By Scott Sullivan
Editor
A June 16 Michigan Bureau of Elections letter to former Saugatuck Mayor Garnet Lewis indicates she, with three other current or past city council members, may have committed a felony when they collaborated on 2024 campaign signage.
Former Mayor Ken Trester Oct. 16 complained to the BOE that EPIC — (Empowering People to invest in Communities), founded and headed by Lewis — hadn’t filed a legal statement of organization with the state before funding re-election campaigns of council members Helen Baldwin, Scott Dean and Lauren Stanton last November.
Dean and Stanton were re-elected, Baldwin beaten by former mayor Chris Peterson.
Trester heard back from the BOE March 26, more than five months later, apprised him Lewis had admitted to doing so, EPIC had paid a $1,000 fine and filed for dissolution.
Case closed? Not so fast.
Trester filed a rebuttal April 11, asking the department not to allow the dissolution. He raised new concerns about EPIC’s political involvement with other campaigns and their status as a nonprofit organization.
The bureau apprised Trester and Lewis June 16 it is limited to investigating the original complaint and lacked the authority to investigate EPIC’s nonprofit status.
However, under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act it went on, those coordinating through contributions or expenditures to influence an election are required to register as a committee.
“EPIC registered with the department as an Independent Expenditure Committee,” the letter read. “Section 24B of the MCFA prohibits an IEC from making a contribution to a candidate committee.
“Violation of the section by an individual is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of not more than $5,000, or both,” it went on.
IECs can make independent expenditures in support of specific candidates, but “cannot coordinate with candidates on campaign materials,” said the Bureau.
“A review of EPIC’s campaign finance filings indicates that Stanton, Baldwin, and Dean were the only contributors to EPIC when they registered as an IEC. Similarly, they were the only three candidates that EPIC supported through advertisements, fliers and yard signs.”
Therefore, the letter said, “(it’s) highly likely the candidates coordinated with EPIC in violation of Section 24B.”
The BOE, said the letter, will seek to correct the possible violation informally before referring the matter to the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.
Lewis said she will work with the Bureau to resolve the matter informally. She has until Oct. 24 to make contact.
Dean, Stanton and Baldwin denied any wrongdoing, saying the issue runs deeper than on the surface.
“Candidates who want to run as a slate,” said Stanton, “are required to pay for shared campaign materials through a single entity. That’s what we did to pay for yard signs and a few print ads.
“This is really getting in the weeds of small-town politics,” she went on. “I want to make it clear, the person who filed a complaint about this (Ken Trester), a former city council member, did so because he was against our campaign (Stanton, Baldwin, Dean) to limit short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. The same person who ran a campaign with other sitting council members to oppose our school bond (in 2019). One of those members also sued the city over a new playground.
“This is all an effort to smear us and keep stirring up controversy over something that involved how we paid for yard signs and it’s all ridiculous.
“The complaint was not filed against me,” she continued, “but from what I understand in the response to Mr. Trester, the allegations of EPIC’s involvement in city council races will not be considered. Similarly, the Bureau of Elections does not have the authority to investigate a company’s no-profit status because that is not filed with their department and will not be considered.
“Any status on this is being handled informally with Garnet Lewis,” Stanton said.
“This issue,” added Baldwin, “relates to spending for less than 100 yard signs and three ads in a community newspaper for a campaign that took place a year ago.
“It’s unfortunate,” she went on, “that a small group in our town looks for ways to make public service as painful as possible for those with the courage to serve, and this is yet another example.”
“Because I am not a participant in the campaign finance complaint filed by Mr. Trester, I don’t have comments on the specifics of that process,” Baldwin said.
“I’ve served on the council for three terms,” said Dean, “and get falsely accused of something new just about every election cycle. This is because my political opponents and their backers don’t want voters focused on the short-term rental issue.
“In reality,” Dean went on, “this has nothing to do with small-town campaign ads and yard signs and everything to do with the ongoing battle for the soul of Saugatuck. It started with investing in our schools and is now about protecting our waterfront and residential neighborhoods.
“The policy differences between the old city council and new council date back to 2019,” he said. “Former councilmember Lewis worked with parents like me to create a safer school for our kids.
“Former mayor Trester and other councilmembers funded the deceptively-named Saugatuck Parents for Better Education committee that advocated against the school bond.
“SPBE found itself out of compliance with state election requirements when it failed to file its post-election campaign statement in 2019, so this isn’t the first time a local group has been late in filing paperwork or had its advocacy work questioned,” Dean continued.
“Considering the city’s recent victory that protects our waterfront from floating short-term rentals after years of litigation, questions remain about what former Mayor Trester and the council he led were focused on in 2019 when the waterfront land-swap in question occurred and they were later sued for damages.
“Based on city email records, several members of the city’s boards and commissions were using city resources to respond to the school’s campaign to pass the bond,” Dean said.
He, Stanton and Baldwin criticized Holland Sentinel coverage last week about the matter. Sentinel editor Cassandra Lybrink responded:
“I am including below the language from the statue in question, which we reviewed thoroughly before publication.
“(5) An individual who knowingly violates or causes a person to violate subsection (4) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. A person that violates subsection (4) that is not an individual is subject to onw of the following, whichever is greater:
“(a) A fine of not more than $20,000
“(b) A fine of not more than triple the amount of the improper contribution or expenditure.
“Given the bolded language and the letter’s assertion that council members coordinated with EPIC ‘in violation’ of the subsection,” Lybrink said, “we are comfortable with our reporting, which gave each of you an opportunity to comment.”
Trester noted the determination letter shows the severity of the offense in question and speaks for itself.
“You can no longer say these are just minor slip-ups or just a mistake,” he said. “Not after three unaccounted-for years. This is a serious offense and you have to answer for it.”
Friday, July 04, 2025
