Much of the discussion throughout the March 25, 2025, Board of Commissioners meeting centered around whether changes should be made to the agenda and for items to be considered separately for questions during the meeting.

• Commissioner Allison Miedema made a motion to move five contracts from the consent agenda to be discussed and voted on as separate action items. She said that she also had requested this change by email earlier in the day.

• Chair John Teeples shared that, in his opinion, changing the agenda during a Board meeting sets a bad precedent, is unfair to the Board, and is not transparent to the public.

• Commissioner Sylvia Rhodea said that sometimes emailed requests are ignored and the only recourse a commissioner has is to make the request during a meeting, which is proper under Robert’s Rules.

On the motion to amend the agenda, those who voted yes were Commissioners Doug Zylstra, Sylvia Rhodea, Allison Miedema, Kendra Wenzel and Joe Moss.

Those who voted no were Commissioners Josh Brugger, John Teeples, Phil Kuyers, Jordan Jorritsma, Jim Barry, and Jacob Bonnema.

The motion failed.

• Upon reaching the agenda item for ratifying contracts, Miedema once again made a motion to move the five contracts to a separate vote.

• Teeples said changes should be left for emergencies, but Rhodea countered with Robert’s Rules—Board members have the ability to amend motions. “This is government oversight and why we were elected, to look at things, to consider things, to give voice to things, to talk to the community, or talk in front of the community so they can hear what’s going on and then give us feedback when they hear the content.”

• Brugger said that the Board could have discussion on the contracts, but that he didn’t think it was necessary to pull out every single one. “If we got in the habit of that we’d be here all night. We’d be here all week.” He added that he didn’t mind hearing out Miedema, but that he’d be voting against discussing them individually.

• There was concern from Jorritsma that looking at items under $70,000 would break from policy, and if that is what was wanted, maybe the policy needing to be changed.

• Rhodea said that if items are on the agenda, regardless of where they fall or what they look like, they’re fair game. She added, “If discussion is shut down during the meeting, then it’s very fair for these conversations to go on our social media pages, and for us to share fully what our concerns are for each item—since discussion is denied in this forum. It’s OK if you guys don’t want to have oversight and transparency, but we will bring it somewhere.”

• “Our ultimate duty, Chair Teeples,” Miedema said, “is to serve the people and understand what we are voting for… The ultimate duty is not [to make decisions] within the timeframe you wanted. It’s to serve the people.”

• When Teeples reiterated that he wanted to follow procedures and not change the agenda, Rhodea clarified that they weren’t changing the agenda but splitting the motion.

• Corporate Counsel weighed in that the contracts were moved on the agenda as a whole and, though they can be discussed separately, need to be voted on as a whole.

• Moss read from Robert’s Rules “for the benefit of the Commission and our attorney”: “When a motion relating to a single subject contains several parts of each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition if the other are removed the parts can be separated to be considered and voted on as if they were distinct questions.” Moss added that if Teeples didn’t want Miedema to ask questions, he should tell her.

• Zylstra added that he supports the motion, and commissioners have the right to look at contracts and pull items off a list of contracts to review.

• Miedema explained that if she is forced to vote no against all of the contracts, her constituents aren’t able to see which of the contracts caused her to struggle.

The motion was made to divide the question and consider five contracts separately.

Those voting yes were Barry, Miedema, Wenzel, Rhodea, Moss, Zylstra, Bonnema, and Teeples.

Those voting no were Jorritsma, Kuyers, and Brugger.

Upon voting to remove the five contracts for further clarification, four of the contracts were voted upon after a few questions were answered—such as where the money was coming from and the purpose of the vendor. However, one of the contracts required lengthy discussion.

• Rhodea read from the MALPH grant, explaining how it is tied to the Covid-19 pandemic. For added background, Rhodea shared that MALPH is a state level association of NACCHO and is one of the NGOs that is getting millions of dollars. Additionally, both NACCHO and MALPH participated in a lawsuit against the County. “My red flags go up,” Rhodea said, “when we have activist organizations coming in and partnering with the County.”

• Teeples said the County has a long-standing policy of when the Board gets involved in administration and that threshold is $70,000. Otherwise, the Board is to leave it to the administrators to determine what they need to get involved in. The MALPH grant is under that threshold. He added that the merits don’t make any difference.

• Moss responded to Teeples, “So when I hear another Board member who says that they have an issue with a particular item, I hear the Chair telling them too bad, pound sand, it’s under $70,000.” Moss continued, “We don’t micromanage administration…. It’s doing what we are elected to do, which is ask questions and be curious… we should always, especially the Chair, be encouraging questions, no matter the dollar amount and no matter the reason.”

• Rhodea added that with the policy there is a carve-out for controversial issues. She then read some of the stances of NACCHO to clarify why she considers this vote controversial.

o “They are champions of DEI and health equity.
o They want access to school-based data—which is currently protected by FERPA, so that’s very anti-child privacy.
o They are for comprehensive adolescent health and minor consent laws—that’s to allow minors to consent to health procedures without parental knowledge or consent.
o They advocate for comprehensive sexuality education, which is radical sex ed.
o They are advocates on issues of police violence, racism, climate change, and strong advocates to strengthen public health law and public health authority—which we as a county saw aggressively during the Covid-19 pandemic.
o They advocate on school and childcare immunization requirement. They would like only medical exemptions due to allergy or medical contra indication.
o They want to reduce or eliminate all religious and philosophical exemptions.
o NACCHO rallies all of the health departments around the nation on these policies and keeps them all rowing in the same direction. MALPH is a state branch of it and so they want to be allies to our health department.”

• Brugger replied that he is not interested in asking staff to come in to discuss the $4500 or $5000 for this grant, and that what is happening is absolute micromanaging on a huge level.

• “So, you don’t want staff members to come in and answer questions? Message received loud and clear,” Moss said.

There was a motion to approve the contract with MALPH.

Those voting yes were Jorritsma, Brugger, Barry, Zylstra, Kuyers, and Teeples.

Those voting no were Bonnema, Miedema, Wenzel, Rhodea, and Moss.

The commissioners placed their votes in response to recommendations from the Appointment & Alignment Committee.

Those voting for Chris Kleinjans and Lavonne Vanderzwaag: Brugger and Zylstra

Those voting for Paul Duff and Lavonne Vanderzwaag: Rhodea, Bonnema, Wenzel, Miedema, Jorritsma, Kuyers, Barry, and Teeples

Paul Duff and Lavonne Vanderzwaag were appointed.

Those voting for Rebecca Patrick: Brugger, Zylstra, Kuyers, Barry, and Teeples

Those voting for Scott Muellerleile: Rhodea, Bonnema, Wenzel, Miedema, Moss, and Jorritsma

Scott Muellerleile was appointed.

Those voting for Rebecca Patrick: Zylstra, Kuyers, Teeples, and Barry

Those voting for Nathan Slauer: Jorritsma

Those voting for Jaime Fleming: Bonnema, Miedema, Brugger, Rhodea, Wenzel, and Moss

Jaime Fleming was appointed.

March 25, 2025, Ottawa County Board of Commissioners meeting.

Ottawa County Board of Commissioners
Regular Session
March 25, 2025

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