Village Council - Special Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the March 23rd, 2026 council meeting, special meeting for the village of Holly. Clerk, please call the role. Wine Brunner here. Wendell here. Ryan here. Pascal here. Cole here. Ker here. Brandon here. We have a quorum. If you are willing and able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This brings us to public comment. Members of the audience may address councel on any item. Those adjusting council will be limited to three minutes of speaking time. Council will hear all comments for future consideration, but will not have a response at this time. This will be the only public comment for this evening's special meeting prior to addressing council. Members of the public shall state their name and address for the record. Public comment. Yes, please. There's no microphone. Oh, hold on one second. Sorry, that's our fault. Good.

That should help you be heard by us a little bit better.

Reagan Rockwell, Village of Holly resident. Village of Holly Council. From where I'm standing, it looks and feels as though you're trying to push residents from making voyer requests by hiring a staff member to handle the request when the village of Holly is already operating at a deficit. There are many of us who just want local government transparency and accountability. To me, it seems unnecessary to attempt to hire another person when Graham Townships processed 1,1 I conducted some research interestally. res up to administration during the appeal process. motic transparencies attorney will prioritize process for all of us. Additionally, budget4,800

over the actual overtime,000 for the 2024,000 or lower% we are really responsible. over the board. I know the fire department,000. Um, so my husband'll Thank you, Mrs. uh Rockwell. Uh public comment.

Oh, okay. Well, just one m I mean, you can come up, but I want to hear public. Yes. for the for the podium. Okay. The podium or for all of us too? He said for the podium. Thanks, George. Yeah. Uh yeah. Or utilities director also text. Okay. All right. We think we're good. Go ahead, Jan. Name and address, please.

Thanks. Uh Jan Vanzelfy 15226 Weller Court. Um I just have a few questions. Um, what line item will the FOYA coordinator come out of? Uh, will this be out of the 2025 2026 budget, which um is probably almost all spent, or the 2026 2027 budget? Um, how much are you thinking a FOYA coordinator will cost? Um, will this be a contracted employee or an actual employee? Um, when is Plant Moran going to come and do their presentation on the audit? I know it was supposed to be in March and they canceled on us. Um, but we do pay them a lot of money and I think that they should come and give a presentation on their findings of the audit before the budget sessions which I know is coming up quick. Um, and what should we expect an update or presentation from uh municipal analytics before the budget workshop uh or sessions? Once again, I think that'd be maybe helpful to see um some of the ideas that municipal analytics has come up with. Um I know these questions won't be answered tonight, but I just wanted to um hear an update at the April meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Chan. Public comment.

Hello, Mr. Manson.

Hello. Thank you. Brian Matson, 15091 Western Valley Drive. Accountability. I believe that is a theme of tonight's meeting. For more than a year as a township trustee, village resident, husband, and soon to be father, I have quietly sat back and observed the behavior of those in leadership of the village, both elective, both elected and administrative. Lack of ownership and accountability has been consistent. placing blame on previous administration, previous councils despite several current members having previously served Plant Moran, the township, DDA, and worst of all, publicly blaming citizens for the village's inability to operate. Accountability to me starts and ends with tough questions and ownership. There's a lot of power in the question, so I'm going to ask many tonight, and I hope that inspires the council and residents to do the same. Since the special assessment district that was meant for our first responders was approved, we have seen spending that includes labor cost increase of over $50,000 versus last budget in the clerk treasury department paid over $20,000 to a consultant which outsourced tasks and are now potentially seeking foyer support labor dollars from our budget. All of this should beg many questions. With all the additional staff, what duties will be left for our clerk treasur? Where are we finding this in our budget? What is the cost? Is the first responder special assessment district actually being used for our first responders? How are we going to eliminate the special assessment district this year with all this additional spending? What are the barriers to current staff being able to fulfill FOYAS timely and legally? Has our staff done training? How many FOYAS of the 68 in 2025 were fulfilled by police and fire? then leaving how many for Miss Bone? How efficient are our top administrators operating? What is truly

filling their time at the office? At this point, we need to take a step back and ask, is it truly what we're asking of the person in the role overburdensome? Or is it just that the individual is incapable of being successful in their position and they are not a good fit? It's nothing personal. It's just business. As leaders though, the tough questions have to be asked. So, I will end with this. When will we be done adding taxpayer resources to individuals who are just not a good fit for their position? That is something I challenge each council person and resident to begin to ask of all those who represent the village. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comment, Mrs. Manson. I'll I'll get to you next, sir. Hello, Anna.

Anna Matson, 15091 Western Valley. Under Michigan law, residents are given two paths when they believe a public records request or FOIA has been improp handled improperly. The first is to file an appeal with the head of the public body. The second is to pursue litigation in the courts. That appeals process is meant to be a meaningful opportunity for a public body to review its actions, correct mistakes, and come back into compliance with the law without forcing residents into a lawsuit. But when appeals are not taken seriously or ignored entirely, like in my case, that process breaks down entirely. And when that happens, the only option left for a resident is to sue. So when anyone asks why I'm suing the village of Holly, that is the answer. It is not because I want to be in court. It's because the village left me no other option. I use litigation because the village has repeatedly failed to follow Michigan law and has refused to self-correct when given the opportunity to do so. Now, I do want to acknowledge that there is an effort being made tonight to address part of this issue by designating a head of the public body for foyer appeals. Shockingly, in 2025, the village changed the head of the public body three different times without any vote from this board. It changed from the village president to the village manager and more recently to the clerk. All of which create no checks and balances and raises serious ethical concerns. But the current proposal does not actually solve the problem either. It simply shifts the conflict from one person to another. Designating the president as the head of the public body leaves us with a system where a single individual is making decisions without public view, with conflicts of interest, and with no oversight. In many ways, appeals serve as a quasi judicial role and decisions of that importance should not rest with any one person. They should be made by the full council in the open with accountability to the public. So now, in terms of my two foy appeals, I am curious why they are on the agenda when

the clerk was designated the head of the public body for them and did not respond in the required 10-day time frame by law. No decision tonight can change the fact that the village has once again violated the law. You can only take accountability for the mistake and course correct for the future. That course correction should not be additional cost of foyer support when we already pay for the MML that provides training to staff. Every local government in the United States is required to f fulfill public records request. The village is not singled out. Other public bodies are able to comply with the law with less staff and less resources, but we somehow cannot figure it out here. What I would like to see again is accountability from this administration.

Thank you, Mrs. Manson. Further public comment. Yes. Uh my name is Matt Wilio. Uh 204 Thomas. First off, um not heard nothing public about the Clay about the water and sewer bond debt. You say you do it on your page and stuff, but you know it's I don't follow you anyways. Um so I'd like to hear something public about that why we're still paying it. I heard part of it's been paid off and if so then essentially you run FOYA with a lawsuit against you. huge. Um, you know, uh, salaries haven't been updated since 2023 on the website. I don't know if they changed, but they haven't been updated. You know, you got the clerk making almost $100,000 a year. It's way more than the fire chief and the police chief make. I don't understand that. They can't even handle simple foyer stuff. Um, let's see what else. Um, maybe you guys should give up your salary since we're in financial crisis. You know, the only thing I've seen better since for Holly, the water tower got painted. Roads didn't get fixed. Roads are trash. You know, we're in a financial deficit, but the water tower got painted over the roads getting fixed, which they keep putting cold patch in and they tear up with the plows. Then you're going to want to raise taxes. Raise taxes. Well, let's see. 2015 taxes for the village of Holly started 50,949 a year. 2025 1154.95 a year. Where's all the damn money to fix the roads? From the taxes that are being raised constantly every year, year after year. Nothing is done. Nothing at all. Um, you run the village of Holly Page if I'm not mistaken. Correct. And I believe so. But if someone puts a comment on there that you don't like, you kick them off

the page. It's like it's communist China. It's a United States of America. People can comment on their freedom of speech. Oh, they're not saying threatening stuff or anything. You've kicked me off there for saying stuff, but nothing threatening or vulgar, but you've kicked me off there because you didn't agree with it. It's communist China Also, um, what have you all done to improve the life of the people in Holly since being elected? Not a damn thing. Nothing except paint the water tower. Roads haven't been fixed. Nothing. Nothing at all. Taxes keep going up. Nothing fixed at all whatsoever. Also, in the closing, uh uh I'm going to be running for one of your seats come election time, so be ready.

Thank you, Matt. Any further public comment? Yes, please. Hello, my name is Ellie Deero Boschamp and I've been a resident at 207 Park Avenue for over 30 years. First time I've ever come to a meeting. Um, but I felt like I couldn't not come and I've got literally was writing this as I was driving. Sorry. Um, but I wanted to have my points.

Okay. So, I wanted to have my points clear. First, first and foremost, I'll say in 30 years, I've seen a lot. Um, I've seen a lot of good. Um, I've seen a lot of wonderful people that have wanted to come in and help and and do things and and that energy, I feel that energy and I see that energy. Um, I want to thank the police chief because the last two police chiefs have completely turned around how this community felt about our police department. So, thank you. We really appreciate you. But now, now comes the hard part. Um, and I don't know if our budget is year to year. I'm sure it's kind of off or something like that, but I did want to touch on the budget from last year. And um, I've had some conversations. I've tried to gain an understanding of how of how I believe less than four weeks prior to the bills um to our taxes coming out, we had that four mil get pushed through. Um I I think that's about right. It was about a month before. And and I'm just going to say it again, although I've been given some answers is how do we get that close to a village takeover and being, you know, my numbers might not be right, 600,000 short when 600,000 also equals the amount that we spent on this building and a new fire truck. It just seemed odd to me that we could just go into this situation where we're potentially being taken over and

we've overspent in two places. It's clear as day to the people that are paying attention. And I'm not saying those things weren't needed, but were they? Was this needed more than me paying an extra $600 a month in taxes? I don't know. We have property in other locations. They're having these meetings in in uh Little Red Schoolhouse in a in a building. They don't have these big pretty buildings. So, I'm just going to put that out there. I think we could have done better. So now we're talking about 2026, right? The budget that's coming up. Is it my time? It is your time. Thank you, Ellie.

I'm I'm just going to say this. With this budget coming up, for us only to be picking around our most expensive service, fire and safety, 75% or more of our budget, and just be picking around in February looking for options. I think we're behind the eight-ball once again and we knew we were going in behind an eightball and we haven't done anything about it. Sorry to say that. Any further public comment, Jarrett?

Jarrett Hopper, 309 Cog Shell Street. First, I'd like to blame you all for this weather that we're having because it's awful.

I'm sorry. No. Um, main point I just want to make about this is that in looking at what has been happening and with the foyer requests and so forth, I'm not saying that they're not warranted. I think that it sound everybody should question government and that's part of our freedoms as people. I think the part that's concerning to me is that is it necessary? There's a lot of transparency. there's the budgets are posted online. I think in every instance I've personally was witnessed and this is my opinion when something has been questioned there was very in-depth budget reviews with full questioning on what was going on. So, I guess my my concern is is that when we're in such a budget deficit, if we're looking at adding people to staff to just handle these requests, I just to me that seems wasteful. I mean, if it's something that is is truly necessary and and it's overburdensome to do so, then I guess that's the case. But just seems like there has to be a better way. I think everybody here, I mean, everybody in the room is here because they care about the village. Everybody commenting online, whether we disagree or or we agree with each other cares about the village or they wouldn't make that comment. There just has to be a better way than this. That's all I got.

Thank you, Mr. Hopper. Public comment hearing none. Seeing none. All right. This moves us to new business. Lisa, will you please read item A of new business? Consideration of village council of resolution 2026-015 designating the village president as the head of the public body for the purpose of freedom of information act FOYA appeals. Do I have a first to consider item A of new business? I will make the motion to consider item A of new business.

I'll second. We have a motion by Ky. We have a second by Wein Bunner. Jim, will you please introduce this item?

Absolutely. Thank you, Madam President. Um, obviously this is the primary reason uh for the special meeting tonight was called. Um, the village attorney and I both believe that this matter is already addressed within our charter. However, uh after further discussion with outside council uh with Carita Young and Jeremy Brown, um we determined the best course of action in order to eliminate any uncertainty was to formalize the interpretation that we've been working with uh through a resolution of council. The 10 days that was referenced earlier is the reason that we had to do a special meeting rather than waiting for our April meeting is because the 10 days uh started at the end of our last uh council meeting. after an item came comes to council. So if the interpretation is that the council is the public body, then the 10 days would have started at that point. We wanted to make sure that we got any of these appeals done before that 10day timeline was over, which would be later uh in this week. So that's the reason that we wanted to do it today. Uh simply put, this resolution is intended to reaffirm our interpretation of the charter as it applies to FOYA appeals. I'm going to I've got some information up here because I know that we had to this kind of last second. So, um I'm going to put some stuff on the screen. So, within the MCL that covers uh FOYO under the FR uh Michigan Freedom of Information Act and council has the actual printouts in front of them of the more complete version uh regarding appeals, the statute provides section 10-1. If a public body makes a final determination to deny any or all portion of a request, the requesting person may do one of the following his or her option and a submit the head to the head of the public body a written appeal that specifically states the word appeal and identifies the reasons or reasons for reversal denial. There's other reasons as well, but that is um uh the as we're talking about the head of the public body uh wanted to point that out. So within our charter our charter uh we

believe the designation is clear section 3.6 states duties of the president in so far as required by law and for all and for all ceremonial purposes the president shall be recognized as the executive head of the village. He or she shall be presiding officer of the council. He or she shall have an equal vote in uh voice and vote in proceedings of council but shall have no veto power. Um based on that language, it has been the ours and all the inter attorney's interpretations that the village president serves as the head of the public body for purposes of foy appeals. Again, to remove any confusion and to ensure that there is no misunderstanding moving forward, this resolution was drafted and has been reviewed by both village attorney and outside council. The resolution confirms that the village president is the head of the public body for purposes of foyer appeals. Authorizes the village president to review and decide those appeals in accordance with state law. provides for administrative support from council and staff and clarifies that this action is consistent with the charter and existing uh law. This resolution does not create any new authority so much as it formally affirms the authority we believe is also already present within the charter. Um the resolution is as follows and I will put that on the board too. So uh resolution 2026 015 a resolution to confirm the village president as a head of the public body for purposes of freedom of information information act foy appeals whereas the village of Holly is a public body and as that term is defined in the Michigan freedom of information act MCL 1523.1 uh foyer and whereas pursuant to MCL 15240-1 alpha if the village makes a final determination to deny any uh deny all or a portion of the request the requesting person may submit an appeal of the denial of the head of the body, the public body. And whereas pursuant to MCL 1524A1A, if the village requires a fee that exceeds the amount permitted, the requesting per person may submit an appeal to the fee of fee to the head of the public body. And whereas pursuant to section 3.66 of the village charter, the

village president is the executive head of the village. And whereas the village seeks to clarify and confirm the village president as the head of the public body for purposes of foya. Now therefore be it resolved that designation of the head of public body. The village council hereby confirms the village president's designation as the head of the public body for purposes of Michigan Freedom of Information Act including but not limited to the review and disposition of FOY appeals pursuant to MCL 15240 and MCL 240A. Um authority to act one authority to act on appeals of village present is authorized review decide and issue determination on foy appeals in accordance with statutory timelines and requirements. Two administrative support village manager foyer coordinator and village attorney shall provide such assistance as necessary to facilitate the timely processing of foy appeals and to ensure compliance with applicable law. Uh three consistency with charter law. The resolution is intended to clarify existing authority under the village charter and shall not be construed to conflict with any provision of state law or duly adopted village ordinance or policy for effective date. The resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. And that concludes my introduction to this pending. Any questions?

Okay. Council discussion April.

Yes, Daniel. I fully agree and feel that you could do the job being that position, but at the same token, I think it should be for just the foyer part of it. There should be either you and two other council members or three council three council members in a like a committee for it. So that way no, we have our checks and balances and no one can say that that person was negle negligent towards me or We can say that um they let that go through because they know that person. If it's three people, it doesn't put all the heat on just you. So you're talking about bias. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Bias work. Yeah. Thank you, Daniel.

And I don't think I'm I'm saying I don't think you're biased, but I think transparency. I think it' be best to have just a little committee for it. And I hate using that word because got some more darn committees right now. It's okay, council. So I have a question. Yes. Um

well I agree that we are looking to formalize this in the event that Hoya is perhaps about the president whoever that may be at whatever time. I would like to see some wording in there that in that case the prom would proceed over so that there is a check if something is in regards to you know a president's position on a foya and they are the head of the body perhaps at that point the protest

council have we ever had another village president stepped into this position. I can I can only speak to what I've seen since I've been here. We've had one appeal that we've the village president has um you know made a decision on that you know was articulated through the village attorney and that is the only one that I am aware of. I'm not sure appeals have happened fast. I'm not sure the for coordinator are you aware of any?

I guess just my question is if this has been in our charter and it has been performed by former village presidents. Why now would it be a conflict of interest?

We have so even when we the reason we scheduled the meeting so quickly is because again the v the village attorney and myself we've always been acting under this interpretation. We did not think that it was unclear. Um and so it was really um in fact both of us were hesitant to even want to do this meeting because we don't want to take any power away from the president that is inherent within the charter. And so to form a committee by resolution, you would have to be taking power away and our interpretation would be you'd be taking power away from the president um and you would have to do a change to the charter. If that if that is the correct interpretation again that is are you referring to what I was talking about?

We but if you were to do that so the the interpretation right now is either it's the village president or it's the public body as a whole. If you were to say the the council could designate a committee to be the representative of the public body if they were to decide to do that, but they would have to do that by resolution. They couldn't just um it would have to be done in that way uh to answer the the the state requirements within the MCL. Am I correct in that? The point is of having it be one person. Can you hear me? Okay. Introduce yourself. I'm Chris. I'm not exactly Mike Gildner, but I'm closer to the microphone because Chris

I'm I'm uh Chris Strip Matter attorney from Simon Fger Parker Parker the firm that represents the village of Holly. This would just formally put it into one person and to be lean in the sense that you wouldn't have to call a council meeting to um answer these appeals. So if it's in with one person, they can do that. Um all of that is also public record and this just formally does it which was already in the charter and the forya policy that the village has already passed. And just to go back the the village president had uh answered foyer appeals before but again there wasn't a it wasn't in the foyer policy as written. So this would just formally uh make it official through resolution.

Jim, thank you, Madam President. So we're you're at your opinion that the line in so far as required by law and for all ceremonial purposes, the president shall be recognized as the executive head of that grants. Correct. So I looked up what is in so far as required by law and it's very common is contract. I'm sure you'll say it just means that there's another law that says the president has to do that the president will do that. Correct. So what law is telling us that the president has to be the head of the executive body for

it? It doesn't mean that it has to be. It just is de facto without other just like a commi you could form a committee by resolution. You could appoint somebody else a foye coordinator for instance or but that's not what's being argued. What's being argued is that right now the president has the ability due to our charter without making a motion that the she is one who held it but the president's office is the one that gets the factor. Right. I I So where's I'm saying where's the power coming from? Where's the law that grants her that ability through the charter? But we just got done saying in so far as required by law doesn't give someone power.

In so far as required by law. Yeah, it's a I'm not trying to argue the point. We should be arguing the point though. Well, okay, that's fine. Um, but what the charter says and what the foye policy says and how it's been operating, this would just formalize that power to the president. But what I'm saying is just because we've been doing it wrong doesn't mean we should doing it. I don't think that I don't want to say that I've been that it's been done wrong. It's just putting it into the charter by resolution. So you read through the charter and it's pretty clear how the authority works for for what the

I'll have something. So all legislative and policy authority is vested in the council, not any one individual. The president serves as the presiding officer with an equal vote and is recognized as executive head head only in so far as required by law and for ceremonial purposes. So we already talked about what in so far means. The charter also states that the the president may exercise only those powers specifically granted by the charter or by councel and the charter intends to give independent authority and does so explicitly such as the power to declare a state of emergency. So that is explicitly in the charter saying the president can declare of uh state emergency. So we already see this in practice. Um so for instance the home rule village act or our charter does not say who signs checks. Um so if the president signed checks that exists because the council chose to designate the president to sign checks. Um so if for instance if we wanted to we could change the designated person for someone someone else to sign checks. And similarly, I don't think that the the charter says who should be the head for FOY appeals.

The board could change it. I know the board could change it, but I but what we're saying is so we're saying we're reconfirming that the president has that position. I don't think the president does have that that ability right now. And that's your interpretation? I mean, you're saying that the only reason based off our charter is it says in so far as required by law. That's the only place that it says, right? So what so what law is requiring us to make the No, no law is requiring it. What's in front of the board tonight is formalizing it. If that is not the case of the board or the will of the board, you don't have to.

Okay. So if we don't pass this motion today, who is the head? The appeals or the head of the public body? had a public body for appeals there. Well, that wouldn't be what's in front. Okay. The if so if we don't if the appeal it would have to come back to the public body every time. Okay. So, we are not reconfirming that. It's been done that way. You know what I'm saying though? Because if we don't do anything, it's going to come to us, right? So, that tells me the president shouldn't be doing unless unless we sign this.

It could be challenged by that in fact it's not you can't take away power by council it has to be in the chart yeah but it literally says in so far in so far only to the extent as required by law so what is requiring us to make the president I would say the law of our charter say ceremony or question, but then our charter explicitly then goes on to de designate what authority specifically the president has.

And you could change that. This would this would designate that power. It's how it's been. And if if you choose to do it differently, the the council could agree to do that, but this would be consolidating to one person so that every single time there's not an appeal, it has to come in front of the public body. But you see, you understand what I'm saying? It's not presented as it's presented as we're reaffirming that this this has always been the case per our charter. I think what we're reaffirming is that she is the head of our public body. No, we're not. Yeah, she is the head of our That's not what we're saying. We're saying she's

But it is in reference to this. It says this person has to appeal to the head of the body per our charter. That by definition would be her. So It's not it's not the way it works. But I I think you're saying, Jim, is that right now it says basically that we as the public body make the appeal. Where does it say that we have to make the president be the head of it for that? Right. We don't. But that's what you're trying to say, right? I don't I mean it says it says as except as required by law.

So where are we required by law to mandate that the president does appeals for foil? We're not. So I don't think that the the ability ever existed and the only way it could exist if we designate by signing this resolution that the president's office is that person. So we can delegate our authority all away for anything we want essentially. But why would we want to? It's my

I think it should be up to all of us personally. I agree with Jim on that. I mean, for me, the village president has like the power to make recommendations and suggestions to us like with appointments, things like that. So, I feel like this wouldn't be any different from it.

Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to say, so the way you're speaking for every fore it would not be a special meeting. It would be done at your at our regular. We're doing a special meeting this time just because again we were operating under past practice and our assumptions that we had moving forward. The reason we're doing a special meeting is so we can answer can we get a written legal opinion that says that that's when the 10 days start when the final determination is made. Let me see.

Number three, right under the highlighted section.

So, we want to appoint the president of the head of body because when we get to a 10day thing, so we don't got to have a special meeting. Correct. No, it's time to understand. That's correct. And so on each council meeting there would be appeals if if if there were appeal if there was if there was if they got if Miss Bone if I'm if Miss Bone Lisa correct if you denied him and they appealed it then it would have to come to us. How would this impact the review of protected information if the full body was reviewing it?

To what sense? like if it would if the requested information is exempt from disclosure. Yeah. If we had um information that say went through the attorney and through the treasurer and perhaps they had some of it redacted that would come in front of the whole board the whole you wouldn't have a closed session for the review of it. No. So then those redacted items would be available for public consumption. Well, it would it would be up to the board

and if the board decided to review those items publicly to kind of go over them line by line to see if they agreed with the say attorney's direction that things should be redacted. Now it's public and let's say we decided, oh, these things should be redacted, but it's already been consumed by the public. That would be a decision for the council to make at that time which would then open us up to litigation for protected materials potentially. I mean so so understand this as Mr. Ryan indicated or mentioned it would be impossible for the attorney to write an opinion saying this is why you should not release this information. No, we could we could write that before

and if you wrote that opinion and if it's a written opinion then we could discuss it in close session. We discuss it when we come out of session if we want to. Correct. So you can go into close session for but even that has been narrowed in the past couple of years but that's a separate issue. So if we have attorney redactions for instance, if there's a specific reason,

the whole point of it is is that they don't want uh councils or boards just being able to go into close session for just any written legal opinion. So that would be a permitted reason for discussion relating to OMA meetings and things like that, not just because they want to have a private conversation. That wouldn't be the case. just they look at that with more scrutiny. Now is my point. I know that you guys also represent other municipalities. Have you ever had this come up in other municipalities as far as having an issue with having a head of a public body?

The head of the public body? No, I mean, uh, obviously I don't know every single council for the past 30 years of, um, since we've been around, but, uh, typically it's not an issue because if it is, then they can appeal that to circuit court and there's other avenues of bringing it up, but mostly it is designation of one person that handles appeals for timeliness and so that not convening the entire board for one point and adding extra time to meetings that creating a quasi judicial body to review this stuff um because it you know it can add lengthy times to meetings and everybody can have different opinions. So and the determination is all public information as well. Obviously, council members could review that information. So, it's it's typically appointing one single person uh to handle appeals is specifically out of timeliness and not inundating uh agendas with these topics that can go one way or the other.

One of the biggest concerns I'm hearing this evening from council and from the audience was bias. Um, in your experience, how often does bias affect a person or a head of body's decisions regarding FOYA appeals?

That's very difficult for me to ask because it depends on the body, the question, and prior instances. It doesn't typically come in um because the law is clear on what's exempt from disclosure and what's not exempt from disclosure. And typically when there is a question we're asked uh you know what from this information that's being requested should we disclose and what should shouldn't be disclosed. Um, in my experience, I've been with the firm for eight years. There hasn't been an instance that I can recall where somebody didn't take our advice and either withheld information or, you know, redacted information that we said should be disclosed. So, it doesn't come in in my experience or anything that I've I've seen from other municipalities that we've handled. Buster, we haven't heard from you yet. What are your thoughts so far?

Okay. Well, I have another I have another carryover question. What do you got, Daniel? Um, now it doesn't mean that every for your request has to be brought to our board, correct? It's just the appeals. It's just the appeals. Correct. So, if we if it's just an appeal, if I'm not mistaken, first they got to go send the request into the coordinator or the clerk or however it is, and then they have x amount of days by the state to do it, whether they deny it or prove it. If they deny it, then that person can appeal it. Correct.

So that way then we can then tell the that person whoever sent in the appeal, well, it's got to go to our council at the next meeting. So that's when we'll figure we'll hear the outcoming appeal. And then if it is redacted information, then we can go into a close session for it or we don't put the red redacted information in on it and we just go by what we're given. Let me sparse that out. So, if there's an appeal, if there's not a designation and it goes to the council, but we're not asked to make an opinion on it, then you wouldn't be able to go into close session just to deliberate deliberate about the appeal.

No. If we if the redacted stuff had to be used, then it would be close session.

No, not without some sort of written legal opinion pertaining to that topic. Well, that's what I mean. I'm saying if it's just a regular there with no there's no redacted information. Let's say I foyed Shannon here and it got denied and I brought it in for an appeal. There's no redacted information and I I appealing it and then it comes to the board to appeal it and they determined oh well this is why we we denied it. you know, they it's it's seven people versus one for the accountability issue with what's going on right now. We pretty much all have a target on our back. And I wouldn't want to see one of us have a bigger target than another. And I'm sorry, April, that I say it like that, but I'm just I mean, I don't I don't think I think that's wrong of us to try to put anybody

I don't intend to relinquish my responsibilities for I'm speaking out of out of fear. I will do it if it's the right thing to do and nothing else will be a consideration. If the council decides that the head of the body should be the council, then so be it. But threats or anything else are not going to sway me. Oh, I wasn't. just want that to be known. I I wasn't threatening you just so you know.

No, but some foyas have been made in regards to um different letters and things where victim's names or stuff were redacted out in the instance that the appeal of that foyer happens in in an open session. I think what April maybe is speaking about is then do we unredact those names of injured parties things like that because now it is open session and people who were named who maybe weren't put out there in the public will now have that posted why wouldn't we just ask Mr. or our attorney why was this redacted and they can say it was redacted for these reasons. We say great and we leave it redacted.

It doesn't how often do we take our legal advice for this isn't about us. Let's take let's take our names out of this. This is a precedent setting moment for future councils. So you're this will be you know these things will be voted on by those individuals. So just just not sure I understand your point. Just bear that in mind. Um they would get to decide whether or not to redact it which and we have to look at the sustainability and the longevity of opening the village up to lawsuits not just right now with us but for the future of this village as well. So just bear that in mind.

I think that's that's a concern too. If let's say for instance we have a very religious individual that wants to sue us and we have one person that is handling the appeals and they say well if you don't grant my appeal I'm going to sue you. And if it's not someone strong willed in the future what's going to end up happening with that one person? Are they just going to say well now I'm going to appeal and I'm going to cost the village x number of thousands of dollars, then they're going to get sued by the other party. I feel like if it was redacted or should have been redacted, what I'm saying is they could they could appeal the fee. They could appeal whatever they want. Uh Shannon and then Thomas. I was just going to say I think we've already seen that happen. So Thomas,

I don't know why we think that the unredacted or the redacted part unredacted during the meeting. It's still being appealed. We haven't voted to So it would still be redacted during the public meeting. It's not like the public would have the unredacted version of it as we voted to do that. So last question. Thank you, Madam President. You had mentioned other communities uh designate a single individual. Could you I looked I couldn't find any that were just designated single individuals to to all their appeals. Do you know of any?

I mean, not off the top of my head. I could look and provide you an answer tomorrow, but uh I'm pretty sure Adica Township does. Um Oola Township, their foyer coordinator also is handled by different townships though versus home. I mean, I'm just answering on the spot. We have 37 municipalities, but I could look but I I know that it is

and to my knowledge there's nothing in the open meetings act or the foyer that says that you can't I think the whole argument again was the fact that the power was already there in the charter which which it has I mean, it's You understand why I'm confused though? Because Well, I I think that um I think a simple answer might be helpful to us. Is it your legal opinion that the office of president currently has this responsibility to review FOYA appeals? Just a yes or no answer, please, if you could. Yes.

Um you know what? Let's take a two-minute break. We've been getting a lot of interruptions. Maybe we just need to take a break for a moment. Um, we'll reconvene at 653.

Start the video stream.

If you'll please be seated. We're ready to Restart the meeting.

Okay. You were saying what was the question reminder? I had asked if your uh yes or no answer on if you believe the office of president currently holds the responsibility of the charter and I understand Mr. Sorry. What's that?

My last name is strip matter. So I hear all different ways as well. Um I it is inherently in there. Does it specifically say in the charter that the president is the foyer coordinator? But I think that it is granted by it and it's been done that way as far as I can remember. And this would just confirm that by spelling it out in a long resolution that the president does have that power. If the council wanted to change that, they also can, but that's what's before the board today. Okay. Yep.

One last understand. I think everybody wants to do the right thing. I just wonder why would we do it any different than everybody? Why would we do it any different than everybody? What would be the reason? Everybody else designates their president as head of legislative body with these rights that are inherent within that position. Why would we change that for us? That's not what everyone does. It isn't. I just did a quick Google search and the areas around us designated to the city councils. They don't designate it to a single office

and all of the surrounding those were my quick what looks like in this little corner of the world and the individual that's up Mr. Hunter I believe he went before Berkeley and Berkeley does the same thing so went before their entire city council. any idea as to their reasonings like why some municipalities choose one way and why some choose the other for expediency I would say but why you would appoint it to one person because I looked into this at one point I thought actually it's just

maybe it's just it's done different ways in different communities I'm not trying to advocate one way or the other it's just permissible. The city of Flint has the mayor do it. Um, so there's going to be examples both ways and there's going to be reasons why communities choose to do it one way or the other. So I I don't want to come off as advocating because that's not our role. What's our role is is to say what's legal, what's um what's the the boundaries so to speak. So um communities choose to do it differently for different reasons. One more item.

Thank you, Madam President. So, just so we're clear, the reason you believe that the president currently has this ability is this line. In so far as required by law and for all ceremonial purposes, the president shall be recognized as the executive head of the village. Correct. Okay. So, I want to drill down. Yes. In so far as as required by law, right? You said that. So, is that is that what you think gives the president the ability that they're the head of the public body. Well, if they're the head of public body and they have this ability, right? So then why why does our charter specify other things that the president can do? And why does and why does it say for instance

well this you're getting into I don't want to say semantics but the interpretation of it is that the president has his power. If you have a different interpretation of it then that is your interpretation. I'm trying to understand your interpretation. You're the that's what matters.

My interpretation is that the president can do this power from the as being the head of the public body by your guys's charter. So, in so far as required by law, I would say that it fits that definition because the the opens meetings act doesn't necessarily say that every single appeal has to go in front of the uh city council or township board. It can be designated and it's been designated previously and uh under the interpretation of the charter itself. You mean the the foyer? The foyer. So, I I I was pretty confident I read something that said if

if the uh If the the the body is doesn't I'll look that up in a second. So one other one other thing for you. So one of the lines in our charter is the village president shall exercise only such powers as this charter or council specifically confer upon him or her. Okay. Do you want to confer that power specifically on her or not? Well, I'm asking. So you said our charter says that this person the president is correct has this power correct? Okay. So we have the charter that says we council only give her the power of the president's power.

I think this is confirming that because it there it is open to different interpretations based on your skepticism. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't make any sense. You've already said that the president is the head of public. So this would not leave any question because I think that it's already inherently there. Obviously you are skeptical of it. If you want to grant it to somebody else that's the power of council to do so. This would just confirm that and clearly spell it out so there are no questions. So if council does nothing, the president is the head of the public body for voy purposes. Correct. All right. I'm not doing anything. That was easy. I vote no.

All right. Uh, clerk, please call the role. So, I have a question. So, if we vote yes for this or if we vote no for it, then it's the same answer. She's still Yeah, she's still the same thing. But don't forget the council can put things on the agenda. So, if we were to vote no, the president's not the head of the body, then the council could do, you know, let's come come out with some kind of idea. We want it to be the council, we want it to be a subcommittee, we want it to be whatever. And that's when we have that conversation, right? Well, I would think if we're voting no on this, it is voting no on this resolution. It's not um clearly there's some things that need to be tightened up

in our foyer procedures, but that should be, you know, whe

that was the Why do we have this as a line item for this meeting instead of at a general meeting? And why do we have items B, C, and D for in case this doesn't pass if we're not going to talk about them anyways? I think there is that possibility that we could I think that's a discussion we would have to have and that's what legal is here for.

So my understanding of how we're coming in is we were kind of going to flesh out that interpretation like whether or not we believed president was the head of the public body. Um, and if we if it was an affirmative vote, then we would uh then we' bypass DC essentially. If we voted no, then we would we would act as if um the council was the head of the public body at least to to manage these appeals right now and maybe have to have a more informed conversation later about designating, you know, if it was a committee or if you wanted to designate a different, you know, individuals as it. I I think what we were hoping was just to be safe that if we voted no that we would go through all the appeals today just as the public body uh because no if the village president's already said yes and the public and the rest of council's you know affirming these things we just wanted we wanted to be safe. I mean that's what this whole meeting was about today is make sure just be hopefully beyond reproach as far as doing everything right. Um again my interpretation the village attorney's interpretation that we were already doing things right. Um, as far as those things went. So, we didn't really even think it would be this much of a discussion. Uh, so

here we are. Here we are. If we're ready, clerk, please call the role. Wine Bunner, yes. No. Ky, yes. Wendell, absolutely not. Ryan, no. Cole, no. Brandon, yes. Motion denied.

Lisa, will you please read item B of new business? Consideration of council of foya appeal by Anna Madson dated February 23rd, 2026. Do I have a motion to introduce this item or a motion to consider this item? I'll make the motion. We have a motion by Ryan. Second. We have a second by Wein Bunner. Um Tim, will you introduce this item? Lisa, will you introduce this item?

So, appeal has come in through a foyer request for um it's in regards to a foyer that has to do with the communications foyer. There was a communications foyer that had come in in regards to specific um a specific request for people and a um a letter was drafted with a deposit and the um appeal is um going back and that they're appealing the price or the cost of the foyer. Can we see a copy of it?

And another question, is it normal to have an agenda without the items for us to look at? Okay. We have we're building up the plane in flight on this one because obviously we found out of the deadlines and all of that right when we were making it. So I all the stuff as well. So access if there's redacted information, if there's things like that.

Yeah, let's take a break. We'll resume at 710.

if everyone could take your seats. We're ready to resume. That was you. All right, we're back in session. Um, clerk, were we on item We were on item B, correct? Yes. Okay. And which packet should we be looking at here?

Let's look at number four, ethics. So this one was again this is a um a foyer request that was submitted um in December and um it was then um there was an extension letter that was sent and then there was a deposit sent and the deposit is attached on the um in the packet. Lisa, can you speak into your microphone, please?

Oh, I'm sorry. Um there was a deposit that was attached in the in in the in the back of the um the thing where it's called FOYA fee itemization form and it gives a detailed listing of the charges and um this is what is being contested or appealed. Do we have request similar?

So, let's be specific for the uh public that doesn't have access to these papers. On 113 2025, Kirk Garwood turned in a similar request and was not charged any fee according to the information I retained from a December FOYA. This is discriminatory to make records free for one resident and not another for the same request. Lisa, can you comment, please? I do not know anything about Kurt Garwood's um Voya request. I I did not look into this so um I cannot respond to that.

Furthermore, the hourly rate for search location and examination of records is $5744. However, the FOYA only allows the charge of the lowest paid employee capable of doing the search. The FOYA states, quote, "The public body shall not charge more than the hourly wage of its lowest paid employee capable of searching for, locating, and examining the public records in the particular instance, regardless of whether that person is available or who actually performs the labor." End quote. When I made a request in June of 2025, that hourly wage was $1648. December 3rd, 2025, it was $21.56. On February 4th, I was charged $27.23. Yet for this request, I am being charged $5744. This is not the lowest paid employee, and those arbitrary costs go against the FOYA. Could you comment?

Yes. So, the lowest cost again is for the employee capable of pulling the records. And so, um, there's only one employee that's capable of pulling somebody else's emails, and that is the rate of pay for that person. Also, the village of Holly is illegally charging for Z Victor Cat 3, VC3, which is an IT firm to quote, compile archived emails end quote. In the village's own invoice, it admits that contracted labor is quote only permitted if the public body does not employ a person capable of redacting the records. End quote. The foyer states, quote, "The public body shall not charge more than the hourly wage of its lowest paid employee capable of searching for, locating, and examining the public records." End quote. The lowest paid employee is not a contracted employee, but an office employee. Village employees are capable of this task because they have done so in the past. Lisa, can you comment? Yes. So, this particular FOYA request was asking for um emails from a employee that is no longer here. We do not have records of employees emails that are no longer here. VC3 is our IT company. They keep those in a database that we are we do not have access to. So, we have to ask I BC3, our IT company, for these records, and they charge $192.50 an hour to get these um records. However, per FOYA, we can only charge six times the rate of um the uh minimum wage, and that's what we're charging.

So, we can charge up to six times the rate of minimum wage. for um external agencies such as VC3 that do employee former employee email uh retroactive like finding them.

That was good words, huh? Okay. Finally, I am being charged attorney fees for redactions when the FOYA only allows contracted labor if the village of Holly does not employ someone capable of quote separating and deleting exempt information from non-exempt information. End quote. The village of Holly has multiple staff members who are capable of doing this. Once again, this is a charge that is discriminatory since I am the only resident who gets charged these fees. Lisa, can you comment on that?

Yes. So, the fees I believe that is being contested is for the Simon Figar and Parker and that's our attorney. And again, the um because the person that we had to get from VC3 is no longer here. We do not know what those conversations are. We don't have a person who knows if that's um u attorney client privilege or things that needed to be redacted because we don't know what the conversations were. So we gave the attorney those particular items

and what this accusation I am the only resident who gets charged with these fees. Is that an accurate statement that Mrs. Anna Matson made? There are other FOYA requests that we have been charged but there's nobody who's asked for in my tenure here. There's been nobody that has asked for um records from people who are no longer here.

Okay. For these reasons, I request that the fees associated with this request be waved completely, the inconsistencies in billing, the failure to apply the lowest paid employee standard, the selective imposition of attorney fees, and the targeted charges against one resident raise serious concerns about equal treatment and statutory compliance. I am asking that the village review this matter carefully and to treat all residents equally going forward. Transparency should not depend on who is asking. I look forward to your timely response in a resolution consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the foyer. Anna Matson, any further comments on this item, Lisa?

Um, the only thing that I want to make clear is that even though you may say I want I'm making a foyer request for ethics and if you're saying I'm just going to make this up. If you're saying you're asking a foyer request of ethics from Jim Cascella and maybe you're asking for another one of Daniel Wendell and now you're saying well I'm gonna say I'm making a foyer request from ethics. It's the exact same but now I'm changing the names and I'm putting in April Brandon and I'm putting in Tim Price. That is two separate different foyer requests. You may only change the names. However, there's a lot more communication that happens between the president and the village manager than maybe opposed to two council members.

Okay. Council discussion.

I think scope is um what Lisa is going with. I think that is um Absolutely something that has to be taken into consideration. Um BC3 their charges are not astronomical in different IT worlds. I don't see any crazy charges for this. I I feel like Lisa stated the formulas appropriately for the charges. I don't see an issue with asking for the charges for this to be paid for. Anyone else have a comment? Jim,

thank you, Madam President. Has has this been uh this item gone through um outside legal council as well? What do you mean outside? Not the village attorney's office. You mean you're saying has this gone through an attorney? Yes, this has gone through attorney. Anyone else? How similar of a request was the request? That's what I asked. I I did not go look and see. It's not that I don't have a record. I didn't go look and see if it was the same exact request

because I'm wondering if like that request already had a lot of information available inside of it that we didn't need to go look for again. But again, if I can speak um you that you're saying that they may not these charges are mostly for a past employee who wasn't here. Number one. Number two is and it was also asking for a someone who just came here in January of 25. Right. I agree with that. And I know like if it was like the last year versus like this one's like the last six years. Okay. So Tim, I would like to ask you, do you remember doing a foyer request for your emails from Mir Garwood?

I know that he So again, I believe it could be different names. Like I said, it could be the same request, but it could be different people and that changes the scope. Yes. that in the utilizing that company VC3 was kind of the biggest thing. VC3 would have been for the previous employee. And who was the employee being foyed that no longer worked here? Uh Jerry Walker. Okay.

Buster. I see no differ. Great. I'll entertain a motion to approve or deny this uh appeal. I will make a motion to deny this appeal. I believe that these are fair charges. Motion by Ky to deny the appeal. Oh, sorry. I'll second the motion. Motion by Cole to deny the appeal. Second by Wendell. Lisa, will you please call the role?

To deny. Correct. To deny. Yes. Yes. Wendle, yes. Ryan, yes. Cole, yes. Bunner, yes. Brandon, yes. Motion carried. Um, Lisa, which packet are we looking at next? Uh, the next one would be number five, communications. Okay, got it. Thank you. And we'll just do what we did last time. Entertain a motion to consider.

Oh, yeah. Thanks. I will entertain a motion to consider the consideration of council of FOYA appeal by Anna Matson dated February 23rd, 2026. Is that the one? Yes. This would be number five communications. I will make the motion to consider the appeal by Matson dated February 23rd 2026. I'll second it. We have a motion by Kyer. We have a second by Wine Burner.

All right. Um, dear clerk treasurer's office, I am requesting a cost appeal on my January 15, 2026 foyer request titled number five communications on the following grounds. On 1217, 2025, April Brandon turned in a near identical request and was not charged any fee. A further foyer request on January 15, 2026 confirmed this. My request was word for word the same as her request, but I changed the names. This is discriminatory to make records free for one resident and not for another. The same request. Lisa, can you comment?

Again, like I had said previously, as she stated, she changed the names. So again, her particular request has to do with a more voluminous amount of emails going through two people rather than just a few. So, if I remember right, my foyer request was for information from Councilman Ryan and Councilman Wendell. They both turned that into you. You forwarded it to me. It was not even the 15 minutes minimum work on your part. Correct. Correct.

And what time did it take you what amount of time did it take you to get the information to gather for Miss Matson's request? It's on the actual sheet that's attached. We have to them in 15 minute increments. So if they're 40 minute increments, I believe what is that? 10 hours. I'm sorry. Can you speak up, please? I'm sorry. There's 40 minute increments. It says So they're in 15 minute increments and there's 40 of them. So there's um four 15 minute increments in an hour. So that's 10 hours.

Okay. Okay. So, 10 hours. Okay. And were any redactions necessary or legal review? Yes. And that's down to the bottom here. Getting to the bottom where it says Simon Figger Parker. That's where the redactions. And that's because changing the names to Timothy Price and Apo Brandon brought up information that wasn't for public consumption and needed legal redaction. Correct. Thank you. also.

Four people instead of two people. Okay. Uh back to the letter. Furthermore,

Gotcha. Furthermore, the hourly rate for search, location, and examination of records is $5744. However, the FOYA only allows the charge of the lowest paid employee capable of doing the search. The FOYA states, quote, "The public body shall not charge more than the hourly wage of its lowest paid employee capable of searching for, locating, and examining the public records in the particular instance, regardless of whether that person is available or who actually performs the labor." End quote. When I made a request in June of 2025, the hourly wage was $1648. December 3rd, 2025, it was $21.56. On February 4th, I was charged $2723. Yet, for this request, I am being charged $5744. This is not the lowest paid employee, and those arbitrary costs go against the FOYA. Lisa, can you comment? Again, this was um emails that were requested of the village manager and nobody else has access to his emails except for himself. So, he had to pull all of these emails.

Okay. So, these are the same fees that were charged in the prior in January 22. That prior one we just ruled on. These are the same exact fees. There's not a change. that 5744 or the 1623 that I'm observing those fees stay the same right or not they didn't change the disc No. So the the 1648 we had a part-time person at that time and um that's was her that was her wage at that time. On July 1st we made her a full-time person, a union person union person. We do not have a part-time person any longer. So that's where that's where her wage comes in on the um 2156. Finally, IMB charged attorney fees for redaction when the FOYA only allows contracted labor if the village of Holly does not employ someone capable of quote separating and deleting exempt information from non-exempt information. End quote. This village of Holly has multiple staff members who are capable of doing this. Once again, this is a charge that is discriminatory since I am the only resident who gets charged these fees. Lisa, can you comment?

So again, this is something that has to be looked at by the people who give the actual information to me. So again, it was the village manager and the um and the council members. So it the redaction fee is based on whether it went to through them or whether it went through the attorney. Can you comment on that final accusation of Anna Matson being the only resident who gets charged these fees?

Again, nobody else has asked for these kind of voluminous records, so I can't really comment on that because I don't have anything to compare it to. For these reasons, I request that the fees associated with this request be waved completely. The inconsistencies in billing, the failure to apply, the lowest paid employee standard, the selective imposition of attorney fees, and the targeted charges against one resident raise serious concerns about equal treatment and statutory compliance. I am asking that the village review this matter carefully and to treat all residents equally going forward. Transparency should not depend on who is asking. I look forward to your timely response and a resolution consistent with both the letter and the spirit of Foya Anna Matson. So council discussion

um the 10 hours for the labor cost is that just for him getting all his stuff or is that for all the council members as well? That's just for Tim looking for his emails. To clarify, you can't charge for council member labor. No. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. And to clarify, this council gets paid $700 a year and it is not an employee wage. And that is why that doesn't count in with uh we don't get to factor in the lowest paid wage when we do stuff for foyas. We do that on our own free time. The residents don't get charged. Council, any further discussion? The motion was to consider the appeal. So, as the motion is stated, it would be to approve her appeal. Clerk, please call the role. Ky, no. Wend. No. Ryan,

I still think the 10 hours about it. So, yes. Cole, no. Wine Bunner. No. Has no Brandon? Yes. Motion carried. In an instance like this, when we have a vote like Mr. Ryan's, that's kind of an accusation, if I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that our village manager and our village clerk are lying about their time spent conducting their business. I personally believe 10 hours is excessive for that information. Would you like to file an ethics complaint?

No, I just that's just my opinion on it. Lisa, can you please read the next item of business? Consideration of council of foya appeal by Joshua Hunter dated March 4th, 2026. Do we have a motion to consider item D? This would be to approve the appeal by Joshua Hunter. Do we have a motion to consider? I'll make the motion to consider the FOYA approval on March 4th, 2026 by Joshua Hunter. We have a motion by Wendell.

I'll second it. We have a second by Wine Brener. So that motion is Could you repeat that, Mr. Wendle? I don't think it was Did I Maybe I misread it when I read it then because it doesn't say this is I think you said approve the appeal. I Yeah, I think I did say it wrong. I think the spirit is the same considering the appeal would be to approve it. So, just keep keep in mind that motion made is to approve the appeal. I'll re retract my Okay, we're we're good. We just need to make sure we know what how we're voting. No, no. I just This is all confusing. So, that's okay.

This one's not broken up as nicely as Miss Matson's. Dear Foya coordinator, in accordance with the Michigan Freedom of Act, Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231, I'm formerly requesting the following information which I believe is used by in the possession of or under control of your governmental public body. The following records as directly referenced or implied by Michael J. Gilner of Simon Figura and Parker PLC in his quote response to Foya appeal end quote dated March 4th, 2026. Specifically, his statement was that he was acting quote on behalf and under the authority of President April Brandon end quote. One all records in which village President April Brandon authorized, directed, instructed, approved, or otherwise granted authority to Michael J. Hilner to issue the FOYA appeal determination dated March 4th, 2026. This request is limited to records that document or reflect the specific authority Mr. Gildner referenced in his letter to all records that the village cited or relied upon to conclude that the village president is the quote head of the public body end quote for purposes of FOYA appeal determinations under MCL 15.240. This request is limited to the legal basis necessary to support the authority claimed in Mr. Gilner's letter. Three, all records that the village cited or relied upon to conclude that the village president may delegate Foya appeal determination authority to any individual, including Mr. Gilner. This request is limited to the legal basis necessary to support the delegation of authority claimed in Mr. Gilner's letter. This request is limited solely to records necessary to substantiate the authority claimed in Mr. Gilner's March 4th, 2026 letter and does not seek any re any records

unrelated to that specific claim in bold. If no such records exist, please provide written certification for each requested item above pursuant to MCL 15.2355B, 2355B including notice of my right to appeal and bold MCL 15.235 permits five business days to respond to this request. If a notice is issued extending the period for a response, please provide a specific explanation of the reason for the extension as required by MCL 15.2357. If there is any cost of locating and copying the information, please provide me with an itemized written fee estimate in accordance with MCL 15.234 before incurring any charges. Please note that under MCL 15.2343, 2343. The village must specifically identify how the nature of this request would result in unreasonably high costs before assessing any fee for search, examination, review, or redaction. I also request the release of all non-exempt portions of any record containing both exempt and non-exempt information in accordance with MCL 15.244. Your prompt attention is appreciated. Sincerely, Joshua Hunter of Berkeley, Michigan. I won't read his address, although it is here. I don't feel that that's fair to publicly announce other people's addresses. I just feel that that's rather invasive.

I guess if you want it, you can foy it. I I don't really know. This is this is new for me. Um the statement sent in response said, "Dear Mr. Hunter, please be advised that the village of Holly received and reviewed your recent Freedom of Information Act request dated February 14th, 2026. Specifically, you requested the following documents from the village. Quote, "The current Holly village attorneys executed and filed oath of office held by the village clerk per the village charter." End quote. There are no records responsive to your request. Per village council, the village charter does not require an oath of office to be taken by the village attorney. Article 4.8 oath and bond of office applies to village officers. The village attorney is not considered an officer. 4.8 oath and bond of office. A every officer elected or appointed before entering upon the duties of his or her office shall take the oath of office prescribed by section two of article 16 of the constitution of the state and shall file the same with the clerk treasurer together with any bond which he she may be required by this charter or by the council to give. The oath and bond of the clerk treasurer shall be filed with and kept by the village manager. In the event you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to submit a written appeal under 15.240 or 15.240A to the village of Holly that specifically states the word quote appeal end quote and identifies the reason or reasons for reversal of this denial. In addition, you may also seek judicial review of this denial pursuant to MCL 152.0 including the right to receive attorneys fees and damages as provided in MCL 15.240.

If after judicial review, the circuit court determines the public body has not complied with this section and orders disclosure of all or a portion of a public record. Sincerely, Asa Bone. Here we have his original request. I think dear Mr. Hunter, please be advised. Oh, wait. I think I just have the same paper twice. No, that's another letter.

Please be advised that the village of Holly received and reviewed your recent foyer request dated February 19th, 2026. Specifically, you requested the following documents from the village. Quote, all existing email communications since sent or received since February 14th, 2026 that concern a reference one, the village attorney's oath of office. two, whether the village attorney is considered an quote officer and quote the village, or three, my February 14th, 2026 foyer request regarding the village attorney's oath and follow-up emails inquiring about the village attorney's officer status. This request is only limited to such communications among village staff, village officers, or the vill's contracted law firm. These staff and officers include, but are not limited to, members of the village council, the village manager, the village clerk, the deputy finance officer, and the village attorney." end quote. The only records in the village possession that are responsive to this request are communications that are exempt from disclosure because they are subject to the attorney client privilege. Accordingly, your request is denied because no discoverable public records responsive to it exist. See MCL 15.243D. In the event you are not satisfied with this request, you have the right to submit a written appeal under 15.24. 240 or 15.240A to the village of Holly that specifically states the word quote appeal end quote and identifies the reason or reasons for reversal of this denial. In addition, you may also seek judicial review of this denial pursuant to MCL 15.240, including the right to receive attorney fees and damages as provided in MCL 15.240. If after judicial reveal, the circuit court determines that the public body has not complied with the section and orders disclosure of all or a portion of public record. Sincerely, Lisa Bone.

Lisa, any comments, please?

Um, so this one, um, I did confer with Mike Gilder on and, um, there was no records. So, again, I can't fulfill a Foy, I can't f employ that has no records and that's why this was the letter was sent stating that there was no records. Mr. Hunter then wanted the emails between um the attorney um stating you know that there were no records but again that's client according to Mr. with client attorney privilege. So there was nothing to give and he's still appealing. Council questions

comment. Yes. Thank you, madam president. So I did look up um if our attorney is an officer and we have a different attorney here. So I I think we don't have one attorney. We have a firm and I don't know how you would give a oath to a firm. That's so that doesn't a great point. I believe I I have heard that some municipalities do have their attorneys swear in an oath of office. However, I think the attorneys have their own higher authority that they answer to. Am I correct in that? Can you tell us Can you tell us what that authority is, please? Just the Michigan State Bar. just the okay

emphasis on just the if you were if if attorneys were to represent a municipality in a way that were dishonest because really that's what an oath of office is about is honesty or dishonesty and if an attorney were to represent himself dishonestly dishonestly while representing a municipality what what would happen I would have to cancel for ethics violations to the state bar in all of our municipalities had taken office and the original attorney was so over a long period of time that our partner as

and the municipality would be able to fire the firm, fire the attorney, whatever. Right. So, I I don't see a need to change our stance on having an attorney be a sworn an officer. And as far as the rest goes, council comments, any arguments about is there any charge to this individual yet? Yeah, there's nothing to charge. Council, if there's nothing else, the current motion is to approve the appeal. Clerk, please call the role. Wendell, no. Ryan, no. No. Wine Bunner.

No. Costa. No. No. Brandon, no. Motion denied.

Lisa, will you please read item E of new business? Consideration of village council of submission of a request for quotes for FOYA coordinator support. Tim, do you want to introduce this item? me. Oh, sorry. Um, council, do I have a motion to consider? I'll make the motion to consider submissions of request for quotes for for coordinator support. We have a motion by Wendell. I'll second. We have support from Wein Bunner. Tim, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam President. Um, Mr. Hopper came up earlier and he was talking about there has to be a better way and a better process moving forward on this stuff. That's exactly what I want to talk about tonight with this and like how we move forward. Um this item that is a request for proposals for foyer coordinator services. Um a lot of this stem from um you know Lisa coming to me you know like hey I mean we are very small office. We have a you know we have to deal with a lot and Lisa and Tessa who do the the primary work in the foyer are drowning and it's really hard when you're drowning to be handed like additional foyer requests such and so we just we wanted to into this as an an option and maybe it could reduce costs for residents too rather than me having to look through 10,000 emails in order and redact them and do that having an outside service that could maybe provide this for us. This is um a request for proposals. We're not committing to any kind of fixed cost right now. You have an RFP uh in front of you um that we would uh we would accept these and it would inform us for next budget season. the question previously about whether or not it was uh would it be in this budget or next budget? It would be in the next budget. Um it would really just so we can see what's out there for services that we might be able to utilize in order to um uh to better do it. So what I have written down here is as council is aware administration of freedom of information act requires uh or carries strict statutory timelines and compliance requirements under Michigan law. Over time, the volume and complexity of requests have increased, requiring a greater level of administrative coordination, legal awareness, and documentation to ensure we remain fully compliant and responsive. In order to maintain a high standard of service and reduce the risk of the village, staff is recommending that we solicit proposals for contracted for coordinator support. This approach will allow us to supplement internal capacity with specialized expertise, ensure timely processing of requests and appeals, and provide additional consistency in our FOYA procedures. Is my time up?

Yes. Oh, okay. Uh, issuing an RFP will allow the village to evaluate qualified firms or individuals, compare costs and service options, and ultimately select the best fit for operational needs. This course of action was specifically suggested by the attorney general when we asked about this issue, specific issue to her. At this time, staff is requesting council's authorization to proceed with issuing the RFP. Staff uh staff's recommendation is that we approve this request. Council discussion. Yes, I know. How many girls do we have? We have three. Could we potentially use one of them?

They are. So, they are uh union employees. So, we'd have to adjust their union contract in order to fulfill additional requirements or additional roles to them. Um Lisa and Tessa are two nonun um personnel that are in the office and myself obviously.

Good question. I don't think it hurts soliciting to find out what's out there and how much it could cost. I The more information we have, the better. I don't have any issues with soliciting bids and finding out what it costs, what are the options, and that for next year. We're not committing anything out of this year. We're not taking money out of a pot that's been spent. I'm okay with that.

Chris and I spoke earlier about this too a little bit. Again, Chris just came on. Mike and I have spoken about this, but one of his recommendations was maybe take the term out of it. Um, and then just so it's not limiting us. So, it could be case by case. It could be when needed and we could kind of leave that a little bit more vague and specify that within the contract rather than have it be part of the RFP. I like that.

I like information. So, that'd be nice.

Again, it's not committing us to anything, but to see what options are out there. I know that other communities have uh outside uh agencies that will do this. They have, you know, there's software, there's all kinds of other things out there. And this will just allow um allow us to have some experts in the field. Um, you know, I know that we've gone on to our list serves and asked these questions before, you know, the managers or the um clerk clerk list serve, but this will allow us to get like real specific numbers that we can inform our budget season. Um, and we would also be able to hopefully make it more predictable for residents that are submitting requests rather than it having to be, you know, based on my wages or someone else's. We already have a service. We already know what that service would cost um for a certain amount of hours. So, based upon the request uh the scope of the size we already know what that hourly rate would be so it's more about this before the next comes up so as I have written it I think it was April 30th I have it when it would be returned and that would be so that we could have the information to prepare for our budget work our bud budget discussions uh and approval

when were our budget workshops again it would be after this date as far as our workshops but we would have They are throughout April. There are two Saturdays. April. I would have to look up. Yeah, I think it's like the second and third Saturday if I remember right. April. Yeah. And as we get this information, can we also have That's what he just said. The job descriptions for the ladies in the office so we can kind of compare like what that looks like. Not during the discussion, but before. Yeah. Tim, could you please explain that to uh No, I I I get what he's saying. We'll have it for like the actual budget discussions, but we wouldn't be able to talk about our budget workshop, we won't have it yet.

So my concern is like we even spend the time looking into this if we don't know what we have in our budget to spend on this. And again, the idea would be that um it if if I mean if it would be cost prohibitive, if it would be, you know, very expensive, then you know, it wouldn't be something to look at. But if it's something that will eventually save not only it would allow a staff it would augment staff uh time to do this but also be hopefully cheaper for residents that are submitting foyer requests. You know that would be the idea that it would reduce cost for them and for us over time but we don't know until we get this information the potentially if we found a place they would have access to your email so they would actually be cheaper than you retrieving your own emails.

Yeah. And I again a lot of this is theoretical until we see responses back what they do. I mean a lot of these are come from like their parallegals or they come from people with uh legal experience. Um we have to see what's out there because we haven't got an official quote from anyone. It's a very specialized uh specialized field. Okay. So I know we can't use the girls, but I know it say

about 60% of our foyers are the police already and they're doing that. Um I I would fight pretty adamantly against adding to my department heads uh like the idea is they're already overtasked. I mean uh Chief Nar, Chief Watson and Danny are like you know they are doing the job of four or five people already and so I would hate to add anything more and I'm not I don't think that would be much less expensive for us. Is that really what you want your chief of police doing? Well his staff is Yeah. M president. Yes.

So, uh, manager Price did mention some software. I I did look up some software options and there is basically CRM software for managing foyers and, uh, starts like five grand a year. So, I brought that to Lisa. Lisa's like, well, it's not so much the management. It actually is going through 20 years of boxes. One of the people can't find it, then Lisa has to try to go find it. So, it's, you might hear one foy, it's not that big a deal, but looking for tons of records. It turns out it's not the actual managing of it. So that's something that could be helpful for the village one day. We're just not there yet.

We're looking at digit digitization so we can get past some of these hurdles. I mean that one of the problems if you're going back anything past 2018 and we're in paper boxes looking for things. Yeah. And the record retention was a great at the village. That's another conversation. But uh yeah, I think it's information, right? Where it's not just C and search, you know what I mean? Like yeah, there's no F4 in that back room, unfortunately.

Well, I mean, as a lofty goal, digitalization is thousand% what we should hope for. We're just money also. Yeah. Now, personally, I don't think we should be spending any money until we get uh uh bond situations and presidents have some more understanding about that. We've been working on that for months now and I hope next month we'll have some changes planning commission. No, the finance. No, the finance. That's right. Yeah, we've waiting on Mr. Gilder so for some uh guidance on a couple things and hopefully we'll have Okay. Agreed. But it's good to get some ideas of what this potentially could cost.

Yeah, we're not locking ourselves into nothing with this. Correct. No, no, just looking. And it it specifically states there is no obligations to submit requests. Just again see what service are out there. Clerk, please call the role. Brian, no. Cole, yes. Bunner, yes. No. Wendle, yes. Brandon, yes. Motion carried.

We will now adjourn the March Oh, you know what? Yeah, we'll now adjourn the March 23rd special meeting of the village council. The next regular council meeting will be April 14th. But we do have a budget workshop on April 11th.