Commissioner Allison Miedema moved to amend the agenda to allow for discussion on the “Farms are the Tapas” event which would be held September 25. Chair John Teeples did not support making motions to change the agenda and suggested she share her concerns during the commissioner comment time. Miedema explained she’d only recently obtained the information and that it should have Board discussion since the issue would relate to a County policy.

The motion failed.

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

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

The commissioners readily agreed on a few edits to the Administrator agreement, including adding that the creation of the strategic plan would be “in collaboration with the Board of Commissioners” and stating that decisions would be made with the whole Board rather than just between the Chair and the Administrator.

The suggested change that was not as easily agreed upon was made by Commissioner Joe Moss. He asked that a line be added to the contract which would read, “Champions colorblind equality in all facets of the role and committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect.”

• Chair Teeples responded that he thought words like “all facets of the role” would be too broad. “It sets up the possibility that someone can claim that some vendor who may have an old website somewhere that still has some DEI language in it is going to come back and haunt Patrick because he doesn’t know about it…”

• Moss replied that the addition would be more about the Administrator’s duties than about a vendor and would provide “crystal clarity from the top down that the Board is looking for colorblind equality—which is the law.” Everybody would know which direction the County is going.

• Barry said he would support a non-discrimination clause if it worked legally.

• Interim Counsel Ron Bultje offered that the section of the contract where the sentence would be added is about responsibilities and is not value laden; he questioned the purpose.

• Moss explained that the purpose would be to make clear that the Board is asking the Administrator to champion colorblind equality and not diversity, equity, and inclusion, as was in his prior job description.

• Chair Teeples countered that the County already has a policy of anti-discrimination and compliance with the law.

• “[The County] did in 2020, 21, and 22 as well,” Moss said. “And they were full-blown DEI in Ottawa County, spending upwards of $300,000 a year on it.”

• Jorritsma said that if the Board could find language to agree upon, he would “conceptually” support the addition.

• Chair Teeples suggested the addition instead read: “To serve every person with dignity and respect and in a non-discriminatory manner.”

• Moss responded that Teeple’s suggestion would completely change the purpose of why he’d brought the motion. “There are two ends of the spectrum, right? There’s colorblind equality… which is federal law. We don’t treat anybody different because of their skin color, their race, their background, anything like that. DEI is literally the opposite of that. And our country has had a problem where they put a DEI lens over everything they do. They try to divide everybody by different factors—their race, their gender, or what they believe.”

• Brugger questioned the need for the added sentence because he has no interest in the Board directing the Administrator to reinstitute DEI.

• Chair Teeples was concerned that the term “colorblind equality” has social significance and could be a problem.

• Moss countered that sometimes it’s difficult for the Board to do what Teeples was suggesting. “Commissioner Miedema brought forward an issue that I believe you’re well aware of that should have been discussed tonight. And the Board voted not to discuss it. And it’s a social issue… It was brought up before the meeting, is my understanding. I know it was brought to Administration. I know it was emailed to the Chair… I’m just saying there’s a vendor that the County’s working with that’s doing drag shows for kids.”

• Teeples responded, “We’re not going into that discussion.”

• “I know we’re not going into that discussion because you don’t want to,” Moss said. “So, you see where I have an issue where I’d like to have clarity going into this hire?”

The motion to add “Champions colorblind equality in the role and committed to serving every person with dignity and respect” failed.

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

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

Chair Teeples then moved to amend the Employment Agreement by adding: “To serve every person with dignity and respect in accordance with state and federal law.”

The motion passed unanimously.

As the Board prepared for the final vote to approve the Employment Agreement for the selected County Administrator, Patrick Waterman, a couple of commissioners implored the Board to reconsider.

• Miedema said, “I personally will not unify in offering a contract to an individual who has betrayed trust of the seat of administrator… there continues to be broken trust with four commissioners which represent over 100,000 constituents… [H]onesty, integrity, and professionalism, as well as a commitment to being pro-merit and excellence, promoting American equality over socialist equity—these principles have already been broken by this candidate, and the respectful and honorable thing to do would be for this Board to reject offering a contract to Patrick….”

• Moss shared that he’d worked with the Chair to address concerns with the County’s handling of DEI and politicized policy. He was hoping the Board could make sure the County didn’t move in that direction by putting it in writing to make it clearer. Moss added that when he sees the County already not following the policy the Board established in the past, he has concerns.

• Miedema said that when she looks at the hiring process the Board just went through, “the entire process was a sham” and that none of the other candidates truly were given consideration.

The final motion to approve the County Administrator’s Employment Agreement as amended passed.

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

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

Next up were two settlement offers, both of which were received on September 16, 2025.

The County Attorney recommended that the Board accept the terms, which are to release the minutes and the audio recording of the closed session of December 10, 2024, and also to pay the plaintiff $18,500.

• Moss didn’t think the Board should settle. “I think there’s a very good argument to be made that in the prior year the Board went into closed session to discuss the dismissal of employees. That’s what was stated…” He added that the law says the Board may go into closed session to discuss dismissal, hear charges, etc. Moss said he’d rather fight the lawsuit and not pay the money.

• Jorritsma wondered if Moss meant that then they would not release the minutes.

• Moss explained that the minutes are part of the settlement. If they get released, that would mean more transparency for the public. But, on principle, the Board shouldn’t start to open closed sessions just because someone sues.

• Miedema had concern that it is Sarah Howard who continues to sue the County and that the Board continues to entertain lawsuits from her.

• Rhodea noted that releasing closed session minutes and audio is a terrible precedence to set. “But if that’s what you guys want, then so be it.”

• Barry said that one of the reasons he’s a commissioner is that his constituents were tired of the lawsuits. So, he would be supporting to settle.

• “If Democrats don’t want lawsuits then they can stop suing,” Rhodea replied.

The motion to accept the plaintiff’s settlement in Zimmer v Ottawa County passed.

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

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

For this offer, the County Attorney recommended that the Board reject the terms, which were to acknowledge the County should have checked for certain FOIA information based on a prior request, and a payment of a reduced fee of $21,000.

• Contrary to the County Attorney’s recommendation, Brugger amended the motion to accept the plaintiff’s offer.

• When questioned, Brugger explained that in the first settlement the Board saved the county money from further litigation, and the same would be true for the second. “I’m in favor of wrapping up as many lawsuits today as possible. This would be number three in 48 hours, and I would be thrilled.”

• Miedema asked if the commissioners realized what it was they were accepting with the settlement, and if they understood there was nothing that gives the plaintiff authority to receive a dime from the County. “This is about as clear-cut of a case as you can possibly get. And you’re awarding her how much money?”

• Chair Teeples said he’d been advised that it would cost more than $21,000 on appeal. “That’s what this is all about. This is ending a matter of a lawsuit and shutting off the spigot.”

• Miedema called the action hypocritical since in the other settlement the Chair had wanted to give the County attorney sole authority, adding that accepting the offer seemed “very irresponsible with the constituents’ money.”

The motion to accept the settlement offer in the Hill and Sander v Ottawa County passed.

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

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

• Looking at Moss, Brugger pondered why he hadn’t supported releasing the closed session minutes to the public. He then quoted from the minutes calling it “misleading information.”

• Rhodea interjected that she found it interesting that Brugger had read closed session minutes. “I’m not sure how that’s possible. Just have to point that out.”

• Brugger insisted all commissioners can read closed minutes. He then went on to say he knew Miedema had concerns about an organization being involved with the farmland preservation fundraiser. “We may differ with people on our faith systems, our acceptance of people who are different from us, whether it’s sexuality or skin color. Yet, we can all be united to preserve farmland… I want to say thank you to every single vendor who is stepping up to support our farmers… Your background is second to me in this case because of what you’re coming forward to support and joining arms…”

• Jorritsma read from undefined documents that he claimed the Board had received for the Zimmer case, which, in his view, were “deeply troubling” and “may even cross into corrupt or possibly fraudulent territory.” He cited memos and accused Moss of “misleading the Board” in 2024.

• In response, Miedema looked out to those in attendance and said, “I would just encourage one thing from what Commissioner Jorritsma said—be curious. Take a look at which employees left our county in a hurry. Take into consideration some of the timelines that were shared… When you stay curious and dig into details, you can find out a lot more information.”

• Miedema finally was able to share about a concern brought to her that one of the “Farms are the Tapas” vendors, Unicorn Tavern, was hosting an all ages drag queen festival. Miedema reminded the Board of its resolution which states: “No County staff or resources shall be allocated to activities, programs, events, content or institutions which support, normalize or encourage the sexualization of children and youth.” Miedema believes drag queens for kids is something that would violate this resolution, which is why she thought it merited an open discussion with the full Board.

• Moss spoke directly to Brugger. “Sometimes it’s easy to use a certain fallacy called ‘False Dilemma.’ It’s a logical fallacy which simplifies complex issues by presenting them as if there are only two options. You just did that a few times. The first one of them is asking “why couldn’t you vote in favor of transparency.” The fallacy is that that’s essentially the only option. You vote for transparency, or you don’t… I love transparency, and at the same time, I believe that the Board should have fought the lawsuit from Sarah Howard. I also believe that on principle we should not be releasing closed session information…” Moss said another example of false dilemma was when Brugger talked about “Farms are the Tapas,” suggesting we “should basically kind of ignore that the vendor is doing a drag show for kids because we can all agree on farmland preservation.”

• Teeples responded, “The fact that there’s a vendor or a supplier that may have some policy that we don’t agree with at the County, that we’re using, does not mean the County supports those vendors and their policies. We have a resolution that the commissioner brought up that prohibits support of these, but we’re not supporting them simply because we use a vendor or they’re a vendor coming to an event. There’s totally a difference and we have to be very mindful of discrimination in this process.”

September 23, 2025 Ottawa County Board of Commissioners meeting.

Ottawa County Board of Commissioners
Regular Session
September 23, 2025

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