By April Rodgers, Content Coordinator | FreeWire—Your News, Your Voice
The Crawford County Board of Elections voted 3‑0 Monday—with one member abstaining—to dismiss the residency challenge filed against Bucyrus Law Director Brandon Gobrecht. The board determined that Gobrecht maintains legal residence at his Southern Avenue home, citing his intent to return after renovations and several other supporting factors presented during the hearing.
Background
The challenge was brought forward by Council President Kurt Fankhauser, who alleged that Gobrecht no longer met the city’s residency requirement due to his temporary relocation. However, multiple sources believe the complaint was part of a broader effort to discredit both Gobrecht and Councilwoman Clarissa Slater.
Those familiar with the situation believe Fankhauser’s goal was to have Gobrecht and Slater classified as domestic partners, laying the groundwork for a potential ethics complaint. In May, Slater voted in favor of a manpower resolution that included a raise for the law director—an action Fankhauser has since publicly criticized. A domestic partnership label could have created a perceived conflict of interest tied to that vote.
The Hearing
The hearing began at 9 a.m. Monday at the Board of Elections headquarters inside the Crawford County Courthouse and wrapped up shortly after 1:30 p.m. It drew a large crowd, including subpoenaed city employees, legal representation, and residents from both sides of the debate.
Attorney Benjamin Thompson was present on behalf of the city to represent subpoenaed employees, including Councilman Chris Mauritz, Inspector Gordon Grove, Water Distribution Supervisor John Ernsberger, and Councilwoman Clarissa Slater. Thompson was filling in for Gobrecht due to the conflict, billing the city $250 per hour. With Gobrecht also being paid for his time at the hearing, and several municipal court cases continued or dismissed as a result of his absence, the challenge came at a notable financial cost to a city already operating in the red.
Fankhauser opened the proceedings by taking the witness stand himself, rather than giving a formal opening statement. He testified that on May 1, he began noticing Gobrecht’s vehicle parked at Slater’s residence. He claimed to have taken roughly a dozen photographs. When Gobrecht asked why such pictures were taken, Fankhauser responded that it was to “accurately document things.”
Gobrecht then delivered an opening statement in which he framed the hearing as a political hit job rather than a sincere concern over residency.
“Fankhauser despises my girlfriend,” he said, referring to Councilwoman Clarissa Slater. “This is nothing more than dirty politics. He has a delusional obsession.”
He told the board the complaint had little to do with voting eligibility and everything to do with a personal vendetta. Gobrecht described a past interaction in which Fankhauser allegedly told him he could “either be on the side of the righteous, or the coverup.” Gobrecht said he took that as a threat—and that if he did not comply with the council president’s demands, retaliation would follow. Monday’s hearing, he said, was a direct result of that retaliation. He added that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern in which Fankhauser goes after people who won’t do what he wants.
Following Gobrecht’s statement, Fankhauser began calling witnesses. His list included Councilman Chris Mauritz, Inspector Gordon Grove, Water Distribution Supervisor John Ernsberger, Greg White, Logan Beeman, Sam Caldwell, and Randy Scheffler. Councilwoman Clarissa Slater was also called to testify last. One witness—Zack Slater, Clarissa Slater’s estranged husband—was not present and had not been successfully served a subpoena.
The first to testify was Randy Scheffler, Slater’s father and the owner of the property in question. When asked whether Gobrecht was allowed to stay there, Scheffler responded that it was up to his daughter to permit.
From the outset, Fankhauser’s questioning strayed into personal and inappropriate territory. Early in the hearing, he asked Councilman Mauritz whether Slater’s children listened to Gobrecht. When later asked about that line of questioning, Fankhauser said he was trying to determine if the kids thought of Gobrecht as a potential stepfather.
The implication caused discomfort in the room, as it became increasingly clear that Fankhauser was attempting to use Slater’s kids to cast doubt on Gobrecht’s residency. Crawford County Prosecutor Matt Crall quickly intervened, steering the hearing back on track and reminding all parties that this was about residency—not kids.
Later, near the end of the hearing, Fankhauser again veered into personal territory—this time asking Slater whether Gobrecht did chores around the house. The question drew disbelieving laughter from the audience and prompted some Board of Elections members to shake their heads at the tone the hearing had taken.
While audience members largely appeared in support of Gobrecht, Fankhauser had one visible ally in the crowd: former Councilwoman Carolyn Shireman.
Among the factors the Board of Elections considered:
- Gobrecht’s continued ownership of the Southern Avenue home
- His stated intent to return to the property once renovations are complete
- Voter registration and utility records that aligned with his claim of legal residency
- The fact that he receives mail at the E. Southern Ave. address
While Gobrecht was discussing that he received his mail at E. Southern Ave., Board member Carol Miller remarked during the hearing, “If he’s getting his mail at that address, I have no problem with him voting from that address.”
The board then deliberated and came back with a verdict: they had voted 3–0 to dismiss the challenge. One member abstained, explaining she is a third cousin to Councilwoman Slater and had been close with Slater’s mother while growing up. She said she did not want her vote to be interpreted as biased.
Fankhauser was not there for the verdict to be read, even though he had been called twice.
Gobrecht Reacts
Following the vote, Gobrecht provided a pointed statement to FreeWire:
“I said when I began this, I don’t respond well to threats, blackmail and intimidation. I knew something like this was going to happen. However, it doesn’t matter, what is right is right and what is law is law—and the council president picked a fight outside his weight class this time."
Fankhauser’s Response
FreeWire reached out to the council president, but the request for a statement went unanswered.
Public Reaction
After FreeWire posted an update following the hearing, public response was swift and largely condemning. Multiple commenters demanded that Fankhauser personally reimburse the city for the cost of the proceedings, calling the challenge “politically motivated” and “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
The irony was not lost on many: a council president who has repeatedly lambasted his colleagues for what he describes as reckless spending had just cost the city thousands over what many viewed as a sham complaint fueled by personal grudges and attempts to weaponize people’s private lives—particularly their kids.
What’s Next
With the challenge now dismissed, Gobrecht remains eligible to vote in Bucyrus elections using his address at 1116 E. Southern Ave., without any residency dispute interference. While the outcome does not impact his current role directly, it marked a public and costly escalation in ongoing tensions inside city government.
It remains to be seen whether Fankhauser will pursue additional action, including the rumored ethics complaint. FreeWire will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as they emerge.
