Counties discuss electing coroner

DAVENPORT —County Commissioners in Lincoln and Adams Counties are opposed to their counties holding an elected coroner position.

Commissioners from the neighboring counties met here Monday, Feb. 26 to discuss House Bill 1326. The bill was passed in 2021 and discusses coroners and medical examiners.

Two sections of the bill take effect Jan. 1, 2025. Section 4 states that every county should have an elected county coroner, except in counties with less than 40,000 residents.

There, the county legislative authority may determine that no coroner shall be elected.

That’s a decision both Lincoln County Commissioners Jo Gilchrist, Scott Hutsell and Rob Coffman and Adams County Commissioners Dan Blankenship, Jay Weise and Mike Garza agree upon, noting the expense of another elected position to the county.

Presently, the Prosecuting Attorney in both counties act as Coroner, or ex-officio Coroner in Adams County.

Adams County Prosecuting Attorney Randy Flick said he interpreted the statute to be that “you have an elected coroner if you do nothing.” The Auditor’s Office would have to open the office for election this May if the Commissioners went that route.

“Doing nothing is not the best option,” Lincoln County deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ty Albertson said.

“If we pass a resolution that Lincoln and Adams County are not going to elect a coroner, that keeps us safe for a while,” Coffman agreed.

Blankenship concurred.

“That means our county auditors don’t have to put it on the ballot,” he said. “We need to actively prevent that from happening.”

Who would be appointed Coroner will be left to the Commissioners to decide in coming months. Some ideas tossed Monday included a shared full-time or part-time employee, or an employee of one county offering contracted services to the other county.

Any appointed coroner will need to undergo training and receive certification.

“We’d probably need to set up a staff person at some level with office space in Davenport or Ritzville,” Blankenship said. “We could move this person back and forth (and send them) to any trainings they need to go to.”

Both Boards and attorneys present expressed concern with keeping the Coroner position in the Prosecuting Attorney’s office.

“If you appoint a deputy prosecutor, does that create conflicts (of interest)?” Blankenship questioned. “

“A defense attorney is going to say, ‘nope, it’s tainted,’” Albertson affirmed.

Discussion also involved whether a Sheriff’s Office deputy could be appointed. Albertson said that would keep the Coroner role out of the Prosecuting Attorney’s office.

“It’s going to fall in their laps if it becomes an active death investigation anyway,” he said.

Others expressed concern that a deputy holding the Coroner role could create union conflicts and pay disputes.

Weise said he’s worried no one will want to take the job.

“I’m not sure that interest is going to stay put if you’re not an elected official,” he said.

“I think it’s going to need to be financially incentivized enough to make people deal with the 1 a.m. phone call,” Blankenship said.

Blankenship proposed a monthly meeting between a Commissioner from each county and a member of each Prosecuting Attorney’s office to discuss a future ordinance or resolution.

Coffman and Gilchrist expressed interest in further research to see if there’s an internal employee who could fill the role here.

“But if we do a joint thing, we’re doing it with you,” Coffman said.