Grand Traverse County commissioners held a special meeting Wednesday to accelerate a hearing by three weeks for two county BATA board appointees accused of willful neglect of duty. Three county commissioners refused to attend the meeting, with some saying it was improperly noticed and that the board lacked the required number of votes to change the date. One of the accused BATA appointees said changing the hearing date from April 5 to March 15 wouldn't give appointees enough time to respond to what he described as “defaming” accusations.

The controversy started at the county commission’s March 1 meeting, when commissioners amended their agenda to add “discussion of BATA board’s recent actions.” Vice Chair Brad Jewett, one of four Grand Traverse County appointees to the BATA board, said he was frustrated by the actions of two other appointees, Chairperson Richard Cochrun and Secretary Robert Fudge. Cochrun and Fudge were among a group of BATA board members who voted in February to expand the board from seven to nine members. The board currently has four members appointed by Grand Traverse County, two appointed by Leelanau County, and one at-large member. The February vote added two at-large members, with the stated goal of maintaining “balance in board composition” by including representation from the City of Traverse City, BATA riders, groups like TART Trails and Norte, and rural and urban township residents.

Jewett said the board expansion was a “scheme” that would allow BATA to engage in “cherry picking” board members because it wasn’t happy with some county appointees. Cochrun and Fudge’s votes to expand the board “diluted” the county’s oversight, he said. Commission Chair Rob Hentschel agreed, saying the BATA board was responsible for “spending a lot of taxpayer money” and should be held accountable through members appointed by elected officials. Expanding the board was BATA’s way of ensuring it had a “balance of power,” something Hentschel said was “moving away from accountability.”

Jewett and Hentschel – along with the commission’s other four Republican members – voted to charge Cochrun and Fudge with “willful neglect of duty” and to “consider recalling these appointees for violating their fiduciary duty to the voter.” They requested that Cochrun and Fudge respond to the charges at the commission’s April 5 meeting. Democrats TJ Andrews, Lauren Flynn, and Ashlea Walter opposed the motion. They attempted to pass a separate motion to not initiate the legal process but to instead invite Fudge and Cochrun to a meeting to respond to the charges. That motion was defeated 3-6 along party lines.

Walter and Andrews expressed concern about the validity of the accusations and the process. Walter said board appointees – including at-large members – can’t be presumed to automatically vote one way or another. She noted that voters recently supported the BATA millage renewal by a wide margin, saying that’s how taxpayers hold organizations like BATA accountable. Andrews pointed out that Grand Traverse County is already embroiled in a legal dispute over the removal of two county appointees to the Northern Lakes Community Mental Health Authority (CMH) board. In a similar case, two CMH appointees were removed last summer for neglect of duty after voting in a manner that contrasted with commissioners’ views. The ACLU Northwest Michigan Lawyers Committee has intervened on behalf of those appointees and asked Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel to review the case and reinstate them.

Commissioners concluded last week’s meeting anticipating that the next step would be the April 5 hearing with Fudge and Cochrun. But on Monday, County Administrative Assistant Lisa Emery sent an email announcing a special commission meeting called for 11am Wednesday. The sole agenda item was “consideration of whether to change the date to March 15, 2023, for the county’s representatives on the BATA board to respond to the charges issued by the board of commissioners at its meeting on March 1, 2023.”

Only five of nine commissioners attended Wednesday’s meeting, with Hentschel absent due to a scheduling conflict and Walter, Andrews, and Flynn declining to attend because they believed the meeting wasn’t properly noticed. County Clerk Bonnie Scheele and the county’s legal counsel – Richard McNulty of Cohl, Stoker & Toskey, P.C. – disputed that claim. Three commissioners need to request a special meeting in writing to address a single agenda item, and it needs to be publicly noticed at least 18 hours before the meeting. Those terms were met, they said. Walter then pointed to state rules that require the county clerk – not an administrative assistant – to notify each county commissioner of a special meeting. 

Commissioners who did attend Wednesday’s meeting did not address the reason for moving the BATA appointees’ hearing date. A motion was made and then followed by an immediate vote with no discussion (several commissioners who supported the motion – including Jewett and Darryl Nelson – did not respond to a request for comment). The motion passed 5-0.

Though there were no comments from the board, several audience members spoke during public comment. Cochrun said he was in attendance to “put a face with the person who is accused of willful neglect.” Highlighting his background as a U.S. veteran and long-time public CPA – a position that requires a “high standard of ethics,” he said – Cochrun argued he had “the right to a sound defense.” Moving the hearing date up three weeks doesn’t provide adequate time for appointees to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or gather other materials that may help defend “against these defaming and slanderous accusations,” he said.

Traverse City Commissioner Mitch Treadwell, who sits on a BATA advisory board, said he had “observed nothing but upstanding conduct from these two board members,” even though he didn’t always agree with their decisions. Resident Harold Lassers said appointees have a “legal responsibility to the public and not the Grand Traverse board of commissioners.” Calling a special meeting to change the hearing date amounted to “political gamesmanship,” he said. 

Walter noted: “I’m concerned about the overall community optics. Who would want to continue serving on boards if they’re publicly shamed for doing what they believe is the right thing? It undermines community service, and it sets a bad precedent.”

Following the meeting, Walter also questioned if commissioners had enough votes Wednesday to change the hearing date. County board rule 10.3.9 states that rescinding a previously adopted motion – in this case, the motion setting the hearing date for April 5 – requires at least seven days’ notice prior to the meeting where the vote to rescind will occur. If that notice doesn’t take place, the vote to rescind requires two-thirds of commissioners (six) to pass; only five commissioners were present Wednesday. Scheele and County Administrator Nate Alger did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday regarding board rules.