If you are interested in becoming a 'Content Contributor' or a 'Reporter',
for NorvellTimes.com, please fill out the contact us form here.
Norvell Board Assesses Ethics Policy and Purchasing Policy Violations Complaints Filed Against Supervisor Bill Sutherland and Clerk Jeff Oswalt
Posted 4/10/2024
At the March 13, 2024, Norvell Township Board Meeting, the Board assessed the Policy Violation allegations filed at the February 14, 2024 township Board Meeting by former Trustee Matt Dame and rendered a decision. Former Trustee Dame claimed in his complaint that both Supervisor Sutherland and Clerk Oswalt violated the Norvell Township Ethics Policy and the Norvell Township Purchasing Policy.
The process used to adjudicate the complaints was not made public prior to the March meeting. The hearing was noted as the last item on the March Agenda, but the complaints were not included in the Board Packet which was made available on the township website. Both Supervisor Sutherland and Clerk Oswalt have boasted how transparent township government is, but the allegations were excluded from Board Packet. Is that transparency?
Supervisor Sutherland's and Clerk Oswalt's rebuttals were taken straight from the transcript that NorvellTimes.com had to FOIA to obtain. Again, so much for transparency in government. Fact checks, comments and questions are those obtained by NorvellTimes.com.
What you should ask yourself as you go over this information is:
- Do you think Norvell Township elected officials, deputies and employees should lie to the citizenry?
- Do you think the Norvell Township Board should follow their own policies?
The Allegations:
| Complaint against Supervisor Sutherland | Complaint against Clerk Oswalt |
Background Information:
| Norvell Township Ethics Policy | Norvell Township Purchasing Policy and Procedures |
Additional background information can be found in this article.
Supervisor Sutherland's Rebuttal - 3/13/2024
Mr. Dame has criticized me as the Township Supervisor on numerous occasions. Until now, I have not responded to his criticisms, knowing that what he wants is a public spectacle, so that he can portray himself as the victim and create a negative view of me as Township Supervisor and the rest of the Norvell Township Board of Trustees. Instead, I have focused on serving the residents of Norvell Township and worked to address the issues that the Township faces.
Mr. Dames Ethics Complaint and alleged violation of the Norvell Township Purchase Policy is a continuation of those criticisms. Rather than address all the alleged violations, I will try to keep this as brief as possible.
One of his complaints is based on his interpretation of the Purchase Policy, that the Supervisor is required to get Board approval for expenditures related to legal advice from the Township Attorney which he claims is a violation of the Townships Purchase Policy. He also claims that this constitutes malfeasance (wrongdoing, especially by a public official) and that the Supervisor has violated the people’s trust.
I disagree. The Norvell Township Purchase Policy was followed in the retaining of Foster & Swift to become legal counsel for Norvell Township. At no time during the hiring process for Foster and Swift or during the drafting process of the Purchase Policy was there any discussion that there was a limit or cap on how much could be expended on legal fees before the Supervisor must go to the Board and ask for approval. Also, I do not believe that it was ever the intent of the Purchase Policy to include legal expenditures.
Simply put, there is no wrongdoing and therefore no “violation of the people’s trust and a violation of the Supervisor’s fiducial responsibility.”
Fact Check:
The Norvell Township Purchasing Policy and Procedures states:
PROCEDURES
2. Operational Guidelines
a. Application
This Policy applies to the procurement of supplies, goods, equipment, and services, entered into by the Township and its constituent departments and the discretely presented component units, after the effective date of this policy. It shall apply to every expenditure of public funds by the Township irrespective of the source of the funds.
3. Procurement Procedures
b. Purchases from $501.00 to $5,000.00 Must be approved by the township board prior to purchase.
There are no exclusions for Legal Services in the Purchasing Policy. Simply put, the authorization by Supervisor Sutherland to spend over $501 in legal services without Board approval clearly violated the Purchasing Policy.
Sutherland Continues:
Regardless, this became a moot point once the Board approved the expenditure that Mr. Dame cites in his complaint, which he voted to approve at the March 16, 2022, Board Meeting. It then became an approved expense.
Fact: Trustee Dame was not aware of this expenditure as legal invoices are not included in the Board packet. Once Trustee Dame discovered this expense, and the reason behind it, he asked to receive a copy of all legal invoices, and the Supervisor’s credit card statements moving forward. Supervisor Sutherland never disclosed to the Board in a public meeting, or to Trustee Dame personally, that he authorized this legal witch hunt.
Sutherland Continues:
I think some background on why I inquired with our legal counsel on the removal of the Board Representative to the Planning Commission, Mr. Dame, would be helpful.
Matt Dame was selected by the Norvell Township Board of Trustees to serve as the representative of the Board to the Planning Commission in December of 2020. Initially he performed those duties as expected.
Fact: Supervisor Sutherland approached and pleaded with Trustee Dame to fill this role because Clerk Oswalt and Treasurer Sauers declined, and he was concerned that Trustee Haystead was too new to government. Trustee Dame replied that he was too busy to take it on, and could miss multiple meetings, and was hesitant to take on the position for that reason, but did for the good of the Township. Supervisor Sutherland was appreciative.
Sutherland Continues:
After the Board approved the usage of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for road repairs known as “the Skip Paving project”, which Mr. Dame voted against, his behavior changed. He began to use his appointed position on the Planning Commission to challenge that decision as well as other Board actions, specifically, the development of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Fact Check: Supervisor Sutherland, in his ‘From the supervisor’s desk’ column, blatantly lied about the shared cost breakdown of Primary Road repair between a township and the county. In the September 6, 2022 issue on page 5A, Sutherland stated, “At the August 17, 2022 Board of Trustees Meeting, the Norvell Township Board voted to allocate $49,00 of approximately $314,000 of ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds that the township received for repairs to primary roads in Norvell Township per the plan presented by JCDOT. JCDOT is doing the work for just the cost of HMA (Hot Mix Asphalt) instead of the usual 70/30 (70 percent township/30 percent county) that we would be charged. This is untrue. That is the split for 'secondary paved roads', not Primary Roads.
Fact: Primary County Roads are 100% the financial responsibility of the county. Townships do not pay a 70/30 split as Sutherland stated. It was inaccurate, and when the mistake was pointed out to him, he refused to correct the lie in his column.
This email below was sent to former Trustee Dame from Angela Kline, Managing Director / Director of Engineering of JCDOT as a response to his inquiry. Who would you say knows more about county roads, Angela Kline, or Bill Sutherland?
The contract with JCDOT was to 'Skip Pave' Primary Roads in Norvell Township. The contract did not include Local Roads.
Sutherland Continues:
Instead of giving a brief report to the Planning Commission on what had transpired at the previous Board meeting, which is what was expected, he would use the time for “Board Report to the Planning Commission” to go into long dissertations that were his complaints and criticisms of Board discussions and actions.
I personally witnessed this at several Planning Commission meetings that I attended, one of which he took the opportunity to criticize me as the Supervisor.
Comment: The Supervisor lied to the people of Norvell regarding a $49,000 expenditure and he is concerned about criticism?
Sutherland Continues:
This behavior was also reported to me by other Board members who attended Planning Commission meetings. I and the other Board members became very concerned by Mr. Dames’ behavior. He had become a disruption to Planning Commission meetings with his diatribes against the Board and his continued efforts to try and use the Planning Commission to achieve his ends.
Fact Check: The majority of the members of Planning Commission obviously wanted the 'Special Meeting'. How is that becoming a 'disruption'?
See the Planning Commission meeting minutes here.
Sutherland Continues:
Also, during this period, in his capacity as the Board Representative to the Planning Commission, he requested “a legal review” of Ordinance #50 (the enabling ordinance for the Planning Commission), Resolution’s #18-01 and #18- 02 which relate to the role of the Planning Commission in the adoption of the Master Plan and the preparation of a Capital Improvement Plan.
In plain language, those documents adopted 2/14/2018 which Mr. Dame who was then a member of the Board voted in favor of, stated that the Planning Commission was “expressly exempt from preparing any list of proposed public improvements (a Capital Improvement Plan) unless otherwise directed by the Norvell Township Board”. No such direction had been given.
This went on in late 2022 and early 2023. The result of these inquiries to the attorney were legal expenses in January and February 2023 in the amount of $2,231 (I had become alarmed at how much the Township taxpayers were spending on Mr. Dames’ requests for “legal reviews”).
Fact Check: Trustee Dame brought this issue up at the January 2023 Board Meeting and made a motion, that was supported, to get Board approval to authorize a review of the mentioned documents by township legal counsel. When Supervisor Sutherland stated he already authorized the review, Trustee Dame withdrew the motion (see video below).
Further proof can be seen in an email exchange between Trustee Dame and Attorney Genovich. Any and all legal expenses regarding this review are due to this authorization. In plain language, to state that Trustee Dame is responsible for the attorney costs for this review, in the amount of $2,231.00, is just another blatant falsehood.
Sutherland Continues:
In his complaint, he cites legal expenses of $1,472 that the Supervisor is responsible for. I would argue that Mr. Dame is responsible for those expenses since the inquiry was to see what was involved in removing the Board Representative (him) from the Planning Commission. That brings the total cost to Norvell Township taxpayers for 3 months to $3,703 (and the amount continues to go up as we are forced to deal with his continued complaints, the latest bill was $506 for his complaint against Deputy Clerk Francis).
Comment: This $506 legal bill is the latest violation of the Norvell Township Purchasing Policy and Procedures.
Sutherland Continues:
Mr. Dame claims that “the money spent on this pursuit was a huge waste of township taxpayer resources.” I could not agree more! Mr. Dame goes on to claim that the Supervisor “provided misinformation to the public at large, specifically regarding a Township’s financial responsibility as it relates to Primary Road Repair.”
This is not true. The information provided in the cited column is correct.
Comment: How many times does this lie have to be pointed out? How can Supervisor Sutherland continue to perpetrate this falsehood!
Sutherland Continues:
The Board voted 3 to 1 (with 1 excused) to approve the Skip Paving Proposal presented by Jackson County Department of Transportation. The no vote was from Mr. Dame. That is a majority. Nowhere in the cited column does it state that it was a unanimous vote.
Also, the information regarding the cost sharing is correct. The usual formula for cost sharing on repairs to primary roads (per Jackson County Policy 8590) is what is stated in the article. This is not misinformation as Mr. Dame claims.
Fact Check: Jackson County Transportation Policy No. 8590 covers Local Road Improvement funding, not Primary Road funding. Supervisor Sutherland, and the Board, should clearly understand that there is a distinct difference between Primary Roads and Local Roads and how repair is funded.
Primary roads are the main arterials throughout the county, while Local roads are generally the collectors and residential streets. That is a distinct difference. And additionally, ‘Skip Paving’, which was done on the Norvell Primary roads at taxpayer expense, is not even mentioned in this policy. (source: Ottawa County Road Commission)
The contract with JCDOT was to 'Skip Pave' Primary Roads in Norvell Township in 2023. The contract did not include Local Roads, which Policy 8590 refers to.
Read Jackson County Policy 8590 'LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDING' here...
Sutherland Continues:
What he wanted the Supervisor to inform the public was that the Township did not have to pay for primary road repairs. That is true but not the whole truth.
Fact Check: No Mr. Supervisor, it is the whole truth no matter how you try to spin it.
Sutherland Continues:
No work was scheduled for the areas that the Board selected. If the Township had not funded those repairs, no repairs would have taken place.
Comment: No money should have been appropriated until the taxpayers of Norvell Township were properly notified of what was transpiring. It’s the taxpayer’s money. There should have been multiple town halls to inform the public and to get feedback. This should also have been a portion of an overall, comprehensive ‘Road Plan’ so the good people of Norvell would know when their roads would be addressed. In order to be transparent, Trustee Dame just tried his best to make the public aware of what was going on, in order to get public input before the repair moved forward. Dame wanted to make sure that this failure in process would never happened again. Time will tell if the effort was worth it.
Sutherland Continues:
After the Board majority voted to fund this project, Mr. Dame worked to block those repairs. On 2 separate weekends, he went door to door within the Township trying to drum up support for his position of opposition. He went so far as to hold an “informational meeting” regarding roads at the Brooklyn Sportsman’s Club where he was able to have a turnout of approximately 12 to 13 people.
Comment: Knocking on doors and talking to people is something Trustee Dame did quite often. Why would getting citizen feedback be looked down upon by the Supervisor? He should try it.
Sutherland Continues:
Mr. Dame claims that the Supervisor’s statements constitute “willful neglect and disregard for the spirit and intent of the Norvell Township Ethics Policy as described in the introduction and purpose of the Norvell Township Ethics Policy thus violation the public trust in their local government.”
Question: Is the Supervisor suggesting that lying to the people enhances the public trust?
Sutherland Continues:
I would argue that Mr. Dame was the one that worked (and continues to work) to violate the public trust in their local government with his efforts to block the “Skip Paving Project”, to drum up opposition for that project as well as his letters to the editor of the Exponent and his continued complaints and criticism of both elected and appointed Township officials.
I will close by saying that I have done nothing wrong. I have worked to the best of my ability to serve the people of Norvell Township. Unfortunately, in doing so I have drawn the ire of Mr. Dame. He makes no secret of his willingness to use the public forum to punish those that he sees fit and as such I, the Township Supervisor, have become a target.
Comment: After seeing the facts, you decide if the Supervisor’s self-assessment is accurate.
Clerk Oswalt Delivers His Rebuttal - 3/13/2024
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following is a synopsis of the events that led up to the circumstances of Mr. Dame’s complaint. Norvell Township was approached by Jackson County Department of Transportation and advised that they had project time available for road repairs. They did not have funds available for materials. If the Township provided funds for materials, they could add us to the 2023 schedule. This opportunity was offered on a first come, first serve basis to all Townships. We had a short period of time to act on this proposal as other Townships were considering the offer. This was not a situation where the repairs would have happened if we paid or not. These repairs would not have been done if we did not fund the materials.
On August 17, 2022, the Norvell Township Board approved allocating $49,000.00 of the American Rescue Plan Act award to go toward road repairs. Mr. Dame was the sole no vote on the project. Mr. Dame expressed many different reasons for his opposition to the project. This was all done at open meetings attended by all board members and members of the public. Following the expressed desire of the community to make our roads safer, the board approved the project. Except for Mr. Dame not one Norvell resident has come forward to express opposition to the road repair project.
Mr. Dame then took his opposition to the paving project to the planning commission after the board had approved the project. Mr. Dame was the Board’s representative to the Planning Commission. At the December 7, 2022, Planning Commission meeting Mr. Dame presented his manifesto to the Planning Commission expressing his opposition to the paving project. He also proposed that the Planning Commission hold a special meeting on January 13th at 6:00 PM. I received a request to notice the special meeting. Planning Commission bylaws require that notice of special meetings include the purpose of the meeting, so I refused to notice the meeting until a reason was provided. The PC secretary referred me to Mr. Dame for a reason. He refused to provide a reason. Mr. Dame then spent several hundred dollars in township legal fees trying to force me to notice his special meeting without properly notifying the community of the purpose of the meeting. At this point three members of the planning commission came forward to request the board remove Mr. Dame from the PC as he was no longer performing his duties Per the Norvell Township Planning Commission by laws. The responsibilities of the Board Representative are to “Present Planning Commission recommendations to the Township Board, shall provide a regular summary of Planning Commission activities to the board, and shall update the Planning Commission on actions by the board as they relate to the functions and duties of the Planning Commission.” They felt Mr. Dame was Just pushing his personal agenda and was no longer serving the interests of the community. Thus, the attorney was consulted. Mr. Dame resigned from the Planning Commission before any action could be taken on his removal.
Mr. Dame continued his fight against the road repairs by organizing an informational meeting that he cancelled, I can only assume due to a lack of response and rescheduled a second meeting. During the period between the original meeting date and the rescheduled date, he went door to door speaking with residents and leaving door hangers attempting to arouse opposition to the already approved project. An estimated 12 people attended his meeting. Mr. Dame seems to lack the ability to understand when his opinion is in the minority.
Comment: The Clerk brings up a number of accusations against former Trustee Dame regarding the Planning Commission. What he doesn't mention is that he sent Trustee Dame a copy of the Planning Commission Bylaws that were different from the document provided to the township attorney. Dame's version had a reference to 'Robert's Rules of Order' which was different from the copy sent to the attorney and was the catalyst for a series of questions that were unnecessary. How could this mistake happen? Was it by design?
What is obviously absent from the Clerk's remarks is any defense of Supervisor Sutherland and the lie Sutherland wrote in the Exponent about Primary Road repair. This should make it obvious that the Clerk also believes Supervisor Sutherland lied, and by not calling him out on it, the Clerk is complicit.
Clerk Oswalt stated that an estimated 12 people attended Trustee Dame's “Informational Forum”, as if that was a failure due to lack of numbers. Shame on the Clerk for demeaning those citizens interested in learning more about township issues. How many times have there been fewer than 12 people at a regularly scheduled board meeting? Far more times than there have been more than12.
Oswalt Continues:
First, I would like to point out several inaccuracies in Mr. Dame’s summary statement.
Nowhere in the evidence provided by Mr. Dame does it state any of the invoiced items were for removal of an elected official as stated by Mr. Dame.
Fact Check: You just have to look at the copy of the invoice below to see 'Removal from Office' and 'Removal of PC (Planning Commission) Member from office. Those are two distinct classifications.
In the attorney's email to Supervisor Sutherland on February 28, 2023, Attorney Laura Genovich cites MCL 168.369. That MCL states "168.369 Removal of township officer; grounds; service of charges; hearing; effect of removal." This statute has nothing to do with Planning Commission or any of its members. Oswalt lied.
Read the email sent from Attorney Genovich to Supervisor Sutherland here...
Is this enough evidence for Clerk Oswalt??
Oswalt Continues:
The handwritten notes on the invoice cited by Mr. Dame are not mine as he alleges.
Question: Since the Clerk claims to believe in transparency, why didn't he state who wrote the notes? Interestingly enough, he didn't say. Protecting Supervisor Sutherland again?
Oswalt Continues:
Mr. Dame’s assertion that Supervisor Sutherland could have just Googled an answer to the question asked the attorney would have been malfeasance on the Supervisor’s part had he only done that. The publication “Authorities & Responsibilities of Michigan Townships” published by the Michigan Townships Association is considered the #1 authority of Township governance. It recommends under the section for Township legal representation, “The attorney should be consulted before any major action is initiated to determine its legal and procedural aspects, rather than after it has been incorrectly completed. It’s much less expensive for a township to stay out of legal difficulty than it is to correct a legal deficiency in its operations or to defend an action of questionable legality”. Mr. Dame was provided with a copy of the publication by the Township and despite being given a written request to return all keys and materials owned he has refused to return all the Township’s property. Resolution #2023-2 adopted by the board, directed the Supervisor to serve as the Township’s point of contact to the legal firm. Supervisor Southerland was authorized by the board to contact the law firm regarding the mentioned issue.
Mr. Dame’s assertions that I hid Supervisor Southerland’s alleged violations from the remainder of the board are false. The entire board was witness to Mr. Sutherland’s activities and Mr. Dame’s actions that prompted the entire issue.
#1 Mr. Dame’s accusations that the Purchase policy was violated are false. The law firm of Foster, Swift, Collins, and Smith PC Attorneys was approved by the Township Board as the Township’s law firm and the contract, which included the fee schedule was signed by the Supervisor February 11th, 2021. Specific bills are then approved monthly. This invoice was approved for payment at the April 12th, 2023, regular board meeting. The vote was five in favor with no nay votes. Mr. Dame approved the expenditure.
#2 Mr. Dame claims that I had a “Willful neglect and disregard for the spirit and intent of the Norvell Township Ethics policy, thus violating the public trust in their local government.” My actions in this incident were intended to uphold the spirit and intent of the Ethics Policy as quoted by Mr. Dame. Specifically, “The decisions and actions of all Township representatives (appointed, elected, employed full or part time should be in the best interest of the Township and be free from the influence of outside or conflicting interests”. I have outlined in my opening statement Mr. Dame’s actions that lead to the board’s need to ask the attorney the question presented on the invoice.
Conclusion
In 1978 I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America up to and including sacrificing my life. In 1985 I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution and the people of the State of Michigan up to and including sacrificing my life if necessary. Neither of those oaths have an expiration date. I don’t say that to be boastful, I say that, so the board understands my level of commitment to protecting our way of life. Mr. Dame has reportedly stated that he intends to recruit a slate of candidates to run against the current board that are more conducive to supporting his minority opinions.
Comment: Show evidence that Mr. Dame stated that he intends to recruit a slat of candidate. Another blatant falsehood.
I cannot think of anything that is more un-American than an outside entity attempting to usurp the will of our community to his personal political ends. George Washington who opposed the formation of political parties in our nation in his farewell address in 1796 warned that “Though political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to just dominion.” I will fight with all means available to me to protect our community from outsiders and political hacks interfering with our ability to govern our community and provide complete transparency of the Township Board’s actions and not redacted versions as Mr. Dame has put forward in his effort to espouse his personal political opinions.
Comment: Many of the same arguments Clerk Oswalt made were debunked previously under Supervisor Sutherland's Rebuttal.
It is interesting that Clerk Oswalt mentions George Washington's opposition to the political party structure. Oswalt ran for Trustee in 2016 as an Independent and came in a distant 3rd out of 3 candidates, but after Trustee Dame demonstrated that you can win handedly as a Republican in Norvell, Oswalt switched party affiliation and ran as a Republican in 2020. Political expediency maybe or was he just being a political hack...or both? You decide.
The Board Renders A Decision
In order to appreciate this deliberation fully, you should take the time to read the Purchasing Policy. Here is a link to the policy.
You can't make this stuff up when you witness Treasurer Deseree Sauers, Trustee Haystead and Trustee Francis hash out whether or not the Purchasing Policy was violated.
The price point where the purchasing policy states board approval is necessary is clear. By authorizing the expenditure of $1,472 in legal fees, Supervisor Sutherland violated the Purchasing Policy. No other rational decision can be made when reviewing the facts.
The argument presented by Oswalt and Sutherland, was that since the Board voted in support of acquiring Foster & Swift as Township Legal Counsel, along with their fee schedule, this gives the Supervisor authority to spend any amount without Board oversight. The notion that just because a Board approved the hiring of a law firm, it eliminates the need to oversee what is paid to that law firm, is preposterous. But yet, that’s what the Board supported in their decision last month.
How can you debate the intent of a simple policy when it's either plainly stated in the policy, or it isn't. Paying for services are clearly covered in the Purchasing Policy, and legal services are services as shown in description on the legal invoices.
The Board's decision is fiscally irresponsible and a dereliction of duty. Not only is that practice a violation of the Board Approved Purchasing Policy, but it invites future violations.
The decision regarding the Ethics Policy violation supports that it’s ok for Board Members to lie to the people of Norvell Township without consequence, and it’s ok for the Board to openly violate Board Policy. The people of Norvell undoubtedly deserve better. This Board should be ashamed of itself.
And pay close attention to when Supervisor Sutherland and Clerk Oswalt come back into the hall. Neither of them ask what the decision was. No one on the Board offers what the decision was. They just move on to the next agenda item like the outcome was already predetermined from the onset. Scripted, like a bad play. The question is, did the Board violate the Open Meetings Act while scripting this play?
Watch what doesn't happen when Supervisor Sutherland and Clerk Oswalt return to the hall, and you decide.
Other Top Stories
Ethics Policy Complaint filed against Deputy Clerk Garnet Francis
Does the Norvell Township Board Come Prepared for Meetings?
Are you interested in running for township office?
Restore Local Control - Get a Petition | Story updated 3/9/24
Norvell Township Board Approves a Five Year Road Plan