HERMANN — Gasconade County administrators might be faced in three years with the task of actively looking for someone to be the next prosecuting attorney, according to Prosecutor Mary Weston, who is eying retirement at the end of her current term in 2026 — “unless something wonderful happens,” she said.

Weston offered that observation during a conversation with the County Commission Thursday morning, noting that it appears there will be a lack of potential successors to head the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

“I’m going to be retiring some day,” she said. “You’re going to have a difficult time to replace me — not because I’m so great, but because there is no one who really wants the position.”

The prosecutor, who was attending the Commission session to talk about her effort to replace her departing part-time assistant, said the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office needs to be made “more appealing” to attract potential successors.

Weston held out the possibility that Gasconade County could join eight other counties in Missouri that currently do not have a prosecuting attorney. Those counties have to adopt cooperative agreements with other counties for prosecuting attorney services. She pointed out that in recent years Montgomery County did just that, contracting with Warren County to prosecute cases — an arrangement that she said left Montgomery County officials less than happy.

In 3rd-Class counties, the prosecuting attorney technically is a part-time position, which is why in many if not most 3rd-Class counties the prosecutor also spends time as a private practice attorney. Also in 3rd-Class counties, the prosecutor acts as the county counselor, advising the County Commission and county offices on civil matters. However, the Gasconade County Commission some time ago opted to contract with an outside attorney, Ivan Schrader, to represent it in civil matters.

There was some discussion within the Missouri General Assembly of making the position a full-time role in 3rd-Class counties, but that effort has fallen short, Weston said, adding there is “no push” taking place to convert the part-time position to a full-time job. The Missouri Legislature is entering its final month of work for the year.

But Weston told the Commission that the position will become a full-time post in 3rd-Class counties in the coming years.

“Full-time is going to come,” she said, adding that the change will be made at the ballot box if not through state legislation.

Regarding her part-time assistant, Weston is working with the Montgomery County prosecuting attorney to craft a cooperative agreement that would allow both counties to share a full-time assistant prosecutor.

The Commission endorsed her effort with her Montgomery County counterpart.

“You’ve got my support,” said Presiding Commissioner Tim Schulte, R-Hermann.

Northern District Associate Commissioner Jim Holland, R-Hermann, concurred.

“We all agree; you’ve got our backing on that,” he added.

In other matters, the Commission continues to voice concerns about standing water problems at the site of the Valentine Ford Road bridge that recently was built. A recent heavy rainstorm is the latest example of the need to remedy the problem of low-lying areas. Consulting engineering firm Archer-Elgin has agreed to take another look at the situation and consider options to correct the problem.

County administrators had thought the problem was resolved when several loads of rock were delivered and placed by county Road Department crews several weeks ago. The Commission split over who should reimburse the county for the work that cost about $17,000 — Schulte and Holland felt Archer-Elgin should foot the bill because the water problem resulted from a design flaw by the engineer who worked on the project. Southern District Associate Commissioner Jerry Lairmore wanted the county BRO (Bridge Replacement Off-system) Program to reimburse the county’s cost.

As it turned out, Archer-Elgin did not have to pay; the Missouri Department of Transportation agreed that the BRO Program would cover the cost.

However, the Commissioners declined to sign off on the “Final Acceptance Letter” for the project — a necessary document required by the state transportation agency.

“We’ve got real problems down there,” said Holland. “It’s worse than it was when we had a slab down there,” he added, referring to the low-water crossing that was replaced by the bridge.

The Final Acceptance Letter must be signed both by the Commission and Archer-Elgin. Holland said the county should not sign the document until the water problem has been resolved.

Lairmore agreed. “I don’t think I want to sign off on it until these guys are happy with it,” he said, referring to Holland and Schulte.