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.

Rush Creek Brownfield TIF

On Tuesday April 22, we will be voting on a proposed Brownfield Plan Amendment for The Landings at Rush Creek. The project proposes to redevelop a 7-acre parcel, vacant since the early 2000s, into 84 one-bedroom townhomes under Michigan’s 381 Brownfield Act, totaling a not-to-exceed Tax Increment Financing (TIF) of $6,299,313 over 21 years. I voted in favor of the proposal in Finance Committee and will be voting in favor at Tuesday’s BOC for the following reasons.

The Project Addresses a Critical Housing Shortage with Affordable Units

Hudsonville has identified a specific housing need, and The Landings at Rush Creek fits that needs by committing 12 of its 84 units (14%) to households earning no more than 90% of the Area Median Income ($64,800 for one person, $74,070 for two) for the entire 21-year TIF term. This ensures affordable housing for lower- and middle-income residents, such as young professionals, seniors, or small families, who might otherwise struggle in a tight housing market. By increasing housing supply—particularly affordable options—the project helps stabilize rents and home prices, benefiting the broader community. Without this development, the site remains a missed opportunity to house dozens of families and ease pressure on Hudsonville’s housing stock.

It Revitalizes a Dormant Property

The 7-acre parcel, formerly a garden center, has sat vacant for over two decades, contributing negligible property taxes and no economic activity. Its underutilized state is a deterrent to Hudsonville’s potential and its efforts to create a vibrant downtown setting. Brownfield redevelopment often involves overcoming environmental or economic barriers that deter private investment without public incentives. By approving the TIF, Ottawa County enables the developer, LaCati Group LLC, to tackle these challenges, and ensure the site becomes a productive asset rather than a long term liability.

It Generates Long-Term Tax Revenue

While the TIF redirects $6,299,313 in incremental taxes over 21 years—including $375,915 from the county operating millage—the project’s completion will significantly boost the property’s taxable value. A vacant lot generates minimal revenue; 84 townhomes, by contrast, will create a robust tax base. After the TIF expires in approximately 2046, Ottawa County, Hudsonville, and other taxing entities (e.g., schools) will collect the full property tax revenue from this enhanced value, far exceeding what the site would yield if left undeveloped.

It Stimulates Economic Growth

The project’s economic impact extends beyond property taxes. Construction of 84 units will create jobs for local contractors, suppliers, and service providers during the development phase. Once occupied, the townhomes could house 100–150 residents, who will spend money at Hudsonville businesses, from grocery stores to restaurants, boosting sales tax revenue and supporting jobs. This ripple effect strengthens the local economy, making Hudsonville a more attractive place to live and invest. Moreover, the $514,960 allocated to the Local Brownfield Revolving Fund can seed future projects in Ottawa County, amplifying the public’s return on investment. The $501,842 to the State Brownfield Revolving Fund similarly supports redevelopment statewide, reinforcing Michigan’s commitment to growth.

It Aligns with Community Priorities

The Hudsonville City Council’s concurrence on March 11, 2025, signals strong local support, reflecting the project’s alignment with community goals. Hudsonville City leaders recognize that housing and economic development are critical to Hudsonville’s future, especially as Ottawa County grows. By approving the TIF, the county validates this local priority, fostering a partnership that ensures Hudsonville remains competitive in attracting residents and businesses. The administrative allocation of $125,688 ensures the Brownfield Authority can oversee the project effectively, safeguarding taxpayer interests.

It Mitigates Risks with a Proven Framework

Critics might worry about the TIF’s cost or the risk of project failure. However, Michigan’s Act 381 is a well-established tool designed to minimize such risks. The TIF only captures incremental revenue generated by the project itself—no taxes are diverted unless the development increases the property’s value. If LaCati Group fails to deliver, the TIF simply doesn’t materialize, protecting taxpayers from upfront losses. Furthermore, LaCati’s commitment to 12 affordable units for 21 years is legally binding under the Brownfield Plan, ensuring accountability. The modest county contribution is a low-risk investment compared to the potential upside of a revitalized site.

It Seizes a Time-Sensitive Opportunity

The alternative—leaving the parcel vacant—offers no benefits. Without TIF, private developers are unlikely to tackle a Brownfield site with potential remediation costs or economic hurdles. The land could remain idle for another decade, generating zero taxes, housing, or jobs. Approving the amendment now capitalizes on LaCati Group’s readiness to invest, Hudsonville’s housing demand, and favorable market conditions. Delaying risks losing momentum and escalating costs, as construction prices continue to rise (U.S. construction costs increased 6.7% from 2023–2024). Acting decisively ensures taxpayers reap the rewards sooner.

I believe the Landings at Rush Creek will be a positive for Hudsonville’s growth, Ottawa County’s prosperity, and taxpayer value. By approving the Brownfield Plan Amendment, the Board will be able to unlock affordable housing, economic vitality, and a stronger tax base, all while transforming an unused parcel into a community asset. The TIF’s $6,299,313 investment, including the county’s $375,915 share, is a fair tradeoff for benefits that will accrue for decades. This project has earned the support of Hudsonville’s leaders and deserves the county’s endorsement to move forward.

Commissioner Use of County Logo

At this Thursday’s Planning and Policy Committee meeting, we are scheduled to discuss the Commissioners’ use of the county logo. I am not opposed to Commissioners using the county logo. In fact, we have a county policy that encourages our departments to use it on official correspondence with the public and outside agencies.

However, we have a couple of recent examples where I believe the logo was misused or used improperly. Commissioners Moss and Miedema both used the county logo on letters they sent to the presidents of Grand Valley State University (GVSU), petitioning for changes to the university’s policies on specific issues. While we, as private residents, are welcome to use our voices to petition governmental entities like GVSU for changes we’d like to see, I don’t believe that we, as Commissioners, should be leveraging the county logo—or any accoutrements of the county—in that process.

As Commissioners, we have the ability to present resolutions to the Board, allowing us to collectively determine whether the county should take a formal position on an issue. We are also free to speak as private individuals on matters of interest. What we cannot do, in my opinion, is attempt to forge a third option—a semi-official position that is neither private nor collectively authorized by the Board.

Our board rules contain one fundamental rule regarding our conduct: Rule 3.1, which states, “The Board shall have such powers and duties as are provided by law. The authority of the Board is a collective one, and according to state law, no individual member can assume any action, decision, or endeavor on behalf of or in lieu of Board action (MCL 46.11).” I believe that sending correspondence with the county logo—essentially leveraging a public asset— to advance a private concern rather than a collective one, violates this rule.

It is my belief that by sending correspondence of the nature that Commissioners Moss and Miedema did, and by using the county logo in that manner, a violation of Rule 3.1 occurred. I hope that our discussion on the use of the county logo this Thursday not only brings about specific guidelines for its use but also allows us to address the broader question of how we can and should act as a collective body moving forward—for our sake and for the sake of all Ottawa County residents to whom the logo belongs.

Campbell Plant Discussions

This past February, the Board of Commissioners passed a resolution urging the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to reconsider the planned closure of the J.H. Campbell Plant by Consumers Energy, set for May 31, 2025. I voted against that resolution because I believe the decision to phase out the coal plant was properly vetted in Consumers’ 2022 integrated resource plan, which balances reliability with the state’s clean energy goals. Similiarly, the MPSC and Consumers addressed this during the approval for shutdown, and Consumers specifically met MISO’s rules when closure was approved.

This Thursday, we will once again be taking up discussion of the Campbell Plant. If the MPSC refuses to reconsider, as we recommended earlier, I believe that we’re really left with only two viable options: legal action against the MPSC or requesting federal intervention. I oppose both of these for the following reasons:

First, pursuing legal action against the MPSC would be a costly and likely unfruitful endeavor. The courts’ deference to regulatory agencies on technical matters like energy planning is widely established, and Consumers has already demonstrated a replacement capacity that meets legal standards. Dragging this into litigation risks wasting taxpayer money, while straining our relationship with state authorities we rely on for other issues.

Second, asking for federal intervention feels equally misguided. Even if the Administration feels inclined to act, it’s unclear whether it could override Michigan’s jurisdiction over its utilities. Relying on federal overreach sets a risky precedent, inviting outside meddling in local affairs when we might not like the outcome next time. Plus, tying the plant’s fate to speculative AI data center co-location plans, as some have suggested, is a gamble that ignores the economic and environmental realities driving the closure.

In my view, we should accept the closure and focus on what’s next—working with Consumers and Port Sheldon Township to ensure the site’s redevelopment delivers real benefits to our community over the near and long term.

Honorary Resolutions

This upcoming Planning & Policy committee meeting, we will be voting on an update to our current Honorary Resolution Policy. There are numerous changes that I believe are not improvements to our current policy.

Most importantly, the new policy precludes us from making honorary resolutions supporting local organizations, high school sports or other extracurricular achievements, special celebrations, or special weeks or months. It only allows us to have tributes to individuals.

Honorary resolutions have not been overly used over my initial years that I’ve been on the Board, and less in the last two plus years. I see no reason to change our current policy, and will be voting no.

Our existing policy:

Our proposed Policy:

Adding back two positions..

Cathedral of Coyoacán. Coyoacán, Mexico

The Holland Sentinel has an article today detailing a part of Tuesday’s meeting, part of which reads:

”In an already packed agenda Tuesday, Jan. 7, Ottawa County Commissioner Doug Zylstra moved to add two commission appointments in what ended up becoming a complex legal argument. 

Zylstra sought to appoint longstanding Ottawa County Parks Commission President Kelly Rice to fill a public seat for a term ending Dec. 31, 2027, and former Community Mental Health Board President Vonnie Vanderzwaag to fill a seat for a term ending March 31, 2026.

The duo would fill roles previously held by Commissioners Roger Belknap and Gretchen Cosby, neither of whom were re-elected in November. Belknap sat on the Parks Commission and Cosby headed up the Community Mental Health Board.

—-

As the maker of the two motions on the 7th, I would like to take the opportunity to detail why I made the motion and why I made it at that meeting.

At our December 19th meeting, we chose two residents for a public slot on both the CMH and Parks board. Two long term and highly regarded volunteers, Vonnie VanderZwaag and Kelly Rice were not chosen for reappointment. I considered that unfortunate and spent the holidays thinking how we could right what I believed to be a wrong on our part. 

I approached the chair shortly after our opening meeting on January 2 with the idea of giving up two commissioner slots available for 2025, so that these two individuals could once again take their former places on their former boards.  

The Chair appreciated the idea, but the agenda for the January 7 meeting had already been published, so the two items could not be placed on the formal agenda. I believed it important to make sure we made the appointments before they each had their January meeting. However, both of the two boards were scheduled to meet before our next BOC meeting, so the only way to get those two individuals placed on the respective boards before their initial meetings was to add their appointments to the agenda on the January 7th at Approval of Agenda, which is a perfectly legitimate action, and one which has been taken many times.

I understand that certain people asked why we didn’t reopen the seat to the public if we were thinking about making them public seats. However, one, we had just finished up a public search just a few weeks earlier and two, the whole motion was based on the idea that we as a Board were giving up what was a formerly Commissioner designated seat precisely so that we could place these two individuals on those two boards. They were not previously public seats and would have been filled with a commissioner absent these motions.

I hope this gives a better picture of the thinking behind what happened on Tuesday and why I thought it so important.

Note 1/12 - There was talk that an impediment existed in that various commissioners appointed for 2024 may still be on the Parks and CMH boards in 2025 for some reason. This a fairly blatant disregard of Motion BC 24-008 from 1/2/2024 which appointed all commissioners through the end of 2024 and 2024 only.

Looking Forward..

Monday's announcement that Village of Sparta Manager Jim Lower has decided not to continue with his candidacy for county administrator likely marks the end of the current search process. I had hoped we could attract and bring on board an administrator to help guide the County in the years ahead. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, that hasn't happened, and it seems unlikely to occur in the near future.

While I believe there were significant challenges with the search, I am grateful to everyone who volunteered their time and to all the candidates who came forward for consideration.

I look forward to resuming the search in the new year and working toward identifying a final candidate who has the full support of the Commission and can effectively lead all our staff and serve all our residents in the years ahead.

Highest quality best price..

Ottawa County’s purchasing policy is designed to get the highest quality best price vendor to help us carry out County services for residents. In 2021, as a result of a competitive RFP process, we hired GovHR, a recruiting firm with deep experience in the government sector, to help us carry out our search for a new administrator. The cost to taxpayers was $22,500.

This time, the Executive Transition Committee is proposing hiring a search firm that, while it has a strong private sector placement record, unfortunately has no available record in the government sector. The proposed contract shows a cost approximately three times the amount we paid in 2021, as shown below.

I do not believe that paying a search firm 30% of first year base salary, which in 2022 for John Shay was $210,000, makes sense for Ottawa County taxpayers and will be opposed to this contract if it comes before us.

Getting our best candidate

This Tuesday, September 24, we will be voting an a Resolution to create an Executive Transition Committee for the position of County Administrator. This Committee will be composed of five members, Commissioners Cosby, Belknap , Moss, Rhodea, and Miedema. The Committee will be delegated the authority to:

A. Review and approve the job description for the County Administrator.
B. Review and approve the recruitment profile for the County Administrator.
C. Coordinate with county administration to post the job by October 1, 2024.
D. Make a public announcement regarding the job posting.
E. Engage an independent recruiting agency to assist with the search.
F. Receive and review applications.
G. Interview applicants, including public interviews for final candidates.
H. Make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.

When we last performed the process of hiring a permanent administrator in 2021, we hired GovHR as our Executive Search firm through a public RFP process, and created a seven member Search Committee composed of three commissioners and four members of the public to help work with GovHR to establish and oversee the hiring process.

I am very concerned that the process being proposed this upcoming Tuesday is a very truncated one, and one that is only bringing in insights from certain members of the Board. I do not believe that is the intentional, balanced approach that Ottawa County residents wish for their new Administrator. It is my hope that we can have a search committee and process that brings in more voices and an established search firm in order to guarantee the Board the best possible candidate.