Transparency on the Docket: County Board Considers Dyer FOIA Appeal, Hears Calls for Risbridger Investigation

Should the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners release more details about the investigation that led to the departure of former County Administrator Jim Dyer? And do accusations made last month by former Finance Director Rio Risbridger deserve a formal investigation of their own? Both questions were raised at an executive board session Tuesday, with commissioners likely to vote on one of them at next week’s regular November meeting.

Dyer investigation

The topic of Dyer’s exit, which occurred at the end of July, resurfaced at Tuesday’s executive board session, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal brought by county resident Gary Hosking. Hosking, a vocal critic of Dyer dating back to the former administrator’s candidacy for a Cherryland Electric board seat last year, submitted a FOIA request in August seeking more details about the investigation that triggered Dyer’s departure.

The county hired outside counsel this summer to investigate claims made against Dyer by both Risbridger and former finance department account clerk Elizabeth Gray. In a March exit letter, Gray had accused Dyer of “physical intimidation,” “administrative negligence,” and “disregard for the stability of the finance department,” among other grievances. Risbridger, in a June whistleblower complaint, slammed Dyer for “a pattern of conduct…that constitutes financial misconduct, circumvention of board authority, and a pattern of intimidation.”

Risbridger’s complaint led county commissioners to place Dyer on paid administrative leave on June 9. The investigation ultimately prompted a unanimous vote from the board to enter into a “mutual separation agreement” with Dyer, which included a nearly $70,000 payout to the outgoing administrator.

Hosking filed his FOIA request on August 12 in an attempt to glean more information about the investigation. Almost all board discussions on the matter had occurred in closed session.

After seeking an extension to deal with the “complexity” of the FOIA request, the county informed Hosking on September 1 that it would be partially fulfilling and partially denying his request. On October 13, County FOIA Coordinator Katie Smielewski emailed Hosking 57 PDF documents totaling more than 300 pages, much of it redacted emails between Cohl, Stoker & Toskey (the law firm hired to lead the investigation) and county employees. Smielewski’s email also outlined the sections of Hosking’s FOIA request that would not be granted, including a request for the investigative report provided by counsel to the Board of Commissioners. That document, Smielewski wrote, “is exempt from disclosure under the attorney client privilege exemption.”

Hosking appealed the decision on November 3, arguing that “the public deserves a clearer understanding of what the investigation actually found.” The appeal questioned whether any records had been “improperly withheld under FOIA,” and asked whether there were records that, even if the county had the “legal right” to withhold them, could be voluntarily released “to help residents understand its decision” to separate from Dyer.

Commissioners debated Hosking’s appeal at their Tuesday session, with Vice Chair Mark Walter making a motion to “uphold in part and reverse in part” the FOIA ruling. Such a decision, Interim County Administrator Lauren Cypher said, would give commissioners some wiggle room to decide which additional documents to release.

Walter argued that the board could release the “attorney summary of what our options were” without compromising the privacy of any employees who participated in interviews with outside counsel. That legal opinion, Walter said, was provided to commissioners at the conclusion of the Dyer investigation and outlined potential paths for dealing with the situation. Some of the “options” commissioners were given, Walter revealed, included outright dismissal, a written reprimand, and the path that was ultimately chosen of negotiating a mutual separation.

Two other commissioners, Will Bunek and Alan Campbell, agreed with Walter’s proposal. Campbell had made a motion to the board in August to release “the final investigation and legal opinion regarding our former administrator,”  but that proposal had failed on a 2-5 vote, with only Campbell and Bunek in support. Giving the public the opportunity to “read exactly the wording we received that led us to a unanimous vote,” Campbell suggested, was “the only way to closure.”

Other board members, including Chair Steve Yoder and commissioners Ty Wessell and Gwenne Allgaier, said they weren’t comfortable voting to release a document that wasn’t fresh in their minds. Commissioners ultimately voted to push the FOIA appeal to next week’s agenda and to review the attorney’s summary in the meantime. Wessell, Yoder, and Allgaier all indicated they would be open to releasing the document if it doesn’t risk exposing the identities of any county employees who participated in the investigation.

Calls for Risbridger investigation

Tuesday’s meeting ended with two members of the public calling for commissioners to launch yet another investigation, this one into allegations levied by Risbridger after she resigned as finance director last month.

At an October 6 executive board meeting, Risbridger said she “did not leave by choice,” but because of an escalating pattern of “retaliation” that she faced after filing her complaint about Dyer. Risbridger claimed that her “movements and leave were tracked,” that everything she said in the building was “reported to commissioners,” and that her workload was increased.

Solon Township resident Steve Tostige urged the board to “recommend a truly independent investigation into Rio’s allegations.” Lake Leelanau’s Stephen Mikowski agreed, telling commissioners that not taking Risbridger’s accusations seriously “may make you unfit for public office, and perhaps subject to recall.”