The Bleau's Brothers Hit the Road to Hamlin's Interesting Conflicts

[XLFD]

"We're putting the band back together."

While this may have been the goal back in the classic 1980 movie "The Blues Brothers", it was not necessarily the objective when this reporter got a call from former Pere Marquette Charter Township (PMCT) Trustee Ron Soberalski asking me some questions about what's happening up in Hamlin Township.  He was hearing indications that the Hamlin Township's Board was undergoing some internal conflicts, read some of the Ludington Torch's articles on the topic and wanted to check it out at their Thursday, January 15 meeting and was planning on going there with Tim Iteen.

Many may remember PMCT citizen Tim from his part in the successful recall of Jerry and Karie Bleau-- the supervisor and treasurer of PMCT-- when Soberalski was on board.  Subsequently, the Bleaus tried to recall Soberalski, but failed.  Fortunately, the issues at that time were covered in the local paper and here at the Ludington Torch by this reporter, and we saw that the Bleau recalls seemed to be a reasonable step towards bringing stability to the township.  The voters resoundingly agreed and PMCT has been operating smoothly ever since.

"We're on a mission from God"

After relaying some of the information he asked for, I inquired myself about whether he had any extra room in his car, as I had an interest in attending the meeting too, but not the most reliable transportation.  He agreed, and I was picked up slightly after 5:30 PM.  I couldn't help but associate our past efforts at effectively "belting out the Bleaus" on the PMCT meeting stage and the fact that we were effectively 'brothers in arms' towards that accomplishment with that vintage movie mentioned.  We were the Bleau's Brothers, but realistically this wasn't a heavenly-inspired mission.

"We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses."

None of those three things were actually needed, but it sounds better than driving up Jebavy Road talking Hamlin politics as we understood it.  The town hall's lot was almost full when we got there ten minutes early, so we figured there would be something interesting going down.  The board was coming off a special meeting called the prior week on Wednesday where they had approved a consent agenda drafted by their attorney regarding the township's ongoing noise issues with Andrew Riemer at Styx.  

As typical, that meeting was contentious, but overall, the agreement accepted by the board and explained by their attorney appeared to be a better deal for the township than could be expected following legal battles like this.  At this meeting, Styx critic Steve Beachum would use his public comment to illustrate the main points that were agreed to and find some wins for the township.  Undoubtedly, many of the neighbors who found the Styx outdoor concerts a noisy inconvenience will not be 100% satisfied, but they have no reason to be fully disappointed.

The township clerk, Sheila Genter, typically provides almost a full verbatim recap of these meetings with her minutes by the next monthly meeting, so we will not provide a full recap, as ours will assuredly fall short of her rendition, which is greatly warranted because there is plenty of debate amongst the trustees and leaving anything out might be looked upon later as exclusionary by certain members of the board.  

Two items came up that were very interesting and deserve additional scrutiny at this point, well before the next meeting.  The first dealt with costs and the transfer station.  Hamlin does not offer curbside pickup service; they offer a transfer station where people drop off their trash, using township bags when applicable.  Both bags were scheduled for a modest increase after being the same for 8 years:  green 30 gallon bags would increase in cost by 15%, purple bags would see a 43% increase.  This would pass without much discussion but only by a 3-2 vote, with Treasurer Ptaszenski and Trustee Gurzynski voting no.

The other increase was seen as more than incremental by several members of the public during the original comment period and there was some dissension by more than just the "ski team", with the clerk suggesting a raise from $20 to $75 was just too much but was hesitant to give a better number when asked by Supervisor Marta Greenslait, who saw that both Genter and Cook would not accept the 375% increase. 

While a raise to $25 (a 25% increase) seemed warranted in order to nearly keep pace with inflation over the last 8 years, Greenslait motioned to keep the rate as it was which was unanimously accepted by the board.  Her dream to make the transfer station revenue neutral was thwarted for now, and assuredly this was a popular decision for those who use the transfer station.

The other item was one originally brought up during the time when the board was doing the routine act of approving the minutes and special minutes of the special meeting on the seventh.  Trustee Johnaine Gurzynski brought up something about a "conflict of interest" and "Attorney General Opinion 5681".  She would be ruled out of order and advised to bring it up later during public comment (which she would).

The opinion quoted states simply "A member of the legislature is not in a position of conflict of interest when the legislator votes upon legislation in which his or her spouse may have some interest."  When she got her opportunity to speak later she would make it clearer what she was suggesting:  Trustee Chris Cook received payments from Dr. Reimer and as such should have recused himself from decisions about Reimer and his property that came up, and may come up, at the board level and at the Planning Commission. 

The Ludington Torch is very sensitive to conflicts of interest as it involves public officials as witnessed by this reporter and our readers calling it out in Ludington when it appears.  Most famously, there was and is Community Development Director Heather Tykoski seeking personal gain for herself and her husband from her public service, initially through no-bid downtown sign contracting with her husband's (at one time a city councilor) company originally slated for a payday of $150,000 back in 2009 and related business given to her companies since then without disclosure.

The council had more bad actors performing against conflict of interest laws, including votes made by former councilor Brandy Henderson and David Bourgette voting on chamber of commerce motions while they were members of the chamber and former councilor Joe Lenius voting on grants that benefitted his daughter's holdings in the downtown.  Giving State Representative Curt VanderWall's company fertilizing contracts when he didn't even offer the lowest bid, when the council would come back later in the year and ask for his help as a later, was more quid pro quo.

This reporter is very sensitive to conflicts of interest, but Trustee Gurzynski would offer nothing more than claims of it and some outrage, rather than develop it in the five minutes she would try to make her case.  This is bad form, and after talking to Trustee Cook after the meeting with his friend Tim Iteen, it seemed to be a mostly unfounded charge.   Cook, who was recognized at this and other meetings for doing volunteer work at the transfer station, has provided through his company snow plowing services for the Styx parking lot, reportedly being chosen as the low-bid contractor in the area by Riemer's managing company.  

A direct conflict of interest is usually not hard to discern, a good township resource indicates they arise when a public official has a direct financial interest, positive or detrimental, in the outcome of a decision or action that he or she might take as a public official.  Trustee Gurzynski wants us to believe that Cook's decisions as a public official will potentially affect his company's employment by Riemer's own company.  She seems to think that if Cook makes a detrimental decision against Riemer's wishes, that Riemer will disengage from his plowing or other services.

While this seems to be a stretch and not worthy of being called out by one trustee against another without some better sort of foundation, it does at the least present an appearance of a potential conflict of interest that should be legally adjudged by the township attorney who should conduct a balancing test between Trustee Cook's duty to vote on decisions that come before the Board or the Planning Commission, and the potential perception that his vote may be influenced by a contract between his and Riemer's companies.  

Without that attorney opinion, the proper course for Cook in such situations to avoid future allegations of impropriety would be to point out the potential of a conflict of interest when he makes decisions directly affecting one of his paying customers.  The rest of the board can then accept or reject his retention or abstention as warranted on a case-by-case basis, should one or more think the retention/abstention is unwarranted.  This course might lead to no-decisions made in an evenly divided board, since ties mean the motion is defeated, so an ongoing attorney opinion that reflects the state's conflict of interest statutes applicability would avoid most undue abstentions.  

Public perception is very important when trustees are conducting their business, so disclosure even when a conflict is minimal is not a bad idea.  But in the realm of public perception, it is usually a terrible idea for one trustee to accuse a fellow trustee of wrongdoing without plowing a clear pathway for uncovering the dirty snow on the way there.