ESCANABA — A discussion about the Delta County Board of Commissioners’ rules for public comment yielded no changes despite multiple board members suggesting they were uninterested in enforcing the rules as they are written.

“I asked for a review of these rules because if we’re not going to abide by them then they shouldn’t be here,” Commissioner Kelli van Ginhoven told the rest of the commission Tuesday.

The discussion was prompted by an incident at the July 2 county board meeting, when comments about an interaction between County Parks Manager Steve Wery and Delta Conservation District Board Chair Joe Kaplan devolved into personal attacks from Ford River Township Resident Kathy Scott, who claimed Kaplan had harassed her and her husband at an event. Then, a second Ford River Township Resident, Sandy Sovey, said she had called law enforcement on Scott because of harassment she received from Scott while collecting signatures for the May recall effort.

Kaplan, who was not present at the July 2 meeting, did not deny having a verbal altercation with Scott in 2023. He said Scott had been “hounding” him online and their altercation had nothing to do with county business.

“I told her exactly what I thought,” Kaplan told the Daily Press in July.

While the comments leading up to Scott’s comments revolved around an interaction with Wery, who is a county employee, van Ginhoven attempted to call a point of order to stop Scott’s comments because she felt they were both personal attacks and not under the purview of the board — violations of the county’s public comment policy, which is published at the bottom of every board agenda.

However, Commissioner Matt Jensen and Commissioner Steve Viau both argued Scott should be allowed to continue. Ultimately, Scott was given additional time due to the disruption.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Jensen argued the published rules should not be changed, but also that rules 4 and 5 either should not be enforced or weren’t relevant to the general public comment periods at the end of the meeting.

“I, personally, don’t believe in being the speech police,” said Jensen.

According to Jensen, Rule 4 — which states “The comments of the speaker must related to business that is within the jurisdiction of the board” — was only relevant to the first public comment period, when comments are restricted to items listed on the board agenda.

The published rules for public comment do not make a distinction between the comment period for brief public comment on agenda items and “general public comment,” the less-restrictive period where the public may discuss items not on the agenda. Van Ginhoven argued the rule still applied.

For Rule 5 — which states “The speaker shall refrain from making personal attacks upon any individual” — Jensen argued the rule should not be enforced and rather that residents who feel personally attacked should sue each other for slander.

“They’re adults. They’re responsible for their actions. I’m not the speech police. If they do something that was to be slanderous or, or defamation of character to somebody else, that’s not one of those that’s elected, that opens that individual to a lawsuit,” he said.

Tuesday’s discussion revisited the issue, but at times became difficult to follow, with members of the audience and van Ginhoven herself expressing confusion.

“I have to be completely honest. I’m going to have to go back and watch this on YouTube because I have no idea what’s going on right now,” van Ginhoven said.

Much of the confusion stemmed from the fact that, despite opposing enforcement, at no point did Jensen advocate for the removal of either Rule 4 or Rule 5. He was also given verbal support from both commissioners Steve Viau and Myra Croasdell. Viau argued for personal attacks against commissioners as a way to get feedback, while Croasdell simply said she concurred with Jensen.

Ultimately, no action was taken on the rules.