I attended the March 31, 2026 Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.
All commissioners were present.
The first agenda item was “1st Public Hearing – Wavy Leaf Dr.”
A gentleman from the neighborhood was requesting that the stop sign at Wavy Leaf Drive and Y Road be replaced with a yield sign. He has parked near the existing stop sign and observed that the majority of the drivers don’t actually stop at the sign. He felt like the stop sign was “setting people up” to not stop for it and a yield sign would better reflect what drivers were actually doing at that intersection.
Several people spoke against the proposed change. They felt that many drivers did stop at the sign and the stop sign was needed because of the excessive speed people are using on Y Road in the vicinity of that intersection. They argued that the county shouldn’t remove a stop sign just because drivers supposedly weren’t stopping at it.
One resident pointed out that Y-intersections were inherently dangerous. In his opinion, it would be much safer to convert Y-intersections into T-intersections with a stop sign. It was also proposed that the county should paint a limit line for the stop sign. Another resident noted that the dangers associated with the other various yield signs along the road were made even worse when the tourism months bring new visitors into the area who are in a hurry and less familiar with the roads.
The second agenda item was “Road & Bridge Spring Bid Openings- Tires & Engineering/Surveying.”
Presiding Commissioner Skelton mentioned there was an addendum to the Hot in Place Road & Bridge bid from the previous meeting that allowed other counties in the area to also use that bid estimate for their roadwork. This addendum was approved by the Commission.
(I know what you’re thinking. “Wait a second, Gadfly. What previous meeting? Well, the previous meeting consisted of dozens upon dozens of Road & Bridge bid openings for fascinating items like metal culverts and vehicle fluids. Just because I tortured myself sitting through it in the faint hope that something interesting might happen doesn’t mean I have to subject my loyal readers to such tedium.)
The Commission tabled the four tire bids so the Road and Bridge Administrator could review them.
There were engineering and surveying bids from Alpha Engineering, Cochran Engineering and the Howe Company.
The Commission tabled the engineering and surveying bids so the Road and Bridge Administrator could review them.
The third agenda item was “Road & Bridge Spring Bid Awards – Tabled bids from 3/24/26.”
Presiding Commissioner Skelton explained that these were the bids that were tabled from the previous meeting (see comment above).
Capital’s bid for Asphalt Overlay was recommended for acceptance because it was cheapest per ton.
Commissioner Dougan inquired if this bid was for a certain road?
The Road and Bridge Administrator told him it was for Big Island Drive. This seemed to pique Dougan’s interest. (Cue dark, rumbling thunder. Foreshadowing)
The Commission accepted the Road Grater Blade bids from Cat and Martin Equipment based on the recommendation of the Road and Bridge Administrator.
The Commission accepted Sign bids from Vulcan and Wellborn based on recommendations from the Road and Bridge Administrator.
All Rock bids were accepted by the Commission based on varying quarry locations and rock quality.
Presiding Commissioner Skelton returned to the Asphalt Overlay bid for Big Island Drive and moved to accept Capital’s bid for the project.
Commissioner Dougan stated, “It’s a No for me.” He was concerned the project would cost $600,000. He had issues with the fact that the county had not done work on other roads, including roads that were not on the road survey. He mentioned that the county had spent money on Old Morgan Road two years ago. He questioned why the county was spending money on new road projects? He felt the money would be better used on other roads.
He suggested putting chip seal on Big Island Drive instead.
Presiding Commissioner Skelton asked the Road and Bridge Administrator if Big Island Drive was previously on the list for overlay? He responded that it had been on the list for cape seal, but its quality rating had declined 20 points from the 2020 road survey to the 2024 road survey.
Commissioner Dougan asked if it there was anything they could do to hold Big Island Drive together while they worked on other roads? He was told by the R&B Administrator that they could cape seal or chip seal pretty much any road to delay its deterioration..
John Beckett, the Chairman of the Camden County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC), asked if he could speak?
Beckett stated he and other members of the CCRCC live on Big Island Drive. He asserted that Commissioner Dougan’s vote against the asphalt overlay of Big Island Drive was obviously retaliation for political purposes. He said that Dougan was upset because the last agenda item for this meeting was a resolution by the CCRCC censuring Dougan for his inappropriate workplace behavior revealed by a recent investigation. Beckett said their road has been on the repair list for more than a decade.
Dougan denied that his sudden reversal was retaliation.
Commissioner Gohagan wanted to approve the Big Island Drive asphalt overlay. Gohagan pointed out to Dougan that this project had been passed by the Commission in the 2026 budget and he found it disconcerting that Dougan was suddenly against it.
Dougan defended himself by saying the project would be very expensive.
Presiding Commissioner Skelton pointed out that the county’s Road and Bridge Department has been neglected for decades. He stressed that just because they approve the bid, it doesn’t mean that they have to pay for and execute the road project.
The Commission approved the asphalt overlay bid for Big Island Drive by a 2-1 vote with Commissioner Dougan voting against it.
The fourth agenda item was “GFI Digital- Quote for Planning & Permitting.”
This was for a copier that had a lease that was ending in July 2006. The payoff and purchase cost for the copier was $2600 and they would like to purchase the copier once the lease has ended. They also proposed to lease a new printer and place the service contracts under a single vendor.
The commissioners approved this agenda item unanimously.
The fifth agenda item was “Huber & Associates- SOWs for previously approved IT needs/projects.”
Presiding Commissioner Skelton explained that they needed to update the Microsoft software on the county’s servers and place the county systems in compliance with Microsoft standards. The cost was $42,228.93 for three years. Another additional software license bid was for $8,932.
These expenditures were approved unanimously.
The sixth agenda item was “Signing Order for Payout of $15,000.00 from TCLA funds to Camdenton RIII.”
This was from a prior meeting wherein the Commission approved $15,000 from the TCLA funds to reimburse Camdenton School District for allowing a baseball tournament to use its baseball fields for night games.
The County Attorney asked them to table it because he noticed there was an error on the order.
The seventh agenda item was “Request for Surplus Funds.”
The refund was for $67,340.72. It had been approved by the County Treasurer and the County Attorney.
This item was approved unanimously by the Commission.
The final agenda item was “”Presentation of Censure Resolution of Commissioner Dougan by Camden County Republican Central Committee.”
John Beckett, the Chairman of the CCRCC, again spoke before the Commission. He explained that he has served for 16 years on the CCRC with two terms as the Chairman. The CCRCC has seldom censured anyone and rarely has a unanimous vote on resolutions.
The CCRCC resolution unanimously asked for Commissioner Dougan’s resignation and requested that he reimburse the county for the cost of the investigation into Dougan’s actions. Beckett noted that the investigation was very clear that Dougan had retaliated against a whistleblower. He pointed out that Dougan had once again retaliated against members of the CCRCC in the middle of this actual meeting by voting against their road asphalt overlay. Beckett reiterated that Dougan should pay back the $15,000 the county spent to investigate his actions.
Stacy Shore, the Vice Chair of the CCRCC, said she was at the meeting to speak on behalf of the women of Camden County. She called Dougan “disgusting” for texting someone about someone else’s stamina in bed and their sexual prowess. She found it embarrassing and a stain on the county that Dougan had been discussing the size of women’s breasts in the workplace. She was concerned that Dougan might retaliate and intimidate the Road and Bridge Administrator if he suggested the department should do roadwork on Big Island Drive. Shore was concerned that Commissioner Dougan’s actions had placed Camden County in a legal situation where it was vulnerable to a retaliation lawsuit.
Commissioner Dougan responded that he had no other comment other than to say, “I’m not going to step down.”
Jeff Shore spoke before the Commission. He mentioned that he was really surprised that Commissioner Dougan suddenly raised these issues with Big Island Drive and felt it did seem like retaliation against them for the CCRCC’s censure resolution. Shore pointed out that Beckett and the Shores all live on the front of the road so if Dougan intended to retaliate against them, he was actually doing much more damage to all of the other families who live further down that road.
John Beckett informed the Commission that all of the sexual harassment/workplace retaliation documents have been collected and filed with the Attorney General.
One member of the audience added that if Dougan had been a teacher or some other occupation, he would have been fired for his behavior.
And that was that.
For those who weren’t aware, there was a a Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Investigation that was recently completed by an outside attorney at a cost of $15,000. I’ve attached the attorney’s report to this article.
According to the investigation, Commissioner Dougan texted a female county employee with the intent to set her up on a date with his friend. He later told an inappropriate story in the office about a strip club to this woman and another female county employee. The employees informally reported these issues and asked if they could be addressed. Commissioner Dougan was notified by another commissioner that there had been complaints regarding his behavior and Dougan was informally counseled by that same commissioner about his actions.
It is actually a great thing to have employees who have enough confidence in the organization that they feel like they can bring up an issue informally and it will be addressed. What you absolutely do not do in this situation is turn around and start retaliating against that employee. Guess what happened?
The first female employee felt that after he was made aware of her complaint, Commissioner Dougan began retaliating against her. And guess what happened next? She filed a formal complaint with Human Resources.
According to the investigation, Commissioner Dougan gave the complainant’s supervisor two disciplinary write-ups a few weeks after Dougan was counseled by his fellow commissioner. Other interviewed employees stated that Commissioner Dougan mentioned a “three strike” and then termination policy. Complainant became afraid that Commissioner Dougan was attempting to terminate her supervisor so she could then be terminated by the Commission.
The Complainant and her supervisor moved their offices from the Commission Office to the courthouse to minimize contact with Commissioner Dougan. Incredibly, Dougan told the investigator during his interview that he also intended to move his office from the Commission Office to the courthouse.
My assessment of the investigation is that the comments and actions of Commissioner Dougan were inappropriate and unprofessional, but the most disturbing aspect of what transpired are the efforts Dougan allegedly took to retaliate against the complainant and her supervisor. When you are a boss, there is an unequal power relationship that exists between you and your employees that makes retaliation much more significant. Frankly, as long as Commissioner Dougan remains in office, he puts Camden County at substantial risk for a hostile workplace lawsuit.
The best conclusion comes from the investigative report itself:
“In sum, a judge or jury would likely find by a preponderance of the evidence (more probable than not) that the accused Commissioner’s actions against the legal department after February 2nd constitute retaliation and were a pretext for attempting to get Complainant’s supervisor and then Complainant fired. A judge or jury would likely conclude that there was a causal relationship between Complainant’s complaint of sexual harassment and her supervisor’s role in counseling the accused Commissioner on February 2nd, as well as the accused Commissioner’s actions towards Complainant and her supervisor thereafter. Finally, a judge or jury would likely find that Complainant’s sexual harassment complaint and her supervisor addressing her complaints were the motivating factor in the accused Commissioner’s targeting and intimidation of the legal department, which resulted in a hostile, intimidating, and abusive work environment.
In conclusion, while it is a very close call whether a judge or jury would ultimately conclude that the text message and strip club story constitute actionable sexual harassment under Missouri law, the retaliation claim is not a close call. A judge or jury would likely find that the accused Commissioner retaliated against Complainant and her supervisor by creating an abusive, intimidating, and hostile work environment because Complainant reported the sexual harassment and her supervisor addressed it.”
Among the Dogwoods 