Blog

Why the County Commissioners Are Being Asked to Act

A Record of Notice, Evidence, and Governance Responsibility

What follows is not a single document or a single request. It is a documented sequence of actions taken after sworn testimony, court findings, and official responses placed new facts into the public record. Each document builds on the one before it. Together, they explain why the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners has been formally asked to deliberate, on the record, about election governance and record preservation.

This article lays out that sequence in order.

---

1. Agenda Placement Request to Commissioner Mark Wiley

The first document is a formal Agenda Placement Request addressed to Commissioner Mark Wiley, submitted pursuant to Article V, Rule 5.13(4) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure and By Laws.

That rule requires that when a person requests to address the Board in an extensive manner and provides timely notice, they shall be placed on the agenda for a reasonable period of time.

This request does not ask the Board to decide guilt, interpret statutes, or intervene in any court case. It asks for the opportunity to present documents in public session so commissioners can determine whether any motion, referral, or other governance action is warranted.

The agenda request also lists, in advance, every document that would be presented. This was done deliberately to avoid surprise, ensure transparency, and give both commissioners and counsel time to review the materials.

This document establishes notice, procedure, and compliance with the Board’s own rules.

---

2. The County Clerk’s Letter and the Administrative Rule He Cites

After the Board declined to deliberate on the earlier Demand Letter and Proposed Resolution, the County Clerk issued a public written response.

That response is significant for two reasons.

First, it was voluntary. It was not ordered by a court, compelled by subpoena, or required by any judicial proceeding. It was an administrative act taken by a county officer defending past conduct in the public record.

Second, the Clerk’s letter relies on an administrative rule adopted years after the conduct at issue to justify earlier actions involving election materials.

This matters because administrative rules are generally not retroactive. A rule adopted after the fact cannot, by itself, resolve whether earlier conduct complied with record retention requirements that existed at the time.

Once the Clerk chose to issue a public defense of his actions, the matter moved out of a purely judicial posture and into one of county governance and oversight. At that point, continued silence by the Board is no longer neutral. It becomes a choice.

---

3. Court Transcripts and Court Findings

The next set of documents consists of sworn court transcripts and written court findings from People v Scott and Lambert.

These records establish several critical facts.

The County Clerk testified under oath about the handling and destruction of election related materials.

The court later dismissed a charge associated with that testimony. That dismissal resolved criminal liability for the township clerk. It did not erase sworn testimony, and it did not issue a finding validating the conduct described.

Sworn testimony remains part of the permanent court record regardless of whether a charge is dismissed. Courts resolve criminal liability. They do not resolve governance duties for county boards.

These documents are included not to argue guilt, but to establish that material facts were placed into the public record under oath.

/

---

4. The Briefing Memorandum to the Board and County Counsel

In response to the Clerk’s public letter and the Board’s continued refusal to deliberate, a Briefing Memorandum was prepared for the County Commissioners and County Counsel.

This brief explains, in plain terms, why Board action is now required.

It clarifies that the Board is not being asked to adjudicate legal questions, prosecute crimes, or interfere with any court proceeding. Instead, it lays out the governance duties that arise once the Board is on notice of sworn testimony and a public response by a county officer.

Those duties include fiduciary responsibility to the county, transparency in public deliberation, preservation of records when legal exposure is foreseeable, and avoidance of ratification through deliberate inaction.

The brief also explains why the earlier justification that this is an ongoing court case no longer applies once a county officer voluntarily enters the public record outside of court.

---

5. The Updated Agenda Request With Legal Footnotes

The final document is an updated agenda request that includes explicit legal references.

These footnotes cite the same Board rule used to place the presentation on the agenda, Michigan election record retention law, federal election record preservation requirements, and the policy provisions of the Open Meetings Act favoring transparency and public deliberation.

This document ties the entire record together. It shows that the request is grounded not in opinion or politics, but in the Board’s own rules and in statutes that already exist.

It also makes clear that the request is limited in scope. It asks for deliberation, not outcomes.

---

Why This Matters to Hillsdale Residents

Local election integrity does not end on Election Day. It includes how election records are handled, preserved, and explained after questions arise.

When sworn testimony and public responses place new facts into the record, residents and especially voters should expect their elected representatives to address those facts openly. Silence does not build confidence. Transparency does.

None of the documents described above ask the County Commissioners to decide who is right or wrong. They ask something far more basic.

They ask the Board to deliberate in public, on the record, about matters that affect trust in local elections and county governance.

That is not an extraordinary demand. It is the minimum expectation of representative government.

The Oath and the Obligation

Every elected official in Hillsdale County takes an oath before assuming office. That oath is not to a party, a colleague, or institutional convenience. It is an oath to support the Constitution, uphold the laws of the State of Michigan, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.

Those duties include acting with care when credible issues are placed on the record, conducting public business openly, preserving public records as required by law, and exercising independent judgment rather than avoiding responsibility through silence. An oath is not fulfilled by inaction once notice has been given. It is fulfilled by engagement, deliberation, and accountability.

When elected representatives refuse to deliberate after sworn testimony and official responses are placed into the public record, they are not remaining neutral. They are making a choice. That choice carries consequences for public trust and for the legitimacy of local governance.

Why Accountability Matters

Residents of Hillsdale County are not passive observers of government. They are the source of its authority. When officials refuse to carry out the duties they swore an oath to uphold, citizens not only have the right to question that refusal, they have the responsibility to do so.

Accountability does not begin with accusations or end with elections. It begins with asking representatives to explain their actions, to deliberate in public, and to place their decisions on the record where voters can see them.

If elected officials continue to decline those duties, it is appropriate for residents to take them to task, to demand transparency, and to insist that governance be conducted openly and lawfully. That is not disruption. It is self government.

Local elections are secured not by silence, but by vigilance. The strength of Hillsdale County’s institutions depends on whether those entrusted with power are willing to exercise it responsibly, and whether the people they serve are willing to hold them to their oath.

in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives

Hillsdale City Hall – Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 7:00 PM

Tonight’s Hillsdale City Council meeting matters more than most people realize. Not because of politics. Not because of personalities. Because of one simple question:

Will City Council hold its own leadership to the rule of law or will it protect power at the expense of the public?

Two documents will be presented today for the record and for the public to read, share, and bring to City Hall.

Document 1: Exhibit A Cover Letter

This is a formal notice to City Council that serious allegations exist involving the Mayor’s conduct and the City’s governance. It identifies two publicly available links as exhibits and explains why Council must respond in a way that protects the City from liability.

• Receive the submission into the public record
• Preserve relevant records
• Seek independent legal review
• Act transparently

When a city ignores credible allegations involving its top executive, that’s not “staying neutral.” That’s walking the City into preventable risk.

Document 2: Proposed Resolution (Council Action Request)

The resolution asks Council to take the only responsible path when allegations involve the chief executive:

• Log the submission
• Preserve records
• Direct independent legal review
• Schedule the matter for Council action
• And, because the allegations implicate serious liability and loss of trust, it includes a formal request for the Mayor’s resignation

This is what public accountability looks like in real life. Not slogans. Not gossip. Paper. Process. Record. Action.

Why these documents are necessary

Because when government becomes hostile, the normal channels suddenly “don’t work.”

Agenda requests get buried. Emails vanish into the void. Citizens are told to “take it up later.” Questions get ignored. And the public is expected to accept it, quietly.

But Hillsdale doesn’t belong to any one official. It belongs to the people who live here, raise families here, and build their lives here.

If the allegations are false, a neutral process clears them.
If the allegations are true, a neutral process protects the public.

Either way, a neutral process is the City’s duty.

What this is about

At minimum, this is about whether the Mayor is using the position in ways that:

• target and intimidate other officials or residents, and/or
• manipulate City boards by pushing out respected community members and installing outsiders and activists aligned with his agenda

The exhibits speak for themselves. The question is what Council will do after being put on notice.

Tonight is the moment: show up

If you care about:

• clean local government
• accountable leadership
• boards and commissions that serve Hillsdale, not insiders
• and a City Council that acts like a governing body, not a protection racket

Then be in the room tonight.

Hillsdale City Hall
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
7:00 PM

Bring your questions. Bring your calm. Bring your neighbors.

Most importantly: bring your presence. Because the easiest way corruption survives is when good people assume someone else will handle it.

Tonight, we’ll see whether City Council handles it.


in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives

Why Michigan law demands it, and what the Heartwood 2 record shows in Fayette Township

First, credit where it’s due: Fox 47 News showed up, asked the obvious questions, and put conflicts of interest on the public record when many outlets would’ve looked away. Their reporting covered the packed Fayette Township meeting at Jonesville High School, the public pushback, and the statements from officials about recusing due to conflicts tied to the Heartwood 2 solar proposal.

https://www.fox47news.com

Next public meeting

The Fayette Township Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 19th at 7:00 PM at the Jonesville High School Auditorium (meeting location change).

---

What “recusal” really means

Recusal is not a vague promise to “be fair.” Recusal is a formal separation from a decision because the official (or an immediate family member) has a private stake in the outcome.

A real recusal includes four things:

1. Disclosure on the record (minutes should reflect it).
2. No discussion, no deliberation, no influence (not in public, not behind the scenes).
3. No vote.
4. Best practice for land-use decisions: the official physically steps away during that agenda item.

If a conflicted official stays in the room, stays in the conversation, shapes the agenda, “clarifies facts,” or pressures other members, the public is still watching private interest ride on public authority.

---

What Michigan law says (and why this is not optional)

1) Planning Commission conflicts must be disclosed, and failure is malfeasance

Michigan’s Planning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3815) requires disclosure of a potential conflict of interest before voting, and it is explicit that failure to disclose is malfeasance in office.

That matters because “malfeasance” is not an ethics slap on the wrist. It’s the kind of statutory language tied to removal procedures.

2) Michigan zoning law anticipates conflicts and provides a way to keep decisions lawful

Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3601) contemplates alternate members being called to serve when a member has abstained for reasons of conflict of interest, so the body can still reach a lawful decision without conflicted participation.

3) Due process requires an impartial decision-maker when property rights are at stake

When government bodies function in a quasi-judicial way (land use approvals, special use permits, site plans, etc.), the core due process principle applies: decisions affecting property rights must be made by an impartial decision-maker, especially where a pecuniary interest creates an intolerable risk of bias. This principle is recognized in longstanding U.S. Supreme Court recusal jurisprudence.

You don’t have to prove “corruption” to require recusal. The law is built around something simpler and more important: the process must be clean enough that the public can trust the outcome.

---

Why this is happening in Fayette Township

Fox 47 reported roughly 200 neighbors came out to the meeting, many urging the board to say no to the Heartwood 2 expansion proposal by Ranger Power.

Fox 47 also reported recusal statements tied to conflicts of interest—specifically including the Township Supervisor stating he would recuse because his father stands to benefit, and the Planning Commission Chair stating he would recuse due to conflict.

So the question becomes:

What are these conflicts worth—and why does the public believe officials are positioned to benefit personally while the community opposes the project?

That brings us to the attached payout estimate.

---

Attached image at the end is titled:

“ESTIMATED Combined Board Member Payout (Heartwood I & II)”

It states the estimate is based upon $1,400/acre annual payment during operation and does not include planning, construction, or decommissioning payment.

Here are the figures shown:

Baker Family

• Annual: $1,403,962.00
• 20 years: $28,079,240.00
• 30 years: $42,118,860.00
• 40 years: $56,158,480.00

McElroy/Timeus

• Annual: $268,702.00
• 20 years: $5,374,040.00
• 30 years: $8,061,060.00
• 40 years: $10,748,080.00

Prosser

• Annual: $138,838.00
• 20 years: $2,776,760.00
• 30 years: $4,165,140.00
• 40 years: $5,553,520.00

Total (combined)

• Annual: $1,811,502.00
• 20 years: $36,230,040.00
• 30 years: $54,345,060.00
• 40 years: $72,460,080.00

This is why recusals are not a “technicality.”
If even a portion of this estimate is accurate, the public is not imagining a conflict. They’re staring at a life-changing incentive structure attached to a decision being processed by local government.

And when citizens see officials and connected parties standing to gain while the room is filled with opposition, the public conclusion is predictable:

“This looks like government being used for private enrichment.”

Whether that enrichment is “intentional” is not even the central point. The law doesn’t rely on mind-reading. The law relies on separation.

---

Alongside the payout estimate, attached are three agreements that relate to Heartwood Solar II, LLC:

• Dale Baker Heartwood II Option Agreement (Exhibit A) Dale Baker Heartwood II Option …
• Carol Baker Heartwood II Option Agreement (Exhibit B) Carol Baker Heartwood II Option…
• McElroy/Timeus Heartwood II Option Agreement (Exhibit C) McElroy Timeus Heartwood II Opt…

These exhibits are included so every reader can verify the documentary record for themselves.

---

What Fayette Township must do if it wants a legitimate process

If any official or commissioner has a financial stake, or an immediate-family stake, in Heartwood 2, then recusal must be total and provable:

1. Disclose the conflict on the record before the item begins.
2. No discussion, no “informational” participation, no behind-the-scenes influence.
3. No vote, and the minutes must say so.
4. Use alternates / lawful substitutions where applicable so the body can still reach a decision without conflicted members.

If recusals become so widespread that a neutral decision is impossible, then the township has a duty to follow a lawful alternative procedure, not to power through with conflicted participants.

---

The bottom line

The public doesn’t have to “prove corruption” to demand recusals. Michigan law requires disclosure and conflict handling, and due process requires impartial decision-making where property rights are affected.

And the reason this is erupting in Fayette Township is simple:

When the public sees massive private upside attached to a public decision, and the community is overwhelmingly against the deal, recusal is the minimum standard—not the maximum.

---

Meeting reminder

Fayette Township Planning Commission
Monday, January 19th, 7:00 PM
Jonesville High School Auditorium

in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives

Provided by the Adams Times. 20 minute mark.

Late last evening, Hillsdale Conservatives formally notified the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners that the organization’s previously submitted Demand Letter and Proposed Resolution were being refused placement on the agenda for the Board’s January 13 meeting.

That notice was not sent for political theater. It was sent to preserve the public record and to correct a misunderstanding that had begun to surface publicly.

At a township meeting, a county commissioner stated on the record that the Board would not involve itself in an ongoing court case and implied that the commissioners had no duty to act. That framing is incorrect as a matter of law, and allowing it to stand unchallenged would permit silence to replace governance.

The email was sent to make clear what the request actually is, what it is not, and what duties are triggered once notice is given.

This Is Not a Request to Intervene in a Court Case

The materials submitted to the Board do not ask commissioners to rule on guilt or innocence, influence a judge, or interfere with any matter currently pending before the Circuit Court.

They rely on sworn testimony already given under oath and on a District Court ruling that dismissed a search warrant as unlawful. Those are completed judicial actions and part of the permanent court record. Acknowledging them does not interfere with any ongoing proceeding.

The request asks the Board to acknowledge established facts, preserve county records, and determine whether referral to independent authorities is appropriate. Those are governance functions, not judicial ones.

What Duties Are Triggered After Notice

County commissioners are correct that they are a legislative body. What is incorrect is the claim that this status relieves them of responsibility once credible evidence of unlawful conduct affecting county records and elections is placed before them.

After notice, several duties arise even for a legislative body.

The Michigan Open Meetings Act requires that the deliberations and decisions of public bodies be conducted openly and on the public record. When a matter affecting county governance is formally raised, the Board may choose not to act, but that choice must be made publicly. Private refusal is not a substitute for open deliberation.
MCL 15.262
MCL 15.263

Michigan and federal law require preservation of election records. When litigation or potential liability is reasonably foreseeable, public bodies have a mandatory duty to preserve records and prevent spoliation. This duty exists regardless of whether criminal charges are filed.
MCL 168.811
52 USC 20701

Beyond statutory obligations, the Board has a fiduciary duty to the County itself.

What Fiduciary Duty Means for County Commissioners

A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation to act in the best interests of another party. In this case, the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners is the fiduciary for Hillsdale County and its residents.

In practical terms, fiduciary duty requires commissioners to act with care, loyalty, and good faith to protect the County from foreseeable harm.

That includes the duty to act prudently when credible risks are identified, to avoid ratifying potentially unlawful conduct through silence, to protect the County from unnecessary legal exposure, to ensure transparency once material issues are placed on notice, and to safeguard public trust in county institutions, especially elections.

Fiduciary duty does not require commissioners to accuse anyone of wrongdoing. It does not require removal of an elected official. It does not require interference with a court case. But it does require acknowledgment, preservation, and appropriate referral when credible issues arise.

The Added Risk of Continued Inaction

There is an additional factor the Board cannot responsibly ignore.

The county clerk who admitted under oath to actions raising serious legal questions regarding election records and authority has continued to administer elections since that testimony was given.

This fact alone does not establish wrongdoing in any subsequent election. Hillsdale Conservatives is not alleging that recent elections were unlawful or compromised. However, once sworn testimony and a judicial ruling place credible concerns on the public record, continued inaction by the governing body materially increases the County’s exposure.

If future disputes arise, the question will not be whether commissioners personally believed misconduct occurred. The question will be whether they acted reasonably and transparently after notice. Silence after notice is not neutral. It is a choice that can later be examined as a failure to exercise fiduciary responsibility.

Because elections have continued to be administered after these sworn admissions, the issue is no longer theoretical. It is present governance.

Why the Demand and Resolution Were Submitted

Hillsdale Conservatives submitted two documents to the Board and requested they be placed on the January 13 agenda.

The first document is a Formal Notice and Demand. Its purpose is to place the Board on record that sworn testimony and a judicial ruling now constitute credible evidence raising statutory and constitutional concerns affecting county governance and elections. Once such notice exists, silence is no longer a lawful default.

The second document is a Proposed Resolution. It asks the Board to acknowledge the established record, direct preservation of all relevant election records and communications, consider referral to independent authorities, and record a roll call vote so the public can see how each commissioner responds.

Neither document accuses anyone of a crime. Neither document directs prosecution. They exist to ensure lawful process and transparency.

What Happens If the Board Refuses

If the Board refuses to place the matter on the agenda or declines to deliberate in public, the issue does not disappear. The refusal itself becomes part of the record.

At that point, it is no longer a question of awareness. It is a documented decision not to act after notice. Michigan law recognizes that public bodies can ratify conduct not only through action, but through deliberate inaction once credible issues are brought forward.

Whether the Board agrees with the concerns is not the test. Whether it fulfills its duty to respond openly and prudently is.

Reply from the Commissioners Chair regarding initial request:

Response

Why This Matters to Voters

This issue is not about personalities or partisanship. It is about whether local government follows the law when the law becomes inconvenient.

Voters depend on county commissioners to act as stewards of public trust, especially when elections are involved. When sworn testimony and judicial rulings raise serious questions, voters have a right to see their representatives acknowledge the issue, preserve records, and decide openly what steps are appropriate.

Attendance at the January 13 meeting matters because silence in a meeting is harder to explain than silence in an email. Voters deserve to see whether their commissioners will confront the record openly or avoid it altogether.

in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives

For more than a year, the case of People v. Scott has been framed as a test of whether a township clerk defied lawful authority. That framing no longer survives the courtroom record.

What now exists, undeniably and permanently, is sworn testimony by state and county officials admitting that they acted without legal authority, followed by a judicial dismissal of the only charge that justified a raid, a search warrant, and years of public accusation.

At this stage, the most serious question facing Hillsdale County is no longer about one township clerk.

It is about why the officials who are legally obligated to act when credible evidence of unlawful conduct is revealed have chosen not to.

The Record Is No Longer in Dispute

During the August 2025 preliminary examination in Hillsdale County 2B District Court, two facts became unavoidable.

Transcripts of a Broken Republic:

First, the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections admitted under oath that his order directing clerks statewide to delete 2020 election data was not grounded in statute, but in internal administrative policy, despite state and federal laws requiring preservation of those records.

Second, the Hillsdale County Clerk admitted under oath that he had no lawful authority to seize Adams Township voting equipment or ballots, yet did so anyway, and participated in actions that resulted in election records being deleted rather than preserved.

These were not allegations advanced by the defense. They were admissions elicited from the state’s own witnesses, preserved in transcripts, and accepted into the judicial record.

The court then dismissed Count Five, the tabulator charge, for lack of probable cause. With that dismissal, the legal foundation for the search warrant, the raid, and the public narrative collapsed.

The Tabulator That Was Never Missing

From that moment forward, the case ceased to be ambiguous.

What the Law Requires After Sworn Admissions

Michigan law does not treat sworn admissions of unlawful conduct as curiosities or abstractions. When credible evidence appears under oath, particularly evidence implicating election administration and public office, the law imposes duties on specific offices.

Those duties do not depend on politics, personalities, or preferred outcomes.

They depend on oath.

The Sheriff’s Duty

A county sheriff is not a passive observer when credible evidence of unlawful conduct comes to light.

When sworn testimony establishes potential unlawful seizure of election materials, destruction of records, or abuse of official authority, the sheriff has a duty to preserve evidence, to open an investigation, or to refer the matter to an independent authority if a conflict exists.

In this case, the sheriff had notice long before the courtroom admissions. He was contacted during the warrantless seizure. He was warned before the second raid. He was informed that election records were being taken from their lawful custodian without judicial process.

Yet even after the admissions were made under oath and the warrant collapsed, no investigation was opened, no referral was announced, and no public explanation was given.

Silence under these circumstances is not neutrality. Under the law, it may constitute neglect.

The Prosecutor’s Duty

A county prosecutor occupies a uniquely sensitive position. When credible evidence suggests that county officials may have violated the law, the prosecutor must choose one of two lawful paths.

The prosecutor may open an investigation and apply the law evenly, or the prosecutor may declare a conflict of interest and refer the matter to an outside authority.

What the prosecutor may not lawfully do is nothing.

Here, sworn testimony directly implicates actions by county officials, including unlawful seizure of election materials and participation in record deletion that state and federal law require to be preserved.

Yet there has been no public statement of investigation, no declaration of conflict, and no referral to independent authorities.

That omission now stands in stark contrast to the aggressive prosecution of a township clerk who refused to delete records and insisted on warrants before surrendering equipment.

The disparity is not theoretical. It is documented.

The Commissioners’ Duty

The Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners does not investigate crimes and does not prosecute cases. But its duties are no less real.

When sworn testimony reveals that a county office may have acted unlawfully, especially in matters affecting elections, the Board has affirmative obligations to acknowledge the matter on the public record, to ensure preservation of county records, to refer the matter to appropriate independent authorities, and to protect the County from ongoing legal exposure.

The Board is the steward of the County’s institutional integrity. It cannot ratify unlawful conduct through silence, nor can it shield county offices by refusing to acknowledge what the court record already establishes.

This is not about removal or punishment. It is about governance.

Governance begins with acknowledgment.

Why Hillsdale Conservatives Put This Before the Board

In light of what is now established in the judicial record, Hillsdale Conservatives has taken the next lawful step by formally placing the responsibility where the law says it belongs.

Two documents were submitted to the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners with a request that they be placed on the agenda of the January 13 meeting.

The first is a Formal Notice and Demand for Board Action. The second is a Proposed Resolution for recorded Board action.

These documents are not political statements. They do not accuse, prosecute, or remove anyone from office. They do not ask the Board to exceed its authority.

They do one thing the law requires. They place the Board on formal notice and require a public, recorded response to sworn testimony and judicial findings that implicate county governance and election security.

The purpose of the Demand Letter is to formally notify the Board that sworn testimony given under oath by the Hillsdale County Clerk in People v. Scott, together with the dismissal of the search warrant, now constitutes credible evidence of potential statutory and constitutional violations affecting county records and elections.

Once such notice exists, Michigan law no longer permits silence.

The letter explains that while the Board does not have prosecutorial authority and cannot unilaterally remove an independently elected official, it does have non discretionary duties, including preserving records, referring credible matters for independent review, and fulfilling its fiduciary obligation to protect the County from avoidable legal exposure.

The letter also establishes a clear and reasonable deadline for action so that any refusal or failure to act becomes documented and attributable.

The Proposed Resolution asks the Board to acknowledge the sworn testimony and judicial dismissal on the public record, to direct immediate preservation of all physical and digital election records and related communications, to formally refer the matter to appropriate independent authorities, and to conduct a recorded roll call vote so the public can see how each commissioner responded.

The resolution does not accuse anyone of a crime. It does not direct prosecution. It does not presume guilt.

It ensures that credible evidence revealed under oath is acknowledged, preserved, and referred rather than ignored.

What Happens If the Board Refuses

If the Board declines to place the matter on the agenda, refuses to adopt the resolution, or takes no action at all, the issue does not disappear.

It changes form.

At that point, the Board’s inaction itself becomes part of the public record.

Once a governing body has actual notice of sworn testimony and judicial findings that raise credible questions of unlawful conduct affecting county records and elections, continued silence is no longer neutral. It becomes a conscious choice not to act.

A refusal does not negate the sworn testimony. It does not restore the dismissed warrant. It does not erase the admissions preserved in the transcripts.

Instead, it establishes that the Board was informed, was given an opportunity to act, and chose not to acknowledge, preserve, or refer.

From that moment forward, responsibility extends beyond individual offices to the County as an institution.

Michigan law recognizes that public bodies can ratify unlawful conduct not only through affirmative acts, but through deliberate indifference. When a board charged with fiduciary responsibility declines to secure records, declines to refer credible matters, or declines even to acknowledge sworn admissions, that refusal may later be examined as ratification through inaction or failure to perform non discretionary duties.

Whether the Board acts or refuses, the record will reflect the choice.

Future reviewers will not ask what commissioners believed privately. They will look at what was done publicly when the issue was placed squarely before them.

The Question Before Hillsdale County

The real case on trial now is not People v. Scott.

It is whether the institutions of Hillsdale County will uphold their oaths when the law becomes inconvenient.

The testimony is on the record.
The warrant has been dismissed.
The admissions are sworn.

What remains to be seen is whether the sheriff, the prosecutor, and the county commissioners will do what the law requires, or whether silence will be allowed to finish what unlawful policy began.

History is already written in the transcripts.

What happens next will determine whether Hillsdale County is governed by law, or by those who believe themselves above it.

in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives

Board of Commissioner meetings will be held in person at 33 McCollum Street, Hillsdale, MI in Room 210 on the second floor. Meeting dates and times are subject to change and special meetings may be called. Voicemails can be left for the Commissioners at (517) 437-7758 Ext: 150. Next Meeting time is Jan. 13th 9am.

If you need further information or if any person needs assistance to participate in any of these meetings, please contact the Hillsdale County Clerk by the Friday before the scheduled meeting by telephone at 517-437-3391 or by mail at
Hillsdale County Clerk
Courthouse Room #1
29 N. Howell Street
Hillsdale, MI 49242

The true face of Mayor Sessions is becoming more clear with every council meeting.

At the last meeting of 2025, we saw the warning signs. At the very first meeting of 2026, we saw the pattern. For a man who promised to “defeat negativity,” he sure has a talent for bringing it back, dressing it up, and giving it a microphone.

Last Meeting: The TIFA Preview

At the previous council meeting, Sessions quietly set the tone. A local businessman’s term on the TIFA board was ending. Rather than give notice, ask if he wished to be reappointed, or show even basic courtesy, the Mayor simply let the term expire. No call. No email. No “thank you for your service.”

Once that seat was conveniently open, Sessions appointed an out-of-towner to a board whose job is to serve downtown Hillsdale and the businesses in it.

Nothing says “I value local small business” quite like replacing a local businessman with somebody from out of town. If this was a sitcom, the laugh track would have kicked in right there.

This Meeting: The Library Flip-Flop

The first council meeting of the new year gave us the sequel, this time starring the library.

Sessions did not run a vague, muddled campaign on this issue. He was very specific. He told voters, clearly, that adult books do not belong in the children’s section of the library. He also claimed he wanted to keep “negativity” away from the library board and council.

So what happened at the first meeting of the year?

Just like with TIFA, Sessions failed to notify or reappoint a sitting library board member. Once the seat was open, he moved to appoint a well-known Democrat who has been loudly and proudly in favor of putting adult material in the children’s section.

That is not speculation. That is his stated position. And for those who missed it, he happily proclaimed it again during his appointment hearing, just in case anyone thought he might have mellowed with age.

In other words:

• Campaign Sessions: “Adult books don’t belong in the children’s section.”
• Mayor Sessions: “Let me appoint the guy who wants adult books in the children’s section.”

If you are feeling whiplash, you are not alone.

Council Draws a Line

Thankfully, this time council did not just shrug and move on.

Councilmen Bentley and Paladino brought up the obvious concerns. They pointed out the contradiction between what Sessions promised voters and what he was actually trying to do. They treated the citizens’ trust as something that still matters.

Oddly enough, only the Mayor and Councilman Flynn pushed hard for the appointment, insisting that the library needed the candidate’s financial qualifications. Because apparently in all of Hillsdale, we are down to exactly one person who understands numbers, and he just happens to be the same guy who wants adult content in the children’s section. Incredible coincidence.

Unsurprisingly, Councilman Wolfram also joined the Mayor in supporting the Democrat appointee. That brought the tally to three in favor of the Mayor’s pick.

The rest of council was not buying it. The vote came down 3 to 5 against the appointment, and the Mayor’s choice was rejected. For now, at least, common sense and the memory of campaign promises carried the day.

The Return of Negativity

Throughout the discussion, Sessions seemed confused and forgetful about what he had told voters just a few months ago. This is the same man who said he wanted to keep “negativity” out of library politics and council chambers.

Yet look who is bringing the negativity now:

• Negativity toward sitting board members who served the community and were quietly pushed aside
• Negativity toward local business owners passed over without a conversation
• Negativity toward parents who trusted him to protect children’s spaces in the library

This is not “ending negativity.” This is rebranding it. The only thing that has changed is who is on the receiving end.

If you are a local board member who did your job? You are suddenly disposable.
If you are a parent who believed the campaign mailers? You are now the problem for expecting consistency.

A Pattern that should not be ignored.

Put the last meeting and this one together, and a pattern emerges that is hard to ignore:

• First, a local businessman on TIFA is quietly not reappointed, and an out-of-towner gets the seat.
• Then, a sitting library board member is quietly not reappointed, and a loud advocate for adult content in the children’s section is nominated instead.
• Each time, the Mayor’s actions contradict the image he sold to voters on the campaign trail.

The good news is that council found it’s backbone. Bentley and Paladino spoke up. A majority voted down the library appointment. There are still people on that dais who remember who they work for.

The bad news is, the Mayor’s true nature is becoming clearer with each meeting, and it’s not lining up with his campaign branding.

So here we are:
First council meeting of the year, and “negativity” is not gone at all. It is back in the room, seated at the mayor’s desk, acting confused and ignoring everything he ran on.

Hillsdale voters should remember something important: the campaign is over, but the accountability is not. And if this is what the first meeting of the year looks like, 2026 is going to be a very long season, leading into this years campaign season.

in liberty,
The Hillsdale Conservatives.

Normally, Hillsdale Conservatives focus on local and state government. That focus is intentional. It is where power is closest to the people, where decisions can still be observed directly, and where accountability is still possible if citizens are willing to exercise it.

However, the fraud, abuse of office, and complete lack of accountability now visible at the federal level can no longer be treated as a distant or separate problem. What we are witnessing federally must be compared directly to what has already been experienced locally and at the state level, because they are not different failures. They are the same failure, expressed at different scales.

Our Republic does not function from the top down. It functions from the bottom up. The federal government does not establish standards of acceptable conduct. It reflects what has already been tolerated in local and state institutions. What is excused close to home becomes normalized everywhere else.

This is where civic memory matters.

A people who lose civic memory lose the ability to recognize patterns. Each abuse is treated as an isolated incident. Each violation is explained away as procedural or unavoidable. “Trust the Process” Over time, the pattern disappears from view even as the behavior continues uninterrupted.

We have seen this most clearly at the local level.

In Adams Township, election irregularities were not merely alleged in public commentary. They were exposed in a court of law. Testimony and evidence revealed that election materials were unlawfully taken and destroyed. The actions were not isolated to a single office. They involved coordination between local and state authorities and the use of local governmental and local judicial power to carry them out.

The judicial system itself was used not to protect election integrity, but to facilitate the removal and destruction of evidence and to shield those actions from scrutiny. Authority meant to safeguard constitutional process was instead used to bypass it. Our local Sheriff refused his duty and allowed the state to act unlawfully in our County, and ignores testimony under oath admitting to unlawful acts.

Most telling was what followed.

Rather than holding accountable those who exceeded their authority, the response turned against the one official who attempted to uphold constitutional duty. The Township Clerk, whose role exists to preserve election records and protect the integrity of the process, was targeted and accused in order to redirect blame and suppress further inquiry.

This was not a failure of process. It was the use of process to avoid accountability.

Nothing meaningful happened.

Investigations into federal elections followed the same pattern already familiar at the local and state level. Serious allegations of fraud and manipulation were raised. Evidence was presented. Hearings were held. Reports were issued. The exposure was real.

And yet nothing happened.

No meaningful accountability followed. No systemic correction occurred. No restoration of public trust was attempted. The machinery of government absorbed the exposure and continued operating as before.

This failure did not originate at the federal level.

The federal government is not above the states or the people. It is downstream from them. It is constructed from officials who learned what is acceptable in local boards, county offices, and state agencies. When misconduct is tolerated locally, it is carried forward. When accountability is avoided close to home, it is replicated federally.

Exposure without accountability does not resolve corruption. It teaches systems that revelation carries no consequence. Misconduct may be exposed, discussed, and debated, but never punished.

We have also seen this pattern at the state level, with an important distinction.

Lifeways is not unique to Hillsdale County. Every county in Michigan has a similarly structured organization operating under a different name. These entities receive state funding to operate and are routinely renewed through approval processes that assume compliance rather than verify it. Not unlike many other organizations in other states.

In this instance, something different occurred.

Residents of Hillsdale County paid attention. Questions were raised. Outrageous spending was challenged instead of quietly approved. Local officials and representatives were pressured to explain decisions that are normally rubber stamped without public involvement.

Because of that pressure, enough of the local government refused to simply approve the spending. Instead, the issue was placed on the ballot and submitted to the people for a decision.

That step matters.

It represents a small but real act of accountability. Not a solution. Not a victory. But a disruption of the usual pattern. It demonstrated that when citizens insist on transparency, even entrenched systems can be forced to pause.

The lesson, however, remains incomplete.

If that spending is approved by a minority of voters (a mere fraction bother to even vote), the result will be no different than if it had never been questioned at all. Outrageous spending will continue. Oversight will retreat. The system will absorb the challenge and resume as before. (This is not how a Republic founded upon a Constitution is meant to operate. America is not a democracy.)

Partial accountability is fragile. Without sustained attention, it collapses back into habit. The role of our Representatives is to prevent this very corruption within our Republic.

At the federal level, comparable programs operate at vastly larger scales. Public funds are misused. Warning signs are ignored. Whistleblowers are dismissed. When misconduct becomes undeniable, the response focuses on process rather than responsibility.

The is structural and civic decay.

Few individuals enter federal government without first passing through local or state offices. Those early positions are where habits are formed. When officials learn that violations produce no consequences, they carry that lesson forward. Power becomes something to manage rather than restrain.

Our Founders warned us plainly. A Republic must be kept. That warning was not poetic. It was practical. They understood that unchecked power does not correct itself. It accumulates. It hardens. It becomes unaccountable.

We are now living inside that warning.

Governments take from the people and call it taxation without genuine consent. Elections lose credibility while institutions demand trust instead of earning it. Public funds are misused while oversight bodies protect reputations instead of enforcing the law.

This is not what representation was meant to be.

We elect representatives to restrain government, not to justify it. Their duty is not loyalty to institutions, parties, or careers. Their duty is loyalty to the Constitution and to the people who consented to be governed under it.

When that duty is abandoned, the damage spreads in every direction. Citizens disengage. Corruption becomes expected. Silence becomes safer than truth.

That is why accountability must begin locally. Not because local government is small, but because it is formative. If election materials can be unlawfully destroyed in a township and no one is held accountable, the lesson is carried forward. If public spending can escape scrutiny at the state and local level, it will do so wherever power is further removed from the people.

A Republic cannot be preserved by elections alone. It can only be kept by a people who remember how it was designed to function, recognize familiar patterns of abuse wherever they appear, and refuse to accept unaccountable power as normal.

The year 2025 was a year of exposure. Corruption was revealed. Patterns became visible. Illusions collapsed.

Exposure alone changes nothing.

The defining question of 2026 is whether exposure becomes accountability. Whether memory becomes responsibility. Whether the people finally choose to keep what was entrusted to them.

That responsibility does not belong to parties or movements.

It belongs to the people themselves.

in libery,

The Hillsdale Conservatives Happy New Years!!!

During the years of the great covid scam, Hillsdale had shown it could stand up to Lansing when it mattered. Now, as the state demands that Hillsdale, and about 50 other Michigan municipal power communities, cut production by 1.5 percent each year for the next four years, the debate on Council was shaped less by law or principle, and more by fear.

Councilman Bob Flynn said it plainly,

“I’m just nervous that there is the chance that we could be the exception made, that if we say no, like Councilman Bentley says, stand our ground, I’d hate for us to be the example.”

That is not an argument for compliance based on facts. It is an argument for preemptive surrender, not because the policy is right, but because resistance might come with consequences, with no thought for the consequences of compliance.

This came after the most recent council meeting, when City Manager Mackie asked the Council for direction he could take back to other municipal leaders who had reached out to Hillsdale for its guidance, because Hillsdale has told the state no before, stood strong, and won. Oddly enough, a consequence for resistance against tyranny is being looked to for guidance against it.

As everyone reading this is aware, Hillsdale Conservatives rarely, if ever, agree with the City Manager on local issues. However, he has shown a willingness to stand up to state government when it counts, and it matters to recognize, and encourage, that kind of leadership, even when it comes from officials we often oppose. When a bad leader makes a good stand for the City and the people he serves, citizens should reinforce it, not sabotage it.

After Councilman Flynn made his statement about being made an example of, he went on to warn that the consequence could come in the form of a state fine. He floated an arbitrary figure of $350,000 or more, with nothing offered to support that assumption, other than that this is the number being discussed as the payment mechanism intended to force compliance with the new mandate. The problem is simple, this “law” has no teeth as presented to the public in this discussion, there is no immediate enforcement hammer coming down, and the only pushback described in the process is a later meeting with Lansing over “reasonableness.” This is not a joke.

As Councilman Paladino correctly pointed out, “A law is no law if it doesn’t have force.”

After discussion with the City Attorney, who did a great job explaining the City’s position, Council was told it had little to fear. The City is well within its authority to fight this, and the most that could happen in the near term would be a meeting about it, months from now, possibly never and especially not a fine.

Unfortunately, fear once again ruled the day. Councilman Flynn voted with the go along to get along bloc, effectively accepting a “law” that forces the City of Hillsdale, a city that has been expanding with new businesses and new homes, to reduce power consumption by 1.5 percent each year for the next four years.

The winners in this are the people who can afford to ignore the consequences of yet another edict from Lansing, one that has the effect of limiting growth for small business, and punishing the very residents who are already struggling to pay high electric bills.

Residents will be forced to use less power, not because they suddenly became more efficient, but because they cannot afford to use what they need. Small businesses, already fighting just to keep the doors open, will be boxed in, unable to expand, unable to invest, and unable to compete.

All of this is business as usual for officials who believe they were placed into their representative positions to decide who wins and who loses, and who have no problem governing through fear. You are not the exception. Step out of line, and you will be made an example of. This is what Hillsdale voted for after all.

Oddly enough, these are the same officials who keep pushing projects and extensions for the chosen winners. Later in the same meeting, the Keefer, one of those winners, once again got its extension passed. Do not worry, this is the final, final one. Then they will be held accountable, just like all the other losers who dare expect equal and fair treatment from those who hold the power of government force to wield against those not chosen. This is a joke. Everyone paying attention knows full well the government does not hold itself or the people within it accountable here in Hillsdale.

As Councilman Stuchell likes to say, his job is to “pick winners and loses,” and he is very good at it.

Gone are the days of Hillsdale being a positive example for the rest of the state, a place others look to for leadership.

What Councilman Flynn needs to understand is this, Hillsdale will always be the example. Now, it is simply becoming a bad one, at least when it comes to leadership.


in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives