[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.

Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting 2/17/2026

Agenda

Transcript