[1:03] call this meeting to order if we could
have roll call, please.
[1:06] » Commissioner Hoffman,
>> present.
[1:07] » Commissioner Asper,
>> present.
[1:09] » Commissioner Heinserling,
>> present.
[1:11] » Commissioner Lammore,
>> present.
[1:13] » Commissioner Venzel,
>> present.
[1:14] » Commissioner Schwart,
>> present.
[1:16] » Commissioner Moore,
>> present.
[1:18] » Commissioner Leven,
>> present. Corum present.
[1:20] » If we can all now rise for the pledge of
allegiance led by Commissioner Hoffman
[1:28] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[1:33] stands. One nation under God,
indivisibley
[1:38] and justice for all.
[1:44] » We'll now have our opening prayer.
Lord who enlightens, we ask for your
[1:49] supernatural wisdom as we make some
tough decisions in this meeting. Help us
[1:52] to carefully consider the relevant
information that has been gathered and
[1:55] may those sharing information give us
pertinent points so that we all clearly
[1:59] understand. Help us to be innovative as
we brainstorm solutions and help us to
[2:03] wisely evaluate our options considering
the pros and the cons. Help us to be
[2:06] unified in making this best possible
decisions and to effectively carry them
[2:10] out. In your glorious name we pray.
Amen.
[2:13] » Amen. [clears throat]
Now, if I could get a motion to approve
[2:18] the agenda.
>> So, moved.
[2:20] » Support.
>> Moved by Lamore, supported by Levens.
[2:22] Are there uh questions on the agenda?
Additions?
[2:27] » Seeing none, roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Asper,
[2:29] » yes.
>> Commissioner Heinserling,
[2:31] » yes.
>> Commissioner Lammore,
[2:33] » yes.
>> Commissioner Venzel,
[2:34] » yes.
>> Commissioner Swart out,
[2:35] » yes.
>> Commissioner Moore,
[2:37] » yes.
>> Commissioner Levens,
[2:38] » yes.
>> Commissioner Hoffman,
[2:40] » yes.
>> Motion carries. Next on the agenda is
[2:42] the approval of minutes from the
February 3rd meeting. If we could get a
[2:45] motion for that.
>> I'll make a motion to approve it and uh
[2:48] wave the reading thereof.
>> I'll second that.
[2:50] » Moved by SWAT, supported by Huffman. Are
there questions, additions, corrections
[2:53] to the minutes?
>> Seeing none, roll call, please.
[2:58] » Commissioner Hoffman,
>> yes.
[3:00] » Commissioner Asper,
>> yes.
[3:01] » Commissioner Heiserling,
>> yes.
[3:03] » Commissioner Lammore,
>> yes.
[3:04] » Commissioner Venzel,
>> yes.
[3:06] » Commissioner Swartout,
>> yes.
[3:07] » Commissioner Moore,
>> yes.
[3:09] » Commissioner Leven,
>> yes. Motion carries.
[3:12] » We'll now move into our first segment of
public comment. Are there citizens who
[3:15] wish to address the board?
[3:32] » Good evening, Lamar Frederick, Bedford
Township Commissioners and Mr. Chairman.
[3:38] I'm here this evening to address the
first close session noted on the agenda
[3:43] as it involves legal contest between Mr.
Brandt and the county to propose to go
[3:48] into close session to listen to legal
advice on how to go forward.
[3:54] I've been in your seats
and understand that from time to time
[3:59] serious issues arise
that require decisions that have
[4:05] farreaching implications.
Tonight may be one of them for the
[4:09] citizens of District 4 and the rest of
the county.
[4:15] I have had 20 years of personal and
legal uh relationship with Tom Graham
[4:22] and Phil Goldsmith
and we've resolved many pathy issues.
[4:28] I'm sure Mr. Goldsmith will provide the
commissioners with the best legal advice
[4:32] consistent with the current standing of
the lawsuits.
[4:36] However, citizens ha have the
information that's been made public.
[4:41] battles in the newspaper are not legal
battles.
[4:46] These cases have gone on far too long.
The board has gone into close session
[4:52] far too many times to discuss the way
forward and all it announces we agree
[4:57] with the advice of council.
The decisions have resulted in the
[5:01] standoff.
Are we even sure Mr. Brandt wants to
[5:05] settle?
Maybe it's time that all the issues and
[5:10] advice be made public so that the
citizens of the county have heard all of
[5:14] the legal advice and and can make a
determination on their own regarding the
[5:19] decisions you make.
I know this is dangerous and it's not
[5:24] often done, but maybe it's time.
It's your decision that Mr. Goldsmith or
[5:31] Mr. Graham will give you legal
consequences of both options.
[5:37] Transparency and throwing light on the
issues is sometimes the best course of
[5:43] action.
A long time ago, I was on a telephone
[5:47] hearing with a judge from the South.
I made this brilliant
[5:55] argument about the issue that my company
was interested in.
[6:00] When I was done, the judge said, "Mr.
Frederick, are you done?" "Yes, sir, I
[6:04] am." That dog don't hunt. So you know
what happened to my argument.
[6:12] Commissioners, your dog is in the field
right now.
[6:17] Will your dog hunt or will you have to
look for another dog? Do you have enough
[6:23] people tonight to go to close session?
Because I've been here before when you
[6:27] didn't have sufficient number of people
here to do that. So what is your plan B?
[6:33] And you better have one. Thank you.
[6:42] » Hello, commissioners. Thank you. Thanks,
Chairman Vencel. Um, I'm from District 2
[6:47] and I can't do much better than that.
So, I just want to add I was planning to
[6:51] come tonight because I do read the
papers and I have been tracking what's
[6:54] going on. And so, of course, I was
pretty startled um to hear that there
[6:59] were mistakes made that are beyond my
legal comprehending.
[7:04] But I think when I saw the word
settlement on the agenda, that's when I
[7:08] got confused and also super concerned
because to me, a settlement implies that
[7:13] there will be things that are not known
to the general public. And I think
[7:17] because we have all been dragged along
on this long haul, I really hope that
[7:23] you are fully transparent with us. I did
write a note about Mark Brandt's um
[7:28] letter of resignation, just a sentence
from that letter of resignation back in
[7:32] September of 2024 when he said, "I don't
want my personal circumstance to
[7:37] interfere with the smooth operation of
the county that I so dearly love."
[7:42] I think that's worth remembering
that he said those things and yet his
[7:47] personal circumstance has certainly
interfered for two years now
[7:54] and he's cost this county dearly in
money and in trust. And it does seem to
[7:59] me one of my questions is it seems that
the only person who's really paid a
[8:03] price for this is Andrea Armstrong if
I'm not mistaken.
[8:08] And I and I don't get it. So that's why
I, you know, you've seen me before, I'm
[8:12] here again and I'm saying the same kinds
of things. Another point to remember, I
[8:18] think, when you go into close session
and if there is some kind of settlement,
[8:22] only 9% of the people who voted in this
last election in November, only 9% voted
[8:28] for Brandt. And if you put that another
way, one in 10 people, it's less than
[8:32] one person in a group of 10. So that's
that's a rebuke.
[8:39] But the damage I think it goes further
than Brandt and that's where you know
[8:44] you as commissioners and leaders really
come into play and we do have to see
[8:49] this county take accountability even if
it's uncomfortable and the vacuum of
[8:54] information. That's the piece that sews
mistrust and doubt and lack of faith in
[9:00] our local government and we're left with
these conjectures and the theories and
[9:05] that's when things get really bad. We
we're seeing it. We're seeing it as a
[9:09] country, but here on our local level,
people are left to just spin. So, I do
[9:14] think that the only way to move forward
is by moving through. And my request
[9:18] would be that you would stay the course
and return to courts. I know that
[9:22] involves money,
but it's really what you owe to the
[9:28] people of District 2 who've been paying
the taxes and funding this local
[9:32] government. So, I hope you take that
into consideration no matter what you
[9:36] decide. Thank you so much.
[9:43] » Are there any other citizens who wish to
address the board? Thank you.
[9:48] » Yes, thank you. My name is Helen Chorus
Herrian. I'm a resident of Monroe
[9:52] County. Um, I've been coming to these
meetings for a little bit and getting
[9:55] caught up on what's been going on. Um,
I'm not a a resident of District 2, but
[10:01] I'm I'm here as a concerned Monroe
County resident.
[10:05] As we just learned, the Michigan Court
of Appeals was clear. The question of
[10:09] who lawfully holds the District 2 seat
should have been filed through a quot
[10:16] action. And I' I'd like to see other
people pronounce that tonight because
[10:20] it's a tongue twister. Um, but we've
done our research to understand it. That
[10:25] is the legal process that challenges
whether someone has the legal right to
[10:28] hold public office.
Again, we see on today's agenda the
[10:33] words trial/settlement
strategy. And I urge the board first
[10:39] um to explain the nature of any
settlement
[10:44] and second to complete the proper legal
action to close the matter.
[10:48] My next item is I would urge the board
to update to adopt updated ethics
[10:53] guidelines for commissioners. What we
are experiencing now should never happen
[10:57] again. The situation has exposed serious
gaps in our county's governance
[11:01] policies.
We need clear ethics rules that address
[11:05] what happens when a commissioner is
convicted of a felony, standards for
[11:09] financial conflicts of interest,
clear disclosure requirements for
[11:14] business activities, and automatic
triggers for removal or suspension when
[11:19] legal eligibility is lost. These aren't
just theoretical concerns in our county.
[11:26] Strong ethics policies would protect
both commissioners and taxpayers. This
[11:30] county has important work to do.
Every meeting spent on this unresolved
[11:34] situation is time and money diverted
from the people's business.
[11:38] The citizens of Monroe County are
watching because we care about our
[11:41] community. We expect our elected
officials to follow the law and to act
[11:45] with transparency and to put the public
interest first.
[11:49] In summary, I respectfully ask this
board to file the Quo Waronto action to
[11:54] provide transparency on any related
investigation timeline and process and
[11:59] to commit to updating ethics guidelines.
Thank you for your time and for your
[12:04] service to Monroe County.
[12:15] Gail Kaine, District 8.
I've been here before.
[12:21] Tonight, I want to remind you that there
is a mission statement. That is one
[12:26] thing that's clear within your little
packages of your oath of office and that
[12:32] you are to perform your legally
constituted responsibilities,
[12:37] which is to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of the residents of our
[12:41] community and our employees. Now, by
community, I'm not talking District 8.
[12:47] I'm talking the county.
Sadly, some of our commissioners sit
[12:51] here, shouldn't be sitting here, but
that's beside the point. You're here and
[12:56] you have a job and you took an oath. The
board is to demonstrate fiscal
[13:01] responsibility.
You're to maintain credibility and to
[13:05] build public trust and assume leadership
in the development and improvement of
[13:10] county services and programs.
We are spending too much time taking
[13:16] care of districts to dirty work.
The board is to provide the delivery of
[13:23] services through cooperative interaction
with all other units of government and
[13:28] community agencies.
I too became concerned when I read the
[13:33] words regarding trial slash settlement
strategy.
[13:39] Close session is needed if you're going
to be discussing strategy. I don't see
[13:46] Mr. Brandt's attorney sitting here and
publicly announcing what their next move
[13:52] is to attack the county.
You shouldn't have to get disclose that
[13:57] at this point in time. If there is a
settlement that's being arranged, it's
[14:02] got to be discussed. And I can
understand why you would want to do that
[14:06] behind closed doors. But fellas, sooner
or later, this has got to come out. We
[14:11] need to hear everything. What we read in
the paper, I don't trust anymore. It's
[14:16] not my local news. It's written by
people with AI help. Uh I don't
[14:22] understand the legal mumbo jumble.
You have done a good job in what you can
[14:28] do in good faith and on behalf of the
well-being.
[14:35] It's sad to think that our clerk of the
county is being attacked or brought into
[14:40] this because I don't think that she at
all would intentionally create any harm
[14:46] or put any question into the legalities
of how we run elections here. And that's
[14:53] being attacked on all fronts nationwide.
And it's very, very disturbing to think
[15:00] that now we're being dragged into that
mud.
[15:04] It's time for the county to take care of
their business, but at the same time,
[15:10] you've got to make the decision what is
in the best judgment for all of us.
[15:17] District 4 or district 2, I'm sorry, has
the job to take care of the problem.
[15:25] They must step forward and assume the
responsibility
[15:29] to recall
by an election those that they do not
[15:35] want to sit in that chair right over
there. That's their responsibility, not
[15:41] yours.
You can call into question what he has
[15:46] done and you were how you were advised
is of utmost importance. And it bothers
[15:52] me to think that there is another court
out there that's questioning our legal
[15:57] counsel.
This is a mess. It is It's worse than
[16:03] the honeypot and Winnie the Pooh. It is
a blustery day. And you know what is
[16:08] going to hit the fan? It has already
happened.
[16:12] So, you need to shake your feet,
get this stuff off of you, clean up
[16:19] whatever process you've got in the
makings, and let us know what you need
[16:25] us to do. And District 2 needs to step
up and take care of business. Thank you.
[16:34] » Are there any other citizens who wish to
address the board?
[16:40] Uh seeing none, we'll move into the next
agenda items. Uh our next three items
[16:44] involve closed sessions. Uh each uh
close session needs a separate vote. Uh
[16:49] the voting u uh thresholds for each one
are a little bit different. Uh two of
[16:54] them take six to move into close
session. The collective bargaining takes
[16:58] uh five. Uh so I'd like to start with
the first one and get a motion on the
[17:02] table. And uh if we we need to have
discussion, if we need further
[17:05] explanation from Mr. Goldmith on this
first one, then we'll do it after the
[17:09] motion's made.
>> Mr. Chairman, I would move that we not
[17:11] go into close session, discuss this
publicly.
[17:14] » Second.
>> Is there support?
[17:16] » Second.
>> Moved by Commissioner Moore, supported
[17:20] by Commissioner Asper uh to conduct this
business in open session. Are now there
[17:26] questions or comments?
[17:30] I would just say my vote for this would
be yes just because although we're
[17:34] permitted to go into close session,
we're not required to go into close
[17:37] session. We promise the public
transparency on this issue and I feel it
[17:40] would be best if we discuss this
publicly. And then I also have some
[17:43] legal questions about the opens meeting
act 15.268e 268E which says we can
[17:48] consult with attorney regarding trial or
settlement strategy in connection with
[17:52] specific pending litigation but only if
an open meeting would have detrimental
[17:56] financial effect on the litigating
settlement. I don't see any financial
[18:00] effect. No, no one's being sued in this.
So I would maybe make an argue that we
[18:05] can't go into close session on this.
>> Other comments or questions?
[18:11] Commissioner Levens,
>> based on Commissioner Moore's uh most
[18:15] recent comment, maybe this would be
something that legal counsel would
[18:19] advise us on their opinion. We're
represented by council in this matter on
[18:23] the merits of whether we should or not
go into close session and whether we can
[18:28] go in close session. So, I don't know if
it's Phil or Tom that wishes to speak
[18:32] that, Mr. Chairman, but I think before
we do a vote, we should hear from the
[18:37] people that we've hired to represent us
in this matter.
[18:44] Your first question uh can we go into
close session? Yes. Uh this
[18:49] [clears throat] is to uh discuss uh
trial strategy. The uh opponent uh on
[18:56] the other side of this lawsuit. Mr.
Brandt is in the uh is in the room here
[19:02] tonight. So for you to discuss strategy
in his presence would be inappropriate.
[19:08] Uh, is there a financial stake at
interest? Yes, there is. Uh, there's
[19:12] there [clears throat] is an unresolved
issue um regarding whether or not Mr.
[19:17] Brandt should be compensated as a county
commissioner during the time that he was
[19:21] imprisoned in federal prison. That's an
open issue uh that hasn't yet been
[19:26] decided by the court. So there is a
financial interest and there's always a
[19:30] financial interest for each each side of
a dispute to consider and that's the
[19:35] payment of additional attorney fees. So
there is a financial stake at issue here
[19:41] and this would be to discuss uh uh
strategy in going forward. the the words
[19:48] [clears throat] that were used in the
agenda uh comes directly from uh the uh
[19:54] open meetings act that that comes from
the statute to discuss uh trial or
[19:59] settlement strategy. So um my legal
opinion is you have the right to go into
[20:04] close session. Um so uh secondly,
[clears throat]
[20:08] should we go into close session? Um my
legal opinion is yes. if you want to be
[20:15] able to to talk about strategy and
moving forward. Uh and I want to talk to
[20:20] you about the court of appeals decision.
Um uh there's many many uh facets of
[20:26] that uh court of appeals decision that I
believe should be addressed. Um so
[20:31] [clears throat]
uh my recommendation, my legal opinion
[20:34] is a you have the authority to go into
close session and b you should go into
[20:38] close session to discuss these matters.
>> Any questions? Yes, Commissioner Asper.
[20:45] » I would just say that uh from the
comments that were made at the podium,
[20:48] it's very clear to me that the um that
the constituents have really no idea uh
[20:55] everything that's gone on from the
beginning and what the law is with
[21:00] regard to county commissioners. And some
of the comments that were made I thought
[21:05] were very interesting because I know
what the impressions are that the public
[21:10] has given but um they weren't here a
couple years ago. And what has been
[21:15] happening during this time is we
continue to have commissioners who are
[21:22] not advised of what's going on
sometimes. And at this point, um, what
[21:28] ends up going is we go into close
session and then we come out with a vote
[21:32] that some of us are against, but it's
represented as if we're all together in
[21:37] this. Um, the original injunction was
filed by the county. It was not filed by
[21:42] Mr. Brandt. Um, and there are a lot of
laws that have to do with commissioners,
[21:47] whether you like them or not. There are
a lot of laws that have to do with
[21:50] commissioners that aren't what you might
think or what you might want, but they
[21:55] are the law. And and so we have been
guided for the last year and a half in
[22:00] my opinion,
not in a good way. I believe that we
[22:05] were not uh properly um counseledled or
I what I won't say we weren't properly
[22:12] counseledled because that ends up being
an opinion. What I would say is what we
[22:16] were trying to say from the beginning
was not followed and now here we are
[22:21] back at square one spending more money
getting ready to spend more money and if
[22:26] we go into close session and then we
come out then they vote it doesn't
[22:30] require a twothirds we end up spending
the money. So there are other districts
[22:35] other than district two who have been
hurt by this. We cannot res represent
[22:39] our constituents either.
Any
[22:45] other comments or questions?
[22:51] » Just for clarification, it's it's not a
uh
[22:55] a we or a they vote when you come out of
close session. This is a nine member
[23:00] board. And the beauty of a nine member
board is you collectively make
[23:03] decisions. in all the boards I've served
on during my career, doesn't matter
[23:08] whether it's a 5-4 vote or a 5-3 vote or
a 62 vote. Um, when you come out of that
[23:14] vote, it's it's the the collective
decision of the entire board and the
[23:18] entire board takes responsibility and
owns that vote. So, it's not a matter
[23:23] it's unwise to pit uh they against uh
others on the board that are in the
[23:29] minority at this point because this is a
collective decision. So, um, any other,
[23:33] if there are no other questions, I'm
going to call for the vote. Yes.
[23:36] » Uh, the other question is the meetings
that happen after the meetings. So, I
[23:42] think we have to address that. If you're
going to claim that if it's the whole
[23:46] board, there shouldn't there should not
be meetings after meetings when we have
[23:51] when we have our agenda meetings.
>> I'm not sure what your accusation is.
[23:54] » Okay. I'm not making an accusation. I'm
making an observation that every time we
[23:59] have an agenda meeting, there's usually
a meeting before it and there's a
[24:03] meeting after it. And it doesn't include
some of us.
[24:06] » It what it included the other night were
the two leaders of the board, the
[24:09] chairman and the vice chairman that
sought advice from legal counsel on how
[24:12] we were going to move forward on some of
these matters in particular the closed
[24:16] session matters. So that's not that's
not a case of going behind the
[24:19] » agenda meeting about that. We we should
have talked at the meeting about that.
[24:24] » We can respectfully disagree on that.
>> You're right. Any other comments?
[24:30] Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Hoffman.
[24:34] » Yes, we want to go into close session.
>> Well,
[24:36] » motion is for open.
>> The motion is to go into close uh to to
[24:40] stay in open session for this.
>> No.
[24:46] » Commissioner Asper,
>> yes.
[24:49] » Commissioner Heinserling,
>> no.
[24:52] » Commissioner Lammore,
>> no. Commissioner Venzel,
[24:56] » no.
>> Commissioner Swart out,
[24:58] » yes.
>> Commissioner Moore,
[25:00] » yes.
>> Commissioner Levens,
[25:02] » no.
[25:06] » Motion does not carry.
[25:13] » Okay. Now, I would entertain a motion to
go into close session on this matter.
[25:18] » So moved.
>> Seconded.
[25:20] » Moved by Lamore, supported by Huffman.
Uh, are there questions on moving into
[25:24] close session for the Brandt litigation?
[25:30] Seeing none, roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Asper,
[25:33] » would you repeat the motion?
>> The motion is to move into close session
[25:39] uh to consult with county legal council
regarding trial settlement strategy in
[25:42] connection with specific pending
litigation captioned Monroe County and
[25:47] the Monroe County Board of Commissioners
versus Mark Brandt. Monroe County uh and
[25:51] Monroe County Board uh circuit court
case number 25-149222
[25:57] uh CZ and Mark Brandt versus Monroe
County Board of Commissioners, Monroe
[26:02] County Circuit Court case number
25-149230-
[26:08] CZ pursuant to section 8 uh 1E of the
Open Meetings Act MCL5.2681E.
[26:19] No.
>> Commissioner Heinderling.
[26:23] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Lammore.
[26:25] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Venzel.
[26:27] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Schwart out.
[26:29] » No.
>> Commissioner Moore.
[26:31] » No.
>> Commissioner Levens.
[26:33] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Hoffman.
[26:36] » Yes.
>> Motion does not carry.
[26:40] » Okay. So, what I would suggest is let's
let's move on to the next closed
[26:43] sessions. uh and then we can make a
decision whether we uh u take this up in
[26:48] open session when we come back from the
other two close sessions.
[26:51] » I'll make a motion to go into close
session regarding the confidential
[26:55] attorney client communication pursuant
to MCL 15.2681H
[27:01] regarding the forensic audit.
>> Second.
[27:04] » Any questions on this motion?
>> Hearing none. Roll call, please.
[27:09] » Commissioner Hoffman,
>> yes. Commissioner Asper,
[27:12] » no.
>> Commissioner Heinserling,
[27:15] » yes.
>> Commissioner Lammore,
[27:16] » yes.
>> Commissioner Venzel,
[27:19] » yes.
>> Commissioner Swart out,
[27:21] » no.
>> Commissioner Moore,
[27:23] » no.
>> Commissioner Leven,
[27:25] » yes.
>> Motion does not carry.
[27:29] » Okay. The final uh close session uh
request uh uh is the close session to
[27:35] discuss collective bargaining
negotiations pursuant to MCL5.2681.
[27:40] 2681C. Could I get a motion for this?
>> So moved.
[27:44] » Support.
>> Moved by Lamore, supported by Leven. Are
[27:46] there questions on this motion?
>> Hearing none. Roll call, please.
[27:52] » Commissioner Moore,
>> no.
[27:54] » Commissioner Levens,
>> yes.
[27:56] » Commissioner Hoffman,
>> yes.
[27:59] » Commissioner Asper,
>> no.
[28:01] » Commissioner Heinserling,
>> yes.
[28:03] » Commissioner Lammore,
>> yes.
[28:05] » Commissioner Venzel,
>> yes.
[28:07] » Commissioner Schwart,
>> no.
[28:10] Motion carries.
>> Okay. We will now move into close
[28:14] session uh for collective bargaining.
[28:23] » Oh, that's right. We are going to uh
stay here. No,
[28:28] » we're moving.
>> We're moving. So, you can stay here.
[28:40] This is a sad day for county.
[1:02:46] motion to reenter open session.
>> Moved by Lamore, supported by Schwart
[1:02:52] out. Um, any questions on this motion?
Roll call, please.
[1:02:57] » Commissioner Hoffman.
>> Yes.
[1:02:59] » Commissioner Asper.
Are we are we voting on coming back in
[1:03:04] or are we voting on the motion?
>> We're voting on to come back into open
[1:03:08] space.
>> Coming into Okay. Yes.
[1:03:09] » It was suggested by legal counsel that
we do that.
[1:03:12] » Commissioner Heinserling.
>> Yes.
[1:03:14] » Commissioner Lammore.
>> Yes.
[1:03:16] » Commissioner Venzel.
>> Yes.
[1:03:17] » Commissioner Swart out.
>> Yes.
[1:03:18] » Commissioner Moore?
>> Yes.
[1:03:20] » Commissioner Levens?
>> Yes.
[1:03:21] » Motion carries.
[1:03:24] » Okay. Next up will be what would have
been a close session regarding u um a
[1:03:30] consultation with county legal council
regarding the the the brand litigation.
[1:03:34] Uh we'll now do an open session. I would
like uh uh Mr. Goldmith to come come up
[1:03:39] and begin.
[1:03:50] » I'm going to
>> Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a
[1:03:52] question quickly? Do do we need a vote
on to follow advice of councel from the
[1:03:57] close session or no?
>> No,
[1:04:00] » we do not.
>> I asked the labor attorney. He said no
[1:04:04] motion.
>> Okay. Just wanted to double check. I
[1:04:06] didn't hear that.
>> Okay. So, we didn't make a decision
[1:04:08] then.
>> I think we came to
[1:04:12] a
>> I don't think we came to an
[1:04:15] understanding of what was going to
happen.
[1:04:17] » Well, we didn't ask anyone to do that
because we can't do that in closed
[1:04:20] session. We can only do that in open
session.
[1:04:24] » Yeah. Just anything we've discussed in
decisions we've made in close session,
[1:04:26] we've usually had a vote on that. I just
don't know what changed that
[1:04:28] » in open session. Yeah.
>> Could I Well, we can do it then. Could I
[1:04:33] ask
>> You can't make a decision.
[1:04:34] » A motion to uh uh move on the
recommendations made in close session to
[1:04:39] uh uh human resources director Jeff McB
and uh labor council.
[1:04:46] » I moved by myself supported by Lamore.
Any questions on this motion? I just
[1:04:50] have one comment that uh um anything
that comes of our close session would
[1:04:54] necessarily come back before the vote
the board for a final vote on how the
[1:04:59] negotiations uh conclude whether it's a
yay or nay because that closed session
[1:05:05] as the as the as the agenda indicated
was uh to discuss discuss bargaining
[1:05:11] negotiations. It wasn't to discuss a
final you know outcome for a yay or nay.
[1:05:16] This is just uh proceeding ahead. So, I
just wanted to clarify for the audience
[1:05:20] because some of the closed session is
presenting a little bit of a mystery.
[1:05:23] So, what we're what we're doing today,
at least for the the the close session
[1:05:27] bargaining for our employees is
negotiation. And we don't know what
[1:05:31] those negotiations are going to um
produce. And when they do, that would be
[1:05:36] another vote.
>> Which would then be on the agenda in its
[1:05:40] full particulars.
>> That would be an open session. in open
[1:05:45] session.
I have nothing for the chairman.
[1:05:51] » Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Heinserling,
[1:05:54] » yes.
>> Commissioner Lammore,
[1:05:56] » yes.
>> Commissioner Venzel,
[1:05:57] » yes.
>> Commissioner Swart out,
[1:05:59] » yes.
>> Commissioner Moore,
[1:06:00] » no.
>> Commissioner Levens,
[1:06:02] » yes.
>> Commissioner Hoffman,
[1:06:04] » yes.
>> Commissioner Asper,
[1:06:05] » no.
>> Motion carries.
[1:06:12] » Okay, we'll now turn it over to Mr.
Goldmith. Okay, I'm going to uh address
[1:06:17] the uh Michigan Court of Appeals uh
decision and opinion that was uh
[1:06:22] recently released. Um, so it will come
as no mystery to this board or to anyone
[1:06:30] in the uh public who's been following
this that the singular issue that the
[1:06:37] county presented first to the trial
court and then to the court of appeals
[1:06:44] uh is based on MCL 46.411 411 and that
was recognized uh by the court of
[1:06:51] appeals in its in its uh decision. Um
it's under the heading uh D issues that
[1:06:57] are and are not properly resolved at
this time.
[1:07:01] So, the [clears throat] county asked for
declaratory judgment, which with all due
[1:07:07] respect to the court of appeals, uh, was
the proper way to go about doing this
[1:07:12] because what the county asked for
through me as county legal counsel was
[1:07:18] whether or not on January 1, 2025,
Mark Brandt was a qualified elector and
[1:07:26] thus a registered voter
because 46 6 as recognized by the court
[1:07:32] of appeals. Uh they state the trial
court aired when it granted Brandt a
[1:07:37] declaratory judgment that his
incarceration in another state did not
[1:07:42] act to vacate his seat because the trial
court did not address or decide
[1:07:47] potentially dispositive legal issues
raised by the parties below.
[1:07:53] The court did not decide potentially
dispositive legal issues raised by the
[1:07:59] parties below. The issue that I raised
in all the briefing uh that was done uh
[1:08:05] to the court of appeals was was Mark
Brandt on January 1, 2025 a qualified
[1:08:13] elector. He had not yet taken office at
that time. he couldn't take office at
[1:08:20] that time because he was incarcerated in
a federal prison in West Virginia. So
[1:08:27] the statute and the court of appeals
quotes a part of it. A candidate for the
[1:08:31] office of county commissioner must be a
resident and registered voter of the
[1:08:36] district that he or she seeks to
represent and must remain a resident and
[1:08:41] registered voter to hold his or her
office if elected. Mark Brandt never
[1:08:46] took his office on January 1 because he
couldn't take his office. And it is the
[1:08:51] argument uh that we put forth to the
trial court and to the court of appeals
[1:08:56] that he couldn't take office uh because
he was incarcerated. And so if you rely
[1:09:02] on 46.411, 411, the two sections
[clears throat] of the Michigan
[1:09:05] Constitution of 1963 that were quoted
and the various uh uh stat statutes that
[1:09:11] we quoted which are part of the body of
Michigan election law. Uh that was a
[1:09:17] that was a declaratory action decision.
Uh the court the court in my view should
[1:09:24] have said and the the trial court didn't
address it and the court of appeals
[1:09:28] found fault with the trial court for not
addressing it. In my view, the trial
[1:09:32] court needed to say either he was a
qualified elector or he wasn't a
[1:09:38] qualified elector on January one. If the
court would have and that's a
[1:09:42] declaratory judgment if if he wasn't a
qualified elector um then he couldn't
[1:09:49] take office. The second question that I
asked the court to decide, if you
[1:09:54] determine that he was that he was not a
qualified elector, does that operate to
[1:10:00] vacate his entire term of office? I I
[clears throat] just want to just want
[1:10:06] to uh make mention of this. So, what if
now Mr. Brandt was sentenced to serve 18
[1:10:14] months? He ser he served less than 18
months. But what if he was convicted of
[1:10:20] a felony that required a four-year
prison sentence? That's what I wanted
[1:10:25] the the court to decide. Um
[clears throat] his inability to take
[1:10:31] office. Uh does that disqualify him for
the entire term or just a portion of of
[1:10:36] the term? If he were in prison for four
years, the court would have had to
[1:10:41] answer this question and still has to
answer this question. Uh does that mean
[1:10:45] that the the office remains vacant? If
they in other words, if they if the
[1:10:51] court would have answered the question
this way that he was a qualified
[1:10:55] elector, but he can't serve because you
got to be present to serve, does that
[1:11:00] vacate the the office for the entire
four-year period? The court didn't
[1:11:04] answer those questions. The court of
appeals found fault with that. So that
[1:11:10] is a declaratory action uh type of a
judgment that the court didn't make. The
[1:11:15] court of appeals addressed that
with respect to quo warrantto
[1:11:21] [clears throat] the the court finds
fault that neither party pled this as a
[1:11:26] a quo warrantto action. But
interestingly, uh, the court also points
[1:11:32] out what which I raised, um, in my
briefing to the court of appeals, uh,
[1:11:38] was whether or not the county was even
in the position to raise a quote warrant
[1:11:44] action. And there's there's cases on
that. There's appellet cases on it. And
[1:11:48] that's recognized uh by the by the court
of appeals in its decision. um
[1:11:55] [clears throat] when they talk about
core quo warrantto
[1:11:58] um they they raise MCR 3.306b2
which is the quot warrant quo warrantto
[1:12:07] court rule. Um they state which of these
procedural hurdles applies in this
[1:12:13] instance may well depend on the proper
interpretation of the phrase an office
[1:12:17] in a public corporation created by this
state's authority. So to backtrack, that
[1:12:23] court rule requires a quote warrant
action to be brought by uh by a public
[1:12:29] corporation.
And the [clears throat] court of appeals
[1:12:32] properly recognizes that they state
specifically courts have not yet
[1:12:38] resolved the parameters of this uh
definition. So the court of appeals
[1:12:43] recognizes that well uh maybe even
Monroe County in the context of the quo
[1:12:49] warrantal court rule is not a public
corporation that can even request uh a
[1:12:55] quo warrantal action or can even request
the attorney general uh to take on a
[1:13:00] quote warrantal action. They also raised
the question of of whether or not uh the
[1:13:07] county of Monroe is a person
uh that could request the attorney
[1:13:13] general to bring a quote warrant action.
That that's been a little better
[1:13:18] defined. Goes back to a 1971 court of
appeals decision. Uh so that's been a
[1:13:24] little bit better defined. So, um I I
stand by the way we presented this case
[1:13:30] because what needed to be answered was
on January 20 on January 1, 2025, was
[1:13:38] Mr. Brand a qualified elector if the
court and unfortunately the the trial
[1:13:43] court didn't address that issue and I
raised that in our cross appeal. So,
[1:13:49] where are we at now? Um this
it's been mentioned that well you have
[1:13:55] to if we we're back uh we're back to to
uh uh ground level here. I would
[1:14:02] respectfully submit that that's that is
not the case. We're not back to ground
[1:14:07] level. All the arguments that were made
both to the trial court and to the court
[1:14:12] of appeals are arguments that still
apply. And if and [clears throat] really
[1:14:18] uh it's it's form over substance really
all the court of appeals wants to do
[1:14:23] right wrong or indifferent but we have
to do it because that's how they've
[1:14:27] instructed us to to do it um that we
have to make an application to the
[1:14:33] attorney general uh either as a public
corporation or as a person. uh the
[1:14:39] county would do that and if
[clears throat] you uh elect to go that
[1:14:43] direction and then um [clears throat]
the the attorney general would have to
[1:14:49] act on that application. They would have
to either a take it up and and decide
[1:14:56] the underlying legal issue which is
framed as 46.411.
[1:15:01] Uh or they could decline to take it
and say Monroe County, you file a motion
[1:15:08] with the trial court seeking leave of
court to uh proceed forward on
[1:15:14] everything that you've brought before
the court before, plus you frame it
[1:15:18] procedurally at a count to the complaint
of quo warrant under the court rule. So
[1:15:24] now there's another uh there's another
way that this could happen too. um
[1:15:30] [clears throat] either party uh if they
so chose could file an application for
[1:15:35] leave to appeal with the Michigan
Supreme Court and challenge the Court of
[1:15:40] Appeals decision um and ask the Michigan
Supreme Court to to grant their
[1:15:45] application for leave to appeal uh to
decide whether the Court of Appeals was
[1:15:51] correct in its decision. I'm I'm not
[clears throat]
[1:15:54] I'm not uh advising you to do that to go
in that direction. I think that would be
[1:16:00] um generally speaking a waste of time uh
and money to do that. Um if you're going
[1:16:07] if you're going to go forward um and
people talk about settlement, but quite
[1:16:13] frankly, and it's recognized by the
court of appeals, I don't know how you
[1:16:17] settle a case like this. Uh it's been
suggested to me by Mr. Brance attorneys
[1:16:22] that well is is the you know the county
could just drop um its lawsuit which I
[1:16:28] suppose Mr. Brandt's lawyers would drop
their lawsuit but uh we it's gone too
[1:16:34] far at this point. If you remember when
after [clears throat] the court the
[1:16:39] trial court Judge Kungi entered her
order um I think it was September 12th
[1:16:44] after she entered her order Mr. grants
attorneys filed uh their appeal and they
[1:16:50] also filed a motion uh with that appeal
asking the court the court of appeals to
[1:16:57] a enter an injunction that would prevent
Monroe County from going forward with
[1:17:03] the special election that by the way was
was openly suggested by Judge Kungi in
[1:17:10] her opinion uh her September 12th
opinion um they asked [clears throat]
[1:17:15] the court to enjoin the court of appeals
to enjoin that special election and they
[1:17:21] asked the court of appeals to vacate the
stay that judge Kungi had put into into
[1:17:27] effect and the [clears throat] court of
appeals uh chose to do neither. The
[1:17:33] court of appeals did not did not vacate
the stay stating that Mr. Brandt could
[1:17:39] not serve as a county commissioner
during the pendency of the matter and
[1:17:43] they chose not to uh enjoin uh enjoin
the special election and properly so
[1:17:51] because they they point out that that
would have that would have required uh
[1:17:56] the joiner of the Monroe County Clerk
who is the election official in Monroe
[1:18:00] County. um this board had the authority
under the statute um uh to call for a
[1:18:08] special election. Uh they and you called
for a special election because you
[1:18:14] adopted my legal opinion that 46.411
automatically vacated that position
[1:18:22] because Mr. Brandt couldn't take office
on January 1, 2025. This board didn't
[1:18:28] there's been a lot of misconception out
there. This board didn't remove Mr.
[1:18:33] Brandt. Don't you don't have the
authority and I told you you didn't have
[1:18:37] the authority to remove Mr. Brandt. The
legal theory is that by operation of law
[1:18:43] since he couldn't take office on January
1 of 25 that that office was vacated
[1:18:50] automatically by operation of law
pursuant to MCL 46.411.
[1:18:55] So and that is the the underlying and
the most important legal issue in this
[1:19:01] whole in this whole litigation. So,
so in my view, if if this board chooses
[1:19:09] to go forward to get it uh properly back
in front of the trial court, uh you
[1:19:15] would need to authorize me to make an
application to the attorney general and
[1:19:20] I will have to uh carefully craft that
because the court of appeals pointed out
[1:19:26] and I pointed it out to the court of
appeals in my briefing that Monroe
[1:19:30] County may not be a public corporation.
uh as as it applies to uh the quote
[1:19:37] warrant court rule. I'll have to
carefully craft that uh and and and that
[1:19:42] Monroe County is a person uh as set
forth in the court rule and ask the
[1:19:48] attorney general uh to take it up and uh
um and make a decision. Now, they could
[1:19:55] take it up and uh and issue an opinion.
The attorney general, she's not they're
[1:20:00] not it's not a court. they could issue
an opinion on the underlying legal issue
[1:20:04] on the issue of CO Warrento as to uh
whether or not um that office was
[1:20:11] automatically v uh vacated by operation
of law pursuant to the statute 46.411
[1:20:17] or uh the attorney general could say
we're not get involved in that. we
[1:20:22] decline um and send it back and then I
would file a motion which I believe uh
[1:20:29] Judge Kungi would grant so that we could
uh get it back in front of her as
[1:20:34] directed by the court of appeals. So, um
I don't want to belabor this. Um it's uh
[1:20:42] you know, it's it's
I I I have spent countless hours uh of
[1:20:49] my own time thinking about this, but um
because [clears throat] it's important
[1:20:54] um it's important to this board. It's
important to district 2. It's important
[1:20:57] to the community. It's important to Mr.
Brent. It's now important to Mr. Beniki.
[1:21:02] And I guess I'll wind up by saying the
court allowed this elect, it was
[1:21:07] suggested by the trial judge, Judge
Kunki, that there an election go forward
[1:21:12] and that that that not be uh vacated and
and that election did go forward. And
[1:21:20] that what happened in that election was
Mr. Benki was chosen by the registered
[1:21:25] voters of district 2 to be their
representative. Now, he's involved and
[1:21:30] he has certain due process rights uh
that shouldn't be ignored. And so, the
[1:21:35] court's going to have to weigh that. And
he may or it's up to him. He may or may
[1:21:40] not intervene as a party in this action.
he may hire his own lawyer and intervene
[1:21:46] uh file a motion to intervene in this
action uh to in an effort to protect
[1:21:52] whatever rights he has under Michigan
law given the chronology of events that
[1:21:57] have occurred with respect to this case.
So he's he may or may not be in it. That
[1:22:02] is totally up to him. That's a choice he
has to make. But in terms of this whole
[1:22:07] board um um I I really don't see um uh
how uh you just say well let's settle h
[1:22:18] how it's this is not a uh not a like an
injury lawsuit where we're talking about
[1:22:24] is there liability and is there damages
and if the liability meets the threshold
[1:22:30] what should the damages be and we settle
on a damage amount. Not that simple. Um
[1:22:36] the the legal question still s still
needs to be resolved. I I think the
[1:22:41] legislature legis legislature should
take this up. Commissioner Asper touched
[1:22:47] on it, I think, in her comments that
there are certain things that you can
[1:22:51] and you can't do with respect to county
commissioners and they as they hold
[1:22:56] their seat. Um the legislature in my
view needs to take this issue up. Uh and
[1:23:03] that and that boils down to um if
someone is convicted of a felony and
[1:23:10] they're in prison, are they a qualified
elector? Now, you know, I agree with
[1:23:17] many things that Mr. Brandt's attorneys
have said. For instance, for instance,
[1:23:22] if Mark Brandt wasn't in prison on
January 1, 2025, his federal felony
[1:23:29] conviction would not have stopped him
from taking office because he could have
[1:23:34] been here and he could have acted as a
commissioner. I don't contest that. I
[1:23:38] concede that. That's that's a rule of
law as it applies to this case. But the
[1:23:43] fact of the matter is he wasn't. And we
didn't know how long he would be in
[1:23:48] prison. only that he was sentenced to
serve an 18-month sentence in federal
[1:23:52] prison. So, um you know, we we we had to
deal I think this board had to deal with
[1:24:00] that. Do you just sit on your hands and
do nothing? Um uh and just wait to see
[1:24:08] how long he's in prison and leave
District 2 unrepresented. Right, wrong,
[1:24:11] or indifferent. I provided you with a
legal opinion. I still stand by that
[1:24:16] legal opinion. Uh, no one's going to get
me to change my mind on that legal
[1:24:20] opinion. Uh, the court needs to issue
its opinion on its own opinion on that.
[1:24:25] Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, or
maybe it's somewhere in the middle.
[1:24:29] We'll find that out, I guess, soon
enough if we, uh, proceed forward. So,
[1:24:34] um, so that's where we're at. Again, I
I'm probably talking too much, but the
[1:24:40] decision the board needs to make is, uh,
do you go forward with this? uh do you
[1:24:45] allow me to make application to the
attorney general even though even though
[1:24:51] I think it was properly before both
courts on a declaratory action on the
[1:24:56] issue of was he this is a legal question
was he a qualified elector on the date
[1:25:03] he was supposed to take office and
couldn't take office uh but nonetheless
[1:25:08] uh do you allow me to uh make an
application to the attorney general um
[1:25:14] setting all the relevant facts in that
to see if they'll take it up and they'll
[1:25:19] make a decision, issue an opinion uh or
uh and then we go from there. Once
[1:25:25] that's done, um we would have to Mr.
Branset lawyer and and I would have to
[1:25:31] consult with the judge, probably have a
pre-trial conference because it's back
[1:25:34] in front of her and something needs to
be done. Um and let her know that's
[1:25:38] what's going to happen or Mr. For all I
know, Mr. grants lawyers could choose to
[1:25:44] file an application for leave to to
appeal with the Supreme Court and have
[1:25:48] them uh take it up to decide whether the
court of appeals was right uh when it
[1:25:53] issued its opinion when it found error
in the way the judge decided the case
[1:25:58] with respect to the issues that we the
county raised both in at the trial court
[1:26:03] level and at at the court of appeals. So
that's that's your task tonight uh from
[1:26:09] me. Do you proceed forward? Allow me to
um continue uh the litigation by f
[1:26:16] filing an application to the attorney
general uh under the quo warrantto
[1:26:20] statute or something else.
>> Are there any questions for Mr.
[1:26:26] Goldmith? Commissioner Asper.
>> So really this goes back farther than
[1:26:32] January 1.
Goes back to when um when Mr. Grant uh
[1:26:40] resigned from his previous
um
[1:26:45] term.
Um and the way the law reads, the
[1:26:49] problem with felonies is if you commit
the felony after you're elected, the
[1:26:56] felony that was in question had happened
prior to the election. In fact, he was
[1:27:04] sentenced 5 weeks before the election.
So, at the time that people voted, it
[1:27:11] was already out there. Five weeks that
he had been sentenced. And like I say,
[1:27:16] the felony didn't occur afterward. It
was not committed afterward and it was
[1:27:20] not committed against the county. The
law says that the chair of this board
[1:27:26] has to appoint somebody within 30 days.
Our previous temporary chair chose not
[1:27:32] to do that because it was closer to the
end of the year and he was going to
[1:27:36] leave it for the next chair. The next
chair did not do that against the law.
[1:27:42] They were supposed to we were supposed
to appoint somebody until the first year
[1:27:48] was passed and then they could the
people that actually are in district 2
[1:27:53] could have gone ahead and voted. As it
turns out, they voted in November
[1:27:58] what 90% it was like 7,000 votes more
than anybody else in that election. So
[1:28:04] that was pretty decisive. Also, he was
the Republican candidate in this county.
[1:28:10] Some people just vote for the
Republican, whoever that is. So I think
[1:28:14] that's a lot of what explains what
happened in this election that just
[1:28:18] happened.
So when the chair of this board did not
[1:28:23] go ahead and appoint someone which is
not according to the law, the law says
[1:28:29] we have to do that within 30 days. Uh
also on January 1st to simply do this
[1:28:35] theory, this theory of not being an
elector, an elector that whole law
[1:28:41] portion is so that people won't run in a
district that they don't belong to, that
[1:28:45] they're not living there. And it was it
was also said by our clerk that he was
[1:28:49] duly elected and he was also sworn in
which means we have two people that have
[1:28:55] been sworn in.
[sighs]
[1:28:59] So when that wasn't done and when they
decided uh and as of the 1st of January,
[1:29:05] he was still getting requests for
appointments and those appointments
[1:29:10] actually did come back. So, he was being
treated as as a commissioner from that
[1:29:17] point. I don't even think the payment
thing even came in until about mid
[1:29:20] January. Um, we've had commissioners who
we didn't even know where they were. Uh,
[1:29:27] and they ended up being off this board
not not being able to be here for six
[1:29:31] months. So, it's not a matter of whether
you can actually be here. I saw emails
[1:29:36] where he wanted to actually do things
from where he was staying. It was kind
[1:29:40] of a it was one of those type of prisons
where you don't have fences and things
[1:29:45] like that. So, uh he was refused to have
communication
[1:29:53] uh because the chair would not
communicate with him by email. Um so
[1:29:59] that's another thing. Um and then we go
to say I guess they figured oh well yeah
[1:30:06] we don't have the right to unseat him.
In fact, Kungi, she actually her ruling
[1:30:12] was that he did not vacate the seat. The
way that a commissioner vacates a seat
[1:30:19] is two ways. One is if they resign and
the other is if they move out of the
[1:30:23] district. So, they have to have to be
off because they aren't an elector. It
[1:30:28] was determined in your writing that he
had not given up his residency. When he
[1:30:33] came back here, he was still registered
to vote. So all these things were a
[1:30:39] theory. We went forward with a theory.
And then when he got out of prison,
[1:30:44] which I have to say he accomplished more
in those eight months than we've
[1:30:47] accomplished in the last year, which is
sad to say. Um
[1:30:52] then when he came back, he could have
sat down on the on on the board. Well,
[1:30:59] so he did. And when he sat down here, uh
well, excuse me. We go we back up to
[1:31:04] what happened. And I'm just saying this
because the audience doesn't know all
[1:31:07] this other part of it. They don't. They
haven't read the law. I'm not a lawyer,
[1:31:11] but my eyeballs are about blind from
reading what's actually in the law. And
[1:31:16] what ended up happening was they were
going to do a special election in May.
[1:31:22] And of course, we can't have a special
election in May because it's a partisan
[1:31:25] election. So it couldn't be until
August. And then um when we got the
[1:31:34] we were supposed to even make up our
ballots, but because there couldn't be
[1:31:38] this decision in time. Um and and and
the thing was it was an injunction that
[1:31:44] was filed by the county after uh after
we had already decided
[1:31:52] that he could sit here because the chair
had said that he could sit here and
[1:31:58] nobody made any motions otherwise.
Um so and he was supposed to be able to
[1:32:04] sit here according to the chair. He was
supposed to be able to sit here until
[1:32:07] that got decided in court. Well, then
when that injunction was filed, which we
[1:32:12] never voted to have to have him not sit
here. We did not ask you to file
[1:32:17] something that would prevent him from
sitting up here, his the people in his
[1:32:22] district could have just chosen to
recall him. You wait a year, you recall
[1:32:26] that person. That is the way that it
normally goes. But by virtue of the fact
[1:32:32] that this board did not appoint somebody
when it first got vacated and did not
[1:32:38] appoint somebody when the new chair
came, I think we have to take some
[1:32:42] responsibility for that. And there are
people on this board that voted against
[1:32:45] that. We just wanted to let it play out
so that the that district 2 could decide
[1:32:50] who was going to be their commissioner.
But the election we just had, you know,
[1:32:55] Commissioner uh Commissioner Brandt was
he had been the Republican and he was
[1:33:00] duly elected according to our clerk. And
so I just I just feel like there's a lot
[1:33:05] of complications here and we went
through this and and the our problem was
[1:33:11] that she went ahead and um she made the
you know she made the decision it he
[1:33:16] that he did not vacate the seat and then
she says oh but you know we're going to
[1:33:22] let this election go on. We're going to
wait and see if you guys want to appeal
[1:33:26] or whatever. So I I am just
so discouraged
[1:33:32] that we did not go ahead and do it the
right way. Either appoint somebody and
[1:33:38] then when he came back they could decide
if that's what they were going to do or
[1:33:41] if they were going to recall him. I
think the constituents in the district
[1:33:46] are the ones that are supposed to make
the decision. But there were some people
[1:33:50] that did not want that particular
possibility and that's where we got
[1:33:55] where we got. So afterward if you have
any questions
[1:34:01] there's just a lot of assumptions that
are are being made because of the way
[1:34:05] things were filed and I just people
don't know the law and and I don't think
[1:34:10] we should have gone ahead on a theory. I
think we should have gone according to
[1:34:13] the law and done the appointment.
>> We did go according to the law. MCL
[1:34:18] 46.411.
And it's much more than a theory. It's
[1:34:22] coupled with uh con the constitution and
Michigan election law. And it's a matter
[1:34:28] of first impression to the court. Um and
and the [clears throat] court recognized
[1:34:33] it. The court of appeals recognized it.
Commissioner Asper, they stated in their
[1:34:38] opinion, "The trial court aired when it
granted Brandt a declaratory judgment
[1:34:43] that his incarceration in another state
did not act to vacate a seat because the
[1:34:48] trial court did not address or decide
potentially dispositive legal issues
[1:34:52] raised by the parties below.
Specifically, the trial court neither
[1:34:56] addressed nor decided cross appellants,
that's us, the county, argument that
[1:35:01] Brandt's incarceration in another state
resulted in a vacancy of his seat
[1:35:06] automatically by operation of law under
MCL 46.411.
[1:35:11] So, I didn't just grab something out of
thin air. A lot of time, research, and
[1:35:17] thought went into this. Um and and this
is a question uh of important
[1:35:22] jurisprudence to the state. This is a
question that needs to be answered and
[1:35:26] it's it's a declar declaratory judgment
type question and someday I hope a court
[1:35:33] answers this. They may say you're wrong,
Goldmith. he was a qualified elector,
[1:35:38] which as Judge Kungi said in her uh
opinion would be nonsensical to me
[1:35:44] because then you could have somebody um
elected um and then not be able to serve
[1:35:50] for their entire term and then that that
with a county commissioner that just
[1:35:55] sits vacant for four years. So, um, with
respect to what happened in 2024,
[1:36:03] that and I don't challenge that. I don't
contest I don't contest that Mr. Brandt
[1:36:10] was obligated
uh his his office was vacated uh because
[1:36:17] he was sentenced to a felony offense.
not something not a felony that was
[1:36:23] committed that had anything to do with
his with his uh commissioner duties.
[1:36:30] Totally outside of that. That was
something personal. I don't want anybody
[1:36:33] to think that he committed a felony that
had anything to do with his uh operation
[1:36:39] as a county commissioner. He did not. If
if it would have been that, he wouldn't
[1:36:44] have been able to run uh for office in
2024 to be elected to start the
[1:36:50] four-year term January 1 of 2025. So, he
decided on his own uh to resign. That's
[1:36:58] correct. A decision was made and I think
it was based on past president. I think
[1:37:04] that since you they were close to the
term uh the end of the term that an
[1:37:09] appointment wouldn't been made. I think
that the rationale for that, it's been
[1:37:13] uh stated by chairman Benzel in the
past. The rationale for that was that
[1:37:18] there's a very short period of time
between now and the end of the year to
[1:37:22] appoint someone to fill that position
would potentially give them a leg up in
[1:37:26] the next election. Chose not to do that.
Let the people make that decision in the
[1:37:32] November uh the November 2024 election.
So, that was done. Um, and and that's
[1:37:38] the way it that's the way it proceeded.
So, was Mark Brandt uh uh legally on the
[1:37:45] ballot in November of 24? Yes, he was.
Did he get elected? Yes, he did. The
[1:37:53] question is and and if he would if he
would have if the judge would have put
[1:37:59] him on probation and he was able to come
and sit at his seat and do the work of
[1:38:04] the county, none of this would have come
up because that's the way the law is. Uh
[1:38:09] you can be convicted of a felony if it's
not in your term of office and and
[1:38:14] continue to serve unless it's a felony
that's connected to the business of you
[1:38:19] of you being a county commissioner. So,
it all boils down to this. I keep coming
[1:38:26] back to this, but this is where we're
at. On January 1, 2025, he couldn't take
[1:38:30] office because he was in prison. The law
is clear. A county commissioner can only
[1:38:36] do the business of a county commissioner
at a at a meeting open to the public.
[1:38:42] The attorney general has offered
opinions on that. I agree with those
[1:38:46] opinions. I cited them in my brief in my
briefs multiple briefs to the court of
[1:38:51] appeals uh and to the trial court. You
have to be present to do the business of
[1:38:57] of a county commissioner. You can't do
that through a third party. You can't do
[1:39:01] that by email. Uh there was only a
limited period of time where uh
[1:39:05] commissioners could uh appear remotely
during COVID. That time has now passed.
[1:39:10] So uh it comes back to this legal issue.
Was he or was he not a qualified elector
[1:39:17] on that date? You and I will I respect
your opinion. You know that. Um I think
[1:39:22] you respect me and my opinions and will
respectfully agree to disagree on this.
[1:39:29] And and and that point is that that uh
the law in my mind uh wasn't wasn't
[1:39:39] 46.411 411 has a lot deeper meaning uh
uh whether or not you're in your
[1:39:46] district or not in your district,
whether you move from your district, if
[1:39:50] he voluntarily voluntarily moved. So, uh
if you can't if if you're not there and
[1:39:56] you're not a qualified elector on that
date, you can't serve. So, the court the
[1:40:01] court needs to decide that issue. Simple
as that. Court needs to decide. So what
[1:40:05] but what you're saying is that um that
you can disregard the law when it says
[1:40:11] that that that a person has to be
appointed within 30 days. So that was
[1:40:17] disregarded. You don't just get to say
that you know I mean it wasn't it wasn't
[1:40:22] chairman Benzel that made that decision
uh in in 24. uh it was actually given
[1:40:30] over to him because he was going to
become well whoever was going to become
[1:40:33] the chair but he became the chair in
January and I'm just thinking that I
[1:40:38] can't just make
make a decision that I want to do
[1:40:42] something if it's in the law that you're
supposed to appoint somebody that's a
[1:40:46] problem the other thing is is what if I
had had co you know and I couldn't have
[1:40:50] come to my meeting or whatever as it
turns out in the law sadly commissioners
[1:40:55] don't have any kind of attendance
policy. You can censure them. You can do
[1:41:00] other things like that. But technically,
because we had a commissioner who missed
[1:41:05] 6 months and could not be here and we
had another commissioner who wasn't here
[1:41:09] for two months. I mean, if if if we
don't have a an attendance policy, I
[1:41:14] don't really see how that applies. I
mean, it's sad. I think we should have
[1:41:18] some sort of attendance policy, but
basically all you can do is censure, and
[1:41:21] some people don't care about that. So,
um it just seems to me that uh the law
[1:41:26] is being, you know, applied whether we
want to use it or not. And if it says 30
[1:41:30] days and you have to appoint somebody,
you have to appoint somebody. And that's
[1:41:33] how we originally got uh Chairman Benzel
on the board of commissioners was he was
[1:41:38] appointed and then we had an election
and he was elected. So, you know, so the
[1:41:43] president on this board has been to
replace somebody if they had to resign,
[1:41:48] which the previous commissioner had had
to resign. So, um I just I just feel
[1:41:54] like we took it out of their hands
because um
[1:41:59] because there were people that did not
want the outcome to be a certain way.
[1:42:04] » So, that that's the sad thing right
there.
[1:42:06] » Mr. Bill Smith, can I ask just a couple
of clarifying questions? Sure. When when
[1:42:11] uh former Commissioner Brandt entered a
guilty plea in March, was he legally
[1:42:17] obligated to let the board know that
he'd entered a guilty plea? And was he
[1:42:21] at that point ineligible to hold office
and and did was he required to resign?
[1:42:28] [clears throat]
>> He was by by law when his case was fully
[1:42:34] adjudicated which was when he was
sentenced which came after that March
[1:42:39] date when his case was fully adjudicated
because he could have withdrawn his
[1:42:43] plea. any number of things could happen.
But when he was fully adjudicated and
[1:42:48] sentenced on the crime, then then he was
obligated to uh let the commission know
[1:42:56] and to resign pursuant to that statute.
>> And so during the
[1:43:00] » 203
>> during the period of time from March
[1:43:03] when he plead guilty until the
sentencing in September, he was legal to
[1:43:07] sit on this board and make decisions and
vote on issues. there there's
[1:43:11] [clears throat] the prevailing legal uh
position is your your case is not fully
[1:43:16] adjudicated until you're sentenced. Once
you're sentenced uh and the case is
[1:43:21] fully adjudicated and appellet rights
have been have been uh in most cases uh
[1:43:28] cretailed. um then uh he should have in
my view he should have resigned because
[1:43:33] really the statute says your office is
vacated because of uh the felony
[1:43:39] conviction. It you know it talks there
again the these statutes are old. These
[1:43:44] go back into the 1800s early 1900s when
when counties were run by county boards
[1:43:51] of supervisors which were comprised of
the supervisors of the respective
[1:43:55] townships throughout the county. These
are old statutes, still good law today.
[1:43:59] I think they need to be reviewed by the
state legislature, but um his office was
[1:44:06] vacated um when he was fully adjudicated
um on that felony offense, which uh the
[1:44:13] law has interpreted by Supreme Court
decision that an infamous crime uh a
[1:44:18] felony is an infamous crime. So long
answer to your question. And I hope I
[1:44:23] answered I answered it.
>> And when he when he plead guilty in
[1:44:28] September, then according to
Commissioner Asper, uh the the then
[1:44:32] chair, acting chair, uh had an
obligation to to appoint. Is that
[1:44:36] correct?
>> Not the chair, the the board. But the
[1:44:41] way the statute reads is is if the board
doesn't appoint someone within 30 days,
[1:44:48] then then there is an election. um then
[clears throat] then you you call for
[1:44:54] for an election. Well, there there was
no point in having an election at that
[1:44:58] point. There couldn't have been an
election at that point because the term
[1:45:02] of office ended uh December 31st. So, um
either or if this if if you had a
[1:45:09] vacancy, uh you could choose not to
appoint somebody. You don't have to
[1:45:14] appoint somebody. If you don't appoint
somebody, then an election has to occur.
[1:45:19] And so that wasn't necessarily breaking
the law when an appointment wasn't made.
[1:45:22] » Not in my not in my view. You know, it
it it's if you make a decision not to
[1:45:27] appoint someone, then it defaults to the
election. And and as far as a recall, um
[1:45:34] I I would simply say this,
you can't recall somebody in their first
[1:45:39] year
>> of term. You can't recall somebody in
[1:45:42] the last year of their term. So, um the
legal question was always out there. uh
[1:45:49] when Mr. Brandt's term didn't start
because he wasn't able to take office on
[1:45:54] the day he was supposed to take office.
So when does that year start and when
[1:45:58] does it when does it end? Court hasn't
answered that question yet. If the court
[1:46:02] comes back and says if the court comes
back and says that Goldmith, you're
[1:46:08] wrong. He was a qualified elector on
January 1, 2025, even though he couldn't
[1:46:14] be here uh due to his imprisonment.
you're wrong on that. Well, then most
[1:46:19] would take the legal position that the
one year of service began on January 1,
[1:46:24] even though he wasn't here and unable to
serve and it goes to December 31st. And
[1:46:29] now now um if if a petition if the
people of District 2 wanted to circulate
[1:46:35] a petition, they could.
Ju just a
[1:46:40] » Oh, did you have something to say?
>> No, no, I'm talking to the
[1:46:43] administration.
>> Just three quick questions for you then
[1:46:45] because you you bring up
bring that up and I just wanted to read
[1:46:49] this part of the uh appeals court uh
ruling and tell me if I'm understanding
[1:46:54] this correctly. It says because those
issues were raised by the parties below,
[1:46:59] they both would ordinarily be preserved
for appellet review despite the trial
[1:47:03] court's failure to actually rule on
them. And then it gives some language
[1:47:08] for that. And then below that it says
the procedural flaws in this case are a
[1:47:13] direct result of both parties failure to
properly plead and argue their claims
[1:47:18] and to name the proper party defendants
in the trial court. So it's sounding to
[1:47:23] me like the appeals court said even
though the trial court didn't bring up
[1:47:27] the specific things that that you're
asking me to appeal, they could have had
[1:47:31] appellet review on this, but both
parties are to blame for not properly
[1:47:35] trying this in the right court. Is that
what it's essentially saying? No, I
[1:47:38] think you're I think you're okay. What
does it say?
[1:47:40] » Misunderstanding.
>> So, when you when you talk about the
[1:47:44] county uh join the proper parties, when
they talk about proper parties not being
[1:47:49] joined, they're talking about Mark
Brandt's uh claim when he asked uh when
[1:47:55] he asked uh the court of appeals to
enjoin uh the county from going forward
[1:48:03] with the uh special election. In order
to do that, they would have had to add
[1:48:07] parties. They would they would have had
to add the Monroe County Clerk because
[1:48:12] the Monroe County Clerk is the one who
oversees elections. So, and they and
[1:48:17] they say that they they say that Brandt
lawyers should have brought a mandamus
[1:48:22] action if they wanted to uh enjoin the
election, the special election that
[1:48:28] happened in November of this year. So,
that that's what that was about. The
[1:48:33] county named the proper party, the
proper party being Mark Brandt.
[1:48:38] » I guess I was wondering on that line,
the procedural flaws in these cases are
[1:48:41] direct result of the parties. So what
parties their plural are they talking
[1:48:45] about?
>> They [clears throat] they say they say
[1:48:49] county of Monroe and Mark Brandt, you
both should have added a count to your
[1:48:55] respective complaints under Quo
Warrento. That's what they're saying.
[1:48:58] » Okay.
>> They said you both didn't do that. You
[1:49:01] should have. I respectfully disagree
with that because the the the I keep
[1:49:07] hitting this the the question is
I mean I just it's u and I and I it's
[1:49:16] it's somewhat complicating complicated
but on the other hand to me it's not.
[1:49:21] Was he a qualified elector on January 1?
That's a declaratory judgment uh issue.
[1:49:28] Was he a qualified elector?
>> And your legal opinion was that he
[1:49:32] wasn't correct.
>> So then why was your office sending him
[1:49:35] recommendations for boards to to his
prison email?
[1:49:38] » Because because that was prior to my
legal opinion uh being my legal opinion
[1:49:46] was requested that was done prior to my
legal opinion being uh authored where I
[1:49:52] set out for the board um 46.411 411 the
constitution provisions and the the
[1:49:59] election law provisions that was done
prior prior.
[1:50:02] » So your natural assumption was he still
was before you gave your legal opinion
[1:50:07] then your office was acting in the
natural assumption that he still was a
[1:50:10] county commissioner by requesting him to
fill board seats.
[1:50:13] » I I wouldn't it wasn't my natural
inclination. I was researching it. So no
[1:50:18] decision had been made yet as to how the
how we were going to ad advise the
[1:50:23] board. You know, some people have
suggested that um that my work was done
[1:50:31] that I was given an assignment. We want
you to reach this this point. And so do
[1:50:37] whatever you need to do to get to that
point. And so I told you guys before and
[1:50:42] ladies, if you would have asked me to do
that, I use these words. I would have
[1:50:46] told you to go jump in the lake. I'm not
going to do that. I'm going to research
[1:50:49] it thoroughly and come up with an
opinion that I have faith in and I
[1:50:55] believe is well grounded in the law. So,
that was never done to reach reach a
[1:51:01] point uh and just come up with some
theory. I didn't do that. I researched
[1:51:07] the law. I considered it very
thoughtfully. Um and I came up with my
[1:51:12] opinion. No, I'm sure you did. I had not
I had not made a decision um at that at
[1:51:19] the point that was taking place. I think
at that at that point there were many
[1:51:24] people reaching out to my partner Tom
Grant saying on these boards and
[1:51:28] commissions, we have to have somebody
act in this capacity. What do we do? We
[1:51:33] have to have somebody act in this
capacity. So he did what he did while I
[1:51:37] was researching. I came up with my
opinion based on the law. That's how
[1:51:42] that happened. So, not going to
sugarcoat it. That's how it happened.
[1:51:46] Those are the facts.
>> And then my last question would be, so
[1:51:49] what what if the county does absolutely
nothing. What What's the next step? It's
[1:51:53] it's pretty much up in the air, right? I
know you said we're not back to square
[1:51:56] one, but it sounds like the appellet
court said, "Hey, this needs to be filed
[1:52:01] properly like you explained." Where, in
your legal opinion, where are we at if
[1:52:05] the county throws their hands up and
let's just says we we're not acting at
[1:52:09] all. We're never bringing up this
subject again. Let's just say that
[1:52:12] happens. Where where would that in your
legal opinion, where would that leave
[1:52:15] us? [clears throat]
>> The the legal question would never be
[1:52:19] answered. It would leave Mr. Beniki in
limbo because of the course of this
[1:52:24] litigation. He may choose to to uh uh
challenge that in court. Um the
[1:52:32] the only way that could be done, Greg, I
think is is if you chose collectively as
[1:52:37] a board is to just throw up your hands
and say that uh we know you sent this
[1:52:44] back to us, Court of Appeals, for uh for
more uh more litigation, more action in
[1:52:51] front of the trial court. We're just
going to we're just going to dismiss our
[1:52:54] complaint and be done with it. Still
doesn't answer the question, though. um
[1:52:59] because a a lot has happened since that
time. Um primarily the special election
[1:53:06] and I go back to this point the court of
appeals and we would have honored it.
[1:53:11] The court of appeals had the opportunity
to address it at that point. uh and they
[1:53:17] and they said at that point we're not
you know we're not the election goes on
[1:53:21] and they gave a gave a rationale for
allowing the election to go on and that
[1:53:26] was a continuation of what Judge Kungi
had stated in her judgment her in her
[1:53:31] order. Um so um
it would I think it would create a
[1:53:39] larger mess than what we have. We don't
have an answer. You could tell me, you
[1:53:43] could tell me collectively as a board,
just dismiss the case. Um, and uh, we're
[1:53:49] not going to pursu pursue it any
further. Uh, but but
[1:53:54] » but I'm saying, what are the
ramifications if there's two people up
[1:53:56] here wanting to sit in the same seat?
What's the next step after that? That's
[1:54:00] if we dismiss.
>> Well, um, I would I'm this is right off
[1:54:04] the top of my head. So, um, I would
think that Mr. Beniki would uh because
[1:54:12] he would he he would then have a cool
warrant action because he's claiming the
[1:54:19] office and now Mark Brandt's claiming
the office. So you have two uh competing
[1:54:24] claimments. So he could go to the
attorney general as a person.
[1:54:29] » Who's he?
>> Mr. Beniki. Okay. 3.306B.
[1:54:33] MCR 3.306b.
He could through a through an attorney
[1:54:38] if he chose uh ask for a quote warrantto
opinion from the attorney general. The
[1:54:44] attorney general might give that or they
might send it back and say you go to
[1:54:48] circuit court, you litigate it in
circuit court. Um he could do that. Um I
[1:54:55] Mark Brandt would probably be happy if
the board said
[1:54:59] wave the white flag and say we're just
going to dismiss our cause of action. I
[1:55:03] I'm really I resent that uh
interpretation
[1:55:09] because you're basically, you know,
I mean, you're basically saying, "Oh,
[1:55:15] you're putting up the white flag." All I
can say is it's sad that our prior chair
[1:55:24] accomplished more in prison than this
entire board has in the last year. There
[1:55:31] have been all kinds of stuff talked
about. We haven't talked about data
[1:55:35] centers. We haven't talked about carbon
uh sequestration. We haven't talked
[1:55:40] about solar panels and all that. Maybe
this much the things that people really
[1:55:45] care about that are going on in this
county. and we had this chair who
[1:55:50] actually ran this board without drama
and we accomplished things and we were
[1:55:57] in a very good financial situation and
we are still thank God because of some
[1:56:03] of those plans. But throwing up the
white flag is hardly what I would call
[1:56:07] putting Mark Brandt back on this board.
>> Throwing up the white flag means you're
[1:56:12] giving up uh the claims that have been
raised in the litigation. So,
[1:56:17] » well, I'm just I'm not here to I am not
here to challenge or contest um the job
[1:56:24] that Mr. Brandt did while he was uh on
this board. Not for one second. U I I
[1:56:31] think Mark Brandt uh served the
community well when he was on this
[1:56:35] board.
[1:56:38] » I have one more question. Your initial
your initial letter though your initial
[1:56:42] letter told us to go to a higher court a
court of that's what you told us to do
[1:56:47] and then after a while what it turned
into was a theory that he wasn't an
[1:56:52] elector and it went a totally different
direction. Why why didn't you keep
[1:56:57] persisting to say no you've got to go to
a higher court? Why did it turn into
[1:57:01] this other thing? That's what I don't
understand. That that's that's what I
[1:57:05] don't understand.
>> You look at my legal opinion. My legal
[1:57:08] opinion is based entirely on MCL 46.411,
the Constitution and the and the same
[1:57:15] statutes that I pled in the trial court
and that the trial court was asked to
[1:57:20] answer and didn't and that was
recognized by the court of appeals. They
[1:57:24] she committed error because she didn't
answer those questions. So I didn't
[1:57:29] change in midstream.
>> Mr. Chair, can I interrupt just for a
[1:57:33] second? Commissioner Le,
>> I think we've uh uh got an excellent uh
[1:57:36] statement of where we were, how we got
to where we are now from our county's
[1:57:43] attorney. I think we've had a great uh
counterpoint from commissioners uh Asper
[1:57:48] and more. I think uh everybody in the
audience uh here today watching us uh
[1:57:53] electronically uh in real time
[laughter] from the future is pretty
[1:57:57] much uh surmised based on the proceeding
votes that got us here where the board
[1:58:02] is essentially uh you know positioned
you know on this topic but to to move it
[1:58:08] forward I would just ask councel really
quick what is your recommendation based
[1:58:14] on where we're at now as our retained
Monroe County Board of Commissioners uh
[1:58:20] council moving forward. What what is it
that you're asking for the board to do
[1:58:25] right now?
>> Well, the the decision of the board the
[1:58:30] decision of the board is whether or not
to proceed forward as directed by the
[1:58:35] court of appeals and to in in my view to
proceed proceed forward uh u you would
[1:58:44] uh file an application for
>> and not to interrupt but what is your
[1:58:47] recommendation? Well, I I mean this has
to be brought to a conclusion. So, I
[1:58:51] would recommend that you allow me to
file an application with the attorney
[1:58:56] general. Um as as suggested by the court
of appeals in its decision and order, um
[1:59:03] the the attorney general will then have
to decide to take it up or not take it
[1:59:07] up. If they take it up, they'll uh
presumably issue an opinion. If they
[1:59:11] don't take it up today, I make the
motion based on the
[1:59:15] » I didn't hear what he said. If they
don't take it up, what
[1:59:18] » if if they don't take it up, then it
comes back and then I file a motion with
[1:59:22] the trial court asking the trial court
for leave to add aqua warrant account
[1:59:27] and then the trial court decides the
issue and based on their decision,
[1:59:32] either Mr. Brandt takes it back up or
the county takes it back up to the court
[1:59:36] of appeals.
>> And then can I just ask one qu quick
[1:59:39] question before you finish your motion?
Of
[1:59:41] » course.
>> I don't want to belabor it. I know we've
[1:59:43] been here a long time. So, in your in
your opinion, that would be a better
[1:59:47] option than doing nothing and having
those two guys fight it out
[1:59:53] essentially. I know that sounds rough,
but it's like, hey, you you two want to
[1:59:56] figure it out in court, go figure it
out. Now, both ways leave District 2
[2:00:00] unrepresented in your opinion. Which one
do you think would would be quicker to
[2:00:04] get to a resolution? Going through the
to the uh state attorney general, then
[2:00:08] them either having pick it up or not. If
they don't, it goes back to a trial
[2:00:12] court. we have to go through that again.
Could we be looking if we go the route
[2:00:15] of sending it to the state? Could we be
looking at another year, year and a
[2:00:19] half? I I know we thought this thing was
going to get resolved in a few months.
[2:00:22] We're now 18 months in. Well, not the
court part of it, but a year in. Do like
[2:00:26] what's your legal opinion there of like
the timeline? Because I'm also worried
[2:00:29] about District 2 getting representation,
no matter who it who it is.
[2:00:33] » Sure.
So to answer your answer your question,
[2:00:36] Greg, it would be quicker for us to do
it because we can get it in front of the
[2:00:41] attorney general quickly. They would ha
they'd have to do the same thing. If Mr.
[2:00:46] Beniki chose to do to do that, he'd have
to make application to the attorney
[2:00:51] general. They'd make a decision. So, um,
he'd be starting fresh. I We've got
[2:00:59] everything. We send it. We file the
application with the attorney general.
[2:01:04] We wait for their opinion. I can't
answer uh the question of how long it
[2:01:09] would take. I thought I thought the
court of appeals would have given us
[2:01:15] this answer months ago. They didn't. And
the reason I thought that is because
[2:01:21] right off the bat when we the the the
appeal was filed by Mr. grant. Then we
[2:01:26] filed a cross appeal and the the court
of appeals said we're going to submit
[2:01:30] this on the briefs and we're going to
decide this because of the exigencies
[2:01:36] involved with the election. We're going
to decide this without oral argument on
[2:01:42] the briefs and and we waited. I think
the trial judge thought that that the I
[2:01:49] thought I think the trial judge thought
that the court of appeals may have made
[2:01:52] a decision even before the election. But
we filed everything timely. Nobody asked
[2:01:57] for any extensions. Um crying out loud.
Mark's lawyers filed a motion at 12 on a
[2:02:05] 12 noon on a Thursday. I get a call from
the court of appeals. A motion and a
[2:02:08] brief. I get a call from the court of
appeals saying, "We want your response
[2:02:12] at 8 a.m. tomorrow." I said, "May I have
until 10 a.m." I stayed all night. I did
[2:02:18] it and got it filed timely. So, I mean,
we did exactly what they asked us to do.
[2:02:26] » I just have two quick questions.
One, it sounds like you've you've got a
[2:02:32] question yourself on which way to pursue
going forward on the way you do the
[2:02:36] request.
>> No.
[2:02:37] » Okay. I
>> No. I mean, it's it's
[2:02:42] even the court of appeals recognized
that there's no published precedent on
[2:02:46] whether a county um in view of MCR
3.306b, the quo warrantto statute is a
[2:02:55] public corporation within that context.
So, I I'll have to address that. I'll
[2:03:01] have to address the person issue. um the
the person issue. There's a 1971 Court
[2:03:07] of Appeals decision that's pretty well
on point on that. So, I I think I can
[2:03:11] get it in front of them. Um
>> uh and then there and then the attorney
[2:03:16] general is going to have to make a
decision.
[2:03:19] » And one other thing, go ahead.
>> Is is there an option to have one of our
[2:03:23] legislators make the request for the
opinion from the attorney general? It it
[2:03:27] has to be by application and and uh you
know the the legislature the
[2:03:34] legislaturator
if they chose could encourage the the
[2:03:38] attorney general say hey Monroe County
or Mark Brandt if they do it they've
[2:03:43] made this application for Quo Warrento
would you encourage the attorney general
[2:03:48] to look at it and and give a swift
decision
[2:03:51] » that's where I was going because I don't
want this to get dragged out
[2:03:54] » well none of Who does? Who does none of
us?
[2:03:58] » Well, since since the whole case is
about whether or not the seat was
[2:04:01] vacated and we did not remove him
because we couldn't remove him then. And
[2:04:06] since the uh the judge when she ruled,
she said that the seat had not been
[2:04:11] vacated and there hasn't been any
precedent about a commissioner being you
[2:04:15] know vacating a seat in this manner. It
just seems to me like we could at least
[2:04:20] have him seated to take care of his
district until it's decided. Since it
[2:04:24] hasn't been decided that he vacated it,
then why wasn't he allowed to sit up
[2:04:29] here and he came up here initially when
he first came out and he actually was
[2:04:34] doing stuff for his constituents? He
settled a dispute in his district
[2:04:38] probably the first day out or something.
Uh it just seems to me that if it hasn't
[2:04:43] been decided that he was his seat was
vacated. I just don't see how how we can
[2:04:49] be uh holding off on District 2 having
somebody in there. I am willing I'm I've
[2:04:54] always been willing to take their calls
and we make decisions that are for the
[2:04:58] entire county. So, so I guess
technically they're not without
[2:05:02] representation, but it just seems to me
like he should be able to go ahead and
[2:05:07] be in that seat if it has not
definitively been decided and there's no
[2:05:12] precedent on it. So, and we could have
done that last year.
[2:05:15] » I'm I'm going to ask that Commissioner
Leven was going to make a motion.
[2:05:19] » I'll make a motion to follow the advice
of council as uh indicated on the
[2:05:23] record.
>> I'll second that. Move
[2:05:25] » by Lee and [clears throat] supported by
Huffman. Now, any additional comments or
[2:05:28] questions?
>> All I want to say is if this character
[2:05:32] would get up and leave and give the
county back to us and let the new man up
[2:05:37] here, we could put this whole thing to
bed tonight instead of going on crazy.
[2:05:43] If he had the guts to get up and get out
of here, which he should, and Mr. Beniki
[2:05:48] come up here, we go on with the county
and do our business. This is all
[2:05:51] madness. I don't know. You're in the
history. What else do you want? Our
[2:05:56] clerk said he was duly elected.
>> Any other comments or questions?
[2:06:01] » Hearing none. Roll call, please.
>> Stupid.
[2:06:04] » Commissioner Hoffman,
>> yes.
[2:06:08] » Commissioner Asper,
>> no.
[2:06:10] » Commissioner Heinserling,
>> yes.
[2:06:12] » Commissioner Lammore,
>> yes.
[2:06:14] » Commissioner Venzel,
>> yes.
[2:06:15] » Commissioner Schwart,
>> no.
[2:06:17] » Commissioner Moore,
>> no.
[2:06:19] » Commissioner Levens,
>> yes.
[2:06:22] » Motion carries.
Yeah. You want me to stay up here for
[2:06:27] the next one?
>> Please.
[2:06:28] » Okay.
Do I have to?
[2:06:32] » Our next item um
that was originally supposed to be
[2:06:36] discussed in close session um is the
communication pursuant to the regarding
[2:06:41] the forensic audit and um
[laughter] I will turn that over to Mr.
[2:06:48] Goldman.
So, [clears throat]
[2:06:53] you have all been provided
with a um
[2:07:00] MIDC billing analysis that was performed
by Plant Moran. It's a forensic analysis
[2:07:08] uh that focuses on the uh um within the
scope that you provided Plant Moran. You
[2:07:14] wanted Plant Moran to investigate uh the
billing practices of one of the MIDC
[2:07:22] uh council, one of the MIDC attorneys.
And so
[2:07:27] um I received that late on Friday.
um and then uh uh spoke with chairman
[2:07:34] Venzel um and provided that
electronically to all of you. I hope
[2:07:39] that all of you have had the opportunity
to review that. Uh but the long and
[2:07:43] short of it is um that this um this
billing analysis shows uh based on the
[2:07:51] investigation of plant Moran uh that
there uh were improper billing practices
[2:07:56] employed by the MIDC attorney here in
Monroe County uh that resulted in um
[2:08:03] overbilling
um and u u it's it's straightforward. I
[2:08:10] I read it carefully. I looked at all the
charts and the graphs that were
[2:08:14] provided. And so um um it's um pretty
com
[2:08:22] attorney uh took liberty with the way he
built for the work he performed. Um, and
[2:08:29] Plant Maran I I don't think uh matter of
fact I know they didn't they weren't
[2:08:34] unable to come up with a dollar amount.
Uh, but they showed um over the course
[2:08:40] of their investigation within the time
parameters that they were uh that was
[2:08:45] the scope of their investigative
authority. uh they showed uh the billing
[2:08:49] practices which um uh the county uh
appears to have been grossly overbuild
[2:08:57] uh for work perform. Uh it doesn't
address uh the sufficiency of the legal
[2:09:03] work. Uh I don't think it was ever
intended to do that. It just uh the
[2:09:07] billing practices and the hours and with
intens of hours that were build shows uh
[2:09:12] extraordinary time spent um on on many
days. So um
[2:09:20] I think that this board has to uh um
decide what to do next and there are a
[2:09:25] number of things that can be uh done
with respect to this. uh uh one it could
[2:09:30] be uh I think this this report should be
sent to the MIDC uh because the they're
[2:09:38] the state um and that agency has
oversight and they need to be aware of
[2:09:42] that and this will assist them um in u
their oversight of u indigent defense uh
[2:09:51] uh council operation. it will help them,
I think. Um um and it's been suggested
[2:09:58] that maybe it should be sent to uh the
attorney general to take a look at it um
[2:10:04] in terms of whether or not there are any
violations that the attorney general uh
[2:10:08] might see fit to pursue. Um and lastly,
it's been suggested that um and the the
[2:10:16] um uh forensic uh uh consultant uh
indicated a couple of different uh um
[2:10:23] ethics um provisions that uh perhaps
have been violated. So, um it should be
[2:10:30] sent to uh the Attorney grievance
commission for their review. What they
[2:10:34] do with it is up to them. What the
attorney general does with it, it's up
[2:10:38] to them. and what and what the MIDC um
at the state level does with it. It's up
[2:10:45] to them. But um it's um really a a
pretty uh sad report on the billing
[2:10:52] practices of this one attorney
>> and also that a copy of this report go
[2:10:59] to the sixth amendment feasibility
study.
[2:11:02] » Yeah. because they're they're they're
investigating
[2:11:06] um at the request of the county. Um and
with MIDC
[2:11:12] um they're investigating would it be in
the best interest of Monroe County? I
[2:11:17] think part of the scope of their
investigation is would it be in the best
[2:11:21] interest of Monroe County to continue
the current uh practice of assign of
[2:11:26] assigned council? um um or would it be
in the best interest of Monroe County to
[2:11:33] consider a public defender's office? And
there's a lot of moving parts with all
[2:11:37] of that and there's a lot of financial
considerations uh with all of that, but
[2:11:42] uh um I think it would be appropriate to
uh um send it to them as well.
[2:11:49] » Mr. Chairman,
>> yes. Um given the indication the report
[2:11:52] that we have and did its executive
summary, it went through some some
[2:11:56] highlight portions concerning over
billing patterns uh rec recalculation of
[2:12:01] ours using the attorneys provided
corrections. Uh and interestingly in
[2:12:07] those uh corrections uh days that were
in excess of 24 hours actually
[2:12:14] increased. Uh and and this is no longer
true because we're doing this in open
[2:12:18] session. um these documents are no
longer uh covered by attorney client
[2:12:23] privilege. These are now um public
documents. Correct, Mr. Goldsmith.
[2:12:27] » Correct.
>> And so it indicated now there's uh one
[2:12:30] day that was build um 28.6 hours. I
think we'd all love to have a 28.6h hour
[2:12:38] uh day to get all the things we want to
get done in a day. So there was that. um
[2:12:43] uh problematic uh so-called block and
bundled billing, duplicative billings uh
[2:12:49] and not a couple but over 150 duplicate
billings for just the the small segment.
[2:12:57] And to put in perspective, this wasn't
an anomaly of of a few dollars. It
[2:13:02] wasn't even $100, $1,000, $10,000,
$100,000, 200, 3000, 400, 500. This is
[2:13:10] over $600,000
that went to the and this is something
[2:13:15] that the chairman uh myself and other
members of this board railed upon when
[2:13:19] we saw these claims coming through. And
the more that our staff ignored it and
[2:13:25] uh and slowwalked us and refused to
acknowledge something because of
[2:13:29] arrogance, hubris, or whatever it is
that they had that made it impossible
[2:13:34] for them to see what was going on. it
exceeded over a half a million dollars.
[2:13:40] And again, this isn't saying that the
work that was actually done, whatever
[2:13:43] that number might ever ever be surmised
because of how horrible the uh bills
[2:13:48] that were coming up to this board, like
bills are going to come up again in a in
[2:13:52] a few moments that we're going to have
to approve, but I'm not going to approve
[2:13:55] them based on this uh chronologically
impossible charges for uh billing things
[2:14:01] uh in times when uh chronologically
impossible. um accuracy and procedural
[2:14:07] considerations that completely were were
ignored and finally uh you know some
[2:14:13] other things that uh you know go into
the weeds of it. So based on that I'm
[2:14:17] going to make the motion that uh it is
referred to the uh uh the organizations
[2:14:23] and uh and agencies that council uh
recommended that was
[2:14:30] MIDC
that's a nod. Yes. Yes. The uh the
[2:14:35] attorney general's correct?
>> Yes.
[2:14:37] » This uh sixth amendment uh and that's
the uh independent study on whether we
[2:14:42] uh proceed to a public defender's
office.
[2:14:44] » Yes.
>> And then finally the uh the attorney
[2:14:47] grievance commission uh for their
professional route. And that was based
[2:14:50] that's not based on your recommendation.
That's not based on mine. That's not
[2:14:54] based on any member of the board or a
citizen here that came and and said uh
[2:14:59] yeah, I'm this is from the uh the
actuaries themselves that said that that
[2:15:04] because that makes all attorneys cringe.
Well, it and so when the actuaries uh
[2:15:11] mention that um you and I as attorneys
have an obligation under our ethics
[2:15:17] » going and I'm glad that you steal my
thunder because uh this brings me no joy
[2:15:22] uh whatsoever. But at the same time, I'm
not going to sherk my uh fiduciary
[2:15:28] responsibilities, my ethical cons
because the Michigan rules professional
[2:15:31] conduct, we are mandatory reporters.
When we see something like this, we
[2:15:35] can't uh we can't hide it. We can't uh
you know, conceal it. Uh you know, put
[2:15:40] on I mean, we have a duty. Is that
accurate?
[2:15:43] » Yes. We're not going to we're not going
to offer an opinion. We're going to
[2:15:46] submit it to them and let them do what
they want.
[2:15:48] » But based on based on this, uh our hands
are kind of tied. When we when something
[2:15:51] of this nature comes before us, we have
an affirmative duty to to advance it.
[2:15:56] » You are correct.
>> Motion.
[2:15:58] » So, I make that motion. And I also um
from the folks uh my former uh uh you
[2:16:04] know predecessor in Bedford asking for
transparency. Miss Pedmont's been here
[2:16:09] more times than I can count on on one
hand, maybe more times on two hands. Um
[2:16:13] there have been some other members that
uh say, "Hey, uh including the the three
[2:16:17] down there that uh we're going to do
this in open session. I'm going to ask
[2:16:21] also my motion that this report be put
on our website for anybody to know what
[2:16:25] tens of thousand dollars of unnecessary
um forensic accounting uh um uh produced
[2:16:31] that could have been avoided had our
staff uh done their job additionally a
[2:16:36] year ago. That's my motion.
>> I'll second that.
[2:16:40] » Move by Le and supported by Huffman. Any
comments on the motion? Questions?
[2:16:44] Commissioner Asper. So in other words,
we don't have a figure. We paid for the
[2:16:49] forensic audit. We paid for additional
forensic auditing. We don't have a
[2:16:53] figure when we do all of this. Is there
any money that will be coming back to us
[2:17:00] or is somebody going to be deciding
anything that that money would be given
[2:17:04] back to um Monroe County? And I also
would like to say that um fortunately at
[2:17:10] least this attorney, my understanding is
that he was doing indigent defense back
[2:17:16] when they got peanuts for it. Um and I
really think one of the problems is just
[2:17:22] that some of the attorneys in this
county don't believe their defense
[2:17:26] attorneys. they don't believe that um
that they should owe the county some
[2:17:33] some sort of service for the indigent
population. So there are, you know, so
[2:17:38] there are some other things that go into
this as well, but I just feel like we
[2:17:42] spent all this money and now we don't Is
there any way through these four
[2:17:46] agencies that you're talking about us
sending this to that we actually get
[2:17:50] this money reimbursed? Do we have a
number?
[2:17:52] » May interrupt. The reason why um I I
endorse uh the recommendations is so
[2:17:58] that the county doesn't hemorrhage any
any more money on this that we send it
[2:18:02] to.
>> Is he still working for us?
[2:18:03] » I can't speak to that. All I can say is
>> he hasn't been working for us. So I just
[2:18:07] want to know the bottom line. I know I
want to know how much money if we spent
[2:18:12] all this money for a forensic audit, how
much money are we owed? They didn't
[2:18:17] determine that. That's not part of it.
So, so we weren't ever going to find out
[2:18:22] how much money would come back to the
county. We're just going to punish this
[2:18:25] person
>> responsible. I don't want to get into
[2:18:28] the weeds of it too much, but this
analysis you're talking about maybe if
[2:18:32] this had been uh uh taken with
seriousness when it was first brought to
[2:18:37] everyone's attention, it wouldn't have
been such a uh a gargantuan uh project.
[2:18:44] But this isn't one week, one month. this
continued over uh a year. And so as you
[2:18:50] recall when this uh was engaged, it was
uh a snapshot that was going to be
[2:18:56] reviewed. And so the the numbers and
it's in this report, tens of thousands
[2:19:00] of dollars that uh are double billing,
so on and so forth. But uh my my
[2:19:05] position based on council, this report,
and the rest, is that we stop the
[2:19:08] hemorrhaging and have the uh the folks
that are situated uh in charge to take
[2:19:13] it uh the rest of the way. and we we've
done our job. So that way we're not
[2:19:17] spending tens and
thousands more on all of these uh
[2:19:24] forensic and uh you know other things
that take us away from our business. Our
[2:19:29] job as a fiduciary to have these bills
come before us. Uh they were taken on
[2:19:33] the assumption that they've been you
know properly vetted and and presented
[2:19:36] and just ready for our our approval. And
of course when we did the when we had it
[2:19:42] investigated or I should say uh reviewed
by Raymond uh we thought that that was
[2:19:48] going to be a forensic audit and then we
found out later no that actually hadn't
[2:19:52] been a forensic audit. So you needed to
do that and I was the one that required
[2:19:57] you know required us to get Raymond here
to actually do the report because I
[2:20:01] don't like secondhand information. And
then that's when we found out that it
[2:20:04] actually wasn't a forensic audit and we
were going to have to get somebody else
[2:20:07] because Raymond wouldn't do it. So, we
keep spending this money, but I don't
[2:20:11] see that it's, you know, I mean, we need
to if if there was money that was taken
[2:20:16] from us improperly, it there should be a
pathway back here. So, we can go ahead
[2:20:20] and spend all this stuff, you know,
sending these things out to these other
[2:20:24] agencies, which obviously it has to be
done. But I I just want to know, is
[2:20:29] there a way to to retrieve some of this
money? I mean, in fact, even Plant Moran
[2:20:35] said that they don't make judgments on
this. they just, you know, give you an
[2:20:39] idea of patterns. So, but still, I don't
see anything about us getting
[2:20:44] [clears throat] any money back.
>> The bigger issue is that this model has
[2:20:46] to be fixed. I mean, you're going to see
on the bills tonight that there there
[2:20:50] are some claims that are $27,000,
$22,000, and there's no way for us to
[2:20:55] know is this a monthly claim, is this a
quarterly claim? And those were uh
[2:21:00] concerns that were supposed to be
addressed, but they don't seem to to get
[2:21:04] addressed. And so more than I agree with
Commissioner Leven, we need to stop the
[2:21:09] hemorrhaging, but we need to we need to
fix a a broken model here of how we
[2:21:13] deliver uh def a defense for the
indigent. Um and so there was no way
[2:21:19] around this uh other than for us to
proceed the way we did which was to take
[2:21:24] the initial initial findings or
recommendations from Raymond take it a
[2:21:28] step further with plant man with the
forensic audit and they've done their
[2:21:32] work and now it's our obligation to turn
it over to let other agencies do their
[2:21:36] work. I know. But what what a lot of
this came about was because you want to
[2:21:41] do the defense a different way. And the
problem is when I first got on this
[2:21:46] board nine years ago, I was all for
having um um public defenders office and
[2:21:52] so forth. And then I looked into it and
in everything that I've seen
[2:21:58] it has been this, you know, basically if
we can't if we were a lousy county that
[2:22:04] couldn't meet the qualifications of
being able to, you know, properly do
[2:22:09] defense and so forth, then MIDC would
say, "Okay, you're going to have a
[2:22:12] public defender." But it's always been a
lesser thing. We have extraordinary
[2:22:17] people that work for us. Extraordinary
people.
[2:22:21] That's what we have with this county
right here.
[2:22:23] » First of all,
>> we don't we don't have an amount though.
[2:22:25] I think
>> it's never our decision.
[2:22:26] » We don't have an amount.
>> It's not going to be our decision.
[2:22:29] » And it wasn't us. It was supposedly
staff. So, I don't know.
[2:22:32] » Could Could I ask the uh motion maker
because essentially we have three
[2:22:36] different issues there and I'm wondering
if you'd break your motion up into two
[2:22:39] and one because sending it to MIDC I'm
fine with. Sending it to the attorney
[2:22:43] general I'm fine with. But Trojan
horsing in, oh, and by the way, we're
[2:22:47] going to send this to a group to study
us, switching over to a public
[2:22:49] defender's office. I think that's a
totally separate issue. And I wouldn't
[2:22:53] be comfortable voting yes on this on
that one issue, but I'm totally
[2:22:57] comfortable on voting on the other two
issues. So, could could we break that up
[2:23:01] into I mean, it's two totally separate
issues in in my mind.
[2:23:04] » So, you don't want the firm that's doing
a feasibility study to determine whether
[2:23:07] or not we should possibly change models
to have the information?
[2:23:10] » Not until this gets to MIDC and the
attorney general and they make a
[2:23:13] decision on it. Yeah, exactly. Okay.
Well, yeah, I you know, he made the
[2:23:17] motion. We have support for the motion.
Um, if there's no other comments, I
[2:23:20] would accept an amendment.
>> Would he accept an amendment just to
[2:23:22] make that a separate motion?
>> No, let's call for the vote.
[2:23:26] » Roll call, please.
>> I'll see what's going on here.
[2:23:28] » Did he just say call the question?
>> We're going to vote.
[2:23:32] » You need a You need a second on that.
And that's a two3.
[2:23:36] » Okay. Sounded [laughter] like it.
>> Roll call.
[2:23:39] » Commissioner Swart out.
>> Yes.
[2:23:41] » Commissioner Moore.
No.
[2:23:44] » Commissioner Levens.
>> Yes.
[2:23:46] » Commissioner Hoffman.
>> Yes.
[2:23:48] » Commissioner Asper.
>> No.
[2:23:50] » Commissioner Hinderling.
>> Yes.
[2:23:52] » Commissioner Lammore.
>> Yes.
[2:23:54] » Commissioner Venzel.
>> Yes.
[2:23:55] » Motion carries.
[2:23:59] » Thank you, Mr. Goldman.
>> You're welcome.
[2:24:21] Uh, next on the agenda is the um
resolution special tributes and
[2:24:28] presentation and a CASA presentation.
Are are we moving forward with that?
[2:24:34] » Courtesy and respect to them. They
they'll reschedule, Mr. Chairman. So,
[2:24:38] they needed to move on. So don't thank
thank you.
[2:24:41] » I took it upon myself to just
>> allow them to excuse themselves.
[2:24:45] » I appreciate it. Thank you.
>> But you do have their presentation, I
[2:24:48] believe, Grace. So you have that. We'll
schedule another time.
[2:24:52] » Thank you.
Uh next, moving into finance matters. Um
[2:24:56] item number one, payment of the February
18, 2026 accounts payable current claims
[2:25:01] report in the amount of uh $1,55,551.72.
[2:25:07] Could I get a motion, please? So move
>> moved by Lam more. Is there support?
[2:25:13] » Second.
>> Supported by Heiserling. Uh now I'll
[2:25:16] turn it over to Sue.
>> Good evening. On page number one, vendor
[2:25:20] number 40572,
Dewolf and Associates. It's training for
[2:25:24] a dispatch and sheriff employee. On page
number two, vendor number 60205,
[2:25:30] Fiddler Technologies. It's annual fee
for the register of deed software.
[2:25:35] Vendor number 80904, House Arrest
Services. It's the det December indigent
[2:25:41] tether services provided through various
courts.
[2:25:47] On page number four, vendor number 1
190935, Schoolcraft College. It's a
[2:25:53] cadet academy for six recruits.
Page number five, vendor number 510855,
[2:26:00] title title check LLC. certified mail
fees for the tax foreclosure notices.
[2:26:09] And on page number seven, vendor number
903107,
[2:26:13] Lenway County Drain Commissioner, it's
reimbursement of county portion of
[2:26:17] maintenance on a shared drain. And
that's the end of my list.
[2:26:22] » Other questions?
>> Just have one question, please.
[2:26:25] » We're on the first page here. this
affordable interior systems. I know it's
[2:26:29] probably one of the big projects, but uh
>> I believe that was furniture for the
[2:26:33] Stoner Keling project.
>> I'm I'm just curious what So, it's just
[2:26:39] an order. It's a affordable interior
systems 88,000. Is that on one of the uh
[2:26:44] with Jamie or it's not Jamie?
>> It's the Stoner Keling project. It's the
[2:26:49] furniture replacement for Stoner Keling
project.
[2:26:53] » Thank you.
>> Yes, it is another big project. Thank
[2:26:56] you.
>> Sure.
[2:26:57] » Other questions?
>> I have a question on page six. Uh vendor
[2:27:03] code number 750521.
The amount is the amount uh what period
[2:27:09] of time is that amount for?
>> That I do not know, but it is 68
[2:27:13] individual invoices.
So I would imagine that's more than a
[2:27:17] month. I don't know that without
looking.
[2:27:21] » Okay. Because you know when I when I
read this forensic u audit um part of it
[2:27:26] said the county noted uh as the review
took place changes were made by the
[2:27:30] county office to practices and
procedures related to assignment
[2:27:34] procedures case load distribution
billing software and tracking monthly.
[2:27:38] » Can I interrupt you a second? I agree
with all of your com. May I quickly?
[2:27:42] [clears throat]
>> I'm familiar uh um with this matter and
[2:27:45] there was a uh an internal issue with
this individual uh vendor's office where
[2:27:51] they uh needed to get uh new staffing
and so those uh 68 invoices um represent
[2:27:58] uh a backlog where things were submitted
um from from prior things. And um I I'm
[2:28:05] totally on the same page where you know
we're you know supposed to be getting
[2:28:10] these uh updates so it just doesn't come
to us blindly but I get these and uh and
[2:28:14] I do my due diligence and I speak out.
So this represents a couple months when
[2:28:19] that individual attorney was short
staffed to get uh you know their
[2:28:23] invoices in. I I fully accept that. It
would just help us because it was stated
[2:28:27] that there's going to be tracking
monthly and so if there was tracking
[2:28:31] monthly there there could be a little
side note with the claims to say listen
[2:28:35] there there's 68 different entries and
this is because there was a snafu with
[2:28:39] the billing system and so it covers not
just one month but it covers three
[2:28:43] months makes it a lot easier to vote on
the entire claim package when we know
[2:28:46] this kind of thing. Does that does that
make sense?
[2:28:49] » Yes. I think that information would be
better to come through the MIDC office
[2:28:53] though. So, do you want to have an
addendum to this this report?
[2:28:57] » Well, and and it because it said the
county noted. So, if that's the MIDC
[2:29:01] office, then why aren't they doing that
for us? That would be the question.
[2:29:06] » I can't answer for them.
>> Okay. All right. Any other questions?
[2:29:15] Thank you. Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Lammore,
[2:29:18] » yes.
>> Commissioner Venzel,
[2:29:19] » yes.
>> Commissioner Schwart,
[2:29:21] » yes.
>> Commissioner Moore,
[2:29:22] » yes. Commissioner Levens.
>> No.
[2:29:24] » Commissioner Hoffman,
>> yes.
[2:29:26] » Commissioner Asper,
>> yes.
[2:29:28] » Commissioner Heinserling,
>> yes.
[2:29:29] » Motion carries.
>> Thank you.
[2:29:32] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:29:35] » Look at this.
>> Still there.
[2:29:52] Uh, next next up is item number two,
letter dated February 9, 2026 for Mr.
[2:29:58] Jesse Stanford, Monro County Treasurer,
submitting the cash and investment
[2:30:02] report for the quarter end of December
31, 2025. Could we get a motion, please
[2:30:06] » make the motion?
>> I'll second that.
[2:30:08] » Moved by Heiserling, supported by
Huffman. I'll turn it over to Jesse.
[2:30:11] » I'll make this real quick. It's been a
long night. um basically over quarter 4
[2:30:16] um we saw the uh Federal Reserve uh cut
rates twice, once in October and once in
[2:30:21] December. So that's uh that's the big
news of quarter 4 for our uh
[2:30:27] investments. It's made it harder for me
to get um you know the same investment
[2:30:33] because the rates are going down to that
uh degree. And I'll answer any questions
[2:30:38] or attempt to anyway. [snorts]
>> Any questions for Jesse?
[2:30:44] Thank you. Hearing none. Roll call,
please.
[2:30:47] » Commissioner Venzo,
>> yes.
[2:30:48] » Commissioner Sardo,
>> yes.
[2:30:50] » Commissioner Moore,
>> yes.
[2:30:51] » Commissioner Leven,
>> yes.
[2:30:53] » Commissioner Hoffman,
>> yes.
[2:30:54] » Commissioner Asper,
>> yes.
[2:30:55] » Commissioner Heinserling,
>> yes.
[2:30:57] » Commissioner Lammore,
>> yes.
[2:30:58] » Motion carries.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
[2:31:02] Next under consent agenda um approval of
non-claims. Item A, check register dated
[2:31:07] February 6, 2026 in the amount of
1,453,1544.
[2:31:14] Uh item B, check register dated uh
February 13, 2026 in the amount of
[2:31:20] $425,13767.
[2:31:24] Could I get a motion, please? Moved by
Schwart out.
[2:31:28] » Supported by Heiserling. Uh, any
questions on this motion?
[2:31:33] Seeing none, roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Schwart,
[2:31:35] » yes.
>> Commissioner Moore,
[2:31:36] » yes.
>> Commissioner Levens,
[2:31:38] » yes.
>> Commissioner Hoffman, [clears throat]
[2:31:39] » yes.
>> Commissioner Asper,
[2:31:41] » yes.
>> Commissioner Heinserling,
[2:31:42] » yes.
>> Commissioner Malmore,
[2:31:44] » yes.
>> Commissioner Venzel,
[2:31:45] » yes.
>> Motion carries.
[2:31:47] » Next, under communications, a letter
dated February 6, 2026 from Mr. Michael
[2:31:52] Premo, Chief Deputy, requesting approval
to apply for the fiscal year 2026 marine
[2:31:58] safety grant to the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources in the amount of
[2:32:02] $59,84.
The potential local match is included in
[2:32:06] the 2026 adopted budget. Could I get a
motion?
[2:32:09] » Motion.
>> Second.
[2:32:10] » Moved by Heiserling, supported by
Lamore. Any questions on this motion?
[2:32:16] » Seeing none, roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Moore,
[2:32:19] » yes.
>> Commissioner Levens,
[2:32:20] » yes. Commissioner Hoffman,
>> yes.
[2:32:23] » Commissioner Asper,
>> yes.
[2:32:24] » Commissioner Heinderling,
>> yes.
[2:32:26] » Commissioner Lammore,
>> yes.
[2:32:27] » Commissioner Venzel,
>> yes.
[2:32:29] » Commissioner Swart out,
>> yes.
[2:32:30] » Motion carries.
>> Item number two, letter dated February
[2:32:33] 9th, 2026 from Miss Jamie Dean, health
director, requesting approval to accept
[2:32:37] a public health capacity building's
miniig grant in the amount of $10,000
[2:32:41] with no matching funds required. Could I
get a motion?
[2:32:44] » I'll make the motion. Second move by
Leven, supported by Huffman. Uh, any
[2:32:48] questions on this motion? Hearing
none. Roll call, please.
[2:32:53] » Commissioner Levens,
>> yes.
[2:32:54] » Commissioner Hoffman,
>> yes.
[2:32:56] » Commissioner Asper,
>> yes.
[2:32:57] » Commissioner Heinserling,
>> yes.
[2:32:59] » Commissioner Lammore,
>> yes.
[2:33:00] » Commissioner Venzel,
>> yes.
[2:33:02] » Commissioner Swart out,
>> yes.
[2:33:04] » Commissioner Moore,
>> yes.
[2:33:05] » Motion carries.
>> And item number three, letter dated
[2:33:08] February 17, 2026 from Mr. Jason Barry,
community planning and engagement
[2:33:13] director, requesting approval to apply
for the 2026 Michigan Public Safety
[2:33:18] Critical Incident Mapping Competitive
Grant for $23,785.60
[2:33:23] with no local match matching funds
required. Could I get a motion?
[2:33:27] » Motion second.
>> Moved by SWAT, supported by Heiserling.
[2:33:30] Uh, are there questions on this motion?
>> What is a safety critical incident
[2:33:35] mapping competitive grant? Mr. Barry,
>> good evening everyone. Um this is a
[2:33:41] grant that uh we hope to apply for to
help uh update our current mapping
[2:33:45] system. Um currently we have maps that
if there was a critical incident um that
[2:33:51] happened, we would first responders
would use them to best uh respond. Um
[2:33:56] but this grant will help us uh contract
with uh the critical response group to
[2:34:02] provide all that in electronic platform
so that all first responders arrive to a
[2:34:06] scene and can uh log into the system and
be able to communicate uh with the
[2:34:12] commander and know every inch inside of
each of these buildings um further to
[2:34:18] help them with their response.
>> And so Mr. Barry, the uh um example you
[2:34:23] gave us is this postcard that shows a uh
a demo of a of a high school for for
[2:34:28] example, this is the
[2:34:32] the product that they would uh
eventually provide to first responders.
[2:34:38] » It's an overview and we have Mr. Zet
Query here with us uh for with the CRG
[2:34:43] group or with the CRG
um organization who could answer that.
[2:34:49] But um you know it's an overview because
this program will have aerial views. Uh
[2:34:53] we understand then it'll also be able to
zoom in and comb through u all sorts of
[2:34:58] uh exits and entrances. Um and just so
you know that this group has uh already
[2:35:04] worked with uh many of our local schools
including Monroe uh Whiteford ID
[2:35:09] Townships uh their schools uh as well um
to to be able to have the offer this
[2:35:14] service for first responders. So, um,
yeah. So, we have nine in front of you
[2:35:20] to consider. Um, if this was approved by
the commissioners tonight, we could have
[2:35:24] two more grants, uh, eligible for three
total that we could look into other
[2:35:28] buildings down the road. Um, CRG
recommended that we, uh, begin this
[2:35:33] project with these with these nine. Uh,
sheriff, I spoke with the sheriff on
[2:35:38] this. He he fully supports this. He
thinks this would be great with for our
[2:35:42] first responder first responders to have
access to. Um so yeah um got Mr. Query
[2:35:49] here if we he could answer any more of
the more specific questions um of what
[2:35:54] this looks like pulling it up on a
platform
[2:35:57] um and so forth. So
>> I have one question. You think this is
[2:36:03] going to help cure when I know that we
got several streets in the county where
[2:36:08] first responders and I've been in the
same situation way back when I was on
[2:36:11] the fire department where you get there
and there addresses on another street
[2:36:16] but it's the same street but it's maybe
three miles or five miles or 10 miles 20
[2:36:21] miles from where you're at and it falls
into your
[2:36:24] » zone with your number called
>> and you're at the wrong place. This is
[2:36:28] going to correct some of that because I
know that's been crucial. Yeah, I think
[2:36:32] we're I think that's a separate issue
which we I am my department's are are
[2:36:36] meeting with 911 and um Miss Donna Cooty
Cudy to talk about that next week
[2:36:40] actually.
>> Trying to get that solved out there.
[2:36:42] Yes.
>> Yeah. That that's going to deal more
[2:36:44] with the overlap and the addresses that
that come across as uh confusing to
[2:36:49] first responders. This is dealing with
the actual building the the that each of
[2:36:54] like the health department, the
courthouse and so forth. So if for
[2:36:58] example in this building if something
were to happen first responders arrive
[2:37:02] they log into the system they can tell
tell you where the exit is where
[2:37:06] everywhere uh that that they would need
to know with who's ever in command uh
[2:37:12] can then make decisions. So um yeah it's
a little bit of a
[2:37:17] » so they'll have to tour tour all the
buildings in correct.
[2:37:19] » Yeah they're going to be using the
technologies. You know someone asked why
[2:37:24] why wouldn't the county do this? We
don't have these technologies to do
[2:37:27] that. That's
>> it's it's I can see where it's very good
[2:37:29] because when
>> when you're on a call and the room's
[2:37:32] full of smoke or you got somebody down
somewhere and you don't even know the
[2:37:35] first thing about the building and a lot
of lives can be saved and rescued. No, I
[2:37:40] agree. It's probably well needed.
Probably well needed.
[2:37:44] » Yeah,
Asper. Um, so does this does this
[2:37:50] include like hardware for this or or how
do they when you say they pull it up,
[2:37:54] what are they pulling it up on?
>> That's a great question, ma'am. So, my
[2:37:58] name is Zach Query. I'm the director for
Michigan uh at Critical Response Group.
[2:38:02] My background very briefly, I spent a
little bit over a decade in in Army
[2:38:05] Special Operations where I was
introduced to this mapping technique
[2:38:08] overseas. Ultimately, we are not a uh
there's there's no additional technology
[2:38:12] required. How how this works is we take
the old floor plans that are typically
[2:38:16] out ofd. They're never accurate. They're
never accessible to the responders that
[2:38:19] need them. We come on site to these
locations. We walk the structures. We
[2:38:22] fix the maps. We make them accurate. And
we gather the key data that's useful to
[2:38:26] responders inside the building. So, you
know, fire alarm control panels, you
[2:38:30] know, fire fire hydrants, uh, AEDs, you
know, the things that matter to the
[2:38:34] first responders and they respond from
anything from a medical emergency to the
[2:38:37] worst case scenario of an active threat.
When we look at these largecale active
[2:38:41] threat incidents uh, that that
tragically occur across our country,
[2:38:44] it's never one agency that shows up to
these things. You have municipal,
[2:38:47] county, state, surrounding counties
pushing resources and everybody has a
[2:38:51] different technology platform. Everybody
has a different software. So the way we
[2:38:55] approach this is we manipulate this
mapping data to put it into the systems
[2:38:59] that your first responders use every
single day. So if there's an emergency
[2:39:02] at the courthouse, 911 pulls it up in
the system that they have and use for
[2:39:06] every single call. The municipal police
department has it on the laptops in
[2:39:09] their vehicles as well as the fire
department may have a mobile application
[2:39:12] that they use. So we simply take our
team, we go meet all those agencies, we
[2:39:17] get these maps in their systems so
everybody speaks the same language when
[2:39:20] they when they approach on a scene and
converge when they've never worked
[2:39:23] together before. So um you know Michigan
has been a fantastic um state. They have
[2:39:28] funded uh and actually made legislation
around school mapping standards. We had
[2:39:32] the great fortune of winning about 90%
of that business uh in the state of
[2:39:35] Michigan. They then released more
funding to do higher education where we
[2:39:39] came in and done um you know all the
community colleges, a lot of the the
[2:39:43] universities in the state and now
they've expanded it to critical
[2:39:46] infrastructure for communities as well.
So your government buildings, hospitals,
[2:39:49] things of that nature, uh which is what
we're kind of talking about today. So um
[2:39:53] ma'am, I I hope that answers your
question.
[2:39:56] » Thank you.
>> Thank you. Yes,
[2:39:59] » Zach. I want to thank you for your
service.
[2:40:01] » Thank you, sir. And so from a ROCS2
wannabe dropout, I have to give you a
[2:40:07] hard time. Most people cross over to
Delta. You crossed over to Nerd.
[2:40:12] [laughter]
>> Yeah, that's that's fair. That's fair.
[2:40:15] » Fair enough. Thank your service.
>> Thank you, sir.
[2:40:18] » All right. Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Hoffman.
[2:40:21] » Yes. Yes.
>> Commissioner Asper.
[2:40:24] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Heinserling.
[2:40:26] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Lammore.
[2:40:27] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Venzel.
[2:40:29] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Swart out.
[2:40:30] » Yes. Commissioner Moore,
>> yes.
[2:40:33] » Commissioner Levens,
>> yes.
[2:40:34] » Motion carries.
>> Thank you.
[2:40:38] » We have no public hearings. Uh, is there
any old business?
[2:40:44] Any new business?
[2:40:48] Uh, we now enter the second segment of
public comment. Are there citizens who
[2:40:52] wish to address the board?
[2:41:01] What the heck? I've waited this long. Uh
Gail Kaine at uh District 8.
[2:41:08] Um the first thing I wanted to address
is this big money that was spent in the
[2:41:14] legal realm of upstairs there on third
floor or fourth, wherever. What are the
[2:41:19] I heard the word staff.
That tells me it's an employee.
[2:41:25] So, you're taking care of it legally,
but what are the consequences to the
[2:41:31] staff that was referred to that wasn't
sharing this information with you? I
[2:41:37] would think that is something within
your control.
[2:41:41] Uh, as to the other, there was another
question asked about does MTIS I I might
[2:41:46] have my letters wrong. Um, and the
person said they didn't know how they
[2:41:52] could control that. I got a problem with
that people. I got a problem with that.
[2:41:57] If you're going to get up here and some
group within whatever the money
[2:42:01] situation is has been told and has
promised a certain product, somebody
[2:42:08] better have an answer as to why it's not
being done that way and not just
[2:42:12] sloughed under the rugs. Because
frankly, that's kind of what I kind of
[2:42:16] got out of tonight's meeting. I applaud
all of you. I don't want your job. I'm
[2:42:21] not going to run your job. But I could
very well recall.
[2:42:26] Um,
you took your legal advice as best you
[2:42:31] could and they've done a great job. I
took offense because I'm one of those
[2:42:38] ignorant idiots out here in the public
that doesn't know the law. Or so I've
[2:42:43] been informed.
um the oath of office that has you take
[2:42:49] says you're going to follow the
constitution of the state. And so I was
[2:42:54] very pleased to hear the one
commissioner admit that as a
[2:42:58] chiropractor she wasn't an attorney
because she certainly made herself sound
[2:43:02] like it. And I kind of got the feeling
that it has to be her way or no way at
[2:43:10] all. And um when she's nodding, when
someone else is talking and it's we've
[2:43:16] got our radical side and so when she's
nodding and the other person is talking
[2:43:21] out of the three who don't seem to get
along with the rest of you in the
[2:43:24] sandbox,
um it's obvious that they do convene and
[2:43:30] make decisions before the meetings when
it's been implied on the reverse.
[2:43:35] Um, I'm sorry, but I see the three
people that are sitting to the radical
[2:43:40] right as an obstruction
in the role of their oath of office
[2:43:47] within this county and it's what's
causing the backlog to happen.
[2:43:52] Um, the courts were not even clear. So,
I didn't appreciate the legal having
[2:43:59] their fingers pointed. He's done his job
as best as he can. Um, I I wouldn't want
[2:44:05] his job either. And he's willing to step
up to the plate and say he's done what
[2:44:10] he feels is the right thing to do. Uh,
if he if he isn't going to be willing to
[2:44:16] take that oath and that commitment,
then it's malpractice and he certainly
[2:44:23] doesn't want to be nailed with that. So,
I'm sorry people, but I got more
[2:44:28] confused after tonight. Maybe a timeline
could be put together as to what
[2:44:33] happened and what didn't happen. And
better yet,
[2:44:37] I would like to put out forth a
settlement. I would like to see Mr.
[2:44:42] Brandt come to this table
and I would like to see him wave his
[2:44:48] white flag because that's what you do
when you quit
[2:44:52] and say I'm dropping my case against the
county and I am willing to vacate my
[2:44:59] seat.
Then I want Mr. Beniki to come up here
[2:45:03] and vacate his seat so that district two
can move forward on having an election.
[2:45:11] That would close the doors on this whole
entire thing. It would save the money
[2:45:17] and it certainly would put some sort of
ethical and moral faction to this whole
[2:45:24] thing. uh you guys have had your hands
tied and and it it's you can't point
[2:45:28] fingers there. But if you're not going
to come together as a group and you're
[2:45:33] going to stand in obstruction
of what your legal counsel is telling
[2:45:38] and you're going to make the claim that
you know more than your attorney when
[2:45:43] you're not an attorney,
it it's a problem. And the oath of
[2:45:47] office says you're going to follow the
state constitution. and the attorney
[2:45:51] stood right here and said he was
following state law. So, I'm sorry. I
[2:45:57] I'm stupid. I am ignorant. I don't know
the law. So, I guess you're going to
[2:46:01] just have to go along with my shooting
from the hips. But, uh you know,
[2:46:06] continue doing what you got to do, boys.
You just got to keep plucking through
[2:46:09] it. Thanks.
[2:46:18] » And good evening. Thank you for
following through with this process. I
[2:46:20] just want to thank you for the
transparency. I think the public
[2:46:23] attending today and watching online has
really appreciated that. Um we can we
[2:46:27] can follow along, we can learn, we can
understand and it just is very
[2:46:31] gratifying and helpful for it to be in
the daylight. So, thank you.
[2:46:41] » [clears throat]
>> Well, earlier I said something about you
[2:46:45] have a dog in the fight
and it sounds like you've decided to
[2:46:51] turn your dog loose. That's okay.
I was pleased tonight that this issue
[2:46:58] with respect to district 2 was done in
public.
[2:47:05] The lawyer stood up here and gave you
alternatives. He explained
[2:47:10] what the his view was of the court of
appeals uh decision
[2:47:16] and each and every one of you had an
opportunity to respond to the public
[2:47:21] about your opinion.
Some of you did, some of you didn't.
[2:47:27] We would have never heard that in a
closed session.
[2:47:34] So sometimes closed sessions
are not really in the best interest
[2:47:41] of the group.
Sometimes clearing the air, even if you
[2:47:46] don't agree, clearing the air and
watching the citizens or have the
[2:47:52] citizens watch what you're doing
is more important than being in that
[2:47:56] back room and say the same thing, but we
never hear it.
[2:48:01] Now, I have to tell you, I've been
involved in a lot of close sessions.
[2:48:06] Often, I would say no, we shouldn't do
that because whatever you say in close
[2:48:11] session, you should be able to say right
here,
[2:48:18] but there are times when it's absolutely
necessary to go there. But I think
[2:48:22] tonight, you did the right thing.
Back to the lawyers. I just saw Sue put
[2:48:29] stuff up on the board here and one what
appear to be several lawyers put in 40
[2:48:35] invoices.
Now, none of you can take the time to go
[2:48:39] through 40 in 40 invoices and decide
whether or not they're valid and did
[2:48:45] they do the work. You don't have time.
So, I don't have an answer for you. And
[2:48:52] I know Henry was was adamant in his
issue with respect to whether or not you
[2:48:58] would pay these people or not pay them.
I'm not going to get involved. I don't
[2:49:02] have a dog in that. But I see just on
the board
[2:49:06] the number of invoices would appear to
be from lawyers and you you don't have
[2:49:10] time to look at all that.
So I don't know what your system is in
[2:49:14] place to check on that. I don't know. I
know when I sat there we never looked at
[2:49:19] them. We kind of just paid them. But if
you're going to to start moaning and
[2:49:24] complaining about lawyers bills, then
you have to put a system in place to
[2:49:28] analyze them. You have to have a system
in place for somebody to look over them.
[2:49:34] And that's not a fun job. I mean, I see
the the the used to see the the bills
[2:49:39] from from the law firm. They do a good
job in telling you what they did, who
[2:49:44] they said, who they spent time with.
They did a great job. Others would just
[2:49:51] simply say it worked, you know, and and
send an invoice. I don't I don't know
[2:49:56] how you can fix it. I just don't know.
But that every lawyer keeps a calendar.
[2:50:03] Every lawyer keeps a calendar.
And maybe that's what you require to be
[2:50:08] delivered with the invoice. I don't
know.
[2:50:12] That's a lot of work. A lot of
paperwork. They'll charge you for that,
[2:50:15] too. Thank you.
Any
[2:50:19] other citizens that wish to address the
board?
[2:50:26] » Uh, seeing none, we have no
announcements. We'll move into um
[2:50:30] members time. Commissioner Asper,
>> I would just like to assure Miss King um
[2:50:36] that we do have an ethics policy. uh
when the board did not make one after we
[2:50:44] had this committee and everything put
together and we still didn't get one and
[2:50:49] still didn't get one, I put one together
and we passed it. Just so you know that
[2:50:53] we do have one. Um and I was kind of,
you know, to be called a radical is kind
[2:50:59] of nice. You know, when you're 72,
that's not too bad. Uh but anyway, um I
[2:51:05] I do uh have critical thinking skills
and uh I just simply want us to follow
[2:51:12] the law and I just simply want us to
make sure that our motives are pure and
[2:51:19] I just want to say the truth and then
let it go free because it can defend
[2:51:24] itself.
>> Mr. Moore, well congratulations
[2:51:29] everyone. You survived. We didn't go
into close session and the world didn't
[2:51:34] end. Uh, and much like the former
chairman said and some of the
[2:51:38] constituents out here, I agreed with
some of their points at public comment
[2:51:42] tonight. Although permissible, it's not
always needed to go into close session
[2:51:47] for the sake of transparency and for the
sake of understanding and making sure
[2:51:52] that the public understands what's going
on. I'm glad that we ended up not going
[2:51:57] into close session for those two items.
I think both of those things needed to
[2:52:00] be stated publicly and I I would hope
that the majority of this board takes
[2:52:04] heed of that and thinks twice maybe
about going into close session about
[2:52:08] every uh controversial or sensitive
topic. Just because it's controversial
[2:52:12] or sensitive doesn't necessarily mean um
it it can't be discussed openly and
[2:52:17] calmly like it was here tonight. With
that being said, I am disappointed that
[2:52:22] my fellow commissioner wouldn't allow me
to vote on the the uh two issues
[2:52:28] separately. Uh I've supported it. I've
supported Commissioner Leven for over a
[2:52:33] year. I think it's about a year and a
half almost, maybe a year on this issue
[2:52:37] of making sure there's no fraud within
that department. Um it's no secret that
[2:52:43] he vehemently wants to have a public
defender's office and I disagree with
[2:52:47] him. this was a Trojan horse way to be
able to on the back of fraud to then
[2:52:52] say, "Well, let's also look at this
issue." And it it's just disappointing
[2:52:56] because it's a it's a dirty political
trick when you put two separate issues
[2:53:00] on the same vote. You force your fellow
commissioner to either vote one way or
[2:53:03] another. So, at a later date, you can
say, "Well, see, he voted for that or
[2:53:07] see, he voted against that." We see it
done in Washington all the time. We see
[2:53:10] it done in Lancing. I don't think it
should be done here at the board of
[2:53:13] commissioners. I would hope that in the
future if a commissioner wants to
[2:53:17] separate a vote and say, "Look at I have
I agree on this issue. I disagree on
[2:53:21] that issue. Can we separate it?" We
should be able to say, "Yeah, let's take
[2:53:24] a second vote." And I'm sure they had
the votes for it. It would have passed
[2:53:28] anyway, but but I would hope that I
would be allotted that uh that that uh
[2:53:33] grace to be able to vote my conscience
on each different separate uh subject
[2:53:39] that that comes up. Um,
you know, and then thirdly, I did have
[2:53:45] something
personal that I wanted to publicly say
[2:53:48] to Dave Hoffman. I'm going to hold that.
We I'll talk to him privately. I'll
[2:53:52] pass.
>> Mr. Schwart,
[2:53:54] » I'll pass.
>> Mr. Heiserling,
[2:53:56] » I'll pass as well.
>> Mr. Leven, Commissioner Huffman,
[2:54:00] » I'm going to pass.
>> Mr. a little more.
[2:54:05] » I I really do think that this report
from Plant Moran
[2:54:10] uh was very helpful. And if it was
helpful to me, then why wouldn't it be
[2:54:15] helpful to those other bodies that make
decisions such as whether we should have
[2:54:20] a public defender office or not? So, uh
why would we avoid sending that to them?
[2:54:27] Isn't that a misrepresentation of the
truth as well?
[2:54:31] uh my opinion uh this is definitely
truth and it's definitely something that
[2:54:35] needs to be followed and it's definitely
something that should be viewed by all
[2:54:39] parties involved so that we can make
great decisions here and have the right
[2:54:44] people in place to help these people
do their job.
[2:54:51] And up to this time, we're seeing some
people in here that weren't doing their
[2:54:56] job or weren't
appropriately doing their job.
[2:55:02] This is going to guide us in the future
in my opinion. I'll pass in the rest.
[2:55:06] Mr. Basanic, anything for the board? Mr.
Graham?
[2:55:12] » Um, I I'll just make a few comments. I
I'm I'm very thankful that uh first of
[2:55:17] all, I'm grateful for the work of uh
Phil Goldmith on uh this entire uh uh
[2:55:23] legal challenge that we've been uh faced
with over the last year and a half. Uh I
[2:55:27] think he's done outstanding work. Um,
and I'm I'm I'm thankful that we're
[2:55:31] going to see it through to the end and
that we had the votes to to allow him to
[2:55:35] do his work and if it ends up in the
attorney general's office or ends up
[2:55:39] back in the circuit court or eventually
the appellet court that we'll get a a
[2:55:43] final decision on uh whether the seat
was vacated or not. Um just a couple of
[2:55:49] responses to some comments that uh
Commissioner Asper made. um she made
[2:55:53] mention of the fact that uh in the 2024
election um former commissioner Brandt
[2:56:00] uh received 90% of the vote, but what
she failed to mention uh was that he
[2:56:04] plead guilty in March. Uh didn't let
anybody know until the sentencing in
[2:56:09] September, well past the date where
anybody could file if they wanted to run
[2:56:13] against him. And and I and I will say
this for Mr. Brand, he was a very
[2:56:17] successful county commissioner. He was
in office for several years. And so the
[2:56:22] idea of somebody running against him,
especially in his own party, were slim
[2:56:26] to none. And really the same with the
with the Democratic side based on the
[2:56:31] demographics of of district uh two. And
so to say that he had 90% of the vote is
[2:56:36] a little bit misleading because he was
the only name on the ballot. Um, and
[2:56:42] although uh it was pointed out to me
tonight that him not informing the
[2:56:47] county board uh that he plead guilty in
March and waiting until his sentencing
[2:56:50] in September wasn't anything illegal or
caused us uh problems if he remained on
[2:56:56] the board in the interim and voted in
certain ways. We we we're safe with
[2:57:01] that. But what it does uh raise is
ethical concerns about did he have an
[2:57:06] obligation to report to his colleagues
on this board that he had plead guilty
[2:57:10] in March. Did he have a even greater
obligation to allow his constituents in
[2:57:15] district two uh know that he had plead
guilty and was wait awaiting sentencing?
[2:57:20] Instead uh didn't tell anybody, got on
the ballot as as the only candidate and
[2:57:25] won with 90% of the vote.
As far as my former uh colleague that
[2:57:30] sat in this seat uh appointing somebody,
it wasn't immediately after the
[2:57:35] sentencing um that former commissioner
Brandt resigned. And so by the time the
[2:57:40] the resignation was in place, it was a
very limited amount of time where an
[2:57:44] appointment would have been made. It was
former Chairman Richardville's decision
[2:57:48] not to do that and let the election play
out. And I can be corrected if I'm wrong
[2:57:52] on this, but I'm quite sure that after
Mr. Brandt won that election. I did not,
[2:57:57] as the new chairman coming in in
January, have the legal authority to
[2:58:02] appoint um a replacement for Mr. Brandt
while we waited what was going to happen
[2:58:08] with his sentence or waited when for him
to get out of federal prison. I didn't
[2:58:12] have that. I didn't have that uh legal
authority to appoint somebody. We only
[2:58:17] had a few options which were researched
uh by Mr. Goldmith. And so, um, um, what
[2:58:23] I'm what I'm very grateful for tonight
is we are going to be able to see this
[2:58:27] through finally.