Why the County Commissioners Are Being Asked to Act
A Record of Notice, Evidence, and Governance Responsibility
What follows is not a single document or a single request. It is a documented sequence of actions taken after sworn testimony, court findings, and official responses placed new facts into the public record. Each document builds on the one before it. Together, they explain why the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners has been formally asked to deliberate, on the record, about election governance and record preservation.
This article lays out that sequence in order.
1. Agenda Placement Request to Commissioner Mark Wiley
The first document is a formal Agenda Placement Request addressed to Commissioner Mark Wiley, submitted pursuant to Article V, Rule 5.13(4) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure and By Laws.
That rule requires that when a person requests to address the Board in an extensive manner and provides timely notice, they shall be placed on the agenda for a reasonable period of time.
This request does not ask the Board to decide guilt, interpret statutes, or intervene in any court case. It asks for the opportunity to present documents in public session so commissioners can determine whether any motion, referral, or other governance action is warranted.
The agenda request also lists, in advance, every document that would be presented. This was done deliberately to avoid surprise, ensure transparency, and give both commissioners and counsel time to review the materials.
This document establishes notice, procedure, and compliance with the Board’s own rules.
2. The County Clerk’s Letter and the Administrative Rule He Cites
After the Board declined to deliberate on the earlier Demand Letter and Proposed Resolution, the County Clerk issued a public written response.
That response is significant for two reasons.
First, it was voluntary. It was not ordered by a court, compelled by subpoena, or required by any judicial proceeding. It was an administrative act taken by a county officer defending past conduct in the public record.
Second, the Clerk’s letter relies on an administrative rule adopted years after the conduct at issue to justify earlier actions involving election materials.
This matters because administrative rules are generally not retroactive. A rule adopted after the fact cannot, by itself, resolve whether earlier conduct complied with record retention requirements that existed at the time.
Once the Clerk chose to issue a public defense of his actions, the matter moved out of a purely judicial posture and into one of county governance and oversight. At that point, continued silence by the Board is no longer neutral. It becomes a choice.
3. Court Transcripts and Court Findings
The next set of documents consists of sworn court transcripts and written court findings from People v Scott and Lambert.
These records establish several critical facts.
The County Clerk testified under oath about the handling and destruction of election related materials.
The court later dismissed a charge associated with that testimony. That dismissal resolved criminal liability for the township clerk. It did not erase sworn testimony, and it did not issue a finding validating the conduct described.
Sworn testimony remains part of the permanent court record regardless of whether a charge is dismissed. Courts resolve criminal liability. They do not resolve governance duties for county boards.
These documents are included not to argue guilt, but to establish that material facts were placed into the public record under oath.
/
4. The Briefing Memorandum to the Board and County Counsel
In response to the Clerk’s public letter and the Board’s continued refusal to deliberate, a Briefing Memorandum was prepared for the County Commissioners and County Counsel.
This brief explains, in plain terms, why Board action is now required.
It clarifies that the Board is not being asked to adjudicate legal questions, prosecute crimes, or interfere with any court proceeding. Instead, it lays out the governance duties that arise once the Board is on notice of sworn testimony and a public response by a county officer.
Those duties include fiduciary responsibility to the county, transparency in public deliberation, preservation of records when legal exposure is foreseeable, and avoidance of ratification through deliberate inaction.
The brief also explains why the earlier justification that this is an ongoing court case no longer applies once a county officer voluntarily enters the public record outside of court.
5. The Updated Agenda Request With Legal Footnotes
The final document is an updated agenda request that includes explicit legal references.
These footnotes cite the same Board rule used to place the presentation on the agenda, Michigan election record retention law, federal election record preservation requirements, and the policy provisions of the Open Meetings Act favoring transparency and public deliberation.
This document ties the entire record together. It shows that the request is grounded not in opinion or politics, but in the Board’s own rules and in statutes that already exist.
It also makes clear that the request is limited in scope. It asks for deliberation, not outcomes.
Why This Matters to Hillsdale Residents
Local election integrity does not end on Election Day. It includes how election records are handled, preserved, and explained after questions arise.
When sworn testimony and public responses place new facts into the record, residents and especially voters should expect their elected representatives to address those facts openly. Silence does not build confidence. Transparency does.
None of the documents described above ask the County Commissioners to decide who is right or wrong. They ask something far more basic.
They ask the Board to deliberate in public, on the record, about matters that affect trust in local elections and county governance.
That is not an extraordinary demand. It is the minimum expectation of representative government.
The Oath and the Obligation
Every elected official in Hillsdale County takes an oath before assuming office. That oath is not to a party, a colleague, or institutional convenience. It is an oath to support the Constitution, uphold the laws of the State of Michigan, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.
Those duties include acting with care when credible issues are placed on the record, conducting public business openly, preserving public records as required by law, and exercising independent judgment rather than avoiding responsibility through silence. An oath is not fulfilled by inaction once notice has been given. It is fulfilled by engagement, deliberation, and accountability.
When elected representatives refuse to deliberate after sworn testimony and official responses are placed into the public record, they are not remaining neutral. They are making a choice. That choice carries consequences for public trust and for the legitimacy of local governance.
Why Accountability Matters
Residents of Hillsdale County are not passive observers of government. They are the source of its authority. When officials refuse to carry out the duties they swore an oath to uphold, citizens not only have the right to question that refusal, they have the responsibility to do so.
Accountability does not begin with accusations or end with elections. It begins with asking representatives to explain their actions, to deliberate in public, and to place their decisions on the record where voters can see them.
If elected officials continue to decline those duties, it is appropriate for residents to take them to task, to demand transparency, and to insist that governance be conducted openly and lawfully. That is not disruption. It is self government.
Local elections are secured not by silence, but by vigilance. The strength of Hillsdale County’s institutions depends on whether those entrusted with power are willing to exercise it responsibly, and whether the people they serve are willing to hold them to their oath.
in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives
Leave a Reply