Tomorrow December 15 at 6:00 PM, the Hillsdale County Agricultural Society will hold its Annual Membership Meeting at the 4-H Dining Hall on the fairgrounds.
If you care about the Hillsdale County Fair, its agricultural roots, its volunteers, its 4-H youth, and its future as a community institution, this is a meeting you should attend.
This is not about disruption. This is about supporting the Fair and insisting on good governance.
The Fair Belongs to the Community
For generations, the Hillsdale County Fair has been a place where the entire county comes together. Farmers, families, students, exhibitors, small businesses, and civic organizations all share in something larger than themselves. The Fair has always existed because the community stayed involved.
Involvement has waned over the past few decades. However, that has changed with the 150+ new voting members.
Good fairs require good governance. Good governance requires transparency, lawful procedure, respect for members and the community.
What Has Been Happening
Over the past several months, serious concerns have emerged about how the Fair has been governed. These concerns include refusal of membership to eligible residents, unannounced meetings held behind closed doors, Fair business conducted inside the Sheriff’s Department, members denied entry and threatened with felony trespass by the County Sheriff, refusal to provide board minutes required by law, suppression of lawful member motion to remove the board President/Undersheriff for misconduct, and an Annual Meeting agenda structured to prevent participation by members.
These are not personality disputes. They are governance issues that go to the heart of whether the Fair is being run for the people or away from them.
You Do Not Need to Vote to Matter
Under the Society’s rules, new members must wait 30 days before voting. Many people who join now will not be eligible to vote at the December 15 meeting.
That does not mean your presence is meaningless.
Members have the right to attend meetings. Members have the right to be recognized. Members have the right to speak.
Being unable to vote does not remove your voice.
Despite recent attempts by the Fair Board President to limit participation, members are still entitled to speak during a properly run meeting. Speaking is not voting. Observation is not disruption. Presence is not interference.
When members show up, governance improves. When rooms are full, accountability increases.
Membership Is Open and Lawful at the Meeting
Membership in the Hillsdale County Agricultural Society is ten dollars.
Eligible residents may join by paying dues, including at the meeting itself. While new members may not vote until the 30-day period has passed, membership cannot lawfully be refused simply because it is paid at the meeting.
Some attendees may be told otherwise. The bylaws and Michigan law do not support that claim.
Joining the Society is not just allowed. It is how the Fair stays community-owned and operated.
Why This Meeting Must Be Run Properly
A formal criminal complaint has now been filed with the Hillsdale County Prosecutor concerning misconduct, abuse of authority, unlawful meetings, withheld records, and intimidation of members.
That filing changes the landscape.
The Board is now on formal notice. Law enforcement is on notice. The Fair Manager and officers are on notice.
That means this meeting must be conducted lawfully, transparently, and without intimidation. The agenda must be followed correctly. Members must be recognized. Records must be preserved. Threats and suppression have no place in a meeting now under prosecutorial scrutiny.
Showing up matters because it reinforces the expectation that the rules will be followed.
This Is About Stewardship, Not Conflict
The Hillsdale County Fair has endured because people cared enough to participate. When communities disengage, institutions drift. When people assume their presence does not matter, control concentrates.
December 15 is an opportunity to do the opposite.
Show up to support the Fair. Show up to support transparency. Show up to support lawful governance.
You do not need to argue. You do not need to disrupt. You simply need to be there.
Meeting Information
What Hillsdale County Agricultural Society Annual Membership Meeting
When December 15 at 6:00 PM
Where 4-H Dining Hall, Hillsdale County Fairgrounds
Membership Ten dollars, payable at the meeting
Bring a friend. Bring a neighbor. Bring your commitment to the Fair.
History does not always turn on a single vote. Sometimes it turns when the chairs are no longer empty.
For the past several months, many Hillsdale County residents have watched with concern as the leadership of the Hillsdale County Agricultural Society and members of the Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Office have engaged in actions that raise serious questions about transparency, accountability, and lawful governance.
As a dues-paying member of the Hillsdale County Agricultural Society, and as a citizen of this county who believes deeply in limited government, equal justice, and the rule of law, I have taken the step of filing a Formal Criminal Complaint and Request for Investigation with the Hillsdale County Prosecutor.
This is not a decision made lightly. It is the result of multiple documented incidents including:
• The improper denial of membership to Hillsdale County residents • Secret and unannounced meetings held behind closed doors • A Fair Board meeting conducted inside the Sheriff’s Department, where members were denied entry and threatened with felony trespass • The refusal to provide minutes and records that are required by law to be open to members • The suppression of a lawful motion to remove the Fair Board President • An Annual Meeting agenda intentionally structured to silence member participation
Each of these actions is troubling on its own. Together, they reveal a pattern of misconduct and misuse of authority that cannot be ignored.
I have submitted a sworn complaint to the Prosecutor because no citizen in this county should ever be intimidated, silenced, or denied their lawful rights by those who hold public office. The Fair belongs to the people. Its governing Society belongs to the people. And public officials — whether wearing a badge or holding a title — are not above the law.
The purpose of this complaint is simple:
To ensure that every official involved is held to the same standard that ordinary citizens are expected to follow.
The Prosecutor now has the responsibility to review the evidence, preserve the records, and take appropriate action to prevent further violations, including any that may occur at the upcoming Annual Membership Meeting on December 15.
I am publishing the full complaint below in the interest of transparency. The people of Hillsdale deserve to see the facts exactly as they were submitted, without spin, without rumor, and without secrecy. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and transparency is the cornerstone of a free people.
If we want accountability in Hillsdale County — in our elections, our government, our law enforcement, and yes, even our Fair Board — then we must be willing to stand up, speak plainly, and insist on it.
I encourage every resident who cares about honest government and the future of our county to read the complaint in full.
Respectfully, Lance Lashaway
FORMAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
To the Hillsdale County Prosecutor
From: Lance Lashaway 2631 E Camden Camden, MI 49232 Phone: 517 425 1003 Email: Lashawayandsons@gmail.com
To: Jamie Wisniewski Hillsdale County Prosecutor Hillsdale County Courthouse 29 N. Howell St. Room 13 Hillsdale, MI 49242
Date: 12/13/2025
Re: Formal Criminal Complaint and Request for Investigation into Misconduct in Office, Abuse of Authority, and Statutory Violations relating to Hillsdale County Agricultural Society Officials and the Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Office
Dear Prosecutor Wisniewski,
I am a resident of Hillsdale County and a dues paying member of the Hillsdale County Agricultural Society, which operates the Hillsdale County Fair. I submit this formal criminal complaint and request that your office open an investigation into the conduct of certain officials connected to the Hillsdale County Agricultural Society and the Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Office.
As detailed below, the actions described appear to constitute misconduct in office, abuse of public authority, misuse of public resources, conspiracy to deprive members of their rights, and known violations of the Agricultural Society Act, the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, and the Society’s governing documents.
I respectfully request that you treat this as a formal complaint that triggers your duty to evaluate and, if appropriate, investigate and prosecute.
I. Parties Involved
Hillsdale County Agricultural Society / Fair Board The private nonprofit entity operating the Hillsdale County Fair.
Nathan Lambright – Fair Board President / Undersheriff President of the Society and Undersheriff of Hillsdale County.
Scott Hodshire – Sheriff of Hillsdale County Includes deputies and command staff who excluded members from Fair Board related meetings and threatened felony trespass.
Sabine Young – Hillsdale County Fair Manager / Recording Officer Responsible for receiving motions, maintaining minutes, managing records, and administering membership.
II. Summary of Allegations
The conduct reported includes:
Withholding membership from Hillsdale County residents in violation of bylaws, Articles of Association, and state law.
Holding a Society-related meeting inside the Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department without notice and using deputies to exclude members and threaten felony trespass.
Holding a second secret meeting at the Fairgrounds without notice to members.
Suppressing a formally submitted, lawful motion to remove the Fair Board President.
Refusing to provide minutes and records required by law.
Structuring the Annual Membership Meeting agenda to deprive members of their rights.
All of this occurred after residents were unlawfully denied membership on 10/7/2025. Membership was reinstated only after the Board spoke with legal counsel, confirming the original refusal violated both bylaws and the Agricultural Society Act.
These actions show a pattern of misconduct and abuse of authority that harms citizens and undermines lawful governance.
III. Factual Background
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the following facts are true:
A. Withholding Membership
On 10/7/2025, residents of Hillsdale County were improperly denied membership by the Fair Manager.
This violated bylaws, the Articles of Association, and state law.
These denials prevented members from exercising statutory inspection rights, attending meetings, submitting motions, and participating in governance.
Membership was later reinstated only after the Board consulted legal counsel.
B. Secret Meeting at the Sheriff’s Department and Misuse of Authority
On 10/23/2025, a Society-related meeting was held inside the Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department.
No members were notified.
Members attempting to attend were denied entry.
Deputies stated it was a “closed-door meeting.”
Sheriff later threatened members with felony trespass.
The meeting involved Fair governance and was held inside a law enforcement facility under the authority of the Undersheriff, who is also the Fair Board President.
C. Second Secret Meeting
A second secret meeting was later held at the Fairgrounds.
No notice was provided and no minutes were posted or provided.
D. Suppression of a Lawful Removal Motion
On 11/13/2025, I submitted a written motion to remove the Fair Board President for cause.
The motion cited Article VI duties of loyalty, good faith, and lawful conduct.
It cited Robert’s Rules §62 and was submitted with proper previous notice.
Under bylaws and Robert’s Rules, the motion must be brought before the membership.
The President and Fair Manager have refused to place this motion on the agenda.
E. Unlawful Refusal to Provide Minutes and Records
On 11/20/2025, I submitted a written request for minutes, records, and policies.
The request cited statutory rights under Michigan law.
The Secretary is required to maintain and present minutes at each meeting.
I was told by the Fair Manager that members are “not allowed” to see minutes.
I served the Undersheriff with a copy of the demand at the Sheriff’s Department.
No minutes have been produced and no lawful justification has been given.
F. Annual Meeting Agenda Designed to Exclude Member Participation
The mailed agenda omits approval of agenda, member recognition, member comment, and new business.
These omissions prevent members from amending the agenda or introducing motions.
The structure appears intentional and designed to deprive members of statutory and bylaw rights.
IV. Legal Basis for Criminal Concern
The conduct described raises concerns including, but not limited to:
Misconduct in Office
Abuse of Public Office and Resources
Violations of the Agricultural Society Act and Nonprofit Corporation Act
Civil Rights and Equal Protection Violations
These facts warrant investigation.
V. Request for Action
I request that your office:
Open a criminal investigation.
Determine whether misconduct in office, abuse of authority, or conspiracy occurred.
Require production of all minutes and records required by law.
Refer the matter to the Attorney General if local conflicts exist.
VI. Evidence and Documentation
I will provide:
My record demand
The removal motion
The Annual Meeting agenda
Bylaws and governing documents
Witness statements
Video evidence and news reporting
VII. Notice of Duty
Under MCL 49.153 and 49.155, and your constitutional oath, you must evaluate credible allegations of criminal conduct, especially involving public officials.
VIII. Immediate Legal Duties Prior to the 12/15/2025 Meeting
Because additional violations may occur at the upcoming meeting, I request immediate action:
Instruct the Fair Board to comply with law and bylaws.
Order preservation of all records and communications.
Warn the Sheriff and Undersheriff that further intimidation or misuse of authority may constitute misconduct in office.
Issue an advisory directive ensuring no member is unlawfully removed, threatened, or silenced.
Refer oversight to the Attorney General if necessary.
Evaluate whether the structure of the meeting agenda constitutes an imminent violation and, if so, seek a judicial compliance order.
I am not requesting cancellation of the meeting. I am requesting lawful conduct and protection of member rights.
IX. Certification and Delivery
This complaint is being emailed on 12/11/2025 along with supporting documents. It will be notarized and hand-delivered on 12/13/2025.
Sincerely, Lance Lashaway
The Most Popular Fair on Earth and the Most Unaccountable Board in the County
For generations, the Hillsdale County Fair has been the pride of this community. It is the oldest fair in Michigan, the most storied, and proudly advertised as “The Most Popular Fair on Earth.”
But today, the institution that once stood for agriculture, community, and family values is being operated like a private club. It is a club where the rules apply only to the members and never to the leadership. It is a club where lawful motions disappear, required minutes are hidden, and individuals with government titles use their positions to intimidate and silence the very people the Fair exists to represent.
On December 15th at 6 in the evening, inside the 4H Dining Hall, the Fair Board intends to conduct its Annual Membership Meeting. The structure of that meeting openly violates its own bylaws, violates Michigan law, and violates every principle of representative and constitutional self governance.
It is time Hillsdale County saw exactly what is happening.
The Agenda That Reveals Exactly Who They Believe Is in Charge
The mailed agenda is not simply flawed. It is unlawful.
This agenda contains no place for the approval of the agenda. No place for member comment. No place for recognition of members. No section for new business. No opportunity for members to bring motions. No structure for member participation of any kind.
The absence of an agenda approval vote is a direct violation of Robert’s Rules of Order, which the bylaws adopt as the parliamentary authority of the Society. Robert’s Rules requires the assembly, not the chair, to adopt the agenda. Until the members vote to adopt an agenda, it has no force at all.
The Board removed that vote for one reason. A board that must answer to its members is a board that must follow the rules. They chose the alternative.
The message they are sending is unmistakable.
“We wrote the agenda. We will run the meeting. You will sit quietly.”
That is incompatible with the traditions of this county and the principles of this Fair.
“Other Business” Is Not a Loophole. It Is a Smokescreen.
Item ten on the agenda is listed as “Other Business.” This is not where serious governance occurs.
Under Robert’s Rules, the category of “Other Business” is not a substitute for “New Business.” It is not where member motions belong. It is not where motions with previous notice may be placed. It is not where an officer removal motion can lawfully be buried.
The purpose of “Other Business” is simple. It is a catch all category for housekeeping, announcements, or small matters that require no debate and no vote.
Anything serious, including officer removal, bylaw changes, motions with proper notice, and any matter affecting the governance of the Society must appear under “New Business” or as its own listed item.
The Board did not forget to include this section. They removed it because they knew a lawful motion was coming.
The Motion They Attempted to Silence
A written motion to remove the Fair Board President was submitted weeks ago. It was submitted by a dues paying member in good standing. It was fully lawful and met every procedural requirement.
It cited Article Six of the bylaws. It cited violations of the duty of loyalty. It cited violations of the duty of good faith. It cited acts of gross negligence. It cited Robert’s Rules, section sixty two, which requires that any motion submitted with previous notice must be brought before the assembly at the next meeting.
This motion must appear on the agenda. It must come before the membership. It must be heard and debated. It must receive a vote.
Instead, the President made it disappear by refusing to list it on the agenda. This is not simply unethical. It is unlawful nonprofit governance. It is the parliamentary equivalent of a politician throwing out the ballots before the election.
The Lawful Records Request They Refused to Honor
A dues paying member submitted a formal written request for the minutes of the past year’s meetings. The request sought board minutes, membership minutes, committee minutes, and the policies used to regulate booths, political displays, and vendor conduct. The request cited both the Agricultural Society Act and the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act.
The law is clear. These records must be open to inspection by members. The bylaws are clear. The Secretary must present the minutes at every regular meeting. The Articles of Association are clear. Members are entitled to all privileges and immunities of the Society.
Yet the Board’s response was simple.
“Members are not allowed to see minutes.”
That statement is false. It is unlawful. It violates state statute, the bylaws, and the governing documents of the Society.
When leadership hides minutes, it is because the minutes hide the truth.
V. The Secret Meeting and the Abuse of Public Authority
The most alarming development is the secret meeting held inside the Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department. Members were never notified. There was no public notice. There were no minutes released.
Members who attempted to attend were denied entry and were told this was a closed door meeting. The Sheriff’s Office threatened lawful members of the Society with felony trespass for trying to attend a meeting concerning their own Fair.
This is not rumor. This is not speculation. This occurred.
A government facility was used to shield a private nonprofit meeting. A government badge was used to block citizens from exercising their lawful rights as members. Public authority was used to intimidate private citizens who were attempting to carry out the duties and responsibilities that the bylaws grant them.
This is the opposite of conservative governance. Government is meant to be small, restrained, and subject to law. Not weaponized to protect insiders and silence dissent.
This Pattern Is No Accident. It Is a System of Control.
Consider what the Board has done.
It hid the minutes. It ignored a lawful demand for records. It suppressed a removal motion submitted with proper notice. It eliminated the agenda approval vote. It removed member comment. It removed recognition of members. It removed new business entirely. It held a secret, unannounced meeting inside a law enforcement building. It allowed members to be threatened with felony charges for attempting to attend. It structured the Annual Meeting to silence participation at every turn.
This is not leadership. This is not stewardship. It is control.
Entrenched political figures in Hillsdale County, many tied to the courthouse and the same political networks that resist transparency in other areas of government, are now treating the Fair as their property instead of the people’s institution.
When challenged, the response is always the same. Stonewall. Suppress. Intimidate. Delay. Distract. Deny. Threaten.
Every conservative in this county has seen this pattern before.
The Fair Belongs to Hillsdale. It Is Time for the People to Reclaim It.
The Hillsdale County Fair was created by the people of this community. It was carried for generations by farmers, volunteers, families, 4H youth, and townspeople who believed this county deserved something special.
It does not belong to the Sheriff. It does not belong to the Undersheriff. It does not belong to a board that refuses accountability. It does not belong to courthouse insiders. It does not belong to any political establishment.
On December 15th at 6 in the evening, at the 4H Dining Hall, the people have a choice to make.
You can stay home and accept that the Fair will be ruled by those who silence its members. Or you can show up and remind the Board who this Fair truly belongs to.
Bring your membership card. Bring your friends. Bring your voice.
The Board has created an agenda designed to give members no voice at all. That is exactly why you must arrive determined to use one.
⭐ COMPLETE LIST OF ALL LAWS, BYLAWS, ARTICLES & GOVERNANCE RULES VIOLATED BY THE HILLSDale COUNTY FAIR BOARD
Below are violations broken into six categories for clarity.
I. VIOLATIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY ACT OF 1855
1. MCL 453.232 — Recordkeeping & Member Inspection
Requires:
Accurate minutes
Accurate records of proceedings
Records open to inspection by members
Reasonable access to Society proceedings
Violations:
Minutes withheld
Records request ignored
Secret meeting held with no notice
No minutes produced for that meeting
Blocking members from attending a Society-related meeting
2. MCL 453.224–453.225 — Meetings Must Be Conducted According to Adopted Rules & Open to Members
Agricultural societies must:
Conduct meetings according to their bylaws and adopted rules
Allow members to attend meetings of the Society
Violations:
Meeting agenda violates bylaws
Members excluded from meetings
Secret meeting held in a law enforcement building
Use of Sheriff’s Department to restrict attendance
II. VIOLATIONS OF THE MICHIGAN NONPROFIT CORPORATION ACT
1. MCL 450.2485 — Required Corporate Records
Nonprofits must maintain:
Minutes of board meetings
Minutes of membership meetings
Records of actions taken
Books and policies used in governance
Violations:
Minutes withheld
Committee and policy documents withheld
Secret meeting with no minutes
2. MCL 450.2487 — Member’s Right to Inspect Records
Members have the right to inspect:
Minutes
Books
Records
Policies
Actions of the board
Violations:
Refusal to provide minutes
Ignoring written request
Pretending minutes are not accessible to members
3. MCL 450.2401–450.2403 — Membership Rights & Governance Structure
Nonprofits must:
Allow members to exercise their legal rights
Permit proper motions
Conduct elections fairly
Allow participation
Violations:
Removal motion suppressed
No mechanism for member motions in agenda
No agenda approval by members
4. MCL 450.2541 — Duty of Good Faith & Lawful Conduct
Directors must:
Act in good faith
Follow bylaws
Follow statutory law
Violations:
Suppression of motions
Concealment of required records
Structuring meetings to silence members
Ignoring lawful written demands
III. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR’S OWN ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
1. Article 4 — Rights of Members
Members shall be entitled to:
“All privileges and immunities thereof.”
Violations:
Members prevented from attending meetings
Members threatened with felony trespass
Members denied participation in Society business
Members denied access to Society records
IV. VIOLATIONS OF HILLSDALE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY BYLAWS
These come directly from the bylaws you provided.
1. Secretary Duties — #16
Requires:
Secretary to maintain minutes
Secretary to review minutes annually
Secretary to present minutes at each regular meeting
Violations:
Minutes not presented
Minutes not provided
Records request ignored
2. Parliamentary Authority Clause
Bylaws require:
“Roberts Rules of Order shall govern unless inconsistent with these bylaws.”
Violations:
Agenda does not follow Roberts Rules
Motions with notice not placed on agenda
No agenda adoption vote
No recognition of member rights
3. Article VI — Duties of Officers
Officers lose liability protections if they:
Act with intentional misconduct
Act in bad faith
Commit a knowing violation of law
Act in a manner not in the best interest of the corporation
Violations:
Secret meeting held out of view
Sheriff’s Department used to intimidate members
Minutes intentionally concealed
Motion intentionally suppressed
4. Membership Governance Structure
Bylaws make clear:
Members elect leadership
Members govern through motions and votes
Members must be allowed participation
Violations:
Agenda removes all participation
Motion to remove president prevented
Entire meeting structured around silence
V. VIOLATIONS OF ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER (ADOPTED AUTHORITY)
1. RRONR §41–48: Agenda Must Be Adopted by the Body
The agenda is invalid unless approved by the membership.
Violation:
No “Approval of Agenda” listed
Chair attempting to impose agenda without adoption
2. RRONR §62 — Previous Notice Motions Must Be Heard
When a member submits a motion with previous notice, it must appear on the agenda.
Violation:
President suppressed removal motion
Motion illegally omitted
3. RRONR on Member Rights
Members must be:
Recognized
Allowed to make motions
Allowed to debate
Allowed to vote
Violations:
No member recognition
No new business section
No mechanism for motions
No opportunity to raise objections
4. RRONR on Executive Sessions
Executive sessions require:
Notice
Motion
Vote
Clear rules
Belong to the assembly, not the chair
Violations:
Secret meeting held without notice
No vote to enter executive session
Held off-site in a Sheriff’s building
Members forcibly excluded
VI. VIOLATIONS INVOLVING THE SHERIFF & MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY
1. Abuse of Public Office
Using a government building to conduct private nonprofit business is improper and may violate ethical standards.
2. Coercion / Intimidation of Members
Threatening felony trespass for attending a nonprofit meeting is improper.
3. Conflict of Interest
The Undersheriff (Fair Board President) benefitted directly from:
Secret meeting in law enforcement facility
Sheriff’s threat against members
Suppressing oversight of his actions
4. Violation of Constitutional Rights
Members have:
Freedom of association
Right to participate in private civic organizations
Protection against arbitrary government coercion
The Sheriff’s actions infringed upon these rights.
⭐ COMPLETE MASTER LIST OF ALL VIOLATIONS (SUMMARY)
Statutory Violations
MCL 453.232
MCL 453.224
MCL 453.225
MCL 450.2485
MCL 450.2487
MCL 450.2541
MCL 450.2401–2403
Bylaw Violations
Secretary Duty #16
Article VI (Officers’ Duties & Removal grounds)
Parliamentary Authority Section
Entire membership governance structure
Articles of Association Violations
Article 4 — Member rights violated
Robert’s Rules Violations
Agenda not adopted
Motion with notice suppressed
Members not recognized
No new business
Illegal executive-style meeting
Secret meeting without vote
Misuse of Public Authority
Meeting held in Sheriff’s Department
Members threatened with felony trespass
Badge and building used to block governance
Government used to protect private leadership
No organization run this unlawfully deserves to call itself “The Most Popular Fair on Earth.” But with public action — it can become the most accountable.
in liberty, The Hillsdale Conservatives Vice Chair: Lance Lashaway
How Michigan Officials Raided Adams Township, Admitted Their Own Crimes, And Still Put The Clerk On Trial
In a Hillsdale County courtroom in July of 2025, the mask slipped.
Under oath, the Director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections and the Hillsdale County Clerk admitted facts that, in any honest system, would have ended the prosecution of Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott and begun criminal investigations into the state and county officials who targeted her.
Instead, those same officials still hold power, the clerk who followed the law still faces felony charges, and the only charge that actually involved the voting machine, Count Five, has already collapsed for lack of probable cause.
To understand how we got here, you have to follow the paper trail, the testimony, and the raids. You also have to look at what the law requires from the people who carry a badge and the people who sign arrest warrants, then ask why those duties only seem to run in one direction.
The First Betrayal, A Policy Memo Against the Law
After the 2020 election, Adams Township used Hart tabulators and electronic pollbook data, just like many other jurisdictions in Michigan.
Michigan law is very clear on what happens next.
Michigan Compiled Law 168.81 requires that ballots and election materials be preserved for at least 22 months. Federal law, 52 USC section 20701, requires preservation of all records connected to a federal election for the same period. Those statutes are not suggestions, they are criminal law. Destroying those records early can itself be a crime.
Yet in 2021, Michigan Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater issued statewide instructions that clerks were to delete data from voting machines and electronic pollbooks. When asked in court where this power came from, he did not point to statute. He pointed to his own authority to issue administrative instructions and policy.
Under cross examination, Brater admitted that his deletion directive was not grounded in any statute, that it was administrative policy, not law. He also acknowledged that clerks were required to follow Michigan election law, including the 22 month retention requirement, even as his own directives contradicted that law.
In other words, he admitted two things at once.
One, he knew the law required preservation of election records.
Two, he ordered the deletion of those records anyway, on the strength of a policy memo that had no statutory backing.
That is the foundation of this entire case.
Stephanie Scott refused to delete data that state and federal law required her to preserve. For that refusal, she was portrayed as a threat to democracy, stripped of access to state systems, and eventually charged with felonies.
Adams Township Starts Doing Its Job
While the Bureau of Elections was issuing deletion instructions, Adams Township was doing something that Michigan law actually requires.
Under MCL 168.515, township clerks have a broad duty to investigate and correct voter registration records. The statute allows clerks to conduct a house to house canvass or use any other means that seem expedient to verify the correctness of the rolls.
Scott began to investigate obvious problems in the Qualified Voter File, including incorrect and duplicate registrations. She believed, correctly, that the same data the state was telling her to delete was necessary to prove the problems in the voter rolls and to fulfill her statutory duty to correct them.
She also believed, again correctly, that deleting that data early would violate both federal and state record retention laws.
That was the real conflict. Not a clerk refusing to follow some vague policy, but a clerk refusing to violate criminal record retention statutes in order to satisfy a policy memo from Lansing.
Raid One, No Warrant, No Court Order, Just Bureau Power
What happened next did not look like the rule of law. It looked like a power move.
Acting under the instructions of Jonathan Brater, Hillsdale County Clerk Marney Kast and her then deputy, now County Clerk, Abraham Dane went to Adams Township and physically removed election materials from the township hall. They were assisted by two Adams Township elected officials, Treasurer Pat Williams and Trustee Jason Griffith, who chose to side with the state and county against their own clerk and township.
There was no warrant. There was no court order. There was no statutory citation that gave the county the right to simply walk into a township and seize ballots and election records from the township clerk who was the lawful custodian.
Later, under oath, Dane admitted that he removed Adams Township ballots from an election that was not even at issue, that custody of those ballots belonged to the township clerk, and that he could not point to any Michigan law that specifically authorized him to take them.
He did not have to say the words I committed a crime. His answers matched the elements of unlawful seizure and misconduct in office on their own.
The state and county raided Adams Township by policy memo, not by law.
But they missed something.
After the first seizure, Kast and Dane realized they had a problem.
They did not have the tablet.
Adams Township officials, anticipating trouble after the first raid and determined to comply with record retention law, had secured the tablet separately. They understood that the machine still contained cast vote records and other data that were part of the election record. Destroying or handing that data over for wiping would put them in violation of federal law, not to mention Michigan election law.
When county officials came back looking for the tablet, they were told no.
The Adams Township Supervisor and Clerk informed them that if they wanted the tabulator, the Michigan State Police would need a warrant. Administrative power had already been abused once. It was not going to be used again without judicial review.
That demand changed everything.
Raid Two, Now They Bring the State Police
Unable to rely on an unlawful administrative seizure a second time, the state and county turned to the courts.
A search warrant was obtained and signed by Hillsdale District Judge Megan Stiverson. That warrant authorized the Michigan State Police to enter Adams Township and search for the supposedly missing tablet.
Thus began the second raid, sanctioned by a County Judge .
The same tablet that the township had secured in order to comply with record retention law was now treated as contraband. The same township that had already been stripped of election materials without a warrant now faced armed officers arriving under color of law, based on the story that the township clerk was hiding the machine.
Years later, Judge Stiverson would preside over the preliminary examination in People of the State of Michigan v Stephanie Scott and Stefanie Lambert. She would hear months of testimony, review thousands of pages of documents, and then issue written findings and an order that dismissed Count Five entirely.
On Count Five, the tabulator tampering charge, she found no probable cause that Scott concealed, destroyed, damaged, or unlawfully withheld the tablet under the Michigan election tampering statute. The charge was dismissed at the preliminary stage.
The same judge who had signed the warrant that sent State Police into Adams Township to seize a supposedly hidden tabulator later admitted there was no evidence, even at the low threshold of probable cause, that Scott had committed the tabulator crime.
The tabulator was never missing. It was secured, exactly where it was supposed to be, in the custody of the clerk. The story was missing, and the law was missing.
The raid remained.
The Sheriff Who Knew And Stood Aside
There was one more player in this story, one whose duty was not to policy memos but to the law and to the people of Hillsdale County.
Sheriff Scott Hodshire.
During the first warrantless seizure, and again as the state moved to obtain a warrant for the tabulator, the Adams Township Supervisor called and texted the Sheriff. Those messages, which still exist, show that the Sheriff was told very clearly what was happening. He was invited Oct. 11 to the township meeting referenced in the probable cause charges and failed to appear. He was then sent the videos on Oct. 18th of that meeting, admitted viewing them and concluded their was no election fraud in Hillsdale County.
Days later County and Local officials entered Adams Township Hall and took election materials from the clerk without a warrant.
He was told that the township believed those actions were unlawful and that the integrity of their election records was under attack.
He was told that county officials were now coming back with the Michigan State Police, under a warrant, to seize the tabulator that Adams Township had secured in order to comply with state and federal law.
The Supervisor warned him that election fraud and mishandling of records were taking place and asked him to protect the township.
The Sheriff knew. He had notice that powerful officials were interfering with election records and that his own constituents were asking for protection.
He chose not to act.
He did not challenge the warrantless seizure by state and county officials. He did not step in to question why election materials were being removed from their lawful custodian without judicial process. He did not stand between the State Police and the tablet when the second raid came.
In those moments, his oath to preserve the peace and to preserve to all persons their rights, including the right of a township to have its elections run according to law, gave way to silence.
The Courtroom, What They Admitted
When the case finally reached a full preliminary examination, the courtroom became the one place where everyone had to stop spinning and start answering.
Jonathan Brater admitted that his authority was to issue instructions and policy, not to override statutes. He admitted that there was no law that specifically allowed him to jail a clerk for not reassuring him in advance that she would follow his instructions, and he acknowledged that clerks remained bound by Michigan election law, including record retention.
That is another way of saying that he knew his deletion directive did not have statutory backing, yet he issued it anyway, and used it as the basis to attack a clerk who followed the law instead of his policy.
Abraham Dane admitted that he personally took Adams Township ballots that were not his to take, that custody belonged to the township clerk, and that he could not cite any Michigan statute that gave him authority to remove those ballots.
He also acknowledged that the electronic pollbook flash drives contained official election information that state retention schedules say must be preserved for two years or until any investigation is complete, even as he helped enforce Bureau instructions that deleted that data.
In plain language, the Director of Elections admitted he ordered destruction of records that law required to be preserved, without statutory authority, and the County Clerk admitted he seized ballots without legal authority and participated in deleted electronic records that should have been kept.
In her written order after the preliminary examination, Judge Stiverson made two critical choices.
On the one hand, she accepted the state’s theory that sharing electronic pollbook data with a legal team and a forensic expert could be treated as unauthorized computer access. On that basis, she bound over several computer related charges, along with a common law malfeasance count and a misdemeanor failure to follow a supposed lawful order from the Bureau.
On the other hand, she dismissed Count Five entirely, the only count that was actually tied to the tabulator that had served as the dramatic centerpiece of the raids.
She found no probable cause that Scott had concealed, tampered with, or unlawfully withheld the tabulator under Michigan election law.
So the public story, the one about a rogue clerk hiding a machine, did not survive even the low bar of a preliminary hearing. The legal fiction that justified a warrant, a raid, and years of political rhetoric simply collapsed.
Adams Township had been raided first without a warrant, then again, with a warrant, by the County.
Election materials had been seized from the township clerk without statutory authority, by the County.
Policy memos/emails had been used as if they had more power than law.
The Sheriff had been told all of this and refused to intervene.
The only clerk who refused to delete records that law required her to keep was the only one facing trial.
What The Prosecutor And Sheriff Are Now Obligated To Do
At this point, the question is no longer whether something unlawful happened. The testimony has already supplied the elements.
The question is whether the law in Hillsdale County will be applied upward as well as downward.
Several categories of criminal conduct are now staring the County Prosecutor and the County Sheriff in the face.
1. Misconduct in office. Michigan still recognizes this common law felony for corrupt behavior by a public officer in the exercise of official duties. Using an office to carry out an unlawful seizure, to order destruction of records that law requires to be preserved, or to participate in raids that have no statutory basis is exactly what this crime was written to address.
2. Election crimes under Michigan election law. The same statutes the Attorney General cites against Scott also prohibit undue possession and concealment of ballots and voting machines. Those provisions do not cease to apply when the person obtaining undue possession works in a county office or a state bureau. When state and county officials physically remove ballots and equipment from a township clerk without a warrant or court order, that is undue possession. When they pressure clerks statewide to delete cast vote records and electronic pollbooks prematurely, that moves toward concealment and destruction of records that election law protects.
3. Federal election record crimes. Under fifty two U S C sections 20701 and twenty seven zero two, any officer who fails to retain and preserve federal election records for the required period, or who steals, destroys, conceals, mutilates, or alters them, can be prosecuted in federal court. If state and county officials ordered or carried out the deletion of records that federal law required Scott to keep, that conduct is not only a local scandal, it is a potential federal offense.
Specific to Michigan Election Law
4. Willful neglect of duty, under MCL 750.478 When a duty is imposed by law on an officer, every willful neglect to perform that duty, where no other penalty is provided, is a crime. A Director of Elections who refuses to follow record retention statutes, a County Clerk who participates in warrantless seizures and deletion of records, and a Sheriff who does nothing when told election records are being mishandled and seized without proper authority, all fall within that definition.
5. MCL 168.941 Peace officers, duty to institute proceedings, it is hereby made the duty of any police sheriff or other peace officer, present and having knowledge of any violation of any of the provisions of this act , to fore with institute criminal proceedings for the punishment’s of such offender.
6. MCL 168.940 Prosecuting attorney, duty to prosecute it is herby made the duty of every prosecuting attorney, when he shall receive credible information that nay such offense has been committed, to cause the same to be prosecuted.
The County Prosecutor cannot bring federal charges. The County Sheriff cannot file an information in federal court. But both have a duty to preserve evidence, to investigate, and to refer credible evidence of federal crimes to the proper authorities. However, that does not prohibit them from upholding their own statuary obligations.
They also have a duty to apply state law evenly.
If computer crime statutes can be used to indict a township clerk and her attorney for sharing election data with a defense expert in order to comply with law and investigate fraud, then those same statutes, along with the misconduct, neglect, and election protection provisions, can and must be applied to the officials who seized, deleted, and misused those records.
Anything less is an admission that the criminal code in Hillsdale County is not a set of laws, but a weapon reserved for the powerless.
The Real Case On Trial
From the beginning, the case of People v Scott and Lambert has been framed as a test of whether a clerk can go rogue and undermine an election.
The facts show something very different.
The clerk did what the law required.
The state did what the law forbade.
The county joined them.
The Sheriff watched and stood aside.
The court threw out the one count that matched the public narrative.
What is really on trial is not Stephanie Scott. It is the integrity of Michigan’s election system, and the courage of local authorities in Hillsdale County to enforce the law against their own when they are the ones who break it.
The admissions are on the record. The raids are a matter of history. The oaths are written in black and white.
The only thing left to see is whether the people who swear to uphold the law will enforce it, or whether they will continue to use it as a shield for those in power and a hammer for those who dared to obey it.
For generations, Hillsdale County has stood as a symbol of an older American spirit, a place where personal liberty, private property, and limited government are not talking points, but lived convictions. That heritage is not partisan, it is cultural. It reflects the founding ideals that shaped the country long before modern politics twisted everything into teams, colors, and slogans.
In that tradition, every Hillsdale conservative, understood not as a party label but as an American who values self-government, carries a simple belief: a free people should not fear their government, and a just government should never fear letting the people decide.
The AxMITax constitutional amendment speaks directly to that principle.
Returning Power to the People, Where It Belongs
One of the most enduring themes of early American governance was the idea that taxation is only legitimate when it flows from the consent of the governed. The colonists did not rise up over the size of a tax, but the manner of its imposition.
AxMITax’s requirement that local tax increases be approved by the people reflects this founding principle. The petition does not abolish government, and it does not dismantle essential services. What it restores is the old idea that government must ask before taking, must justify its decisions openly and cannot use the force of government to extort Americans.
This is not a modern political idea. It is one of the oldest American ideas there is.
Protecting Property, the First Duty of a Free Society
Private property is more than a financial asset. From the Founders onward, it has been understood as an essential pillar of liberty. Madison wrote that government’s first responsibility was “to protect property of every sort.” Jefferson warned that when taxation becomes unpredictable, liberty becomes insecure.
AxMITax reinforces those protections by limiting how fast taxation can grow at the state level, requiring clear public approval for local tax changes, and directing tax revenue toward essential, not political, purposes.
Rather than uprooting Michigan’s property tax system entirely, which could create chaos that undermines both liberty and community stability, AxMITax takes a constitutional approach that preserves public services while preventing the excesses that have eroded trust in government.
It is measured stewardship, not radical action.
Restoring Accountability in an Era of Unaccountable Governance
For decades, citizens across Michigan, especially in rural counties like ours, have watched local and state government drift further from transparency and accountability. Decisions are made in back rooms, budgets inflate without explanation, and taxes increase through mechanisms most citizens never voted for.
AxMITax answers this drift by placing government back under clear constitutional constraints. It requires elected officials to justify their spending, seek approval for new taxes, prioritize essential services, and operate within boundaries that cannot be manipulated through administrative creativity.
A government confined by rules is a government worthy of trust.
Reviving Michigan’s Economic Strength, the American Way
When Michigan’s businesses leave, whether factories, small shops, or young entrepreneurs, they leave because uncertainty kills investment. High taxes, unpredictable assessments, and opaque fiscal practices drive away exactly the kind of people who built this nation.
AxMITax introduces clarity, stability, and predictability into Michigan’s revenue system. These principles align with the economic philosophy that made America prosperous: low barriers to entry, predictable tax environments, respect for private capital, and governments that compete to attract, not extract, growth.
This is not politics. It is classical American economics.
A Return to the Citizen-Led Model of Government
The founders believed that power should rise upward from the people, not downward from the state. They believed in local control, informed consent, and the idea that free citizens are fully capable of self-governance.
AxMITax follows that design by decentralizing taxing authority, strengthening local control, ensuring accountability to the community, and reaffirming that no government has the right to take without asking.
These are not partisan positions. They are the bedrock assumptions of the American Republic.
The Myth of “Lost Services,” and Why It Does Not Hold Up
Opponents of AxMITax have increasingly relied on arguments crafted to provoke fear rather than constitutional clarity. We have heard claims that AxMITax would “give more power to Lansing,” “strip local communities of essential services,” or “defund police and fire departments.” Yet a straightforward reading of the petition, along with a basic understanding of Michigan’s constitutional structure, shows these warnings rest on political anxiety, not legal fact.
From a Hillsdale conservative perspective grounded in limited government and self-rule, it is important to separate constitutional reality from political fear-mongering.
I. The Claim That AxMITax Gives More Power to the State Is Not Supported by the Text
A direct reading of the petition shows the opposite. The proposal places strict limits on state taxing power, including a constitutional cap on state tax growth, a prohibition on raising state taxes beyond a 0.1 percent revenue increase over five years, and a ban on expanding taxes without broad public consent.
Constitutionally, restricting a government’s taxing authority does not grant it power, it removes discretion. A government cannot become “more powerful” by having its ability to tax curtailed. The amendment reads as a restraint on Lansing, not an expansion of its reach.
Critics reverse this logic not because it is correct, but because it is persuasive.
II. Locally Controlled Essential Services Are Not Threatened
A central misconception in the “lost services” argument is the assumption that AxMITax removes revenue from local governments. The actual text does the opposite. The measure increases state revenue-sharing to municipalities from 15 to 20 percent, increases revenue-sharing to counties from 10 to 20 percent, and constitutionally requires that these funds be used for essential government and infrastructure services.
That language appears directly in the petition.
Under standard constitutional interpretation, this creates a protected funding floor for police, fire, EMS, courts, roads, and core municipal infrastructure. By legally restricting these funds to essential services, the amendment strengthens public safety funding by increasing the revenue source and prohibiting its diversion to nonessential uses.
Essential services are protected, not threatened.
III. The “Lost Services” Warning Is Political, Not Legal
Fear over losing police or fire funding follows a familiar rhetorical pattern used whenever tax authority is challenged. The script is predictable: suggest government cannot adapt, assume taxpayers will refuse all support, predict that essential services will be cut first, and warn of collapse unless the status quo is preserved.
This argument surfaced during the Headlee debates in 1978, during TABOR arguments in Colorado, in California’s property tax cap battles, and in multiple states during millage reform discussions. In each case, the legal structure funded essential services first.
AxMITax explicitly prioritizes essential services. That is the opposite of defunding.
IV. Claims of “State Power” Ignore How Michigan Law Actually Works
Local governments derive their revenue authority from the Michigan Constitution, the General Property Tax Act, the Home Rule Cities Act, and their own charters approved by voters. None of these authorities are expanded by AxMITax. All are either restricted, conditioned on voter approval, or made more transparent.
The amendment does not centralize budget authority in Lansing, transfer local decision-making to the state, or give the state control over local services. These claims contradict the principle of textual supremacy, the rule that the plain meaning of constitutional language governs over political interpretation.
V. The “Lost Services” Argument Fails Under Constitutional Prioritization
Opponents often overlook that the amendment mandates increased revenue-sharing be spent on essential services. Legally, this does three important things. It creates a constitutionally protected minimum funding level for public safety and infrastructure. It prevents local officials from using police and fire departments as political leverage when budgets tighten. And it ensures that local control remains intact, because local communities still determine how their departments operate and what their priorities should be.
Nothing in the amendment transfers those powers to the state.
VI. Why These Arguments Fit the Definition of Fear-Based Rhetoric
In legal commentary, rhetoric is considered fear-based when it describes worst-case scenarios unsupported by the text, relies on speculative collapse rather than evidence, attributes powers not present in the law, or assumes citizens will refuse all funding regardless of need.
Opponents’ warnings fit all of these criteria.
Constitutional interpretation requires evaluating what the law says, not what political actors fear it might do.
A Constitutional, Not Political, Understanding
From a Hillsdale conservative perspective grounded in constitutional restraint, citizen oversight, property protection, and responsible local governance, the text of AxMITax does not support the widely circulated fears of lost public services or expanded state authority.
Instead, the amendment reflects a longstanding American belief that government should be limited by constitutional rules, taxation should be based on consent, essential services should be protected, and citizens, not politicians, are the ultimate stewards of their communities.
Those principles are not partisan. They are foundational.
What AxMITax Actually Does, According to the Petition Itself
Much of the debate around AxMITax has taken place in the realm of speculation, what critics imagine could happen, what officials fear they might lose, or what various institutions warn could be taken away. Very few of these claims deal with the actual language printed on the petition. When you read the text itself, without the political noise surrounding it, a far clearer picture emerges.
Here is what the amendment actually does.
It removes the authority to levy property taxes and replaces it with a different constitutional revenue structure.
AxMITax changes Michigan’s tax framework in a fundamental way. Instead of relying on annual property taxation, millage increases, and fluctuating assessments, the amendment ends the system of recurring property taxes and replaces it with a statewide revenue model set in the Constitution.
The petition language makes this explicit. The authority to impose property taxes is removed, but the amendment simultaneously installs a replacement system so that essential functions can continue. This does not leave communities without funding or without a legal structure. It replaces one constitutional model with another.
It prevents fiscal collapse by raising and protecting guaranteed funding for local governments.
Critics often argue that removing property taxes will starve local governments. The petition says something very different. It increases the constitutionally mandated revenue sharing that flows from the State to local units.
These increases create a predictable funding base that does not depend on fluctuating property values, millage renewals, or yearly tax campaigns. Rather than sudden revenue loss, the amendment builds in a constitutional floor that ensures cities, townships and counties, do not experience the fiscal shock that a repeal without replacement would cause.
It restricts statewide tax growth to protect homeowners and avoid state-level tax offsets.
One of the longstanding fears when any local tax power is removed is that the State may compensate with new taxes of its own. The petition addresses this directly by imposing a constitutional limit on how fast statewide taxes may grow. It states that the State may not raise any tax that increases total tax revenue by more than 0.1 percent over a five year period.
This limit prevents Lansing from replacing property taxes with broad state increases. The amendment does not eliminate taxation, but it ensures that the power to increase taxes is restrained and predictable.
It protects essential public services with constitutionally earmarked funding.
One of the loudest warnings surrounding AxMITax has been the prediction that police, fire, EMS, and core infrastructure will be gutted. The petition directly contradicts this fear. It states that the increased revenue sharing must be used exclusively for essential government and infrastructure services.
In constitutional terms, this creates a protected funding channel that cannot be diverted, reallocated, or used for unrelated projects. Instead of jeopardizing essential services, the amendment gives them priority status under the new revenue system. Public safety becomes a secured obligation rather than a bargaining chip in millage campaigns.
Schools retain their funding mechanisms. Cities and counties continue to meet debt obligations. The amendment removes the recurring property tax model but does not erase the legal framework necessary to honor long-standing commitments.
It establishes transparency and restores the citizens’ authority over when and how taxes may be created or expanded.
For decades, property taxation in Michigan has grown through indirect means such as assessment drift, revenue neutral roll-ups, special taxing authorities, and statutory workarounds that increase the tax burden without explicit voter consent. AxMITax ends these practices by making all new taxes and all expansions of taxing authority subject to citizen approval.
The amendment does not forbid taxation. It forbids taxation without clear public consent. This is not a restriction on government services, it is a restoration of a foundational principle.
The Bottom Line
Reading the petition itself, rather than the fears built around it, reveals a constitutional restructuring rather than a collapse. The amendment replaces Michigan’s property tax model with a statewide revenue system that uses guaranteed distributions to local governments, prioritizes essential services, limits arbitrary tax growth, and restores citizen authority over taxation.
AxMITax does not remove government responsibility, it requires government to justify itself within clear constitutional boundaries. It does not threaten essential services, it gives them protected status. It does not create chaos, it replaces one system with another that is defined, predictable, and constitutionally anchored.
Most importantly, the amendment restores a civic principle that Michigan has drifted away from for decades, the idea that taxation should follow the consent of the governed, and that the people, not the bureaucracy, retain the final say over the direction of their communities.
For those who value constitutional restraint, citizen oversight, the protection of private property, and community self-governance, these are not new ideas. They are the principles on which Michigan, and the nation itself, were originally built.
In the quiet corners of Hillsdale County, where family farms and modest homes dot the landscape, a federal lawsuit is quietly unraveling a chapter of financial hardship for some residents. Filed in 2024, Mulkey et al. v. Hillsdale County et al. accuses county officials of stripping away properties through tax foreclosures without returning the excess money from their sales, a practice that echoes statewide controversies over who gets the windfall when a home sells for more than its tax debt.
For Hillsdale locals like Debra and Perry Mulkey, Vicki Alent, and Robert Prochko, the suit represents more than paperwork, it’s a fight to reclaim what they say was taken unjustly. The Estate of Cynthia A. Stramecky, honoring a deceased family member’s legacy, joins them as plaintiffs. Their target? Hillsdale County itself, along with Treasurer Stephenie Kyser and County analyst Julie Beeker, whose roles in tax collection and the data behind property tax assessments put them at the center of the case.
A Familiar Story in Michigan’s Heartland
The case, docketed as No. 1:24-cv-00365 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, stems from Michigan’s aggressive tax foreclosure system under the General Property Tax Act. When property owners fall behind on taxes, often due to job loss, medical bills, or broader economic shocks, the county can seize and auction off homes.
If the sale price exceeds the owed taxes, interest, and fees, that extra money isn’t supposed to be a government bonus. It is the former owner’s equity.
The plaintiffs say that did not happen here. According to their filings, Hillsdale County foreclosed on properties at addresses such as 14727 Diane Drive W. in rural Hillsdale Township, 10500 W. Litchfield Road near the village line, and 70 E. Hallett Street in the city, then sold them for more than the tax debt and quietly routed the surplus into county funds instead of back to the people who lost their homes.
This is not an isolated grievance. It is part of a wave of similar suits across Michigan, sparked by the 2020 state Supreme Court ruling in Rafaeli v. Oakland County, which held that counties cannot keep surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales. That decision opened the door to a massive class action settlement in June 2024 covering dozens of Michigan counties, including Hillsdale. Under that deal, eligible former owners could claim up to 80% of surpluses from sales between 2013 and 2020, potentially totaling millions statewide.
For those like the Mulkey plaintiffs, who opted out or pursued individual claims, the fight continues in federal court. Their lawsuit argues that what the law now clearly recognizes as a property right, the surplus equity, was treated by Hillsdale County as a quiet revenue stream.
The County’s Defense, Procedure vs. Property
Hillsdale County removed the case from state court to federal jurisdiction in April 2024, paid the $405 filing fee, and quickly moved to dismiss. In their brief, county attorneys rely on statutes, time limits, and technical arguments, claiming some of the plaintiffs’ claims are too old or not properly brought under state law.
Kyser, the elected treasurer who oversees the tax foreclosure process, and Beeker, who works on GIS mapping and equalization data that underpins tax assessments, are both named as defendants in addition to Hillsdale County itself. Neither has commented publicly on the suit.
In a brief written statement, county officials said Hillsdale County “takes all legal matters seriously and is committed to fair tax administration,” and that it will “vigorously defend the County’s compliance with state law.”
The motion to dismiss, filed April 16, 2024, sparked a procedural back and forth. Plaintiffs sought a status conference to coordinate discovery, but U.S. District Judge Paul L. Maloney instead extended briefing deadlines, plaintiffs’ responses due in late June, defendants’ replies by mid July.
As of this writing, the public docket shows no rulings or settlements entered after May 31, 2024. For residents watching from the outside, it can look like nothing is happening. In reality, cases like this often idle on the surface while lawyers argue over timing, jurisdiction, and potential settlement behind the scenes.
Why It Matters to You, Hillsdale
For the average Hillsdale County resident, whether you are a farmer in Jonesville, a retiree in Hillsdale city, or a young family in Litchfield, this lawsuit shines a light on a system that touches millions of people across Michigan. In recent years, Hillsdale County has foreclosed on dozens of properties annually, many for debts under $5,000, according to state tax foreclosure data.
Critics, including the plaintiffs’ legal team and local activists, say these seizures disproportionately hit vulnerable residents, people who miss a tax bill during a medical crisis, a job loss, or a messy divorce, and turn minor delinquencies into permanent losses of equity built over decades. Court filings in Mulkey describe a process where the County forecloses, auctions the property, and then absorbs the surplus into county funds, treating a family’s life savings as just another line item in the budget.
For the plaintiffs, the legal words may sound abstract, words like “takings,” “equity,” and “surplus proceeds,” but the stakes are painfully concrete. If a bank or private creditor seized your truck to cover a small debt, sold it for more than you owed, and refused to return the difference, most people would not call that sound fiscal management. They would call it a ripoff. The plaintiffs argue the County has been doing the same thing with homes.
Follow the Money, and the Movers
The lawsuit lands in a community already suspicious of how public power and public money are used. Over the past few years, Hillsdale residents have watched a string of local officials head for the exits while insisting that the real problem is not policy, but “negativity.”
As the Hillsdale County Reviewrecently noted, former city code enforcement official Alan Beeker, the husband of Julie Beeker, resigned after publicly blaming “negativity,” a term many residents translate as “council members asking hard questions.” Beeker, who had reportedly talked about retiring for months, did not retire to a small cabin in the woods. He moved to Ludington, a popular lakeshore town. He was not alone. Another official, Jeff Gier, resigned for similar reasons and likewise ended up in Ludington.
Meanwhile, Hillsdale City Manager David Mackie, a familiar figure in local controversies, owns multiple properties in that same lakeshore community. Local commentary has pointed out that Mackie and Beeker will effectively be neighbors on or near the pier.
“Mr. Alan Beeker, who resigned on account of ‘Negativity,’ i.e., Council asking questions, (and despite his many months of reportedly talking openly about retirement) has moved to lovely Ludington, along with Mr. Jeff Gier, who resigned for the same alleged reasons! City Manager David Mackie owns numerous properties in Ludington. It looks like he’ll be neighbors with Mr. Beeker, right on the pier. Well done, gentlemen, you lovers of Hillsdale, you,” the Review quipped, with a mix of sarcasm and frustration.
To many residents, it all feels a little too obvious, officials invoke “negativity” at home, then quietly cash out and head for nicer zip codes, often with public salaries and pensions built on the backs of the same taxpayers now fighting to get their equity back.
One Hillsdale resident, responding to an online commenter who shrugged off these concerns, put it bluntly,
“People become pretty well-off when they work in the government in positions of authority. They enjoy enriching themselves, courtesy of the taxpayer. I guess if you don’t understand now, you will never understand.”
That is not a legal brief. It is a gut reaction, but it captures the mood. When you lay the Mulkey lawsuit alongside the revolving door of local officials, the pattern that ordinary people see is not just about a technical misreading of the General Property Tax Act. It is about a culture where government insiders seem to land softly, while ordinary families lose homes, land, and the savings tied up in both.
A Bigger Fight Than One Lawsuit
Ultimately, Mulkey is about more than four sets of plaintiffs and a few parcels of land. It is a test of whether the promises made in Rafaeli and the 2024 class action settlement actually mean anything in places like Hillsdale, or whether counties can keep treating surplus equity as discretionary cash, shielded by technical defenses and shifting explanations about who, exactly, can be sued.
If the plaintiffs prevail, Hillsdale County could be ordered to return tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in surplus proceeds and change how it handles future tax foreclosures. If the County wins on technical grounds, many residents will read it as confirmation of what they already suspect, that in Hillsdale, the rules are strict for those who fall behind and flexible for those who run the system.
Either way, the case forces a hard question back onto the local agenda, Who really prospers when Hillsdale takes a home for taxes, the community, or the people in charge of the paperwork?
Written in Collaboration with Joseph Hendee, fellow conservative and local watchdog.
From all of us at The Hillsdale Conservatives, Happy Thanksgiving. 🇺🇸🦃
On a day set aside for gratitude, we’re especially thankful for the people in our community who quietly invest in the hearts, minds, and health of others all year long. One of those people is our longtime contributor, Heather Jessop.
At a time when politics, social media, and daily life can feel like a constant barrage of outrage, Heather’s work is a gentle but firm reminder that real change begins inside our own homes, and inside our own hearts. While we fight hard in the public arena for truth, liberty, and accountable government, we also know that a free people must first be a grounded, emotionally healthy people. Heather speaks directly to that space, the inner life that sustains the outer fight.
As you gather with family and friends today, we invite you to take a breath, slow down, and really sit with the message she shares below about peace, emotional ownership, and the quiet power of one healed heart. Consider this our Thanksgiving “thank you” to Heather for writing it, and to you for walking this road with us.
From our families to yours: Happy Thanksgiving, and may you be the calm ripple in a noisy world.
— The Hillsdale Conservatives
Heather Jessop is a writer, wellness advocate, and homeschooling mom who helps busy women reconnect with their health and emotional balance through real food, simple routines, and mindset shifts. https://www.linkedin.com/in/hmjelitebookkeeping
We live in a world where opinions fly faster than facts and emotions often lead before logic has a chance to speak. It’s not uncommon to see people enraged over someone they’ve never met, a public figure, a neighbor’s social post, or even a stranger with a differing opinion. But here’s the truth: that person you can’t stand, likely doesn’t even know you exist. They aren’t losing sleep over your anger, but you might be.
When we give others control over our emotions, letting their actions, words, or even their mere existence dictate how we feel, we surrender our personal power. That emotional energy we give away? It doesn’t hurt them. It drains us. As the saying goes, “Hating another is like drinking poison and expecting them to die.” It only harms the one holding the cup.
The human body is an intricate system where mind and body are deeply connected. Chronic anger, resentment, or bitterness doesn’t just weigh on your heart metaphorically, it can affect your nervous system, digestion, sleep, hormones, and even immune function. Science has shown that unchecked negative emotions can manifest as real physical symptoms: headaches, fatigue, inflammation, or digestive distress, to name a few.
And ironically, many people caught in this cycle of emotional turmoil are the same ones who crave more control in their lives , over circumstances, outcomes, or other people. Yet, by reacting instead of responding, they hand over that control willingly. Emotional regulation isn’t suppression; it’s sovereignty. It’s saying, “I choose peace over chaos. I choose to protect my energy.”
We may not be able to control outside circumstances, people, or situations, but we can master ourselves. And that mastery has a ripple effect. When we choose peace, patience, and understanding, that energy radiates outward. Others feel it. They see it. It softens the environment around us, inspiring those in our presence to respond in kind. One person’s calm can steady a room. One person’s kindness can shift a day.
That’s how real change happens. Real change doesn’t start in the world around us, it starts within us. Not from shouting the loudest, but from standing in calm awareness. From choosing peace when chaos calls. From holding love steady in a room full of fear.
The more we take responsibility for our own emotions, the more we heal not only ourselves, but those we unknowingly touch along the way.
Every healed heart sends ripples farther than it knows and yours just might be the calm that heals another.
So the next time you feel your peace slipping away, pause and remember: no one else gets to hold the reins to your inner world — unless you hand them over. Take your power back. You are the ripple.
Hillsdale’s new mayor has introduced what may be the most unusual transparency initiative in Michigan municipal history, a requirement that all council members CC both himself and the City Manager on every email so he can personally “monitor for negativity.” Not misconduct, not ethics violations, not misuse of public funds, just negativity.
It would be funny if it weren’t real, and if it weren’t already revealing a deeper problem in Hillsdale’s city government.
While the announcement drew plenty of raised eyebrows and support by the out of county and city liberals who claim they don’t want a dictator. It drew something else from the only council member who had the backbone to call it out. Councilman Matthew Bentley, as any good Conservative would, flat out refused to participate. No fluff, no hedging, just a clear No, the kind of answer that only comes from someone who has actually read the Home Rule City Act.
Bentley understood that under Michigan law, council members are independently elected officials. They do not report to the mayor, nor does any city resident they are elected to represent, owe him emotional cheerfulness in their emails. They do not submit their correspondence for tone inspection. The council certainly does not hand over their internal discussions so the executive branch can serve as a municipal HR department. Bentley recognized instantly that the mayor’s justification, monitoring tone for “negativity,” was not just inappropriate. It had no basis in law and every basis in executive overreach.
The truly concerning part of the mayor’s directive is not even his own involvement. It is his insistence that the City Manager must also be copied on every email. In most cities that might simply be odd. In Hillsdale it is alarming. The City Manager has been the longest running source of friction, tension, and administrative hostility since he arrived during Mayor Sessions’ first term, two mayors ago. While councils have changed and mayors have come and gone, he has remained the single most consistent generator of negativity in the building. If City Hall issued a forecast it would read cloudy with a one hundred percent chance of conflict, brought to you by the City Manager.
So when the current mayor decides that this individual, the most politically combative figure in the entire building, must read every council email to judge whether elected officials are being “negative,” it transforms a neutral administrative role into something entirely different. It turns an unelected administrator into a political monitor. That is not transparency. That is not professionalism.
The mayor and his liberal voters defend this policy with repeated references to a “chain of command,” a phrase that sounds authoritative until you remember that the city charter contains no such structure. The council is not subordinate to the mayor. The mayor does not command the council. The City Manager certainly does not. This imaginary chain of command exists for one purpose, to funnel all information through the two offices most interested in controlling it. Want ever happened to (No, KINGS)?
The legal issues are obvious to anyone not indoctrinated by our wonderful education centers. Forcing all council communication through the mayor and the manager risks violating the separation of powers embedded in municipal law. It chills protected political speech under the First Amendment, because elected officials have every right to challenge and criticize executive actions and their staff, especially the city manager. It invites Open Meetings Act violations by encouraging serial deliberations under executive supervision. Beyond the legal risks it damages trust, silences staff, and creates the kind of environment where disagreement is treated not as healthy debate but as insubordination. Hammer and Sickle, anyone?
Which brings us back to Bentley, because his response was not only correct, it was symbolic. Bentley is the same councilman who lost his recent mayoral race by roughly sixty votes, a loss widely attributed to poor turnout that was amplified by the constant accusations that he and a handful of conservatives were the “source of negativity” in Hillsdale. The irony is astonishing. The one person willing to stand up for transparency, legality, and constitutional governance is the same person who was politically punished for refusing to play along with a negativity narrative created by the very people now asking to monitor it.
Hillsdale does not need an email positivity police force. It needs leadership that values law over abuse of power, transparency over tone scoring, and open debate over passive aggressive monitoring. A mayor who insists on being copied on every council email is already pushing the limits of his authority and inviting litigation. A mayor who insists the City Manager, the most confrontational personality in City Hall, must also be copied is sending a message far louder than any policy language could convey.
Criticism is not the problem. Monitoring criticism is. Negativity does not erode democracy. Controlling dissent does.
Hillsdale deserves elected officials who can speak freely, question authority, and, when necessary, be negative. Bentley understood that. The law supports that. Any resident who values accountability should too.
**Legal and Ethical Violations Created by the Mayor’s Invented “Chain of Command”
With Michigan Statutory Citations**
Violation One, First Amendment Suppression The policy attempts to regulate political tone and viewpoint, which is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Michigan courts have repeatedly affirmed that elected officials retain free speech rights regarding matters of public concern. Relevant authority, United States Constitution, First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 1983 (civil liability for deprivation of constitutional rights).
Violation Two, Open Meetings Act Exposure Forced CC’ing creates serial deliberations involving a quorum outside a noticed public meeting. This is the exact conduct the Michigan Open Meetings Act prohibits. Relevant authority, MCL 15.263, meetings of public bodies must be open and noticed. Relevant authority, MCL 15.262 section d, defines deliberation by quorum. Relevant authority, MCL 15.269 section 3, invalidation of decisions made in violation of OMA.
Violation Three, Separation of Powers Breakdown Under Michigan Municipal Law City councils do not report to the mayor and cannot be supervised by the executive branch. Michigan’s Home Rule City Act establishes independent powers for legislative bodies. Relevant authority, MCL 117.3, outlines the separate and independent powers of elected city officials. Relevant authority, MCL 117.4i, defines the respective duties of the executive and legislative branches.
Violation Four, Abuse of Office and Misuse of Authority Using executive power to monitor elected officials for tone rather than legitimate municipal purposes qualifies as abuse of position. Relevant authority, MCL 750.505, misconduct in office, common law offense. Relevant authority, Michigan Constitution Article 1 Section 2, equal protection and due process violations resulting from arbitrary state action.
Violation Five, Creation of a Hostile or Intimidating Governance Environment Mandating surveillance by the City Manager, who has a documented pattern of hostility, chills communication between council members and staff and interferes with the proper flow of information. While not a standalone statute violation, it forms the basis for civil exposure under federal law. Relevant authority, 42 U.S.C. 1983 for retaliation against protected political activity. Relevant authority, First Amendment political retaliation doctrine from Pickering v Board of Education and Bond v Floyd.
Violation Six, Interference With the Independent Duties of Council Members Council members have statutory duties that require free inquiry and independent judgment. Forcing all communications through the mayor and manager obstructs those duties. Relevant authority, MCL 117.3 sections a through g, the legislative powers reserved to the council. Relevant authority, MCL 15.243 section 1, access to public records that council members are entitled to review without executive interference.
Violation Seven, Conversion of an Administrative Role Into a Political Filter The City Manager’s duties under Michigan municipal law are administrative, not political. Forcing him into a political monitoring role violates the structure of the council-manager form of government. Relevant authority, MCL 15.401 et seq, standards of conduct for public officers. Relevant authority, Home Rule provisions that restrict the political activities of administrative officers.
When a mayor demands surveillance over the conversations of elected officials because they might express “negativity,” the intent is unmistakable: Prevent criticism, silence disagreement, and create a climate of fear.
Ironically, Bentley’s insistence on following the law is the very “negativity” the mayor and manager keep claiming is the source of Hillsdale’s problems, negativity that is simply the act of refusing to rubber-stamp bad ideas.
And for that, Bentley lost his recent mayoral race by about sixty votes, a margin small enough that a few dozen people choosing to stay home because they were tired of being told that disagreement is “negativity” could have flipped the outcome.
Thus, the only council member willing to stand against the mayor’s overreach is the same man who has been blamed for the negativity that this administration is now trying to police into silence.
You truly cannot script irony this well.
A city government cannot function under those conditions. A healthy republic certainly cannot.
Mayor Sessions’ first meeting as Mayor already showed us something important: not only is he failing to live up to the “commander” image he campaigned on, he has also already shown he is neither a Republican nor a conservative in practice.
Before we get into the bad news, it’s only fair to start with the one positive.
The One Thing He Did Well
Sessions actually ran the meeting itself competently—a real surprise, given the campaign footage of him being led around by his manager, struggling to speak clearly or do basic arithmetic.
He moved through the agenda prepared for him, treated all members of council the same, showed no obvious favoritism, and kept his own opinions largely out of the deliberations. It was professional, and on par with the last two mayors.
For that, we at Hillsdale Conservatives offer our genuine praise and hope he continues at least this standard of conduct over the coming year.
Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends.
The “Republican” Who Governs Like a Democrat
While the City Council is a nonpartisan body—no (R) or (D) on the ballot—Sessions himself ran as a Republican and repeatedly branded himself as a conservative. He made no secret of this and spent plenty of time at the “Republican” fair booth, as well as his favorite spot: the Farmers Market every Saturday, sitting beside his “Republican” campaign manager, who is deeply involved with the county “Republican” party.
We’ll set aside, for now, that this local “Republican” party has been censured, disavowed, and removed from its congressional district and state committee roles for manipulating county delegate elections, misconduct in office, and weaponizing the legal system. That’s its own story.
Instead, let’s focus on what Sessions just showed us about his principles and values, which look far more Democrat than conservative.
The Chain of Command: Not Representative Government
Sessions’ “Chain of Command” memo was rightly called out by Councilman Bentley, who refused to comply. Sessions’ demand that all emails and correspondence between council members and staff must include the Mayor and City Manager is the opposite of a representative, accountable form of government.
That policy establishes an administrative prior-approval regime that:
Undermines council’s independent access to information
Concentrates power in two offices (Mayor and Manager)
Chills protected communications from staff and the public
By preventing elected representatives from having private, good-faith conversations with staff—without mayoral or managerial oversight—it becomes incompatible with representative government, obstructs lawful oversight, and discourages the candor that honest public administration and legal compliance require.
Sessions ran on “defeating negativity.” Yet his very first major act is a direct attack on representative governance and a textbook example of centralized, top-down control.
The Green Energy Scam: Sessions Breaks the Tie
If that wasn’t enough, Sessions then cast the deciding vote to ram through the latest “green energy” scheme.
Out of nowhere, Councilman Socha mustered his conservative instincts and pushed back hard against the solar project proposal, standing with the conservative bloc to stop what many residents see as a costly, feel-good energy scam. But it was too little, too late.
With Sessions now in the Mayor’s chair, his vote broke what would have been a 4–4 standoff between conservatives and liberals. Instead of siding with the conservatives he campaigned with, Sessions delivered the win to the liberal side.
We appreciate Socha’s efforts, but his pattern of hesitating when it matters most likely helped create the conditions for this defeat.
The F.A.I.R. Committee: From Anti-College Rhetoric to College-Controlled Policy
The longest and most revealing debate of the night came on an item Sessions himself brought forward: the F.A.I.R. Committee.
During the campaign, Sessions and his allies were openly hostile toward the college and the so-called “PhD boys,” using that rhetoric to inflame resentment and divide voters. The message was clear: he was running against the influence of the college and its elites.
Yet in a completely predictable turn once the election was over, the F.A.I.R. committee he proposed would be heavily populated by nonprofits, out-of-towners, and—most notably—people employed by that same college administration he spent months attacking, with a few town residents sprinkled in to keep up appearances.
In other words, his campaign used negativity to rally a certain group of people against “the college crowd,” and then, once in power, he immediately turned around and tried to hand those same college-connected interests a formal seat at the table. It looks less like conviction and more like a bait-and-switch.
To their credit, council members across the spectrum pushed back. The idea was so poorly received that it never even made it to a formal motion. It died on the floor, and rightly so.
What This First Meeting Really Told Us
On the surface, it may have looked like a boring, routine first meeting. In reality, it told us almost everything we need to know about the next year:
Sessions can run a meeting, but his instincts are not conservative.
His chain-of-command memo is a direct challenge to representative government.
His tie-breaking vote advanced a liberal “green energy” agenda.
His flagship F.A.I.R. committee contradicted his campaign rhetoric and tried to outsource town influence to college-aligned and outside interests—and was so bad it couldn’t even get to a vote.
Going forward, expect the Democrat–liberal agenda to move through on 5–4 votes, unless someone unexpectedly breaks ranks. Morrissey should know better but refuses. Flynn should know better and might, in the future. As for “angry Stutchell” and “more-taxes Wolfram,” don’t hold your breath.
This is what happens when people don’t show up and vote.
The one silver lining? Even some Democrats on council seem less than enthusiastic about being micromanaged by the new Mayor—though they seem to have no problem being directed by the City Manager.
The meeting ended with Sessions pretending not to understand what an open, public debate with his opponent would look like. If this first night is any indication, future meetings may at least be entertaining—but for those who care about accountable, conservative, representative government, they will also be deeply concerning.
Meeting with JD Glaser, Dan Adams and Jon Smith in regards to District 5 and the State Committee.
To the Members of Michigan’s Congressional District Republican Committees:
We write as grassroots Republicans in Hillsdale County who have lived, firsthand, what happens when a small group of insiders is allowed to use process and position to shrink participation in order to retain control.
For years, precinct delegates and conservative activists in our county have fought against statutory members and Party insiders who use their access to government offices and Party machinery to:
Manipulate delegate allotments and delegate elections to retain control,
Punish dissenting delegates, and
Delay any meaningful resolution for as long as possible.
The message to ordinary Republicans has been clear: You are welcome to vote for us, but you are not welcome to share power with us — or even have the ability.
That is not the Republican way. It is not what our platform says. It is not what we tell voters we stand for.
The amendments now before you, the Delegates’ Bill of Rights, are a serious attempt to correct this problem — not just for Hillsdale, but for every county in the 5th District and across Michigan.
We support these amendments because they:
Put precinct delegates back at the center of Party governance, where they belong.
Require honest, timely, and transparent conventions that any working Republican can attend without guessing what game is being played that night.
Establish an Oversight Committee with real procedures and tools to address abuses, so that delegates aren’t left waiting years for State Committee to intervene.
Set a fair, vote-based formula for delegate allotments, so that no county board can quietly shrink the Party to keep control of it.
These changes do not weaken the Michigan Republican Party. They weaken a culture of insider control that has been strangling it.
We need a Party that grows. We need more precinct delegates, not fewer. We need people who love the Constitution, who love their communities, and who are willing to serve, even when it puts them at odds with comfortable incumbents.
These amendments help create that Party. They tell new people: If you are willing to step up and become a delegate, we will protect your rights, follow our bylaws, and resolve disputes fairly. That is how you build trust. That is how you grow.
On behalf of the conservatives in Hillsdale County who have been fighting for years just to be heard inside their own Party, we are asking the 5th District — and all the districts in Michigan — to send a clear message:
We will not tolerate shrinking participation as a tactic to retain power.
We will not side with those who weaponize process against their own base.
We will choose transparency, accountability, and growth over fear and control.
We urge you to fully support and vote in favor of these amendments when they come before you, and to encourage your State Committee members to do the same.
If the Republican Party is going to be the vehicle for liberty, limited government, and constitutional principles in Michigan, it cannot be run like a private club afraid of its own members. It has to trust its delegates, bind itself to fair rules, and open its doors wider — not narrower.
That is what this reform represents. We stand behind it, and we ask you to stand with us.
Respectfully,
The Hillsdale Conservatives (Grassroots members and embattled precinct delegates of the Hillsdale County Republican Party)
The Delegates’ Bill of Rights
Quick Answers to Insider Scare Tactics
1. “This will hurt the Party.”
Translation: “This will hurt the people who currently control everything.”
What the amendments actually do:
Protect duly elected precinct delegates from being purged or sidelined.
Require real notice, open doors, and fair credentialing at conventions.
Give the Party a clear internal process (Oversight Committee) to handle disputes instead of letting them fester for years.
Tie delegate allotments to Republican votes, not insider preferences.
If your plan is to grow the Party, that helps you. If your plan is to shrink the Party to keep power, that threatens you.
So when someone says “this hurts the Party,” ask: “Do you mean it hurts the Party—or just your control over it?”
2. “The State Committee can’t do this. It’s illegal.”
The opposite is true:
The bylaws already say the State Committee can amend the bylaws with notice and a 2/3 vote in person.
The bylaws already allow additional standing committees. The Oversight Committee just defines one clearly and gives it rules.
Nothing in state law says a political party can’t:
Protect its delegates,
Standardize how conventions are run, or
Use an internal committee to resolve disputes.
This package doesn’t “repeal state law.” It tells the Republican Party:
“Within the law, this is how we are going to govern ourselves.”
If someone claims it’s “illegal,” they should be able to point to the exact law or bylaw it violates. If they can’t, it’s not a legal argument—it’s a scare line.
3. “This will bring lawsuits.”
Let’s be honest: we already have lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, and people talking about lawsuits.
Right now, when something corrupt or abusive happens:
There’s no clear internal path to fix it,
People either give up or hire lawyers,
Fights spill into court or social media.
The amendments actually reduce long-term legal risk by:
Creating an Oversight process where complaints can be filed, evidence submitted, and rulings issued.
Encouraging members to use Party remedies before running to court.
Keeping the Oversight Committee away from campaign-finance decisions, which is where most legal landmines are.
Will someone somewhere still threaten to sue? Probably. But with these amendments, the Party can show a judge:
“We have rules. We followed them. We tried to handle this in-house.”
That’s a stronger legal posture than “we wing it and hope nobody finds out.”
4. “This is just about factional power.”
No. This is about who owns the Party.
Right now, reality in many counties looks like this:
A small circle decides who gets delegate slots and who doesn’t.
People who ask questions get targeted or quietly blocked.
Years go by before any higher body even looks at the problem—if they ever do.
The Delegates’ Bill of Rights doesn’t hand power to some new hidden faction; it hands power to:
Elected precinct delegates, and
A balanced Oversight Committee with one member per congressional district.
If someone is fighting hard to keep conventions vague, delegates weak, and disputes unsolved, that tells you everything you need to know about what kind of power they’re trying to protect.
5. “We just need unity, not new rules.”
Unity built on fear and silence is not unity. It’s surrender.
Real unity comes when:
People trust they won’t be ambushed or purged.
Conventions are run the same way everywhere, not one way for friends and another for critics.
Delegates know there’s a real remedy if they’re abused.
These amendments don’t demand everyone agree on every issue. They demand we all play by the same rules.
If our Party can’t handle that inside its own house, it has no business asking voters to trust it with government power.
Bottom Line
When you hear:
“This will hurt the Party,”
“State Committee isn’t allowed to do this,”
“This will cause lawsuits,”
you’re not hearing legal analysis. You’re hearing people afraid of losing a rigged system.
The Delegates’ Bill of Rights:
Grows participation,
Protects delegates,
Forces transparency,
And gives us an honest way to fix abuses.
That’s not a threat to the Republican Party. That’s a threat to the people who’ve been shrinking it.
Proposed “Delegates’ Bill of Rights” Amendments [Plain language Version]
(Oversight Committee, Conventions, and Delegate Allotments)
1. Oversight Committee
(to be added as a standing committee under the Committees Article)
Oversight Committee – Composition. There shall be a standing Oversight Committee consisting of one (1) member from each congressional district, residing within that district and elected by the corresponding district committee within sixty (60) days of the Spring State Convention in odd-numbered years. Members shall serve until a successor is elected at a subsequent Spring State Convention in an odd-numbered year. A permanent vacancy shall be filled by the corresponding congressional district committee.
Purpose and Responsibilities. The Oversight Committee shall adjudicate disputes and open matters within its jurisdiction in accordance with the Oversight Process provided herein, for purposes of internal Party recognition, credentials, and privileges.
Quorum and Meetings. The Oversight Committee may conduct business only when at least nine (9) members are present, and when at least seven (7) days’ notice of the meeting has been provided to all members. All meetings shall include an option to participate by video or other real-time electronic conferencing.
Use of Internal Remedies and Party Discipline. For any matter within the scope of the Oversight Committee, no county, district, or state committee, nor any member thereof or delegate, shall initiate, promote, or fund litigation or fines against any other executive committee, member thereof, or delegate without first submitting the matter to the Oversight Committee and allowing the Oversight Process to run its course. Violation of this provision shall constitute grounds for party discipline under these Bylaws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge any individual’s legal right of access to the courts.
Scope. The Oversight Committee shall consider matters involving, but not limited to, alleged adverse actions affecting one or more delegates, committees, or committee members in their capacity as such, the conduct and validity of conventions, and disputes over internal Party recognition of committees and delegations, all to the extent permitted by law. The Oversight Committee shall not exercise authority over executive committee campaign-finance decisions, contribution coordination, fund transfers between committees, or coordinated communications as described in 11 CFR 110.3(b)(3) and 11 CFR 109.21.
Rules. The Oversight Committee may adopt, amend, and promulgate rules to effectuate the Oversight Process provided herein. The State Committee may adopt and amend rules that expand or further define the scope and powers of the Oversight Committee, consistent with this Article and applicable law. Such rules shall be made available to any county, district, or state committee member and any delegate upon request.
2. Oversight Process
Initiation. Any plaintiff may initiate a matter by sending a written complaint to the Oversight Committee. The complaint shall include: (a) the names and contact information of the plaintiff and any co-plaintiffs; (b) the names and contact information of the defendants and any co-defendants (collectively, “the parties”); (c) a summary of the nature of the complaint; (d) specific charges; and (e) the specific relief sought.
Acceptance of Complaints. The Oversight Committee shall take up each complaint as a matter of course unless, by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of its members present, it determines that the complaint is without sufficient merit or outside its scope. A refusal to accept a complaint shall be accompanied by a brief written explanation.
Documentation Period. Upon acceptance of a complaint, the Oversight Committee shall open a documentation period during which the parties may submit documentary evidence to a shared repository accessible to the parties and to the Oversight Committee. The parties and the Oversight Committee may submit written questions and answers to the repository.
The documentation period shall have a default duration of five (5) days and shall be reset to a new five (5) day period upon each submission to the repository. The documentation period may be closed only by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Oversight Committee, and only after at least two (2) days’ advance notice of the intention to close has been provided to the parties.
Hearing. Following the documentation period, the Oversight Committee shall conduct a hearing at which the parties may respond to questions from the Committee and present oral argument. The question-and-answer portion of the hearing may be closed by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Committee. Each side (plaintiffs and defendants) shall be afforded no less than ten (10) minutes for closing argument.
Ruling and Opinions. After the hearing, the Oversight Committee shall determine its ruling by majority vote of the members present and voting. The Committee shall submit a written majority opinion, bearing the names of the members joining that opinion, to the repository. In the case of a split vote, any minority position shall be set forth in a written minority opinion, bearing the names of the members joining that opinion. Any member may submit a separate concurring or dissenting opinion to the repository with the names of the members joining that opinion.
Transparency. The repository of filings, evidence, and opinions shall be accessible to members of county, district, and state executive committees; to the parties; and to credentialed delegates, subject to reasonable privacy protections where legally required.
Powers. For purposes of internal Party recognition, credentials, and privileges, the Oversight Committee may determine one or more of the following, as applicable to the matter before it:
Whether an executive committee has complied with these Bylaws, convention rules, and the rules of the Oversight Committee;
Whether a substitute convention shall be held and the parameters thereof;
Whether an adverse action against a delegate, taken in violation of these Bylaws or committee rules, shall be reversed;
The eligibility and composition of a delegation to a convention;
The eligibility of an executive committee to host a convention;
Persons ineligible to preside over a delegate convention in light of violations of these Bylaws or committee rules;
Persons recommended for precinct delegate removal, subject to any required delegate vote;
Which of two or more rival bodies shall be recognized as the official executive committee; and
Recommendations to the State Committee for further action.
3. Conventions and Delegates
(replacement/expansion of the Conventions Article)
A. General. Conventions shall be conducted in accordance with these Bylaws, applicable state law, and convention rules adopted by the State Committee. The State Committee shall determine the time and manner for holding state conventions and for any conventions at which delegates to a state convention are selected or members of an executive committee are elected, to the extent permitted by law.
B. Elected Precinct Delegates. “Elected precinct delegates” are those individuals who:
Were most recently elected by voters at the even-year August primary election to serve as precinct delegates; or
Were elevated to fill vacant or open precinct delegate positions at, and in accordance with the rules of, a prior corresponding convention;
and who have not vacated their seat by: (a) winning a primary election in the same even-year primary election for another partisan office in that precinct; (b) submitting a written resignation to their corresponding executive committee chair; (c) moving residence from the corresponding precinct; (d) death; (e) a two-thirds (2/3) vote of Elected precinct delegates at a county convention, which has not been reversed by the Oversight Committee; or (f) term expiration on the day of the next even-year August primary election.
Persons selected at a county convention to serve as delegates to a state or district convention shall, for purposes of that convention, be afforded all rights and privileges provided to Elected precinct delegates in these Bylaws and shall be elected by Elected precinct delegates.
C. Convention Hosts and Duties. Any executive committee hosting a convention, and any temporary or permanent chair of such convention, shall comply with the following:
Call to Convention. At least thirty (30) days before the date of the convention, the host executive committee shall issue a written call to convention, in accordance with convention rules adopted by the State Committee, which shall include: (a) an address within the corresponding county; (b) a date that does not fall on a Sunday or legal holiday; (c) a start time no earlier than 5:15 p.m. and no later than 7:00 p.m.; (d) a copy of this Article; and (e) notice of any delegate removal recommendation made by the Oversight Committee, including any corresponding information packet provided thereby.
Time and Place. The convention shall be held at the address and on the date specified in the call to convention. The convention shall commence within ten (10) minutes of the later of: (a) the stated start time; or (b) the time at which no additional Elected precinct delegates who arrived by the start time remain on the premises awaiting credentialing.
Credentialing of Delegates. The convention host shall credential each Elected precinct delegate who arrives at the convention address on the convention date by the stated start time and presents valid government-issued photographic identification corresponding to the precinct of record.
Notice to Non-Credentialed Persons. Within two (2) days following the convention, the host shall provide to any person who was denied a credential, with a copy to the Oversight Committee: (a) the name or names of the person or persons who denied the credential; (b) the reason for the denial; and (c) a copy of the call to convention.
Delegate Participation. The convention host shall ensure that every credentialed Elected precinct delegate is permitted to remain and fully participate in the convention, including voting on all matters before the convention, and that every vote cast by such delegates is counted, except where otherwise provided in these Bylaws or applicable convention rules.
Protection from Intimidation. The convention host shall not expel, trespass, threaten, fine, intimidate, or coerce the vote of any credentialed Elected precinct delegate, except in accordance with these Bylaws, convention rules, and the disciplinary procedures of Robert’s Rules of Order.
Order and Discipline. The convention shall be conducted in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, including Chapter 61 on discipline, as applicable.
D. Agenda Requirements.
Every convention governed by this Article shall include, in its agenda and before adjournment, the following segments, which shall not be closed except by majority vote of the delegates present:
Delegate Discipline. A segment during which the chair shall recognize motions to vacate Elected precinct delegate seats for cause. For each such motion, the chair shall entertain a motion to read any corresponding recommendation of the Oversight Committee.
Bylaws and Executive Committee Membership. A segment during which the chair shall recognize motions from Elected precinct delegates to: (a) amend the bylaws of the corresponding executive committee, which amendments shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the delegates present and voting; and (b) remove and/or add members of the corresponding executive committee, with removals requiring a two-thirds (2/3) vote and additions requiring a majority vote of the delegates present and voting.
Resolutions. A segment during which the chair shall recognize resolutions introduced by Elected precinct delegates, which shall pass by majority vote of the delegates present and voting. At a state convention, a resolution shall be in order if it has been adopted within the prior twelve (12) months by a state committee, district committee, or delegate body of a district caucus or convention, or if its introduction is approved for consideration by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the delegates present and voting.
E. Selection of County Executive Committee. At the even-year fall county conventions, except in counties subdivided by the State Committee, the Elected precinct delegates shall select not fewer than fifteen (15) persons to serve as members of the county executive committee for that county, to the extent permitted by law.
F. Evidence of Compliance. Upon request by the Oversight Committee, the convention host shall provide reasonable documentation evidencing that the convention was conducted in compliance with these Bylaws, Oversight Committee rules, and applicable convention rules.
4. Delegate Allotments
(to be added as a section in the County Executive Committees / Precinct Delegate Article)
Delegate Allotment Formula. To the extent permitted by law, the allotment of Elected precinct delegates for each precinct shall be the greater of: (a) one (1) delegate; or (b) a number of delegates equal to the number of voters in that precinct who voted for the Republican nominee for Secretary of State in the most recent general election for that office, divided by a “count” value and rounded to the nearest whole number.
The default value of a “count” shall be one hundred (100), except that if the total allotment of Elected precinct delegates within a county, or within a county subdivision created by the State Committee, would thereby exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200), the “count” shall be recalculated as:
count = 100 × ( total_allotment / 1,200 )
where “total_allotment” is the sum of the per-precinct allotments calculated at count = 100.
The resulting per-precinct allotments shall be adjusted as necessary to comply with applicable election law requirements for near-equal apportionment, while maintaining the principle that Republican vote strength in a precinct is the primary basis for representation.
The Hillsdale County Fair Board has reversed course and is now accepting memberships from residents it previously refused — and the public response has been swift.
Since the reversal, a possibly historic 143 new members have joined the Hillsdale County Agricultural Society, according to residents tracking sign-ups. On the first full day after the change, nearly 40 memberships were processed without incident. Staff were polite, no deputies were called, and no one was accused of “code of conduct” violations.
The next major test comes Monday, December 15, at 6:00 p.m., when the Society’s annual membership meeting is scheduled to be held in the 4-H Dining Hall at the fairgrounds. That’s the night members elect the Fair Board — and potentially decide whether to keep or remove current leadership.
Anyone who wants to vote at that meeting has until November 15 to become a member by paying the standard $10 fee. After that deadline, residents can still join, but they likely won’t be eligible to vote this year under the Society’s own 30-day rule.
A quiet reversal after weeks of conflict
The Fair Board’s change in posture came in an email from the Fair Manager to residents who had previously been turned away:
“We have consulted an attorney, and we are going to allow you to apply for membership with $10 and filling out the membership card.”
Office hours were listed. People who had been sent rejection letters were now being invited to “apply.”
To many, the timing spoke louder than the wording. The email followed:
weeks of membership denials,
a secret Fair Board meeting held inside the county jail,
a written rejection citing “violations of our code of conduct,” and
a message from the sheriff threatening members with trespassing for attempting to attend a meeting being held on public property.
Residents see the reversal not as a courtesy, but as confirmation: the Board had gone too far, and knew it.
Texts and emails: “Keep the board as is”
As the membership fight escalated, some 4-H leaders and past participants received texts and emails urging them to sign up to counter a particular group of residents.
One text, sent under the banner of the Fair Board, warned that a “group” was trying to “take over the board,” and asked recipients to join the Society and “keep the board as is” — framing reform-minded residents as a threat to the community.
Those on the receiving end say the message was clear: If you question the Board, you’re the problem. If you defend it, you’re the “real community.”
Notice filed to remove the president
Behind the scenes, some of the newly energized members have gone beyond emails and complaints.
A dues-paying member has formally submitted notice of a motion to consider removing the Society’s president at the December 15 meeting. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, which the bylaws adopt for governing meetings, prior written notice allows an officer to be removed for cause by a simple majority vote (51%) of members present and voting.
The notice cites various by-laws:
the duty of loyalty to the Society and its members,
the requirement to act in good faith, and
the prohibition on grossly negligent acts under the Society’s own bylaws.
If the motion is taken up, the decision will rest not with deputies, attorneys, or insiders — but with the members themselves, voting by secret ballot.
How this started: $10, a letter, and a locked gate
The confrontation over Fair membership did not begin with the reversal email. It began when residents walked into the Fair office with $10 and walked out with something very different.
Every person who tried to become a member received essentially the same letter from the Fair’s Executive Board:
“…due to violations of our code of conduct, we are unable to grant you membership…”
No specific incident was listed. No date, no description, no hearing. People who had done nothing more than attempt to pay the fee were told they had somehow violated a “code of conduct” they had never had a chance to accept or break.
Then came the night of the secret meeting.
Residents who thought they were going to a Fair Board meeting at the fairgrounds arrived to find:
the meeting had been quietly moved to a room in the Sheriff’s Department / County Jail,
deputies called to intimidate,
community members turned away from what, for 175 years, had been a straightforward local institution.
Several attendees say deputies on scene acknowledged the building is public property, but said they were under orders to keep certain residents out.
What was once a $10 civic ritual had turned into a confrontation under fluorescent lights in a government hallway.
A “private” society created by public law
Fair officials have alternated between calling the Fair a “community event” and insisting it is “private property” that can exclude whoever the Board chooses.
On paper, the Hillsdale County Agricultural Society is indeed a private nonprofit corporation organized under Michigan’s Agricultural Society Act of 1855 (Act 80). The Michigan Attorney General has said that such societies are generally not “public bodies” for purposes of the state’s Freedom of Information Act or Open Meetings Act.
But “private” is not a magic word that cancels other laws.
Under MCL 453.233, any person 18 or older who pays the fee “shall be a stockholder or member … and entitled to all the privileges and immunities thereof.” The Society’s own posted rule says a person becomes a member by paying $10, and can vote if that payment is made at least 30 days before the meeting.
Residents who tendered payment — some with video, witnesses, and written notes — argue that the Board cannot legally erase that by refusing to take the money. Legal analysts point out that:
A board cannot change membership rights without the notice and two-thirds vote its own Articles require.
A nonprofit cannot deny voting rights to people who meet the conditions set in its governing documents.
Courts in Michigan can step in when those in control of a nonprofit act in a way that is “unfair and oppressive” to members.
In plain terms: The Board can keep non-members out of a private board session, but it cannot manufacture non-membership by refusing dues from people who meet every published and legal requirement.
Code of conduct, or cover story?
The Society’s Code of Conduct is written to address behavior at the fairgrounds: safety, harassment, property damage, and other conduct issues.
It does not say:
that residents can be blacklisted in advance for their political views,
that membership can be denied because of suspected affiliation, or
that entire groups can be barred because they’ve criticized local officials.
Yet that is how the code was invoked in the rejection letters.
To critics, the “code of conduct” language reads less like a rules violation and more like a retroactive justification — a way to make lawful applicants look like rule-breakers without ever having to prove it. A know common tactic here in Hillsdale.
The most disturbing element for many residents is the role of law enforcement.
According to multiple accounts:
Deputies were called to the fairgrounds when residents came to pay dues.
A Fair Board meeting was held at the jail, not the fairgrounds, with law enforcement present, to keep members out.
The Sheriff later threatened trespassing charges, despite the public nature of the building and the statutory rights at stake.
Civil-rights lawyers watching the situation say that if public officers use their authority to assist a private board in excluding members from a process protected by state law, it raises serious questions under federal civil-rights statutes. Whether any agency pursues that is a matter for investigators and prosecutors, but complaints and documentation have already been sent to state and federal authorities.
Outside authorities notified
In response to the denials, secret meeting, and threats, residents and members report that documentation has been forwarded to:
The Michigan Attorney General’s Office
The Michigan State Police Professional Standards Division
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Federal tax authorities, regarding the Society’s obligations as a charitable, public-facing organization
Those packets include:
copies of the rejection letters,
the follow-up email reversing course after “consulting an attorney,”
accounts and screenshots of sheriff’s warnings,
and references to the Society’s own published membership rules.
Whatever those agencies decide to do, the paper trail now extends far beyond the fairgrounds.
Some residents have also raised concerns about the long list of current and former public officials serving on or around the Fair Board who, in their view, have stayed silent as the controversy grew.
While some board members quietly flagged the unusual move to the jail, others have not publicly questioned the use of “code of conduct” letters, deputies at the door, threats from the Sheriff or shifting claims about the Fair’s status.
To critics, the silence of experienced insiders is almost as damaging as the conduct itself. A fair created to strengthen agriculture and community now finds itself at the center of a debate about power, access, and trust.
What happens on December 15
All of this now converges on one date:
Monday, December 15 – 6:00 p.m. – 4-H Dining Hall, Hillsdale County Fairgrounds
That’s when the Society’s annual members’ meeting is expected to be held — the meeting where members:
receive reports,
elect Board members, and
in this case, may decide whether to keep or replace the current president.
Under the rules the Society itself has repeated for years, anyone who has paid their $10 membership at least 30 days in advance is eligible to vote. That makes November 15 the practical cutoff date.
Residents who previously tried and were denied say that, since the reversal email, the office has been issuing membership cards without confrontation. Those who were intimidated before are now walking back in, often with neighbors and family in tow.
A fair or just “fairness”?
For all the heated emails, tense meetings, and legal citations, the core question is simple:
Who does the Hillsdale County Fair belong to?
To a handful of people sitting around a table — or to the county that built it, funds it, shows at it, and lives around it?
For 175 years, the fairgrounds have been where 4-H kids learn responsibility, where farmers display what they grow, where open-class exhibitors share their work, and where neighbors see each other outside of screens and headlines.
If that tradition is to survive another 175 years, it will not be because a board tightened its grip. It will be because residents decided to show up, learn the rules, and use them.
Right now, that means:
If you’re a Hillsdale County resident 18 or older,
If you care about 4-H, open class, agriculture, or simple fairness,
If you’re tired of being told the Fair is “for the community” but not your part of the community—
then you have a straightforward path:
Go to the Fair Office.
Pay $10.
Get your membership card.
Show up December 15 at 6 p.m. in the 4-H Dining Hall.
Ask questions.
Vote.
The Fair once billed itself as “The Most Popular Fair on Earth.” If Hillsdale wants that slogan to be more than nostalgia, the Fair has to belong to everyone again — not just to those holding the gavel or the keys to the building.
————————–Last minute Addition————————–
Another Closed-Door Meeting — and Another Violation
Hours before this article went to press, the Fair Board treated Hillsdale County to yet another performance in its ongoing drama series, “How Not to Run a 175-Year-Old Institution.”
This time, the secret meeting wasn’t held at the Sheriff’s Department, with deputies as bouncers, so progress is being made. No, tonight’s episode took place inside the Fair Office — doors locked, lights dimmed, and members politely (and illegally) left standing outside like they were waiting for a Black Friday sale that never opened.
New members — tipped off by several board members who say they are “tired of the shenanigans” (a direct quote, not creative writing) — arrived hoping to attend. What they found instead was:
A locked building,
A dark office, and
A late-arriving board member who delivered the line of the night:
“Members are not allowed into board meetings.”
A bold claim, especially since:
The Society’s own Articles of Association say otherwise;
Their posted membership rules say otherwise;
Michigan’s Agricultural Society Act says otherwise;
And the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act also says otherwise.
If there were an award for “Most Violated Governing Document in Hillsdale County,” the Fair Board’s bylaws may be a contender for Best of Show.
Members lawfully have the right to attend member meetings — yet here they stood, outside in the cold, watching leadership slip through a locked door like teenagers sneaking back into the house after curfew.
Yes, video exists. Sorry the public, can’t see it. Just kidding.
And the contrast on film is almost poetic:
Residents behaving like responsible adults,
A board member sliding through a locked door,
And the law itself standing on the sidewalk with everyone else.
The Board frequently insists it wants “stability” and “professionalism.” If so, they may want to stop holding meetings that look like back-alley poker games.
A Five-Minute “Meeting” and a Rapid Exit
Things somehow managed to get stranger.
Roughly five minutes after the chosen board member slipped inside, the entire group of attendees poured out of the building and scattered to their vehicles like someone had pulled a fire alarm.
No cooling-off chat, no “good night, folks,” no transparency whatsoever.
Just poof — meeting over.
Only two individuals lingered, each insisting they “didn’t know anything” and wouldn’t speak about what the meeting was about, but assured the new members that nothing out of the ordinary or odd was happening. An odd position to take immediately after leaving a secret meeting, they had just attended, that abruptly ended, and wouldn’t speak about to fellow members.
The scene was surreal:
Members outside, legally entitled to attend
A silent exodus from the shadows
And a level of secrecy normally reserved for CIA briefings
If this had been submitted as a movie script, Hollywood executives would have said, “Tone it down — nobody would believe this.”
But this is Hillsdale County in 2025. And believe it or not, the video exists. Here it is!
A Secret Meeting on the Same Day the Board Was Served Notice
And now for the plot twist.
This entire locked-door circus took place the very same day a newly recognized member formally served the Board with written notice that a motion will be introduced to remove the Board President for misconduct and multiple by-law violations.
Coincidence?
Must be, it’s not like anything odd or out of the ordinary is going on.
The ink wasn’t even dry on the notice before the Board scurried into a locked office, barred the members whose rights were at stake, and conducted undisclosed business under cover of darkness, shades drawn, doors locked.
