Hamlin Censure: A Bridge Too Far?

[XLFD]

To say that the current Hamlin Township Board of Trustees is philosophically divided would be an understatement, as one sees ample evidence of it whenever they have gone to a meeting over the last two years.  Contentious meetings have been the norm and so when one reviews the agenda packet for the February 12, 2026 meeting they see a lot of potential for conflicts, especially of note is a nebulous item of new business called "public comment resolution", where the resolution is not included in the packet.  This would turn out to be a very controversial resolution but first let's take a look at some of the other items that were more important in terms of township business.

Resident Wayne Andersen (closely involved with the program) would encourage the board in a presentation to renew their resolution to approve of the removal of mute swans from lakes within the township.  This followed an earlier public comment critical of the DNR's veracity and questioning whether there was a problem with the numbers.  Other Hamlin residents inspired recently by several other issues, seemed neither interested in the matter, for or against, and the board's action-- effectively inaction-- reflected that.  They let the vote die on the table like a culled swan without any discussion. 

In similar manner, they refused to designate an alternate to an alternate worker for the transfer station, Earl Hutchison having expressed an interest.  Supervisor Marta Greenslait would not receive a second for her motion to have Earl be able to fill-in for the current alternative worker who was not going to be available for a period.  The motion died, Earl is still kicking as far as we know.

Greenslait would submit an innovative idea to make the transfer station better pay for more of it cost without jumping the price up to $75 from $20 as was proposed in the prior meeting.  Those utilizing the station will have a choice for vouchers (see above) following the 3-2 vote with Trustee Gurzynski and Treasurer Ptaszenski voting no, suggesting the transfer station was never meant to pay for itself.  This will not be any raise in costs for those who do not drop off 'yard waste'.

Auditor Sarah Kanitz was available early on to consult with and discuss how the township is meeting its goals in terms of the problems that were found in the last audit.  Hamlin's fiscal year is about to end at the end of the next month and the treasurer is having a difficult time learning the ropes of the BS&A electronic system after a career of entering items in ledger books.  The expensive training schedule has not been very effectively grasped by her, and so the township was needing to spend more for her on training than expected.  

After some routine early-year business, they broached the 'public comment resolution' which turned out to be a two-page (1, 2) censure resolution against Trustee Johnaine Gurzynki for her public comment made at the prior meeting.  We noted then that Gurzynski's allegations of conflict of interest against fellow Trustee Chris Cook had little merit with the foundation she laid out but was worthy of some consideration due to a potential appearance of impropriety.  The censure resolution, however, would not be concerned with that, but with what she said about a closed session that she took part in. 

The words attributed to her agree with the verbatim meeting minutes seen here on p. 22.  They resolve to censure her imprimis for 1) violating closed session confidentiality, 2) unauthorized disclosure of information, and 3) breach of her fiduciary duties. Subsequent clauses in the resolution derive from these:

Greenslait, Cook, and Secretary Sheila Genter would all vote in favor of this censure resolution apparently drafted by the township attorney, but every allegation was provably false; this comes off as solely being a political exercise without much of a basis in reality.  An unnecessary sideshow that makes one likely to question the motives of those that voted for the measure.

Let's look at the facts.  The board went into closed session on January 7th, according to the minutes of that meeting for the purpose of considering the consultation of the township attorney regarding a proposed consent agreement with Stix and Stones in the pending litigation, as allowed under MCL 15.268(1)(e).  The law restricts this session to make this the only material to be discussed about, and that the deliberation about the consent agreement would be the confidential part of this meeting. 

Recent precedent shows that otherwise non-confidential records used over the course of a closed session do not become confidential just because of their use.  Likewise, if a trustee were to reveal details of a closed session that were not part of the confidential material reviewed or discussed, they could do so without penalty.  The authorship of the site review plan drafted before Stix was rebuilt is not confidential and neither is where the attorney sat during the closed session.   

Gurzynski's disclosures cited in the censure did not need to be authorized as it was not part of the confidential information discussed or consulted about in the session, nor was any fiduciary duty of her as a trustee breached in any sense of the term.  

With neither of the primary censure statements being objectively true, making the secondary charges unsupported, the censure itself deserves its own censure for being fraudulent.  While Trustee Gurzynski's depiction of the site review plan appears to be based on a false representation of what may have been said at a closed session, it never was an unauthorized disclosure of confidential material.  The board majority did her wrong by claiming such in an official document passed without due diligence and effectively attempting to suppress the free flow of ideas in future meetings by Trustee Gurzynski. 

In our reporting of these meetings, the Ludington Torch has been disappointed in the past by the often-reckless use of legal language by Gurzynski, and she appears to have done the same here by claiming that the township attorney claimed the Stix and Stones site plan review was drafted by people who did not specialize as architects, engineers, or land surveyors.  But even if her representation of this was erroneous, it was not confidential nor did it betray any fiduciary duty.

But we are truly disappointed in this censure in response, as it shows that the other side is not above abusing the objective truth in order to score what they believe are political points, but what is actually an affront to the exchange of diverse observations and opinions that Trustee Gurzynski brings to the table, and even to public comment where she is often forced to speak her piece as the agenda won't otherwise accommodate her.  

When neither side of the puzzle that is the Hamlin Township Board is committed to objective truth, the losers are township residents who deserve a local government grounded in reality, where all five trustees speak freely and faithfully in seeking the best interests of their constituents.  Squabbling is very healthy when done with integrity; let's hope that the competing interests here can come together in outdueling each other in the realm of honor in the future-- for this was a very unhealthy move backward.

[Lussy Aria]

Interesting perspective on the Hamlin censure and the broader issues it raises. Articles like this encourage readers to think critically and consider different viewpoints before forming an opinion. After catching up on current events, I also like taking a break with Five-letter word help to sharpen my vocabulary and enjoy a fun daily word challenge.

[Golf~6~Romeo]

I love these bots🥰

[XLFD]

Gotta love how they offer trash comment on dated old topics and bring them back to the front page.  NOT.