September 10, 2026
Organized Partial Record
This is a reconstructed record based on the portions of the meeting that were successfully captured and the notes taken during the presentation. It is not represented as a complete verbatim transcript.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR POSITION
WILLIAMS’S STATEMENT:
Williams said his understanding of the county-administrator position had initially been narrower than the reality of what he is now doing.
He described the position as “all-consuming.”
He said he has routinely been working approximately 65 to 70 hours per week since beginning the job.
He questioned how sustainable that workload would be over time and joked that he would eventually need to go fishing.
He said he nevertheless loves the job and is “having a blast” learning about Lincoln County and Montana law.
He said he is trying to determine how to make Lincoln County a better place to live, attend school, recreate, and worship.
OBSERVATION:
Williams openly acknowledged that his county-administrator position is already consuming 65 to 70 hours of his time every week. So who is performing his paid job of County Elections Administrator?
That admission raises a legitimate question about whether he has sufficient time and attention to simultaneously manage a general election.
LINCOLN COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS
WILLIAMS’S STATEMENT:
Williams presented a draft, approximately four-page infographic describing what he considers some of Lincoln County’s challenges.
He said Lincoln County covers approximately 3,600 square miles.
He described it as geographically among the largest 10 to 15 percent of counties in the United States.
He placed the county’s population at approximately 22,000 people.
He said Lincoln County was around the 46th population percentile, although his comparison reportedly excluded Los Angeles County.
He identified Lincoln County’s median household income as approximately $47,143, compared with approximately $72,509 statewide.
He identified per-capita income as approximately $29,558, compared with approximately $41,700 statewide.
He said Lincoln County’s poverty rate was approximately 15.1 percent, compared with approximately 10 percent statewide.
He said approximately 13.6 percent of county residents receive SNAP benefits.
He placed unemployment at approximately 5.6 percent.
He said labor-force participation was approximately 43.7 percent in Lincoln County, compared with approximately 62.4 percent statewide.
He attributed much of the labor-force participation difference to the county’s older population.
OBSERVATION:
The information was presented in a way that left members of the community feeling that Lincoln County was being characterized as poor and under1educated.
Williams then spent considerable time emphasizing his own education, professional background, and qualifications.
The contrast came across as condescending: first describing the community by its educational and economic shortcomings, and then establishing himself as the highly educated authority in the room.
ACTING ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR POSITION
WILLIAMS’S STATEMENT:
Williams said he is the “acting election administrator.”
He described himself as a caretaker or custodian of the office while another person still officially holds the position.
He emphasized that he is not the interim election administrator and is not replacing Melanie Howell.
He said he did not want the election-administrator position.
He said he was doing work he was not hired to perform and was not particularly interested in performing.
He said the commissioners asked him to assume the responsibility.
He emphasized that he did not appoint himself.
He said he was not the elected official or politician responsible for appointing himself to the position.
OBSERVATION:
It may be technically true that Williams did not formally apply for the separate election-administrator appointment.
However, he repeatedly relied upon his education, Ohio elections experience, ballot-programming experience, and election-technology background to establish that he was qualified to hold it.
It is difficult to believe those qualifications played no role in the commissioners’ decision to appoint him.
The public is entitled to ask why Williams was selected instead of another educated and capable person who could have completed Montana’s required training and devoted focused attention to the election.
The commissioners selected someone who says he did not want the responsibility, was already working 65 to 70 hours each week, and had no certainty that he would remain in the role through the general election.
That is not a personal attack. It is a legitimate concern about stability, capacity, and continuity.
WILLIAMS’S ELECTION EXPERIENCE
WILLIAMS’S STATEMENT:
Williams described his previous work in Summit County, Ohio.
He said he served as a chief information-technology or application-systems administrator.
He described experience involving ballot programming and other technical election functions.
He referenced graduate study at the University of Akron and the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.
He emphasized that he was not a “neophyte” when it came to elections.
OBSERVATION:
Williams cannot simultaneously minimize responsibility by emphasizing that he never wanted the election-administrator position while relying on his election-related education and experience to establish his authority over it.
His technical election experience may be relevant, but technical IT experience is not automatically equivalent to comprehensive experience administering a Montana election.
Questions remain about his familiarity with Montana election law, county procedures, personnel management, public accountability, and the full statutory duties of an election administrator.
ELECTION DEADLINES AND PREPARATION
WILLIAMS’S STATEMENT:
Williams said the applicable statutory election deadlines had been met.
He said election judges would be contacted regarding whether they intended to serve.
He said the county would work to fill any election-judge vacancies.
He said that if he remained acting election administrator on Election Day, election-related calls would be directed to him.
He indicated that assistance from the Montana Secretary of State’s Office was expected. “A dedicated hotline”, to be precise in his words.
He also emphasized that conducting the election remained Lincoln County’s responsibility.
He said the state would not simply step in and take over the county’s election.
He indicated there could be serious problems if the county did not get the necessary people and procedures into place.
OBSERVATION:
The state’s availability for guidance does not eliminate Lincoln County’s responsibility to establish qualified, stable, and properly trained election leadership.
Williams acknowledged that the county must be prepared to conduct the election itself.
That makes unanswered questions about staffing, training, leadership, and continuity more, not less, important.
LENGTH AND STABILITY OF HIS APPOINTMENT
WILLIAMS’S STATEMENT:
Williams said he had no idea whether he would remain acting election administrator through the general election.
He said he nevertheless had to prepare as though he would still be in the position.
He characterized the election administrator’s role as largely ministerial(?) and governed by state and federal law.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Williams needs to address this:
“You have repeatedly said that you did not want this position and wanted it taken off your plate. How can the public be assured that the election office has stable, focused leadership through the general election?”
OBSERVATION:
Members participating in the discussion wanted that question answered directly.
The public was not wanting to know whether Williams could temporarily keep deadlines moving.
The public was wanting to know whether the election office had stable and committed leadership through the completion of the general election.
Saying that he must plan as though he will remain does not answer whether he actually expects to remain, whether a transition is planned, or who is responsible for ensuring continuity.
ELECTION-JUDGE TRAINING
WILLIAMS’S STATEMENT:
Williams discussed using online training for election judges.
He referred to Secretary of State training videos, role-specific instructional materials, and a possible local quiz or question bank.
He indicated that at least some in-person training would likely still occur.
OBSERVATION:
Amberli Emery and her husband, Derek Emery, have both served as election judges.
Their election-judge instruction involved approximately 10 hours or more of in-person training.
In-person training allows officials to confirm attendance, evaluate comprehension, answer questions, and ensure that election judges can perform their responsibilities correctly and honorably.
Moving significant portions of that preparation online raises questions about how training completion, comprehension, and competency will be verified.
CORRINA BROWN
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Williams said he wanted advice and information from the “best of the best” regarding election-administrator responsibilities and the matters requiring his attention.
In his estimation, is Corrina Brown was an appropriate person to provide that advice given her history within the community, the county, and the elections office.
He should provide an answer.
He discussed his own qualifications and training but did not directly state whether Corrina Brown had completed election-administrator training.
He did not directly state what authority or responsibilities she currently holds.
He did not directly state whether he considers her qualified to advise him about the administration of Lincoln County’s elections.
OBSERVATION:
The question is not whether Williams believed himself to be trained.
The question concerned Corrina Brown’s training, qualifications, influence, and role.
Diverting to his own credentials did not answer it.
The failure to answer does not prove that Brown is being prepared for appointment, but it leaves a legitimate and important public question unresolved.
“FLAMING ARROWS”
WILLIAMS’S STATEMENT:
Williams said he was “fielding a lot of flaming arrows.”
He described himself as pulling flaming arrows out of his back “left and right.”
He connected that criticism to the fact that he had been appointed, had not asked for the election-administrator responsibility, and had not appointed himself.
OBSERVATION:
The people asking questions are not shooting flaming arrows into Matt Williams’s back.
They are asking legitimate questions of a public official who now holds substantial authority over Lincoln County and its elections.
The public has a right to know who is managing the election, what his intentions are, how long he expects to remain, who is advising him, and whether the office has stable, focused leadership.
Questions are not flaming arrows.
Accountability is not persecution.
Public scrutiny is not a personal attack.
Williams accepted the authority of acting election administrator, regardless of whether he initially requested the appointment.
Once he accepted that authority, he also accepted the responsibility to answer reasonable public questions without treating the citizens asking them as enemies.
OVERALL OBSERVATION
Williams’s presentation revealed a continuing contradiction.
He emphasized that he did not want the election-administrator position, was not hired to perform it, was already working an extraordinary number of hours, and did not know whether he would remain through the general election.
At the same time, he emphasized his education, his political studies, his Ohio election-technology experience, his ballot-programming work, and his ability to oversee the election.
He characterized public scrutiny as “flaming arrows” while declining to directly answer important questions about Corrina Brown, election-office leadership, training, and continuity.
He also spoke about Lincoln County’s economic and educational deficiencies before emphasizing his own education and expertise.
The combined effect was pompous, arrogant, and dismissive toward the community he was appointed to serve.
The unanswered question remains:
How can the citizens of Lincoln County be assured that their election office has stable, qualified, focused, and accountable leadership through the general election?
That is not a flaming arrow.
It is a question the public has every right to have answered.
Leave a Reply