolate forever,” while investment income helps support every public school district and charter school in Minnesota.

The 2026 amendment would change that framework. If approved, Minnesota would move toward a modern endowment model that distributes 4.5% of the fund's three-year average value, while requiring the fund's purchasing power to be preserved for future generations.

So what exactly is the Permanent School Fund? Where did its billions of dollars come from? How is the money used today? And what are Minnesotans gaining — and changing — under the proposed amendment?

Carlton County Watch takes a closer look at the history, money and constitutional language behind one of the most consequential questions on Minnesota's 2026 ballot.

Carlton County approved $327,900 in State Affordable Housing Aid for a five-home development in Barnum and told commissioners that the homes would carry an 80% income restriction. But newly released County records still leave some of the most important questions unanswered: Who qualifies to buy the homes? What will they cost? Must buyers occupy them? Can they later be rented or quickly resold? And what document actually makes the affordability requirement enforceable?

Carlton County Watch reviewed the latest production and found an extensive paper trail surrounding the project — but the mechanics behind the promised affordability protections remain unclear. We are now seeking the missing agreements, eligibility rules, resale restrictions, recapture provisions and other records that should show exactly how the public's investment will be protected.

Carlton County is considering a 9.02% property-tax levy increase for 2027 — an additional $3.21 million over the 2026 levy. Commissioners will discuss the preliminary budget during a special 4:00 PM meeting today, with the preliminary levy scheduled to be set September 28. Carlton County Watch takes a first look at where the money is going and the questions taxpayers should be asking.

The Carlton County Sheriff’s current policy says personnel complaints and inquiries should be documented in a tracking log — and that the log should undergo an annual audit. Following earlier reporting on the Michael Soderstrom matter, public-data requests are now seeking the complaint logs, historical policies, audit reports, and records of outside or criminal-investigation referrals. With Sheriff Kelly Lake’s retirement approaching, Carlton County Watch is asking a simple question about the accountability system the next sheriff will inherit: What do the records show?

Eight years after former Carlton County Deputy Mike Soderstrom was disciplined following a threatening off-duty confrontation at the Third Base Bar, a major question remains unanswered: Was his conduct ever reviewed as potential criminal conduct at all?

Carlton County Watch asked Sheriff Kelly Lake for records documenting any criminal investigation, charging review, prosecutorial referral, declination, or decision not to pursue criminal review. Lake’s September 4 response was striking: her office found “no data responsive” to the request. Lake is retiring at the end of her term, leaving Carlton County voters to select a new sheriff.

The records do not establish a cover-up or prove that Soderstrom committed a crime. But they raise a fundamental accountability question: When potentially criminal conduct is alleged against one of law enforcement’s own, who makes sure the allegation receives the same scrutiny that would apply to everyone else?

Barnum has now confirmed that Tracts 2 and 5 were transferred to Ideal Homes on August 25, 2026. The City says the project will cost Barnum “ZERO,” yet the land itself was the City’s contribution — and Barnum says it will impose no liens or affordability rules beyond ordinary zoning. The land has changed hands. The bigger question now is whether the public subsidy will remain affordable housing — or eventually become private gain.

Barnum promised answers about its five-home housing development and transfer of public land to Ideal Homes. A month later, the public is still waiting. Instead of answering questions about land value, affordability, subsidies, and taxpayer protections, the City sent Carlton County Watch a data-request form — along with a policy dated 2011. The paperwork arrived. The answers did not.

“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10. More than two centuries later, that lesson remains essential. State Rep. Jeff Dotseth is free to condemn vulgar political speech — and the protesters are free to criticize him. Courtesy may be a virtue, but it is not a constitutional prerequisite. The First Amendment protects Americans precisely when their words, ideas and gestures make others uncomfortable. The Constitution is not an etiquette manual. It protects both sides.

A billion-dollar AI campus is obviously a data center. But what about a local business with a dedicated server room? A township computer facility? Your home office? An existing operation that simply adds more servers? Carlton County’s new moratorium may be written far more broadly than its stated purpose suggests — and the wording raises questions that deserve answers.

Carlton County Watch asked to inspect the public records showing what Carlton County Commissioners actually receive in salary, per diems, reimbursements, benefits, and other taxpayer-funded compensation. More than a month later, no responsive records have been produced — and the County now says it may need another 30 days. Taxpayers pay the bills. Why are they still waiting to see the records?

Nearly a month after the Carlton County Sheriff’s Office promised a data requester a “timely” response to a Minnesota Government Data Practices Act request seeking public employee complaint and disciplinary records, no records, inspection date, timeline, or substantive explanation have been provided. Minnesota law requires government not only to respond to data requests appropriately and promptly, but also to maintain its records so they are “easily accessible for convenient use.” Twenty-eight days later, the public is still waiting — and asking why.

Moose Lake says it saved approximately $150,000 after eliminating its police department and contracting with the Carlton County Sheriff's Office. But with the Sheriff's contract now exceeding $637,000 annually, four dedicated deputy positions, and unanswered questions about actual patrol coverage and County-wide backup, Carlton County Watch is asking a simple question: How much did taxpayers really save — and what did they receive in return?

Carlton County enacted a one-year moratorium on data-center development while officials study potential impacts. Environmental protection and economic development do not have to be opposing goals. Data centers are physical infrastructure supporting the digital services we use every day. The better question is not whether Carlton County should fear them — but how the County can regulate them intelligently, protect its natural resources, and remain open to responsible investment.

Carlton County Commissioners were asked to approve taxpayer-funded out-of-state travel for an assistant county attorney to attend a national conference in Texas. The training may be worthwhile — but the County’s request omitted something fundamental: the anticipated cost. When public money is being spent, taxpayers deserve more than a generic justification. They deserve a price tag.

Carlton County's own 2050 planning records show residents specifically asked to preserve the “County Road 4 organic corridor.” Months later, the preliminary future-land-use plan identified County Road 4 for Regional Commercial development. Carlton County Watch examines the public record and asks the question at the center of the controversy: How did we get from one to the other?

A Minnesota Government Data Practices Act inspection access request was made upon the Carlton County Attorney’s Office for public records that could answer serious questions about Assistant County Attorney Amy Voss, potential conflict screening, and the dismissal of State v. Leonard Simich. More than two weeks later, County Attorney Jeffrey Boucher has produced no responsive data and offered no estimated completion date — despite Carlton County’s own policy directing officials to tell requesters approximately how long production will take. The requested records may vindicate the County, reveal problems, or show that no review occurred at all. But until the County produces the public data, the public is left with one answer: “Your request is in process.”

Eight years after former Carlton County Deputy Mike Soderstrom was formally reprimanded following corroborated threatening conduct at the Third Base Bar, one critical question remains unanswered: was the incident ever reviewed as potential criminal conduct? Carlton County Watch asked the Sheriff’s Office for the records. The request was acknowledged July 30. As of August 14, no responsive data have been produced. And another question now follows: would an ordinary citizen have been treated the same way?