Trending
ESCANABA -- The Delta County Board of Commissioners voted to reaffirm its ethics policy this week during a meeting that included public comment suggesting the commission chair had a personal relationship with an attorney he was suggesting represent the county.
“There seems to be a lot of misrepresentation on our ethics procedure and it’s written in this policy book,” said Commissioner Steve Viau, who requested that reaffirming the ethics policy outlined in the Delta County Employee Handbook and Policy and Procedure Manual be placed on the agenda.
Ethics complaints have been a touchy subject for the board, which has been accused of unethical conduct repeatedly by residents as well as by Former Delta County Administrator Emily DeSalvo during an 11-minute statement that preceded her termination in early February. However, concerns about the ethics policy itself date back to a complaint about Commissioner Bob Barron filed late last year.
On Nov. 14, 2022, Barron attended an Escanaba Township board meeting, during which the township adopted a solar ordinance that is significantly more restrictive than the one adopted by the county. Barron, a township resident and property owner whose land was slated to be used in Orion Energy’s planned Chandler Solar Project -- which was blocked by an overlay district included in the township ordinance -- used his time for “commissioner’s comments” on the agenda to make comments critical of the decision.
Township resident Barbie Clairmont raised concerns about Barron’s actions at the meeting to the board of commissioners during public comment at the Dec. 6 county meeting. She was later placed on the Dec. 20 commission meeting agenda to discuss the issue.
In January, the decision to put the issue on the Dec. 20 agenda was questioned by the newly-seated board, with most of the board expressing that ethical complaints should bypass public meetings and be sent directly to an ethics review board. The county ethics board established in the policy book is composed of the county prosecutor, the commission chair and one other commissioner, but the majority of the board felt it was inappropriate to have commissioners weighing in on the actions of their peers.
At the Jan. 3 meeting, Barron made a motion that ethical complaints be sent to the State of Michigan Board of Ethics, bypassing both the local ethics committee and any discussion of alleged violations during a public meeting. The motion passed in a 4-1 vote, but it was quickly learned that the state board does not have authority over elected officials or local-government employees and the complaints would be automatically dismissed by the board.
At the Jan. 17 meeting, following a motion made by Barron, the board repealed the policy set at the Jan. 3 meeting. This effectively returned oversight of ethical complaints to the local ethics committee. However, many in the public believed the committee had been eliminated on Jan. 3.
The board has yet to make any decisions as to whether or not complaints may be addressed at commission meetings.
The decision Tuesday to reaffirm the county ethics policy, which can be found on pages 27-33 of the policy manual, was unanimously approved, but wasn’t without discussion from the commission.
Barron weighed in on the standards outlined in the policy, specifically referencing the statement “It shall be the duty of persons to whom this code of ethics applies to observe the highest moral principles in all official actions” included in the first paragraph of the ethics standards.
“The question of moral -- the morality is the highest as it says here, well there’s only one source of the highest and that’s from God and that’s from his word. So that’s what this is referring to. And so I don’t have any problem with that, I would just suggest though that those that would be filing these complaints, or are threatening to, or whatever, whoever would decide they want to do this, would realize they should be holding themselves to that highest level of moral principles and know what those are,” he said.
Commission Chair Dave Moyle, who has repeatedly argued that voters are the ultimate decider in what happens if an unethical action is taken by a commissioner, reiterated that ethics board was never eliminated.
“The committee has no teeth in it as far as punishment or recommendations. It’s still on our rules and our proceedures. It was never taken off,” he said.
Moyle’s own actions, however, came under fire Tuesday, when a resident raised concerns about his relationship with attorney Scott Graham, whose information was included in the board packet for the unfinished business item “Hiring a Municipal Attorney.”
“I would like to ask if Mr. Graham went through the RFP process, like all other professional services the county has. If not, you would be in violation of your own procurement policy, set in place. One has to ask, why do you need a new attorney? What is the real reason Scott Graham is being considered? Was the commission made aware that Mr. Graham had done work for Commissioner Moyle this past summer?” said Kelli Van Ginhoven during the first public comment period of the meeting.
Van Ginhoven referenced a Facebook post attributed to Moyle’s ex-wife and replies attributed to Moyle that indicating the two had previously been represented by Graham. The post did not indicate why Moyle had sought representation or the nature of any disputes, but stated the “legal team” would “raise holy hell in legal terms.”
Moyle confirmed Tuesday that he had previously been represented by Graham.
“This guy represented me once. I thought he was a hawk. He was very good and I want the best I can for the county, that’s not taking anything away from the prosecutor’s office, I can’t say that enough,” said Moyle, referencing the existing arrangement with the prosecutor’s office to represent the county in civil matters.
Van Ginhoven also raised concerns about whether Graham met the definition of a “municipal attorney” based on the specialty areas noted on his website, which she said did not include municipal law. While true that the majority of Graham’s areas of expertise are related to criminal matters, it is stated that Graham has experience in “municipal litigation” under the “Civil Representation” tab on his website, www.scottgrahampllc.com. It is not indicated on the website whether his clients were municipalities or private individuals involved in municipal disputes.
Moyle said the need for the county to hire a municipal attorney was based on the MMRMA’s emphasis on settling out of court to reduce legal costs. He said the county needed a municipal attorney with experience in federal court that could represent the county against frivolous lawsuits, but he was open to discussing other candidates.
“For the next meeting, if you want to continue this discussion with additional legal firms or other people, let’s continue the discussion,” he said.