Sturgis City Commission on Sept. 23 agreed to release findings of an independent probe, prompted by a resolution for “investigation of wrongdoing,” presented to the board in a resolution at the May 27 meeting of the commission.
According to a redacted version of the investigation report, obtained by Sturgis Sentinel through freedom of information act, the investigation involved review of meetings, email, text messages and discussions held by various commissioners, outside of a public forum, regarding complaints brought by a city employee, some of which pertained to then-city manager Andrew Kuk.
Miller Johnson conducted the investigation, with results outlined and presented to city attorney TJ Reed, by Jeffrey Canfield, a member of the employment and board practice group at the firm’s Kalamazoo location. Canfield’s submission of the document is dated Aug. 25.
Interviewed for the investigation were commissioners Cathi Abbs, Richard Bir, Dan Boring, then-commissioner Linda Harrington (who announced her resignation from the board on April 22), Aaron Miller, vice mayor Jeff Mullins, Marvin Smith, Justin Wickey, mayor Frank Perez and Reed, along with, presumably, Kuk, and an unnamed city employee.
The May 27 resolution alleged there was “cause to believe there was wrongdoing by some commissioners that may have led to Kuk’s decision to resign.”
Kuk announced his resignation on April 22. It became effective July 24.
Interviews for the outside investigation were conducted beginning June 17 and concluding July 31. In some cases, multiple interviews were held, including those with Abbs, Bir, Perez and Harrington.
The interviews were conducted in person at the offices of Bird, Scheske, Reed, Beemer & George in Sturgis, with the exception of the session held with city attorney Reed, who was interviewed at the Kalamazoo office of Miller Johnson.
Some aspects of the report explore whether a violation of the open meetings act may have occurred, stemming from meetings, beginning in March, involving some or all of Abbs, Bir, Harrington, Perez and Smith, related to issues presented by the city employee.
Miller Johnson’s probe determined no violation of OMA took place, but urged education of commissioners regarding city employment policies and procedure for employee complaints in general, and reinforcement of compliance with the open meetings act.
As Reed became aware of those discussions, he advised commissioners of potential conflict with the open meetings act, according to the repot.
The independent report also concluded Perez violated Chapter IX, section 4(n) of the city charter, and “acted in a manner inconsistent with” section 1 of the city commission procedural policy.
Chapter IX, Section 4(n) states: “The city manager shall be the acting head of each and every department in the city (with exception of) the law department. No member of the commission shall interfere with the conduct of any department, except at the express direction of the commission, by resolution or ordinance duly passed and adopted.”
Section 1 of the commission procedural policy covers a broad range of elements, including that each member is elected to make decisions as a collective body, not to act as individuals or apart from the city commission, and all meetings involving members are subject to the open meetings act. The independent analysis by Miller Johnson does not specify what actions by Perez were “inconsistent” with that policy.
An email message sent by Sentinel to Perez seeking comment was not immediately returned.
According to the report, the reference Resolution 1 includes commissioners Miller and Mullins as individuals within the scope of this investigation. Miller Johnson found no violation of OMA, the city charter or procedural policy with respect to either of them.
Canfield made recommendations based on findings throughout the investigation:
- Commissioner education on city employment policies and procedure for employee complaints in general.
- Reinforcement of OMA compliance.
Canfield’s summary concluded that neither the city charter nor the procedural policy “appear to prescribe consequences or remedy for violations or actions inconsistent with their provisions … accordingly, I make no recommendations as to such. Ultimately, the conclusions of this report may pose political questions, but these are outside the mandate of the investigator.”
In a phone conversation with the Sentinel on Sept. 25, nterim city manager Doug Terry said he believes there was no ill intent by commissioners in this case, but some procedures were not followed properly.
“The intent of open meetings act is any public body is going to conduct city’s business in daylight of citizens’ review. Sometimes, our elected officials aren’t as familiar with the opening meeting act as they should be.”
Terry said the commission has been made aware of the seriousness of potential for violation.
“We’re going to be very cautious about conducting official business,” he said.
On May 27, Sturgis City Commission approved a resolution, presented by commissioner Miller, to direct an independent investigation by outside counsel into potential violations against specific parts of Michigan law, associated case law, procedure of the commission and city charter, and that the probe reveals findings and recommendations to the board for review and public, “in the interest of openness and transparency.”
The resolution named Miller, Mullins, Abbs, Bir, Harrington and Perez.
It also resolved that outside counsel question Reed, Kuk, all eight commissioners elected and serving on the commission and any other staff “as deemed necessary.”
That proposal was approved, in an 8-0 roll-call vote, at the meeting. Votes on the resolution followed a 20-minute closed session for the board to seek counsel from Reed.
Perez was unable to attend the May 27 meeting, due to a family commitment.
Two additional measures presented by Miller on May 27, one for censure of Perez and a second for Perez’s removal as mayor, were rejected by a vote of the commission.
