The ACLU Northwest Michigan Lawyers Committee is alleging that two county appointees on the Northern Lakes Community Mental Health (CMH) Authority board were illegally removed by Grand Traverse County commissioners last year. The organization sent a request Thursday to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel seeking to have her review the case and the board members reinstated.

Michael Naughton, chair of the ACLU Northwest Michigan Lawyers Committee, requested that Nessel’s office file a quo warranto action in the Michigan Court of Appeals on behalf of former CMH board members Justin Reed and Nicole Miller (a writ of quo warranto is a common legal remedy used to determine a person’s right to hold public office). Naughton said Reed and Miller were “wrongfully and illegally removed by the Grand Traverse County board of commissioners…without any proper basis or cause” and thus are “entitled to be reinstated” to their positions.

In July, Grand Traverse County commissioners voted 4-2 to remove Reed and Miller as county representatives on the CMH board, alleging they had engaged in neglect of official duty or misconduct in office – the only legal reason they could be removed from office. Commissioners who supported the motion said Miller and Reed failed to follow the county commission’s directive to investigate CMH Interim CEO Joanie Blamer for breaking board rules and to rescind a permanent CEO offer to Blamer. Instead, Miller and Reed were among the board members who voted to reject the rescission. County Commission Chair Rob Hentschel said Miller and Reed “voted in the opposite direction” desired by county commissioners and “did not ethically address a misstep by their CEO.” That, Hentschel argued, amounted to neglect of official duty, as board members are responsible for holding their CEO accountable.

While Hentschel and Commissioners Brad Jewett and Darryl Nelson – along with then-Commissioner Ron Clous – voted to remove Miller and Reed from the CMH board, then-Commissioners Betsy Coffia and Bryce Hundley opposed the move. Hundley said that accusing appointees of misconduct or neglect for voting in contrast to commission wishes seemed “thorny.” He questioned: “To what extent does a representative…have to toe the line and do exactly what this board is telling them?” Hundley added that he believed Miller and Reed were “two committed public servants doing their level best to serve the community,” saying he didn’t “see it even as a particularly close case” that they deserved to be removed.

Coffia pointed out that Grand Traverse County never sent an official notification to the CMH board advising them of the commission’s requests to investigate Blamer and rescind the CEO offer. She said commissioners missed “some pretty important steps” in not clearly communicating their wishes to the CMH board. “I see virtually no evidence of misconduct in office,” she said. Coffia questioned what would happen if commissioners removed the appointees and the appointees sued to challenge the removals, with Reed stating at the time that he had already approached the ACLU. County Deputy Civil Counsel Kit Tholen said the county would be responsible for proving allegations of misconduct in court or the appointees could be reinstated. Commissioner Penny Morris, who sits on the CMH board and requested – along with Hentschel - that commissioners consider removing the appointees, ultimately abstained from voting on the motion.

Naughton pointed to many of those events as evidence in his letter to Nessel that the four commissioners “who voted to remove them did so because they simply did not agree with a few votes taken by Mr. Reed and Ms. Miller in their capacity as board members.” He said commissioners “were unable to, and did not, identify any neglect of official duty or misconduct in office.” Naughton alleged that Hentschel simply wanted “complete loyalty” from county appointees, which he noted was not legal grounds for removal from office.

Miller and Reed were also owed due process, Naughton said – both under state law and the U.S. Constitution – but did not receive it, as they weren’t “provided with sufficient notice…of the allegations against them in anything except the most cursory of fashion.” Nor were they provided – in writing or in person at the July commission meeting – with a clear explanation and basis of how they had engaged in neglect of duty or misconduct in office, Naughton said. He noted that Hentschel tried to install his own appointee on the CMH board immediately after voting to remove Miller and Reed – a move that was rejected by fellow commissioners – and later voted to support two new appointees who at the next CMH meeting voted to rescind Blamer’s contract.

“This case is about more than the interests of the individuals wrongfully removed from the (CMH) board,” Naughton concluded in his letter to Nessel. “CMH authorities are specifically designed, by statute, to be largely autonomous and run independently of the counties…this autonomy ensures that resources and programs intended to promote community mental health are fairly and efficiently allocated in the community. By trampling on that scheme and abusing the power of removal to terminate (CMH) board members, the Grand Traverse County board of commissioners has not only violated the rights of Ms. Miller and Mr. Reed, but has also threatened the independence of the authority and, thus, the mental health services provided to the entire community. This abuse of governmental power requires a remedy, and quo warranto is the correct remedy.”

The Ticker reached out to the three county commissioners who voted for Miller and Reed’s removals last year who are still serving on the commission (Clous is no longer in office). Hentschel and Jewett did not respond to a request for comment. Nelson declined to comment on the legal aspects of the case, but offered an explanation for his vote last July. He noted as context that there was a “significant lack of adequate (CMH) services available to those requiring mental health services, and their families, in our community. The board of commissioners had been hearing of, and our research had proven out, about significant gaps, or outright lack of services, to consumers of mental health services from (CMH).”

Nelson continued that as a county commissioner, he’s obligated to do what’s best “for the end consumer and our community. While the removal of these two community members was very uncomfortable, mental health professionals were telling us that the lack of mental health services was a crisis level, and my conscience would not allow me to allow the status quo to continue. I felt that two different board members were necessary to bring this message of our dissatisfaction with (CMH) service to the (CMH) board.”  

Nelson adds that he believes the county commission’s decision is “bearing fruit,” saying that the five other counties that make up CMH with Grand Traverse County “were initially reticent but are now engaged in a productive discussion toward an operating agreement that we believe will provide better mental health services in our communities. Several CMH community partners have also reengaged in this process.” Nelson says the commission’s actions last summer paved the way for this improved collaboration. “I do not think we would have gotten to this point without taking more drastic steps that included removing these two board members or voting to explore exiting (CMH),” he says.