Three court cases (and an appeal) we're still watching in Ottawa County
Here's where those ongoing cases stand, as of Friday, March 7:
Chris Kleinjans is suing members of the Michigan State University Extension after he was fired from his job there in June 2024, shortly after being sworn-in to represent District 2 on the Ottawa County Board.
More: Kleinjans claims 'political pressure' from Ottawa Impact left him unemployed
In the suit, Kleinjans claims the MSU Extension bowed to 'political pressure' from Ottawa Impact Founder and Commissioner Joe Moss. The extension, for its part, cited the Incompatible Public Offices Act 556 of 1978, arguing a clear conflict of interest exists because commissioners approve funding for the organization's services.
U.S. District Judge Hala Jarbou denied a preliminary request to have Kleinjans reinstated to his position on Aug. 15, 2024. Jarbou didn't dispute that Ottawa Impact sought 'political retribution," but said the MSU Extension seemed to rebuff those efforts.
Kleinjans issued a statement Aug. 16, 2024.
'This is, of course, disappointing,' he wrote. 'But I'm confident that, as the litigation process moves forward, a more complete picture will be revealed. That image will prove that my dismissal was simply an attempt by the MSU Extension to avoid further pressure from certain members of the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners.'
An amended filing by attorney Sarah Riley Howard, dated Aug. 20, 2024, added Moss as a defendant alongside MSU's M. Scott Korpak, Matthew Shane and Erin Moore.
In a filing on Nov. 18, 2024, Moss wrote he "has never had any supervisory authority over (Kleinjans); has never been (Kleinjans') employer; and has no ability to alter (Kleinjans') working conditions or the status of his employment with MSU." He also claims he's "never advocated, recommended, demanded, or communicated in any way to MSU that (Kleinjans) should be terminated from his employment."
Kleinjans is now a community impact officer for the Allegan County Community Foundation. He lost his seat on the board in November 2024 to Republican Jordan Jorritsma.
A early settlement conference is scheduled for the case at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 22.
Plaintiffs Adrea Hill and Luke Sanner filed their complaint Oct. 30, 2024, in 20th Circuit Court. They, too, are represented by Howard.
In their lawsuit, Hill and Sanner claim Ottawa County refused to produce required communications "pursuant to FOIA for a reasonable fee and within the time required under statute."
Hill said she requested text messages and emails related to county business sent or received by Lynn Janson on Thursday, May 2, between 12 and 5 p.m. She filed the FOIA in May 2024.
In the lawsuit, Howard said Jack Jordan, former county corporation counsel, responded to the request with an estimated fee of $352.79, including a good faith deposit of $176.40. Jordan claimed the request required a search of communications for all 1,120 employees as of May 2.
Hill appealed the estimated fee, noting the only required search was related to county business sent from or received by Janson.
Jordan denied the fees were inflated in a response to Hill on July 9. In further communications, corporation counsel allegedly refused to produce the records because Janson isn't a county employee.
Howard, however, says the county failed to "address the fact that Lynn Janson is a member of the Ottawa County Compensation Commission, and as such, is a public official in that capacity."
According to state law, all compensation commissions must comply with Michigan's Open Meetings Act. According to Michigan FOIA Law, all public records are subject to possible disclosure unless specifically exempted by statute. A 'public record' is a writing that's prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body in the performance of an official function, from the time it's created.
Sanner filed a separate FOIA request on Nov. 5, 2023, seeking instant messaging communications between Ottawa Impact-aligned commissioners on Oct. 24-25, during the failed termination hearing for Health Officer Adeline Hambley.
Sanner specifically asked for communications between Gretchen Cosby, Lucy Ebel, Joe Moss, Kyle Terpstra, Rebekah Curran, Sylvia Rhodea, Roger Belknap and Allison Miedema. Terpstra has never been affiliated with Ottawa Impact, but was endorsed in 2022 by the group. Curran hasn't been affiliated with the group since well before taking office in 2023. (She did not run for re-election in 2024.)
Sanner, in his request, said communications should include those found on personal devices used for county-related business. The county denied the request on Nov. 29, 2023, claiming personal devices don't fall under the county's purview.
Sanner appealed the denial on Dec. 6, 2023, but the county didn't respond within 10 business days, a requirement under state law. After two follow-ups from Sanner in February and May, the county denied his appeal and claimed they responded on Dec. 21, 2023, but sent the response to an incorrect email address.
Hill and Sanner are requesting a declaration that Ottawa County violated Michigan's FOIA Law, a court-ordered injunction requiring the county to produce the requested documents within 14 days, attorney fees and a complete accounting under oath by a corporate witness as to whether any of the affected documents have potentially and/or likely been destroyed.
In an order issued Feb. 21, 48th Circuit Court Judge Margaret Bakker declined summary dispositions from plaintiffs and defense, saying the case must move forward with discovery.
The county has 28 days, from Feb. 21, to show evidence the county's FOIA coordinator has complied with Bakker's instructions to contact officials and ex-officials who might still hold pertinent records, that the officials acknowledged and responded to those requests, and that the material has been identified and given to the county for review.
The documents being located by the county does not guarantee they'll be released to the requestors under FOIA, pending a decision on whether personal devices are subject to the law and other considerations.
A hearing date is set for 3 p.m. Monday, April 14, in Allegan's 48th Circuit Court.
In his recently filed lawsuit, Dan Zimmer, also represented by Howard, argues the original vote to approve separation agreements with Administrative Aide Jordan Epperson and Interim Administration Benjamin Wetmore on Dec. 10 violated OMA because the discussion that preceded them took place during a closed session that didn't meet the necessary requirements for privacy.
More: In final meeting of 2024, Ottawa County approves $454K grant for anti-abortion nonprofit
The lawsuit also addresses a vote to give more than $500,000 in funding over the next several years to Chester Township for remediation efforts at Crockery Lake. In her filing, Howard argues the board doesn't have the legal authority to carry it out.
A judge declined an emergency request from Howard to stop the payments to Epperson, Wetmore and Chester Township on Wednesday, Dec. 18, and an appeals judge upheld that decision. However, the Ottawa County Board has already made moves to walk back the Crockery Lake agreement, referencing a separate legal opinion that also finds it lacks the authority to uphold it.
On Tuesday, Feb. 25, the board voted 7-3 to request a ruling from a judge on the legality of the agreement.
The next hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for Friday, March 14. The hearing expected to include a motion to amend the complaint by Howard.
The Michigan Court of Appeals granted a motion filed in February 2024 by The Sentinel to consider arguments in an effort to unseal testimony from a hearing in November 2023.
The testimony, made by County Clerk Justin Roebuck, regarded a closed session earlier that month, during which the Ottawa County Board allegedly agreed to give a $4 million payout to Health Officer Hambley in exchange for her resignation.
The hearing came after months of litigation between Hambley and the Ottawa County Board, which voted unsuccessfully to replace her in January 2023 without following the steps required by state law.
Commissioners denied the settlement amount after extreme public backlash in the wake of The Sentinel's reporting, claiming an agreement was never reached and a vote by the board to "accept counsel's recommendation" in regards to the settlement was simply meant to signify they wanted to continue conversations — not that they'd come to an agreement.
Fourteenth Circuit Court Judge Jenny McNeill ultimately found, because the terms of the settlement weren't part of the motion to approve, it couldn't be enforced, even though she, too, believed the $4 million payout to be the board's intention.
In the evidentiary hearing that took place before that order, McNeill closed the courtroom to the public and media. She heard only from Roebuck before adjourning.
Joseph Richotte, attorney for The Sentinel, wrote in a filing Feb. 7, 2024, that McNeill erred when she closed the courtroom.
"Courtroom[s] cannot be closed and records cannot be sealed except on a written motion showing that a party's protectable interest outweighs the public's right of access," Richotte wrote.
Ottawa County Attorney David Kallman argued it was inappropriate for the public and media to be privy to discussions that took place during a closed session. McNeill ultimately approved his request to close the courtroom because "that bell can't be unrung."
McNeill denied The Sentinel's request for the hearing transcript to be unsealed. The Sentinel sought leave to appeal from the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was granted Friday, Nov. 8, 2024. In January, a request from Kallman was filed and approved to substitute Michael S. Bogren as legal representation for Ottawa County in the case. The county separated from Kallman Legal Group in February.
Bogren was required to file an appellee brief by March 7. It was filed March 5. A hearing date has not yet been scheduled.
— Cassidey Kavathas is the politics and court reporter at The Holland Sentinel. Contact her at ckavathas@hollandsentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter @cassideykava.
This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Here's where lawsuits against Ottawa County stand
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
26 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
What the new China chip taxes tell us about doing business in Trump's America
Depending on your age, you might think I'm describing Soviet-era Russia — or Russia in the Putin era. You'd certainly think about modern-day China, where the government is an official partner in many private companies, and has unofficial but meaningful influence over most of them. And in 2025, you might also think that's beginning to describe America in the second Trump administration. Last week, for instance, Donald Trump called on the CEO of Intel to resign because of his past business connections to China. In June, Trump approved Nippon Steel's plan to buy US Steel — but only after the US government was granted a " golden share" in the company that gives Washington the ability to approve or veto some actions, like closing plants. In January, Trump floated the idea of having the US government own a portion of TikTok's US operations. And now Trump is requiring Nvidia and AMD to hand over 15% of revenue from high-end chip sales to China, as first reported by the Financial Times. (Nvidia has released a statement noting it "follow[s] rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets," without addressing reports about the deal directly; AMD and the White House have yet to comment.) You can make arguments for or against any one of these transactions — US chip sales to China have been a particularly divisive issue, even within the Trump administration. But taken together, there's little question that in Trump 2.0, we should expect the federal government to insert itself into private business. Call it "state capitalism, a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises," Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip wrote Monday morning. It's an exceptionally timely piece he appears to have written before the Nvidia/AMD story broke, because it doesn't contain any reference to it. (You can make the list of Trump's interventions even longer if you'd like: He personally required former Paramount owner Shari Redstone to pay him $16 million to settle a seemingly specious lawsuit, for instance. And Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission, has required Paramount's new owners to promise to " root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media." You could also include the concessions Trump is demanding from some of the nation's most prestigious universities and law firms.) The chip story is particularly hard to get your head around, since it inverts the premise of the tariff plans Trump has been pushing this year. Instead of taxing goods made overseas and imported into the US, the US is now taxing goods made by American companies, in America — the thing he supposedly wants to see much more of. It's not surprising to see Donald Trump say one thing and do another. And half a year into his second presidency, it's no longer surprising to see the Republican-controlled Congress let him do just about anything he wants: This is the same Congress that passed a law last year requiring TikTok's US operations to find a US buyer or shut down — and hasn't said a word about the fact that Trump has decided to ignore that law, repeatedly. And again, you might not care about the moves the Trump administration has made to steer companies to date. You might even like them. But the odds are increasing that he's going to end up involving the federal government in an industry or company you do care about. Maybe one you work in. How are you going to feel about it then?
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Ousted FDA vaccine chief Vinay Prasad is returning to the agency
In this undated photo provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vinay Prasad smiles for a portrait. (U.S. FDA via AP) AP WASHINGTON (AP) — A Food and Drug Administration official is getting his job back as the agency's top vaccine regulator, less than two weeks after he was pressured to step down at the urging of biotech executives, patient groups and conservative allies of President Donald Trump. Dr. Vinay Prasad is resuming leadership of the FDA center that regulates vaccines and biotech therapies, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement Monday. End-of-Summer Sale! 25¢ for 3 months. Save on access. End-of-Summer Sale! 25¢ for 3 months. Save on access. ACT NOW Prasad left the agency late last month after drawing ire of right-wing activists, including Laura Loomer, because of his past statements criticizing Trump. Advertisement Article continues below this ad A longtime a critic of FDA's standards for approving medicines, Prasad briefly ordered the maker of a gene therapy for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy to halt shipments after two patient deaths. But that action triggered pushback from the families of boys with the fatal condition and libertarian supporters of increased access to experimental medicines. Prasad's decision to pause the therapy was criticized by The Wall Street Journal editorial board, former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum and others. The FDA swiftly reversed its decision suspending the therapy's use. Loomer posted online that Prasad was 'a progressive leftist saboteur,' noting his history of praising liberal independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. But Prasad has had the backing of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have both called for scrutinizing the use of COVID-19 vaccines. Under Prasad, the FDA restricted the approval of two new COVID-19 shots from vaccine makers Novavax and Moderna and set stricter testing requirements for future approvals. Advertisement Article continues below this ad ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
