shiawasseecounty.net

Agenda
Finance & Administration
March 19, 2007
4:00 p.m.


1. Call to Order.

2. Call to the Public.

3. County of Shiawassee – City of Corunna DDA Update, Margaret McAvoy.

4. BS&A and Manatron software discussion.

5. Soil Erosion Fee Options, Randy Colbry, Prosecuting Attorney

6. Consider approving Resolution #07-03-05 the MERS employee contribution rate of 1.76% effective January 1, 2007 for the Health Clerical Division 16; amending Resolution #06-09-25.

7. Consider approving Budget Adjustment #07-03.

8. Consider authorizing the County Administrator to sign the certification of the County-Wide Cost Allocation Plan as prepared by MAXIMUS, Inc.

9. Consider approving the agreement between Shiawassee County 35th Circuit Trial Court and MAXIMUS, Inc. for preparation of the Departmental Cost Allocation Plan for use in 2007 not to exceed $5,000.00 and authorize the County Administrator to sign the agreement.

10. Shiawassee County Drain Commissioner’s Bond renewal.

11. Other Agenda Items.

12. Call to the Public.

13. Adjournment.

Someone should read the AG letter to the commissioners at the meeting. That pretty much tells the whole story and shows no basis for any kind of suit. I doubt many of the commissioners have even read the AG letter for they are usually puppets of the Administrator and Prosecutor.

I am glad you didn't speak of the Commissioner's in absolutes, because there are at least a couple who know quite a bit and who have read the AG letter and who are anything BUT puppets for the Administrator or Prosecutor.

'The Finance Committee is Cmrs Johnson, Pavlica and Fuja. We know the first one is not a puppet and I think it is safe to say the last one led the charge to prosecute. The middle one? hmm Don't recall exactly what his position was.

I'm thinking somebody likely sent ALL cmrs a hardcopy of the AG decision. I emailed to all except Van Pelt (no email address for him).

The three on the Finance Committee have email addresses. If they have not read it, then it is most certainly because they have chosen to NOT know what it has to say.

It is a long letter and it would take more than one person reading to get it read with the time limits for each person's public comments.

I believe Johnson and Stewart to be open minded but ALL the rest are very suspect and I know at least 3 or 4 are VERY suspect.

In response to Kaylor, there is no doubt whatsoever on Pavlica he was filmed (I know someone who has the videotape) badmouthing Holzhausen in a Perry meeting telling how he pocketed soil erosion fees from the county with no approval from anyone. When confronted with this Pavlica denied saying it but did not realize it was all caught on videotape since it was on a local tv station. Fuja has been caught also on audio tape making false remarks and then denying he ever said them. (I know someone who has the tape)

Maybe someone could just read the most important points of the AG letter. My thoughts were about the point were it says that the clerk, treasurer, and board members could be charged if the drain commissioners were charged. With this (reasoning the board of commissioners would have to file a suit against themselves also!!

vanpelt@owosso.k12.mi.us

THX KEVIN.....SENT IT

1. Clearly this was "duties" above the duties of a Drain Cmr and, as such, the Drain Cmr SHOULD BE COMPENSATED ABOVE THE SALARY OF A DRAIN CMR for it.
Actually, I think the county took over that fund with considerable compensation still due Mr Holzhausen. I think they still owe him money. I think the county 'stole' that money, in effect. jmho Maybe Mr Holzhausen needs to submit a final voucher, if he hasn't already.
2. The Treasurer had full control of the money in the fund
Maybe they should go after the treasurer for not taking very good care of our money. How many times has this county "lost" our money?
3. The county should not be able to get away with taking the money for those permits/waivers without paying for the services of the person who did the inspections.
4. It is my understanding they now charge more for these permits and waivers and the people doing the inspections get paid for doing them.

How much you wanna bet that's closed session?

Christine,
Even if it's a "closed session" can't someone ask for the minutes of this meeting under the FOIA?
Just wondering

No, the minutes for the closed session do not have to be released to the public. They are to be held for one year and then destroyed. Kaylor or Tina can correct me if I'm wrong on that ... I believe this was discussed at length in the FOIA/OMA meeting and Kaylor also may have communicated with the County Clerk on this issue.

However a citizen can file a lawsuit to make the county prove that the closed session was legitimate. If the closed session was not legit then the minutes can be made public. (and the participants held accountable under the OMA) But, who wants to spend their personal time & money on that?

It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Colbry asked for a closed meeting. It doesn't say anything about that on the agenda. Cmr Johnson correctly questioned going into a closed session before and Colbry dropped the request.

There is nothing that would make this issue a permissible reason for holding a closed session. If he wants to talk about filing a civil suit, he has to do that in a public meeting. The Open Meetings Act refers to "specific pending" litigation, not the possibility of a lawsuit.

If he asks for a closed session and none of the cmrs are quick enough to question...I think anyone (even from the audience) can call for a "point of order" and somebody will have to look up the law and explain how it fits.

Here's the law:

MCL 15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes.
Sec. 8.

A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:

(e) To consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body.

Close................minutes of a closed session can only be opened by court order

correct on that part

It's possible that they would have a legit reason for a closed session though. For example, if they decided to sue Bernie for the full amount, they wouldn't want Bernie to know that they would be willing to accept $.20 on the dollar as a settlement. That would have a detrimental financial effect because then Bernie's attorney knows up front what they'll settle on.

But we don't even know what they'll be talking about. I'm just suspicious that if Colbry wants to talk about something regarding soil erosion, he's going to want to do it in the shadows.

specific pending litigation......there is no litigation pending, specific or otherwise

lit·i·gate /ˈlɪtɪˌgeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lit-i-geyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -gat·ed, -gat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to make the subject of a lawsuit; contest at law.
2. Archaic. to dispute (a point, assertion, etc.).
–verb (used without object)
3. to carry on a lawsuit.

no lawsuit...........yet