In chaotic meeting, TR City Commission approves TRHDC bylaw change

By Robert Tomlinson
News Director

THREE RIVERS — A bylaw change that garnered much debate and controversy over the past two weeks was officially approved by Three Rivers city commissioners Tuesday.

Commissioners, in a 6-1 vote, approved amended bylaws for the Three Rivers Housing Development Corporation (TRHDC) that removes a requirement that a majority of board members be residents of the city.

The lone dissenter in the vote was Mayor Angel Johnston, who had spearheaded the original discussion by bringing a number of concerns she had about the TRHDC board to commissioners at the July 7 meeting. That included a statement that the board was under investigation by Michigan State Police for violating board bylaws with its current composition, concerns about the board allegedly not having any Licensing and Regulatory Affairs filings until May 2020, that filings for 2021-25 were not done until January, a potential “breach of fiduciary duty,” possible problems with an alleged lack of Form 990s as a nonprofit, and other miscellaneous issues.

Other commissioners stated in their voting for the bylaw change that the revision does not bar a majority of city residents from being on the board in the future, that it doesn’t bar city residents from joining, that not approving the bylaws would be negligence on the commissioners’ part, and approval would allow the board to function as normal going forward.

The TRHDC, which is a nonprofit corporation with a board whose purpose is, according to its bylaws, to purchase residential, commercial, industrial and vacant real estate for development and rehabilitation and sell it “for the betterment of the City of Three Rivers,” originally had the bylaw change approved by the City Commission as a temporary measure back in July 2021 for 90 days. This was done despite some pushback from then-mayor Tom Lowry in the meeting minutes, and was brought up due to not having a majority of city residents on the board at the time as well.

According to the meeting minutes of the Oct. 18, 2021 TRHDC meeting – around the time the 90-day temporary measure lapsed – the board had approved a recommendation to the City Commission to consider the bylaw change again. However, for reasons unknown, that request was never brought before the commission in any subsequent meetings prior to their July 7, 2026 meeting. Currently, the TRHDC board has just two members deemed as city residents.

At the July 7 meeting, commissioners voted to table the bylaw change after some heated discussion to allow more time to process what was being asked of them to consider.

Discussion at Tuesday’s meeting of the bylaw change started off civilly before turning chaotic later on. A number of public commenters spoke against the bylaw change, saying the requirement should stay in place. There were also public comments that touched on citizen participation, or the lack thereof, on city boards, and what the possible causes of that were.

In board comments, many commissioners acknowledged the tough decision they would have to make on whether or not to approve the revision. Fourth District Commissioner Carolyn McNary said the “empty seats over and over again” was how the city got to the point with what she called “outsourcing” board members from outside the city.

“There were people in our townships that use our city resources that wanted to help, so we changed things so we could legally have those people help you guys to be sitting here today and get on the board. Like another person said, they’re doing great jobs,” McNary said. “I wouldn’t want to change anything. I don’t know why a ‘no,’ why kick people out when we could all just do this together? I welcome the newness, bring your applications in, but don’t cross out those people that are also interested in helping out the city.”

Third District Commissioner Tony Stanfill said the situation was one where he would “lean on” City Attorney TJ Reed’s opinion that the bylaw change, while it wouldn’t change the past, would be legal to do going forward. He then stated the topic has become “chaotic” and that he wasn’t sure how he was going to vote that evening.

“As elected officials, we’re trusted to make decisions, and those decisions are governed by one thing, and that is information. Information that is then studied that will benefit the people, not our own personal agendas, not our own personal reasons, the people,” Stanfill said. “Not every decision will be popular, it’s just not going to be. … I’m not going to be swayed by tenure, popularity, position, I don’t care. I’m asking for the mayor and commissioners to vote in a manner that will best suit the people.”

In his comments, At-Large Commissioner Torrey Brown noted the TRHDC had been operating in their current capacity with board members for “a long time,” and acknowledged some conversations he’s had with residents about the issue. He said the solution to fix it was a “very, very simple” one.

“We are out of compliance, period. We did not know, as a board, that we were out of compliance. We found out we were out of compliance. To put us in compliance, which is within our abilities, is to accept the amendment that board recommended we accept in 2021,” Brown said.

Brown then noted that if he had to choose between someone who lived in the city and someone who doesn’t live in the city to join a board, he would pick the city resident. He then gave his final thoughts on the situation.

“We are not, in any way shape or form, trying to exclude citizens. That is a farce,” Brown said. “Kicking the can down the road would make us more open to criminal situations, because now we knowingly have a board out of compliance. That’s when you have the responsibility to fix it. Us voting yes today would immediately make that board in compliance.”

At-Large Commissioner Lucas Allen then commented that he welcomed an investigation into the TRHDC, and said if there was any wrongdoing, the public would find out. However, he said the bylaw change is a “simple thing.”

“I agree with Commissioner Brown that it’s a simple thing, that we’re out of compliance and we need to become in compliance,” Allen said. “By voting this, I feel we have an obligation to pass this, purely based on it operating on an illegal status. Then, we do have the intent to fix this, and if we don’t, I’d say I’m criminally liable.”

Johnston then later chimed in, offering her own rebuttals to the other commissioners’ comments. She alluded to residents who have applied to the TRHDC board, questioning why they were not put on the agenda to appoint. That led to confusion as to if there even was a vacancy on the board, with Johnston claiming there were. According to the list of board members of the TRHDC in the July 7 board packet, there are no vacancies listed on the seven-member board, while other boards clearly listed vacancies as such.

Johnston continued by addressing McNary’s comments, saying that there “haven’t been changes in the past to this,” and that they’re not being asked to “change bylaws in general,” just asking to change the one bylaw. Johnston then addressed another part of Stanfill’s comment that mentioned reporting done by the Commercial-News on their inquiries to MSP on whether or not there was an investigation, falsely claiming the Commercial-News “called the wrong department” when initially seeking comment from MSP. The Commercial-News had first contacted the public information officer for MSP’s Fifth District, which includes the Paw Paw post handling the investigation, when initially seeking comment. The Marshall post, which Johnston claimed this publication had initially contacted, was never contacted.

Johnston then later addressed Allen’s comments, saying she appreciates wanting to hold people accountable and “is not looking for criminal charges” for the TRHDC’s dealings. She then claimed the TRHDC was “dissolved” because of their not filing paperwork for certain years and were now “in good standing” because they got their paperwork up to date. Johnston later acknowledged that the board “does good work.”

Johnston then addressed Brown’s comments, saying she has a “mountain of FOIAs” into City Clerk Leslie Wilson’s office regarding the TRHDC. Wilson did not comment on the ongoing FOIA process during discussion. She then briefly discussed the TRHDC’s 990 forms and how she “can’t find” them, and questioned why the city needs two more weeks to get them to her via FOIA.

At that point, it appeared that Second District Commissioner Steven Haigh was having a quiet side conversation with another commissioner during Johnston’s comments, which Johnston pointed out, saying, “I stayed silent for you, please do the same.” Haigh responded by saying, “Oh, we’re following Roberts Rules of Order now?”

After City Manager Joe Bippus commented that Johnston’s FOIA was ongoing, Dane twice asked for the question to be called, which would mean ending discussion and taking up a vote on the bylaws. Johnston expressed her dissatisfaction with having the question called during her comments, saying to Dane, “You just want to shut me up.”

After Johnston said she would read Dane’s comments from the July 7 meeting to wrap up her comments, the two commissioners engaged in a back-and-forth exchange, with Dane saying, “I really don’t appreciate your attitude,” and Johnston replying, “You don’t have to appreciate my attitude. The public does.” After one audience member said they appreciated it, Dane called for the question a third time. Johnston then reluctantly asked for a vote on the question.

“Everybody who wants to stop me from speaking, go ahead and say aye,” Johnston said. A few ayes were then said, with the motion to call the question passed. Johnston then confronted Stanfill for not saying a vote, which was construed to mean an “aye.” Stanfill responded to that, asking if the commission could “get back to some sense of decency.”

“I don’t know why everything has to turn into trying to grab each other by the throat, and just bury each other with insults,” Stanfill said. “Let’s just do what we got elected to do. I just want to get back to business as any.” Johnston then repeatedly asked Stanfill, “Do you want me to stop speaking?”

Johnston then said she would go live on her YouTube channel to make her comments, adding, “The mayor has been silenced” before calling for a vote on the revision.

After the vote, Brown motioned to adjourn the meeting early, a motion that was voted down nearly unanimously by commissioners, and also led to a brief back-and-forth between Brown and a resident in attendance. Brown stated later during commissioner comments he wanted to adjourn the meeting because he felt “We were all letting emotions get the best of us” at the time, and also apologized to the resident for his conduct during the resident’s outburst.

McNary also addressed later her reasoning for voting to call the question, saying it was because “our mayor repeated everything that every commissioner had talked about, and I was more interested in what her thoughts were on the question.”

“I wanted to hear her side, I didn’t want to hear our sides coming from her,” McNary said.

Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.