The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors on Monday, March 2nd, postponed a decision on removing a current Board of Health member who has been living in Israel since August 2025.
The discussion centered on William “Bill” Bingham, who was appointed a little more than a year ago at the beginning of 2025, now in his second year of his three-year term. Bingham has participated in meetings remotely via Zoom since leaving the country approximately seven months ago.
Agenda items over the past two weeks show a shift in how the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors approached potential changes to the Board of Health.
On Monday, February 23rd, the only related agenda item read: “Discuss and consider appointment of Steve Burgmeier to the Board of Health.” During that meeting, supervisors discussed the possibility of expanding the Board of Health from five members to seven. Adding Burgmeier would have increased the board to six members, and supervisors noted they could then appoint an additional member to bring the total to seven in order to maintain an odd number and avoid potential 3-3 tie votes. At that time, there was no discussion of removing or replacing any current board members.
By contrast, the Monday, March 2nd agenda included three separate items: “Discuss and consider composition of Jefferson County Board of Health and possible expansion of Board of Health from the current 5 seat composition;” “Discuss and consider removal of Board of Health member and sending a letter;” and “Discuss and consider appointment of Steve Burgmeier to the Board of Health.” The addition of the removal item marked a significant change from the previous week’s discussion, formally introducing the possibility of dismissing a current board member rather than simply expanding the board.
The supervisors voted to unanimously keep the Board of Health at five members, then moved into discussion about potentially removing Bingham and appointing Steve Burgmeier.
Background on Bingham’s Move
Bingham and his wife, Linda, relocated to Israel in 2025. An article in The Jewish Star reported that “Linda and William Bingham followed their son, a professor at the Technion in Haifa, who made aliyah on the last Nefesh charter flight before the war.”
The article described their move as part of a Nefesh B’Nefesh charter flight carrying 225 new immigrants.
While visiting their son during the war, Linda Bingham told the publication, “We never experienced a community where I felt so welcome and so safe and so looked after, total strangers trying to help us.”
According to the article, William Bingham, who has worked in information technology across industries and has also taught, hopes to teach in Israel. Linda Bingham said her dream job would be working with Nefesh B’Nefesh helping new immigrants.
Bingham previously lived in Fairfield for 15 years. Environmental Health Specialist Jerry Leonard said Bingham still owns property in Jefferson County and had previously indicated he planned to return after visiting his son. However, supervisors noted the property is currently listed for sale.
Bingham has continued to participate in Board of Health meetings remotely via Zoom since departing for Israel in August 2025.
Residency Question Raised
Supervisor Joe Ledger placed the item on the agenda, stating he had investigated the situation and determined Bingham should no longer serve on the board.
“We have a board member that is no longer a resident of this county, and I’ve done a lot of digging and stuff, and because he is not in this county, he should no longer be on this board,” Ledger said. “We have the right to remove anybody we want without just cause, but the cause I am looking at is because he no longer lives in this county.”
Supervisor Susie Drish questioned whether the county had ever had a committee member who didn’t live in the county or state. Supervisors Lee Dimmitt and Ledger said they couldn’t recall anyone who wasn’t a resident of the county serving on a county board.
Due Process Requirements
Assistant County Attorney Ed Kelly, who was not informed of the agenda item beforehand, advised the board on some legal requirements for removing an appointed official.
Kelly explained that while board members serve at will and can be removed without specific cause, state law requires due process—including written notice of reasons and an opportunity for a hearing.
Kelly reviewed a dismissal letter prepared by Ledger and advised against immediate action, recommending the board give notice, set a hearing date, and then take action.
Under Iowa Code 331.321, individuals appointed to county boards serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and may be removed by written order. The statute requires that the removal order state the reasons for dismissal and be filed with the county auditor, with a copy sent by certified mail to the member. The member then has the right to request a public hearing within 30 days of receiving the notice. A public hearing is not automatic; it is held only if the member chooses to request one.
Public Health Director Speaks Out
Public Health Director Chris Estle provided extensive insight into the issue and the challenges of her position serving two separate governing bodies.
When asked for her opinion, Estle explained the background of the residency question.
“Well, it’s been discussed at the Board of Health meeting. I’m not a board member. I’m just the Public Health Administrator,” Estle said.
“I wrote a policy on behalf of the Board of Health at Kristy’s request, my chair of the Board of Health’s request, because she’d had a conversation with Chauncey,” Estle said, referring to County Attorney Chauncey Moulding. “In my 18 years of being at the Public Health Department, we’ve never had a board member not live and reside within the county. It’s not in code anywhere. It just says legal residence, I think, or something like that. Well, you can have a legal residence and not be there.”
Estle explained she wrote the policy at Board of Health Chair Kristy Nystrom’s directive. The policy was discussed at the January 8th Board of Health meeting, where it was tabled, and will be considered again at the March 12th meeting.
“The issue is it’s never come before the board before. The people that have served on the Board of Health have always lived, resided, or worked within Jefferson County,” Estle said.
She noted one exception to county residency.
“Just for transparency, we have another individual that does not live in this county. That is our medical person. However, she works within the county. And it’s reflective of that in the policy that I wrote. And Elizabeth (Estey) reviewed it. And then I got a phone call from Chauncey about it. And so that’s where it sits right now,” Estle said.
Estle emphasized her role as administrator rather than board member and the difficulties of her position.
“As the public health director, I need a board that functions. It doesn’t matter who’s on my board. I just need a board that is an advocate for the health and wellness of the community. That is appointed by you three,” Estle said, referring to the Board of Supervisors. “And during my 18 years, I’ve been through numerous supervisors and numerous Board of Health members.”
She acknowledged gaps in state code regarding residency requirements.
“It’s unfortunate that there’s nothing outlined in the code. I mean, with all the stuff that’s going on at the state level. And it does reference the District Board of Health in the code. We’re not to that point yet. But some counties do function a little different than ours do,” Estle said. “So I did what I was told by my chair.”
Estle said the policy will be back on the March 12th Board of Health agenda, though she can’t predict whether it will be approved.
“I mean, well, I don’t know if they’re going to approve it or not. I mean, I can’t speak to that. I just have it available,” she said.
She then described the challenging structure of her position.
“I’m not a board member, so I go between eight people. I’m going to say this. I go between eight bosses. And it gets a little challenging. And just because I’m appointed doesn’t mean I should have to go to eight bosses,” Estle said.
She explained the power structure: the Board of Supervisors controls appointments and her budget, while the Board of Health is her direct governing body.
“You guys control the appointments, which by code is how it’s supposed to be. You guys control the bottom line of my budget, which is how it’s supposed to be because we don’t levy. The Board of Health doesn’t levy. But I’m stuck in the middle. It sucks. I’m not going to lie. Because no matter what I do, somebody somewhere is questioning something that was done or said,” Estle said.
“So I appreciate the discussion. I just want a functioning board. And I think moving forward, however that looks, whether somebody is removed from the board today or not, it’s one of those things that from this point forward, we have identified that this is an issue. So we need to fix it for the next appointment,” she said.
Application Process Suggested
When Drish asked if the county should require applications for board positions, Estle said she has made the suggestion multiple times.
“I have made the suggestion several times for the Board of Supervisors to consider this for Board of Supervisors appointed commissions or boards, to have an application process like you’re applying for a job. And then it could go to the auditor’s office. It could keep those resumes, so to speak, for a year, if you have any appointments come,” Estle said.
“Because you never know. Things happen. People choose to resign. People, unfortunately, die. And you have to have another appointment midterm for somebody. I mean, I don’t know, but I just know that that’s why it got brought up,” she said.
“And I know we have Zoom, but we’ve never had this issue happen before, and it’s not outlined in the code or the rules. So that’s how I see it,” Estle said.
Chain of Command Clarification
When Drish expressed concern that Board of Health members weren’t notified about the proposed removal, Estle clarified her role and reporting structure.
“Okay, I’m going to say this again. It’s not my responsibility to go between two boards. I’m the Public Health Director. If you have something you want to say to the Board of Health, Joe is our appointed liaison to the Board of Health. So if I need something or need to talk about something, I go to Joe because he’s the appointed Board of Supervisors liaison to the Board of Health,” Estle said.
She explained her communication practices.
“Kristy’s my chair. Jim (Schwarz) is my vice chair. I usually try to go through the right chain of command. I very rarely send an email to all the Board of Health members because if I do, I send it individually because I don’t want to get in trouble for an open meeting violation and have them accidentally reply. So I send it individually to the Board members. So that’s where I’m at,” Estle said.
“I am not a Board member for anything, but I directly report to the Board of Health. They are my governing entity. They are my appointing entity or unappointing entity. And my Board is appointed by the three of you or whoever is currently a supervisor. So that’s where I see it. You asked, so I shared my opinion,” she said.
Personal Perspective on Residency
Estle also offered her personal view on the residency question.
“This is just me personally. If I didn’t reside in a county, or work in a county, I wouldn’t have a vested interest in that county,” Estle said. “Because when you’re not in the county, you don’t know everything that’s going on in the county, or you’re not connected to the people of which you are making their health and wellness a priority.”
Performance Not in Question
Environmental Health Specialist Jerry Leonard spoke in support of Bingham’s service, noting he has been engaged in environmental health issues and participates regularly via Zoom.
“He has been very good about being engaged in the environmental health issues,” Leonard said. “I do think that he has a lot of concern about our public citizens and their health, and also the residents of our county.”
Leonard also noted that Bingham still owns property in Jefferson County and had indicated plans to return after visiting his son.
Debate Over Standards
Dimmitt acknowledged Bingham owns property in the county but noted it’s currently for sale and that Bingham has been participating via Zoom since September—approximately seven months.
“The individual is not currently residing in the country and is not physically present,” Dimmitt said. “To be sure, Zoom is available. And as far as I know, the individual has participated in every meeting. I’m not disputing that.”
Drish raised concerns about how the proposed removal was handled, saying members of the Board of Health were not notified in advance that one of their colleagues could be dismissed.
“Nobody on the Board of Health knew about this,” Drish said. “He should have been afforded that same opportunity. You know, if you’re going to kick somebody off, do it to their face.”
Drish said she had been told the previous week that no board members had been informed before the item appeared on the supervisors’ agenda. Supervisor Joe Ledger responded that he had since contacted some members, though the timing of that outreach was unclear.
Drish also cautioned against setting a precedent, warning that removal authority should not be used loosely or without consistent standards.
“I would hate for this to turn into something people just do for retribution or be petty in replacing people,” she said.
“What are you talking about? He doesn’t live in the country,” Ledger replied.
What’s Next
After discussion, Ledger said he consulted with Kelly and agreed to set a public hearing.
“We’ve come to the conclusion that we should set a public hearing and discuss this in a public hearing to give that individual an opportunity to speak before we dismiss,” Ledger said. “This was advised by the county attorney.”
Dimmitt said it makes sense to wait and see if the Board of Health adopts a residency policy at its March 12th meeting.
“If the Board of Health adopts a policy, it does somewhat change the dynamic,” Dimmitt said. “However, with all due respect to all involved, I still have concerns about having people on a board that are not residents of the county or in particular, in the country.”
The supervisors will set a date for the public hearing at their next meeting on Monday, March 9th. The hearing will likely be scheduled for March 23rd, as state law requires two weeks’ notice.
Bingham attended Monday’s supervisors meeting via Zoom but did not speak during the discussion.
