Interesting Conflicts in Hamlin

[XLFD]

In the 18 years the Ludington Torch has published local news, opinion, and analysis, we have exposed a lot of conflicts of interests among our city's officials that were evident and generally went without any type of official sanction.  Let's reflect on just a handful of these affecting Ludington over the years distinguished by their colorful titles:

-- In 2010-2012 we uncovered a host of conflicts of interests in our 10 part Development of (Downtown) Authority series, whether it was Councilor Les Johnson's business being the sole provider of wine and spirits to government sponsored drinking events, along with multiple other DDA officials getting other contracts, especially: 

-- In 2011's Signs of Love we showed how the City of Ludington's (COL) power couple (Heather and Nick Tykoski) arranged the unethical act of securing a $150K contract for gold downtown signs for their private company.  Almost every year since these two have unethically did similar acts of immoral enrichment without any limit of the conflict of interest set by the city council.

-- In 2017's To Dis-Spence with Ethical Conduct we showed Planning Commissioner Spence Riggs machinations in rigging the system using his positions to benefit a private real estate venture.

--In 2020's Rehabilitation of Jason Adam we showed DDA member Jason Adam, with a lot of help from Heather Tykoski, cut a lot of corners to get a lot of public money for his private apartments.

-- In 2021's Princess and the PJP we showed how Councilor Joe Lenius voted and debated on committing public dollars to clean up a property his daughter had title to under an LLC.

These examples and others show that we can easily recognize conflicts of interest when they happen here in Ludington.  What the record also shows is that we do not generally call out conflicts of interests when they haven't yet occurred, respecting that officials and their peers should be able to recognize such behavior when it happens (even though this rarely happens in practice at Ludington City Hall).  

Which brings us to a current controversy in Hamlin Township.  That public body has normally not been on our radar, but back in 2013, we exposed not only a FOIA-for-profit mill at the town hall, but some conflicts of interests for two board members in selecting contractors without going through proper protocols.  For some reason, a potential conflict of interest has captivated a citizen which has in turn captivated an embattled trustee to make some wild notions of speculative conflicts of interest practiced by the township supervisor.

Back in 2024, the township crafted and passed their Short Term Rental Ordinance, and a look at that ordinance shows that it was passed nearly half a year before Marta Greenslait became Hamlin supervisor, and even before her ofttimes allies Chris Cook and Sheila Genter were on the board.  Greenslait was campaigning for her office when the STRO went into effect and she was affected by what was in the ordinance while having minimum say as a citizen in what went into it, as she owned multiple STR properties. 

Since becoming supervisor, the township has taken minimal actions regarding STRs, but that doesn't necessarily make things easier for speculation by some on whether that in itself is a conflict.  This spring, Deb Yonick brought the issue in front of the board at about the same time she was notifying them through an email; she would say at the April 16, 2026 BOT meeting:

"I'm here to speak about short-term rental governance and transparency in public service.

According to the township's short-term rental certificate records, the chair of the Hamlin Township Board of Trustees, Marta Greenslait, is listed as owner and/or agent on multiple permits. Together, those entries represent roughly 15% of the township's active short-term rental permits tied to one
sitting official. That is a significant overlap in an area this board regulates.

I understand the chair has stated that she sought legal counsel and was advised there is no conflict of interest. Even so, Michigan law and public service guidance set a broader expectation. Under long-standing ethics standards, officials are expected to avoid not only actual conflicts, but also the
appearance of a conflict.

When this board considers short-term rental ordinances, permitting enforcement, or fees, and those decisions directly affect the properties reflected in the township's own records. While those decisions apply broadly, the impact is not evenly distributed when one individual holds a significant share of the permits involved.

Participation in those decisions without disclosure or recusal can reasonably raise questions about
impartiality, regardless of intent. Public confidence depends on clarity that decisions are made
in the interest of the community as a whole.

To address that, I'd ask the board to consider three actions. First, that the chair place on the public record a clear disclosure of her ownership and agency relationships tied to short-term rental permits. Second, that any legal guidance relied upon in determining this matter be made publicly available. And third, that the board adopt a consistent policy on disclosure and recusal when a member has a substantial interest in a regulated activity. This is not about individuals. It's about maintaining a process that is transparent, consistent, and worthy of public trust. In public service, it is not enough for decisions to be lawful. They must also be above question."

We can't really argue with this presentation's contents, being advisory towards the supervisor to avoid the appearance of impropriety when STR issues come before the board-- and implicitly even when it doesn't, as the supervisor is the person who ultimately decides what is and isn't on the agenda.  Not bad advice, but there is nothing offered as to past or present conduct by the supervisor that she is in arrears of any ethical yardstick and it wasn't further addressed until the May meeting where Yonick would indicate that she had been contacted (presumably by Greenslait) in order to allay her fears, but she still had questions about potential conflicts that may arise and had not been suitably addressed in her opinion.  

Trustee Johnaine Gurzynski would debate the issue further (starting on p. 34 of the minutes) with Greenslait where we would learn that the supervisor owned four STR properties, and the township attorney present would explain that this was more than the two allowed under the 2024 STRO because that ordinance would not revoke already established licenses based on older STR policy that had no limits to the amount of SROs one could own.  

Gurzynski would suggest that there were a hue and cry from the general public about the issue saying "I'm just researching because this is a common question that is coming from the audience" and later, "I mean, people come up here and they speak in public comments, Marta. They're asking for answers, and I'm just trying to research to get some answers."  

Her words imply that more people than just Deb Yonick are asking questions from the audience at public comment about her STR policies and holdings, but it just isn't the case when one reviews the comprehensive minutes from Hamlin Board meetings since Greenslait came on board.  I would actually send a FOIA request to Greenslait in order to find out whether there were others concerned about the issue, asking for correspondence sent to her or Trustee Gurzynski from citizens who expressed concerns about Greenslait and the potential STRO conflicts.  

We would wait quite a while for the response, getting an allowable extension and finally a response after three weeks that was not overwhelming.  In that interim, the board had a meeting where the following exchange occurred:

And it went on much like this for another page and when I would receive the FOIA response over a week later, Gurzynski had nothing, not even a letter from her political friend, Deb Yonick, who spoke in defense of Gurzynski at her recall clarity hearings and in letters to the editor of local newspapers, even in Manistee County.  The problem is that the two people that are making this speculative potential appearance of impropriety an issue are acting in concert solely on their own initiative to create a political issue that just doesn't exist at this point.  

Now, if Marta Greenslait does ever do something in regard to STRs (or conversely, fails to take action when legitimately asked to do so) and fails to disclose her private interest(s) beforehand before taking actions, they may have an issue, but until then they just look foolish for making it their centerpiece, or at least a distraction from other political realities facing the township.  Trustee Gurzynski's propensity to find conflicts of interest where they aren't may someday prove an asset if those conflicts ever suddenly manifest themselves in reality-- if she can stop crying "wolf" at non-conflicts before then.