ESCANABA — The Delta Conservation District was informed by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office Wednesday that a number of actions by Former Conservation District CEO Rory Mattson violated state law.

“Specifically, these potential violations involve the District’s longstanding practice of offering services to private clients as an environmental consulting firm, including District staff members acting as paid expert witnesses in environmental enforcement lawsuits brought by the State of Michigan. Additionally, the Department has concerns about the District’s financial management and recordkeeping practices,” the letter sent to Conservation District Board Chair Joe Kaplan by Assistant Attorney General Danielle Allison-Yokom, of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture Division said.

According to the letter, Mattson, who retired from the district at the end of last year, acted as a private consultant or expert witness for the defense in at least three enforcement actions brought by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) for alleged violations of Michigan’s wetland and sand dune laws. All three of the cases noted in the letter took place outside of Delta County, with one in Schoolcraft County, one in Mackinac County, and one in Ingham County in Lower Michigan.

“MCL 324.9308 does not authorize a district to act as a private environmental consulting firm, nor does it state that a district my provide expert witness services in opposition to State law enforcement actions. In fact, MCL 324.9308 repeatedly requires that districts act in cooperation with State government,” Allison-Yokom wrote, emphasizing “cooperation” with italics.

According to the letter, Mattson was disposed and testified under oath in two separate cases that, in his official capacity as an employee of the Delta Conservation District, he represented private clients and assisted them in defending law enforcement actions initiated by the state. He also testified that the district represented private clients all over the Upper Peninsula and in the Northern Lower Peninsula.

Mattson’s testimony was made in exchange for an agreed-upon hourly rate. The Department of the Attorney General believes Mattson used one or more district vehicles for travel associated with the work and occasionally brought fellow district staff members with him.

“The (Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development) provides the District $50,000.00 per year in grant funding and the District receives additional grant funding from the United States Department of Agriculture. The use of government grants for running what amounts to a private environmental consulting business out of a government office is contrary to the requirements and limitations of Part 93,” the letter sent to the district said, referencing Part 93 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, which creates and regulates soil conservation districts.

Part 93 is explicit in prohibiting professional foresters employed by a conservation district from using their position to “compete with a private sector business.”

Mattson disagreed with the assertion that he had competed with any private sector businesses, saying that conservation districts had multiple ways to make money that were also private sector businesses, like selling trees or spraying for invasive species.

“I can tell you there was nothing done wrong because a lot of that was checked out with Michigan Department of Ag and was within audits and everything else, so it was all above board,” he told the Daily Press Wednesday.

The letter from Allison-Yokom, however, suggests Mattson had a pattern of activities that went beyond what was allowed by law.

“In sum, it appears that the District, through the actions of Mr. Mattson, has a long history of violating Part 93. This appears to have been done with the full awareness of the former members of the District’s Board of Directors,” wrote Allison-Yokom.

Mattson also stated Wednesday that the board was aware of testimony he gave in court.

“The expert testimony I gave was from the board authorizing me to help private landowners, and that was my main responsibility with the conservation district,” he told the Daily Press.

The letter from Allison-Yokom goes on to state the possible remedies for the violations of Part 93. It says Mattson providing consulting services that would compete with consultants in the private sector entitles the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to stop issuing the $50,000 annual grants and to have each of the grants returned to MDARD per violation. Because Mattson is first known to have testified in a case in 2016, MDARD would be within their rights to collect $50,000 per year for the last eight years, or $400,000.

MDARD also has the ability to remove any director from the conservation district’s board of directors that was on the board during that period for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.

“It is clear from the evidence that the District’s Board of Directors was aware of and complicit in these violations,” wrote Allison-Yokom.

It is unlikely that any of the current board of directors would be targeted for removal, as the entirety of the board was replaced with new members last year in two separate elections, the first of which was a special election held because 2022 election was not properly certified.

“The reason the August 2022 election results were not certified is because the district did not submit their election results paperwork in accordance with the law and MDARD requirements,” MDARD Communications Director Jennifer Holton told the Daily Press last June.

In the letter sent to the conservation district Wednesday, Allison-Yokom wrote that MDARD does not seek to punish the current board for wrongdoings by former district employees or directors. If the conservation district can provide a list of steps the board has taken to correct the district’s practices, there will be no punishment for the district.

“It is the Department’s hope that the Board will demonstrate a commitment to strict compliance with the requirements of Part 93. If that is the case, then the Department believes that this matter can be resolved amicably, without the need for enforcement action.”

Kaplan said the district will comply fully with the request and any other requests from MDARD and the Attorney General’s office. He went on to say that the letter serves as a testament to the importance of changes the board has already begun to implement.

“I think what it does is it underscores that we’ve certainly taken criticism for the direction that the new board is headed and I think that this just supports that we’ve taken steps that are important to protect the integrity of the district and protect our staff,” he said.