CMH Transition Public Hearings

This Thursday, the Board of Commissioners will be asked to approve a resolution to begin planning public hearings on transitioning Community Mental Health (CMH) from a county department to an independent authority. I want to be clear at the outset: I strongly support public input. Public hearings are essential. What I do not support is moving this process forward before the Board has the information it already requested and before the Board has determined whether conversion is even a prudent path worth considering.

Just three weeks ago, on November 21, the Board adopted a motion directing the County Administrator to return with a proactive, recommended strategy designed to minimize financial risk to taxpayers, retain quality employees during any transition, and ensure the continuation of high-quality mental health services. That strategy was to come back to the Board in January.

In addition, I stated clearly that there were two prerequisites I needed before considering any next steps:

• A full legal analysis of the risks associated with the status quo;

• An independent, third-party assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of conversion.

None of these have been provided, and it is not even clear when they will be.

The resolution before us would commit the Board to scheduling public hearings in early to mid-January. However, the actual transition materials—the draft plan, agreements, legal analysis, and cost considerations—are not scheduled for initial review until January 6, and even then they are described as being “for discussion purposes only.” In other words, we would be approving public hearings before the Board has reviewed the very documents those hearings are supposed to be about.

The public cannot weigh in effectively on abstract concepts. Meaningful public engagement requires something concrete to evaluate—draft legal agreements, a cost analysis, and a clearly articulated transition plan. Without those materials, hearings risk being performative rather than informative.

That sequence is backwards. The responsible and logical order is straightforward: first, the Board reviews the draft transition strategy, legal risk analysis, and independent cost-benefit assessment. Second, the Board decides whether conversion is a prudent option worth pursuing. Third, if it is, we invite public input on specific, tangible documents. This resolution skips directly to step three.

The justification offered for moving this quickly is that scheduling hearings now provides more notice and that the Board can always cancel them later if concerns arise. Scheduling hearings now implicitly treats conversion as the assumed path forward, despite the fact that no legal risk analysis has been shared, no independent cost-benefit review has been presented, and no evidence has been offered that conversion would improve outcomes.

If the Board simply waits two weeks—until January 6—we lose nothing of substance. Hearings could still be scheduled for late January or early February with ample public notice. There is no downside to waiting. There is no urgency here that justifies acting now; acting now increases risk instead.

This is also not a new or unexamined question. This Board has looked at CMH conversion before. The most comprehensive prior review, conducted in 2016, found no clear advantage to transitioning to an authority and identified real downsides, including higher costs and potential service disruption. That history matters because it shows this is not an emergency or a novel discovery, and it reinforces why the burden of proof is higher—not lower—before moving forward quickly.

Public engagement works best when the Board itself has first done its homework. At this point, neither the Board nor the public has draft agreements, a legal analysis, or an independent assessment to examine. Approving hearings before those materials exist does not enhance transparency but obcusres it.

I will enthusiastically support public hearings after the Board has reviewed the full draft transition strategy, received a legal risk analysis, examined an independent assessment of the pros and cons, and made a conscious, intentional determination that conversion is worth considering. This is not about slowing things down for the sake of it. It is about the Board fulfilling its fiduciary and governance responsibilities to protect vulnerable residents, support dedicated employees, and safeguard taxpayer dollars.

This resolution asks the Board to act before the facts are on the table. Our duty of care requires the opposite. For that reason, I will be voting no.

Increasing Commissioner Disclosure and Transparency

Recently, Representative Donna Steele introduced House Bill 5091, and the Legislature held its first hearing on the proposal this past December 9. The bill is a straightforward, common-sense step toward better government in Michigan. It would require county commissioners and executives in the state’s 16 largest counties to file annual financial disclosure reports—the same requirement Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved for state legislators and statewide officials in 2022. In counties like Wayne, Ottawa, Oakland, Macomb, and Kent, boards manage billion-dollar budgets, make decisions that shape development, and award major public contracts. These are positions where undisclosed conflicts of interest can have real impacts on communities.

When voters approved Proposal 1 in 2022, they made it clear that transparency is a basic expectation for anyone exercising public power. If state lawmakers must disclose their financial interests so the public can identify potential conflicts, that same principle should apply to county commissioners who wield comparable authority in Michigan’s most populous regions.

County officials make decisions on land use, economic development, procurement, public health, and infrastructure—areas where personal financial interests can easily overlap with public responsibilities. Disclosure doesn’t prevent someone from serving or from having outside business interests; it simply ensures the public can see where those interests are.

HB 5091 is intentionally targeted. It applies only to counties with more than 150,000 residents, recognizing that commissioner roles in rural counties are often part-time and volunteer-driven. The 16 affected counties represent Michigan’s major population centers, where county government is more professionalized and where the financial stakes are higher.

The bill builds on the framework established by Proposal 1, requiring disclosure of income sources, liabilities, reportable gifts, and potential conflicts. By directing the Secretary of State to create a standardized electronic reporting system, it minimizes administrative burden while ensuring consistency and public accessibility.

Some worry that disclosure requirements could deter qualified people from running for office. That concern is understandable, but it no longer reflects modern expectations. Public officials who manage substantial public resources should be transparent about their private financial interests. This is not a novel requirement: federal officials and state officials in all 50 states already comply with similar rules, and Michigan was one of the last states to adopt them for its own Legislature.

Government works best when citizens can trust it—and trust requires transparency. HB 5091 extends the reforms Michigan voters already endorsed to the level of government where decisions most directly affect neighborhoods, businesses, and everyday life.

This is responsible, good-government legislation. It protects officials by reducing the appearance of impropriety and gives citizens the information they need to hold their local representatives accountable.

Michigan took an important step with Proposal 1. HB 5091 continues that work by ensuring transparency doesn’t stop in Lansing—it reaches the county boardrooms where so many critical decisions are made.

Expanding the Housing Commission

This upcoming Tuesday, we have a discussion and hopefully a subsequent vote on reformulating the Ottawa County Housing Commission to help make it an even more robust tool to help the Board better able to look at the current Housing situation in Ottawa County and develop solutions to help increase Housing opportunity accroos the board.

The reforms include:

• Expansion of the Housing Commission from five (5) members to up to nineteen (19) members.

• Adjustment of term lengths from five-year terms to three-year terms, with staggered rotation.

• Enhanced representation across geography, demographics, and key housing sectors.

These reforms are designed to strengthen representation, accountability, expertise, and responsiveness in housing policy and implementation.

—
Rationale for Reform

1. Broader Representation and Inclusivity

A 19-member board allows for greater geographic, demographic, and stakeholder diversity. Ottawa County includes urban centers such as Holland, rapidly growing suburban townships, and rural communities—each facing distinct housing challenges.Current Limitation: A five-member board risks insufficient representation, potentially sidelining a significant portion of Ottawa County’s population seeking housing opportunities.

Reform Benefit: Nineteen seats enable proportional representation, such as one to two members per major township, plus at-large seats for tenants, nonprofits, and industry experts. This ensures decisions reflect the county’s full population of approximately 300,000 residents.

2. Enhanced Expertise and Specialized Input

Housing policy now intersects with zoning, finance, mental health, workforce development, and environmental sustainability. Current Constraint: Five members cannot reasonably possess deep expertise across all domains.

Reform Advantage: A larger board can include dedicated experts—affordable housing developers, public health officials, financial analysts, and legal advisors—without overburdening individuals. Subcommittees (e.g., Finance, Tenant Relations, Development) can operate efficiently, mirroring models such as the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

3. Increased Accountability Through Shorter Terms

Three-year terms balance continuity with responsiveness. Risk of Five-Year Terms: Longer terms can entrench incumbents, reduce urgency, and disconnect commissioners from evolving community needs.

Benefit of Three-Year Terms: More frequent appointments tie board composition to current priorities and performance. Staggered terms prevent wholesale turnover while introducing new perspectives.

4. Improved Decision-Making and Risk Mitigation

Larger boards reduce the impact of absences or conflicts of interest.

Current Vulnerability: One absence leaves only four active members—a 20% reduction in capacity.

Reform Resilience: A 19-member board maintains quorum and momentum even with several absences. Broader participation also brings a greater variety of proposals and work products.

5. Operational Efficiency and Community Engagement

Contrary to concerns about size, a 19-member board can function efficiently with modern governance tools.

Governance Tools: Robert’s Rules of Order, digital voting, and specialized subcommittees ensure structured and efficient meetings.

Public Trust: Broader participation and regular turnover enhance transparency, community trust, and volunteer engagement.

Conclusion

Expanding the Ottawa County Housing Commission to nineteen (19) members with three- year staggered terms will make the Commission more representative, expert-driven, accountable, and resilient. This structure better positions Ottawa County to address its projected housing shortage and to deliver sustainable, equitable housing solutions for all

Priorities for a Stronger Board

A few weeks ago, I posted about my candidacy for Chair next year, committing to an open agenda for all commissioners, weekly updates to the full Board, and robust communication tools to ensure timely, complete information on upcoming items and background materials.

Below are additional twelve priorities I’d pursue in partnership with the Board and Staff:

TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY

Commissioner Expenses

Propose having the Board approve our own expenses in Finance, much as we do for our mileage. This would help ensure greater transparency and accountability. There currently is no set policy on approval of commissioner expenses, which has led to a practice of the administrator approving commissioner expenses, which I believe to be an unhealthy inversion of roles.

Line-Item Budget Access

Propose that every commissioner has real-time, read-only access to the county’s budgeting system. This would enable better tracking of allocations, spending, encumbrances, and balances, as well as early identification of trends.

Agenda Release by Thursday 9 AM

Propose requiring the full draft agenda—with all commissioner items, staff reports, and backup links—be sent out no later than 9 AM Thursday for the following week’s meeting(s). This gives commissioners 5–6 full days to review.

EFFICIENCY & COLLEGIALITY

Board Committee and Commission Assignments

Keep every commissioner’s existing committee seats on Planning, Finance, and Assignment, as well as maintain Board assignments on our boards and commissions exactly as-is. Allow each committee to pick its own chair and vice chair.

Two Vice Chairs

Propose having two equal vice chairs. This would strengthen Board leadership, ensures continuity, and promotes inclusivity without adding cost or complexity.

Return to Two Meetings Per Month

Propose shifting from once-a-month meetings back to two meetings. I believe this will increase our capacity for action as well as give staff and commissioners time to prepare quality materials.

Appoint a Dedicated Parliamentarian

Propose designating a professional parliamentarian to advise on Robert’s Rules during meetings via Zoom. They would rule on procedural disputes in real-time and ensure fair speaker recognition and motion handling by taking those measures out of the Chair’s discretion.

GOVERNANCE

Dedicated “Commissioner Discussion Items” Agenda Section

Propose a permanent agenda item titled “Commissioner Discussion Items” to allow any member to introduce topics for open dialogue without requiring formal agenda amendments, thereby encouraging responses to emerging issues while preserving orderly meetings.

Quarterly Work Sessions

Propose one meeting per quarter dedicated to deep dives on major issues—no votes, just Q&A with experts. Any commissioner can propose topics.

Annual Board-Led Policy Review

Propose that the Board conduct a comprehensive review of all policies governing its operations once per calendar year, with the process distributed evenly across the full 12 months to ensure thoroughness and ongoing relevance.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Annual Resident Survey

Propose a simple 5-question digital survey every August:

• Top priority for the county

• Rate Board accessibility

• One thing we’re doing well

• One thing to improve

• Open comment

Online Public Comment Portal

Propose reestablishing a secure, county-hosted online portal for public comments, accessible via a prominent link on the county website and fully viewable by the public.

Running for Chair

Yesterday, I let my colleagues know that I would be offering myself as a nominee for the Chair position at our election in January 2026.

Although it may sound unusual for me to say this as the only Democrat on an otherwise all-Republican board, there are a few reasons why I beleive this idea makes sense:

1. As the lone Democrat, I have no built-in base of support - much less a Board majority — which means anything I do would necessarily involve all the commissioners. Listening, communicating, and collaborating would be the only way forward.

2. Having served on the Board through several different configurations and challenges, I believe those experiences give me a solid foundation to help navigate the Board’s next chapter together.

3. Over that time, I hope I’ve demonstrated consistency, fairness, and practicality — focusing on solutions and evaluating ideas based on their merit and value to Ottawa County as a whole, rather than on politics. I’ve worked to collaborate across perspectives, and I would continue to do so as chair.

If elected chair, I would commit to:

1. An open agenda: Every commissioner should be able to bring forward ideas or items for discussion and Board consideration. It’s the Board’s responsibility — not the chair’s — to determine whether an idea has merit.

2. Strong communication: Weekly updates from the chair to keep everyone informed about upcoming agenda items, background materials, and ongoing discussions.

My goal as chair would be to ensure that we act in the interests of all residents by giving each member of this Board the greatest access to information, opportunity, and resources possible. Each commissioner was elected to represent their district and their constituents — and they should be fully empowered to do that work to the best of their ability.

If you are interested in the idea of myself as Chair, please let your commissioner know, who is your representative on the County Board.

Administrative Analyst Postion

Yesterday we had a lengthy discussion about the new position being posted by the administrator. I had made a motion to require the administrator to bring that before us before filling it. That motion unfortunately failed 4-7.

I did have a number of questions regarding the position itself, but more importantly, I was and continue to be concerned with the seeming inversion of roles between the board and the administrator. The board is tasked with setting policy and providing strategic oversight, while the administrator’s role is to execute that policy and manage day-to-day operations—not to unilaterally take actions that expand administrative authority or commit resources without board approval. My motion was in large part meant to reaffirm this fundamental governance structure.

I remain concerned that this incident of not being willing to seek input on a position that supposedly is partially for the Board’s sake, nor being willing to seek approval from the Board before going through with filling it reflects a broader pattern—where operational decisions are being elevated to the level of policy-making without our input. I am concernend that if we continue to allow this inversion to continue, we will erode the very checks and balances that protect our organization’s integrity and push residents and taxpayers further away from control of the government that they pay to serve them.

Release of Documents

This Tuesday, the Board will vote on whether to release confidential documents drafted by Nate Wolf, the county’s HR legal representative. These documents, written roughly six months after our closed session on the separation of Jordan Epperson, offer Wolf’s retrospective perspective on the timeline and handling of that matter.

Likewise, I would support this release if it were part of a broader policy change regarding confidential documents. But if this action is not intended as a step toward updating our policy, I am deeply concerned that we would be creating an isolated exception without sound rationale. These documents, unlike the closed session minutes and audio, were not part of our decision making process.

I recognize the public’s desire for full disclosure, but true transparency is best served by consistent processes, not selective exceptions. A one-off release risks undermining fairness, setting an uneven precedent, and eroding public trust in how we handle confidentiality.

Administrator Contract

Michigan state law generally has little to say on how counties like Ottawa County can utilize the County Administrator role in the operations of their counties. It generally gives us the authority to establish and then define what we want out of our Administrator. Since establishing the role of County Administrator, we have generally stuck to the parameters that state law affords Unified Counties as found in MCL 45.558. At its heart, our prescription for the County Administrator has been found in the Responsibilities and Duties section of the Contract with our County Administrator, especially in Sections 2 and 3:

Contract excerpt, John Gibbs, January 2023

In the Contract for the incoming Administrator, Patrick Waterman, there is a substantial change in how that role is foreseen:

This is a fairly drastic re-envisioning of the role for the Administrator that I find really quite troubling. Instead of supervising County departments and department heads, with the exception of elected officials and their officers, and appointing and removing all heads of departments, with approval of the Board, the new contract foresees that the Administrator will be able to hire and fire ALL County employees, with no Board oversight, and it is not clearly delineated that the Administrator would not have authority over elected officials.

I voted for Mr. Waterman, and believe that he will be a good administrator, but to upfront give him the outright power to hire and fire any and all employees and not to clearly spell out that the Administrator does not have authority over elected officials is frankly an invitation to future problems. I had hoped to see a set of Responsibilities and Duties that was that was even more narrowly drawn than before; this new contract goes in the exact opposite direction by granting the new Administrator expansive new powers that we have never allowed previously, and which I find damaging to the prospect for better governance in the future.

Absent significant changes, I will not be able to vote for the contract with the new administrator.

On Eliminating the Commissioner Expense Policy.

Over the past few months, I’ve shared ideas here and here for improving our Commissioner Expense and Mileage Policy to make it more transparent, flexible, and accountable. A tailored policy would ensure Commissioners can fulfill their roles—such as representing Ottawa County at conferences or engaging in professional development—while maintaining public trust through clear guidelines and reporting.

On Tuesday, we are being asked to discontinue the Commissioner Expense and Mileage Policy altogether and rely solely on the employee Purchasing and Mileage Policies. However, since the the Purchasing Policy only provides oversight for procurement procedures, and the Mileage Policy recommends the allowance of all mileage reimbursement for all Commissioners’ 'county business', these policies are simply not effective tools to address the issue of what we can and what we cannot expend funds on, or help us properly report and account to the public for those expenses. Having no dedicated policy thus risks either prohibiting basically all expenses, or eliminating all spending restrictions altogether and with no accountability whatsoever. Neither of these two extremes seem desireable.

I oppose discontinuing the policy without a replacement that ensures transparency, flexibility, and accountability. I urge us to develop a revised Commissioner Expense Policy that builds on these principles to better serve our County and constituents.

Administrator Search Update

This upcoming Tuesday, we will be voting on several items related to the Administrator Search process. The first of these is an item seeking a Closed Session to “review and consider the contents of applications for Administrator candidates.” We have had much debate about both the need and warrantability of a Closed Session; however, I believe that we have had sufficient time with the applications, both new and existing, to name our individual choices for the finalist pool. I don’t see the need for further delay for additional review and will be voting no on the Closed Session.

The second item is a motion to identify “up to 8 Administrator candidates by ballot, utilizing assigned numbers, without comments about any candidates; and for the tabulation and selection by majority vote of up to 5 candidates.” I am eager to reach the final stage of interviewing the finalist candidates, and I believe that selecting eight candidates is sufficient to create a diverse pool that is representative of the Board’s diversity.

The final motion exists, as I understand it, in case the voting process with all the commissioners does not yield positive results. I believe it most definitely will, and even if there were hiccups in the process, moving to a subcommittee to make those choices for us is not something I would support.

As I said, I am hopeful and confident that the process of selecting our finalist candidates will go well and that Ottawa County residents will have a pool they can have confidence in, from which we will be able to select a full-time administrator and close this recent period of uncertainty.

More on Commissioner Expenses.

This past Tuesday at the Finance and Administration Committee, we had a couple separate conversation here and here regarding Commissioner Expenses that I believe were productive and hopefully a launchpoint for handling Commissioner Expenses in a way that is more transparent for the public and fairer and more balanced for the Commissioners.

As I wrote a number of weeks ago, I believe the way we as Commissioners spend the discretionary dollars allotted to us lacks transparency in that we only report mileage and not the various other expenses we incur, from travel to per diem food as well as lodging. Likewise, we have no way of reporting to the public our discretionary spending that we make to attend events and to pay for our participation at community events. I believe that is an easy fix, and one that we will be looking at hopefully in September.

However, the other part that I believe we need to look at is to allow each individual Commissioner their own budget to manage and to make decisions as to how to best allocate those funds. Doing so will not only allow us to make better decisions about our own spending but also to do so in a way that doesn’t negatively impact other Commissioners and instread is more efficient and fairer to all Commissioners.

Edit - In 2010, the Board looked at this issue and came up with what I believe was an overly prescriptive solution. You can see screenshots from that discussion:

Looking at this 15 years later, having such a prescriptive lens as to which commissioners should attend which events seems unnecessary and inefficient. Simply allowing each commissioner to make their own choices with their own budgeted resources would be more efficient and fairer to all Commissioners.

Housing Commission Appointment

On the agenda for this Tuesday’s Appointment and Alignment Committee, the Committee has a suggested motion to select one (1) candidate to fill one (1) Housing Commission Member vacancy. The interview subcommittee interviewed 11 candidates for the position.

As a member of the Interview Subcommittee, I was struck by the high number of very qualified candidates who applied for the position to help us navigate the critical issues facing us in Ottawa County in the housing area. I have mentioned at various times my desire to consider reimagining the current Housing Commission to make it a larger board, with more members who could bring deeper and wider sets of perspectives, with more specialized expertise and increased geographical diversity.

Given the applications that we have received and the high-quality nature of those applicants, I think not taking this opportunity to expand the current Board, and make it more resemble the current Groundwater Advisory Board, would be a disservice to County residents, who have consistently spoken about the need for the County to work deeply on the issue of creating more Housing Opportunity throughout the county.

More on the Administrator Search

At last Tuesday’s meeting, Board leadership indicated that when applications close on August 11, we will be having a subsequent special session to examine all applications to date and at that meeting, consider a motion to enter Closed Session to review those applications. There was extensive discussion both at that meeting and at the June 4 meeting about whether we should evaluate Administrator applications in closed session or conduct the process of narrowing the applicant pool in open session. I respect and understand the merits of both perspectives.

However, given the current dynamics, I am not convinced that a closed session, if it were even permissible, would yield a truly different outcome than conducting the selection process openly. In the balance between confidentiality and transparency, with the thought that the outcome sought, namely, getting a list of 4-6 finalists, is roughly equal in both processes, I would favor the most transparent of the two routes.

I believe we should reconsider pursuing a closed session and instead opt for an open session to carry out the work of voting to select finalists to best ensure that our process is accessible to all stakeholders.

County Motto.

In January of 2023, I voted against the motto change because I believed the motto at that time ‘Where you Belong’, to be a meaningful statement which encapsulated well the sense of community that we have always striven for as Ottawa County government and was disappointed that we indeed made that change. 

I understand that many in the Ottawa County community favor the current motto. There is much to like about the current motto, with the idea of Freedom especially being a keystone of our country. However, I do believe that it has been perceived by many in the community, including myself, to be a politically charged and divisive statement, both in its implementation and subsequent usage, creating concern that it does not fully represent the broad and diverse community of Ottawa County. 

For those reasons, I will be supportive of the motion to remove the current Motto at Tuesday’s meeting. 

Commissioner Expenses..

Recently, concerns have been raised regarding commissioner travel expenses, particularly related to travel to the White House State Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. While I am unaware of the exact details and not inherently opposed to commissioners traveling to D.C. for such an event, I believe now is an opportune time to re-examine our travel and outreach budget for commissioners.

It is critical that we expend taxpayer money with transparency and accountability. We currently post all compensated mileage for public viewing and commissioner approval on our Finance agenda. I believe we should adopt a similar approach for both travel and constituent outreach spending. Furthermore, I propose that each commissioner maintain an individual budget for these expenses.

Currently, commissioner expenses in Ottawa County are pooled and not clearly delineated, which can lead to ambiguity in tracking individual spending. Individual accounts would enable precise tracking of each commissioner’s expenditures, making it easier to identify and review spending patterns. Assigning expenses to specific individuals ensures commissioners are directly responsible for their financial decisions. Transparent reporting of individual expenses would foster greater confidence among residents that funds are used appropriately. The Finance and Administration Committee could conduct quarterly reviews and commitee-level approval of all individual expense accounts, complementing our monthly approval of commissioner mileage.

While I understand this approach will entail a slightly increased administrative burden, I believe that by implementing individual budgets and transparent reporting for commissioner travel and outreach expenses, Ottawa County can offset this with enhanced accountability and public trust. These measures would ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds while maintaining clear oversight of financial decisions without significant additional burden.

More Thoughts on the Administrator Search

This past Tuesday, Chair Teeples and various members of the Board expressed a desire to pause its search for a new County Administrator for the summer, with plans to reopen the application process in August and select a candidate in late September. While not necessarily opposed to such a delay, I do think that two months without any action on providing stable leadership for Ottawa County is time not well spent.

During the meeting, I expressed a desire to pursue a Deputy Administrator hire in the interim, prior to hiring an Administrator, as I believe that may be a more manageable task for the Board, providing immediate leadership stability while we continue the Administrator search. In addition, I expressed a preference for an internal hire for both the Deputy and the Administrator positions, but especially for the Deputy position, as we have many talented individuals currently within our organization who could ably take on the Deputy role and who would leverage existing institutional knowledge, foster trust, and ensure continuity among our workforce and community and would also ensure we offer valuable Ottawa County staff members a strong career and development opportunity.

Traditionally, the County Administrator selects their Deputy, with the Board approving the choice with minimal input. However, I believe the Deputy Administrator’s role is too critical to be left solely to the Administrator’s discretion. The Deputy serves as a vital liaison between the Board of Commissioners and Ottawa County’s various boards and commissions, a function that directly impacts our governance and community engagement. This role demands someone who aligns with the Board’s vision and priorities, not just the Administrator’s. By hiring a Deputy Administrator first, the Board can ensure this position is filled by someone who strengthens our connection to county operations and stakeholders. This person could also serve as a bridge during the transition to a permanent Administrator, maintaining momentum on key initiatives.

While I understand the rationale for pausing the Administrator search to regroup after two unsuccessful attempts, I believe a proactive approach is essential. A two-month delay without progress risks further uncertainty in county leadership, which has been absent a permanent Administrator since February 2024. Instead, we should use this time to secure a capable Deputy Administrator, ideally from within our ranks, to stabilize operations and lay the groundwork for a successful Administrator hire.

Thoughts on the Administrator Search

On June 12, the Board met to interview the only remaining candidate from the initial finalist list, Michael Tremblay. It also discussed next steps for the Administrator search in broad terms. It was generally agreed that we should take a break on the process until we reconvene for our next scheduled Board meeting on June 24. Additionally, Chair Teeples urged the Board to spend some time thinking through how they might like to see the next step in the process co. In that spirit, these are some of my thoughts.

Part One: Applicant Pool

Re-engage Previous Applicants - We should reach out to prior applicants to confirm their continued interest in the role. This was generally agreed upon at the meeting by all Board members.

Repost the Opening - To attract the most diverse and qualified group of applicants, I believe reopening the job posting for a short period, such as 2–3 weeks, makes a lot of sense. This would allow new candidates to apply while giving the County a chance to broaden its outreach efforts, ensuring no talent is overlooked.

Part Two - Selecting the Finalists

We are a diverse Board, with divergent opinions. To make the task easier on ourselves, I do believe it needs to be simplified.  To do that, I believe the following makes some sense:

Remove External Ranking Systems

Double Haul has done a good job compiling initial resumes, but going further than that seemed to bring unnecessary complications. I believe they should simply provide the board with unranked candidate materials to allow for independent evaluation. This would reduce potential bias from external ranking systems and empowers us to assess candidates based on our own criteria.

Pre-Set the Number of Finalists - Avoid indecision by deciding in advance how many candidates (4-5?) will advance to the final round. A predetermined target would keep the process focused and prevent unnecessary delays.

Adopt a Numerical Voting System - To make the selection process clear and objective, implement a numerical voting system. Commissioners can vote their preferred candidates by number, with results tallied publicly to determine finalists. This approach would minimize ambiguity and ensure accountability.

Limit Discussions on Motion to Advance - If commissioners have already scored their preferred candidates, extended discussions before advancing finalists may be redundant. Limiting these conversations would expedite the process while respecting everyone’s evaluations and reduce the risk of confidential information inadvertently coming out.

Part Three - Interviewing the Finalists

Skip the Workgroup Interviews

The Workgroup interview seemed to add complexity without offering clear value. Having just our own interviews with the candidates to streamline the process. This saves time for both candidates and staff while ensuring the evaluation remains thorough.

Board Interviews - Perform our interviews with the finalists in much the same way we did with Mr. Tremblay, both for consistency and because I thought it very productive in getting to know the candidate.

Public Forum Post-Interviews - Engage the community by organizing a public forum after the board interviews finalists to allow residents to interact with top candidates, fostering transparency and building trust in the selection process.

By implementing these nine steps, or some variation on them, I believe we can create a candidate selection process that is efficient, transparent, and inclusive. Expanding the pool, re-engaging applicants, and adopting clear evaluation methods would ensure the best talent rises to the top. Let’s simplify the process without sacrificing quality—because finding the right candidate shouldn’t be harder than the job itself.

Merit and our Administrator Search

Our Board rules (3.1) clearly state that "the Board shall have the power to appoint, by majority vote of the Commissioners elected and serving, a county administrator to serve Ottawa County in accordance with governing law, provided that such administrator must serve at the will of a majority vote of the Commissioners elected and serving, and further provided that the administrator shall be a professional officer appointed and serving based on qualifications and experience and not on political affiliation (MCL 46.11)."

On multiple occasions during our Tuesday meeting, candidates’ assumed personal partisan leanings were cited as reasons to exclude them from advancing in our hiring process. I find this both concerning and in direct violation of our Board rules. Allowing political affiliation to influence our decision-making compromises the integrity of the selection process and jeopardizes our ability to appoint a county administrator who will effectively and impartially serve the needs of Ottawa County’s residents. We must adhere to the principle that our county administrator is selected based on merit, ensuring a professional and impartial administration as mandated.

Housing Commission Ordinance Amendment

On Tuesday, the Board will vote on a proposed amendment to the Housing Commission Ordinance, specifically section 400.4.2.4(b). This amendment seeks to strike the phrase “subject to the ratification of the Board of Commissioners” from the ordinance. If passed, this change would remove the Board of Commissioners’ ability to provide input on the appointment of Housing Commission members, leaving the decision solely in the hands of the chair. The Housing Commission would then need to update its bylaws to align with this change.

As a member of the Ottawa County Housing Commission appointed in 2019, I have seen firsthand the value of a transparent and collaborative appointment process. When we reconstituted the Housing Commission that year, the Talent & Recruitment (T&R) Committee was tasked with selecting the initial five members. I was fortunate to be chosen, alongside four other individuals with diverse skill sets and deep experience. The T&R committee did an exceptional job vetting applicants and presenting the Board with a strong slate of candidates. This process ensured that the public had confidence in the selections and that the Board could provide meaningful input.

The amendment proposed for Tuesday’s meeting would eliminate this collaborative approach for all Board seats. While I’m grateful for my reappointment by the Chair in 2025, I believe removing the Board’s role altogether would silence not only its voice but, more critically, the public’s ability to trust in a transparent, accountable appointment process. Although state law grants the Chair final appointment authority, it doesn’t preclude the Board from recommending candidates or engaging in the process. I do not believe that abandoning a robust, public-facing system that ensures both transparancy and accountability in the selection of candidates for this important commission is in the best interest of the Board or residents of Ottawa County

Background Checks

Prior to the start of the year, the Talent and Recruitment Committee, at some point in 2024, had placed a question on the volunteer application that read “I authorize Ottawa County to conduct a crimninal background check with the FBI, State Police, County Sheriff department and/or a consumer reporting agency for the purpose of determining my suitability fopr appointment with Ottawa County or at any time during my term of appointment”. KI objected to its placemtn at our first meeting of the Appointment and Alignment committee in 2025, and was grateful that it was removed at that time. This Tuesday, we’ll be discussing whether to reinstate mandating background checks for volunteer positions on our varied resident Boards and Commissions, whether in this form or in a different form altogether.

On principle, I am opposed to their reinstatements. I believe they’re an unnecessary invasion of residents’ privacy, especially since there’s no significant benefit to justify them. Our board and commission members don’t manage finances or have direct contact with the public, particularly vulnerable groups like youth. Their roles don’t involve the kinds of risks that background checks are meant to address. There’s also a lack of evidence tying these specific positions to any incidents that a background check would’ve prevented—why impose a blanket policy when the risk is hypothetical? We have gone decades without them and, to my knowledge, have never had an issue that background checks would have prevented. Those in favor might claim it’s about protecting reputation, but without real risks, it’s just bureaucratic overreach. Trust in volunteers, who are often community members giving their time freely, should be the default unless there’s a compelling reason to suspect otherwise.