The first action item on the agenda was to consider a resolution that would authorize the scheduling of three public hearings regarding the consideration of a Community Mental Health (CMH) Authority in Ottawa County.

The Board of Commissioners had asked County Administrator Patrick Waterman and his team to report on their strategy to minimize financial risk to taxpayer dollars, retain quality CMH employees, and ensure continuation of quality mental health services, including a timeline for the implementation of these strategies. Waterman gave a presentation based on his findings and analysis and then recommended the Board take the next steps of setting the hearings to continue the process.

CMH Executive Director Dr. Michael Brashears said that given the findings in the report and also the fact that the County can’t use general funds to supplement the CMH department, he was in agreement that Authority status should be sought. He’d come up with a framework that would allow the County and CMH to work together for years, if they were to pursue Authority status.

• Commissioner Allison Miedema was open to CMH becoming an Authority at some point, but said the proposal didn’t seem to warrant a “fire alarm approach”—especially since they’re dealing with the county’s most vulnerable families.

• Commissioner Jacob Bonnema supported CMH transitioning to an Authority incrementally. He thought the solution was simple: the money should follow the patient; the benefit follows the need.

• Commissioner Joe Moss agreed, saying the Board shouldn’t spend its time on a problem MDHHS is creating. Moss added he had originally planned to support moving forward but realized the Board is better positioned with CMH as a department. He thought time, efforts, and energy should be spent advocating for much needed changes rather than “reconfiguring everything to fix the State’s problem.”

• Commissioner Jordan Jorritsma disagreed. He said that if CMH became an Authority the county would be shielded from the deficit, giving the County—which has some of the lowest rates in the region—more ability to raise rates.

• Commissioner John Teeples didn’t think this was a State problem, but the County’s problem caused by the State. He thought by not moving the proposal forward, the Board was putting consumers at great risk.

• Commissioner Sylvia Rhodea talked about the State’s current PIHP restructuring, and that the pressures on CMH wouldn’t change were it to become an Authority. She mentioned how the 2024 audit showed the County had $54 million in funds to meet obligations, and that it’s hard to “square the narratives” of that surplus and CMH’s “emergency” need. Rhodea recommended the County reduce administration charges to CMH and bear the brunt with the General Fund surplus.

• Chair Josh Brugger thought the state and federal government need to pick up the cost for what they are mandating; it should not fall on the Ottawa County taxpayers. He thought creating an Authority would tell the State that it is responsible to cover the services it is requiring.

• Miedema asked for a definition to be provided of a county CMHSP model and Authority in order to provide clarity as to why they were both developed in the first place.

• Teeples pointed out that the Authority status wouldn’t go into effect for one year and that the Board can abort the proposal at any time. He seemed to misunderstand what Rhodea said about available funds and said to use the $54 million to pay for entitlements would be against the law.

• Rhodea countered that though the proposal is for a year out, an early request date was being considered. She also reiterated that she’d suggested the unrestricted funds be used for administration costs, not Medicaid (entitlement) services.

The Board agreed on the following dates for the public hearing:

Monday, January 19, 6 pm: Spring Lake Community Center.
Tuesday, January 20, 6 pm: Georgetown Library.
Thursday, February 6, 6 pm: Public Health, Main Conference Room, James St, Holland.

The motion to pass the resolution and set the three public hearing dates passed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Josh Brugger, Phil Kuyers, John Teeples, Jordan Jorritsma, Jim Barry, and Jacob Bonnema.

Those voting no: Commissioners Joe Moss, Allison Miedema, Kendra Wenzel, Sylvia Rhodea, and Doug Zylstra.

The next Action Item was to consider the amended Board Rules. Chair Josh Brugger had gone through the 2025 Board Rules (page 50 of the Agenda Packet) and made edits throughout the twenty-page document. Some edits were mere adjustments for clarification or efficiency and were accepted or tweaked with little hesitation. Other changes brought on discussion and debate. Those are listed below.

The Chair’s edit: the change of Section 16 from requiring a 3/5ths majority (following Robert’s Rules) to a simple majority to pass.

• Moss recommended continuing to follow Robert’s Rules, which enhances debate and encourages discussion. Miedema, Zylstra, and Wenzel agreed.

• Brugger explained, pointing at himself, that there are Board members who tend to pontificate longer than needed and that the Board needs to focus on the business of the County. Lowering the requirement to a simple majority would give members more opportunity to end the debate and move on to the vote, “because we are elected. Our voice is our vote.”

• Rhodea commented that hearing Brugger’s reasons for the edit made her want even more to agree with Commissioners Moss and Miedema.

The motion to revert to following Robert’s Rules failed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Allison Miedema, Kendra Wenzel, Sylvia Rhodea, Joe Moss, and Doug Zylstra.

Those voting no: Commissioners Jacob Bonnema, Jordan Jorritsma, John Teeples, Jim Barry, Phil Kuyers, and Josh Brugger.

Miedema noted that those who voted against returning to Robert’s Rules are those who consider themselves to be in the Board majority, and that it should be their prerogative to want to protect the Board minority—and all voices—to represent constituents throughout our entire county.

The Chair’s edit: in the second sentence, the addition of: “the Board shall respect the authority of the elected and appointed officials to set the policies of their respective offices or departments.”

• Zylstra said that “shall respect the authority” takes away the Board’s oversight.

• Rhodea pointed out that the Board does have oversight over appointed officials in the whole legal structure of the county.

• Teeples said he thought commissioners were reading too much into the sentence.

• Brugger didn’t think the language hamstrings the Board. He looked at it as assisting and focusing commissioners to what their job is—the purse strings.

• Moss abruptly disagreed, saying that in their training it was made clear the Board’s role is not just purse strings, but oversight and policy. When Brugger tried to brush it off that he had oversimplified, Moss continued. “But that’s your argument, that we should pass this because we don’t have oversight and we aren’t setting policy, we’re just doing purse strings. I think we should remove this because it directly conflicts with the law.”

• Jorritsma said he didn’t think the statement limited the Board from having oversight, agreeing that the Board does indeed have oversight.

The first motion to remove the entire sentence failed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Sylvia Rhodea, Doug Zylstra, Kendra Wenzel, Allison Miedema, and Joe Moss.

Those voting no: Commissioners John Teeples, Jacob Bonnema, Jordan Jorritsma, Phil Kuyers, Jim Barry, and Josh Brugger.

The second motion to remove the last portion of the sentence passed unanimously.

The Chair’s edit: the replacement of the last two sentences about an exception for indemnification with “actions are determined to be outside the scope of his or
her authority by a 2/3rds vote by the Commission.”

• Interim Counsel Doug Van Essen recommended adding the phrase “except indemnification of a judgement may be denied if a commissioner’s actions are determined to be outside the scope outside the scope of his or her authority by a 2/3 vote of the Commission.”

• Teeples disagreed. He thought it shouldn’t be left to a jury whether a commissioner exceeded his authority. The Board needs to decide whether to pay a commissioner’s defense and damages.

• Miedema agreed with Van Essen, saying his addition provides clarity and aligns with the Constitution. She said neglecting how courts are intended to operate would be taking away a fundamental American right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

• Rhodea gave an example of an issue not going to a judgement and a settlement coming to the Board for approval. A simple majority could agree to a “crazy high settlement,” but because those commissioners don’t like a person, they could say they’re not going to pay for it. As the Board is a political body, she advised protections and standards be in place in a way that’s fair.

• Teeples suggested that to prevent decisions from becoming political, the majority requirement be raised to 75%.

The motion to add Counsel’s recommendation passed unanimously.

The Chair’s edit: the addition of nine rules of conduct, including a paragraph of consequences for violations.

• Miedema didn’t believe a code was needed and asked to strike the entire addition.

• Zylstra added that constituents already had elected them to serve in a responsible way, and that the Code listed stiff penalties for vague language.

• Jorritsma thought the consequences could be removed because they already were covered with violation to the Code of Ethics.

• Rhodea questioned whether commissioners should spend time parenting each other or tending to the business of the County, adding that she follows her own internal and God-given standards of ethics and morality. She and Miedema thought the Code might be one more thing to elicit scrutiny and complaints from the public.

• Teeples thought the Code would send a message to the public of what commissioners expect of themselves.

• Barry said he’s received emails from the public wanting to know that there are guard rails in place for commissioners.

The motion to strike the entire Code of Conduct failed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Allison Miedema, Joe Moss, Sylvia Rhodea, Doug Zylstra, and Kendra Wenzel.

Those voting no: Commissioners Jordan Jorritsma, Jim Barry, Phil Kuyers, Jacob Bonnema, John Teeples, and Josh Brugger.

The motion to remove the consequences from the Code of Conduct passed unanimously.

The Chair’s edit: regarding a commissioner’s request to remove an item from a consent resolution, the Chair recommended requiring a majority vote to remove items from the consent agenda.

• Rhodea called the edit a “horrendous change,” saying it shuts down the voices of the minority and effectively eliminates debate and discussion.

• By calling it a “consent” resolution, Zylstra wondered if it shouldn’t mean that all commissioners are consenting.

• Discussion ensued about what a consent agenda is according to Robert’s Rules.

The motion to withdraw the edit passed unanimously.

The motion to pass the amended Board Rules for 2026 passed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners John Teeples, Doug Zylstra, Jim Barry, Joe Moss, Jordan Jorritsma, Jacob Bonnema, Kendra Wenzel, Phil Kuyers, and Josh Brugger.

Those voting no: Commissioner Allison Miedema.

The Chair had assigned each commissioner to a committee. The assignments were as follows:

• Brugger: Finance & Administration and Planning & Policy
• Teeples: Finance & Administration and Planning & Policy
• Jorritsma: Finance & Administration and Planning & Policy
• Kuyers: Finance & Administration and Planning & Policy
• Barry: Finance & Administration and Planning & Policy
• Bonnema: Finance & Administration and Planning & Policy
• Zylstra: Finance & Administration
• Rhodea: Finance & Administration
• Miedema: Planning & Policy
• Wenzel: Planning & Policy
• Moss: Appointment & Alignment

• Miedema spoke about allowing the whole Board on each committee, saying it would help efficiency by likely avoiding having future items pulled off the Consent Resolutions.

• Zylstra agreed, saying committees of the whole are most effective.

• Brugger explained that in 2023 there were committees as a whole and in 2024 there were five members. He reasoned that having seven members on each might be the “sweet spot.” He added Moss to the Appointment and Alignment committee to make sure each commissioner had at least one assignment.

• Miedema asked Brugger to share why he had chosen to leave Moss off Finance & Administration and Planning & Policy. Brugger said he thought Moss was better suited for Appointment and Alignment. Miedema pressed, asking again why, out of everyone on the commission, he’d left Moss off out of the two main committees. “I think I’ve answered it well enough for today,” Brugger said.

The motion to approve Chair Brugger’s appointments to community boards, commissions, authorities, and councils passed. Additional appointments to the Alignment committee with Moss were not readily available for this report.

The Board agreed to change the times of the committee meetings:

Finance & Administration will meet at 9:30 and Planning & Policy at 10:30.

January 13, 2026 Ottawa County Board of Commissioners meeting.

Ottawa County Board of Commissioners
Regular Meeting
January 13, 2026

Ottawa County Administration Building
12220 Fillmore Street
West Olive, MI 49460