County commissioner: Ex-board chair Moss 'misled' colleagues to secure buyout to avoid probe

Story summary:

• After the board settled a lawsuit challenging a pair of controversial employee severance agreements approved by the former Ottawa Impact-led majority in December, one commissioner said former board chair Joe Moss "misled the board in order to arrange [the] substantial payouts."
• Another lawsuit from the OI-majority era was settled, this one alleging that the county didn’t properly handle public records requests. Although OI commissioners opposed settling, Board Chair John Teeples said: "We're saving the county litigation costs going forward. ... This is ending a matter of a lawsuit and shutting off the spigot."
• The board voted 7-4 on Tuesday to approve its contract with new permanent Administrator Patrick Waterman. All four OI commissioners voted against the contract, with one calling the search process a "sham" and accusing Waterman of "betraying the trust of the seat of administrator."

OTTAWA COUNTY — Former Ottawa County board chair Joe Moss "misled the board to authorize a significant payout" in December "based on claims that were never properly investigated," one commissioner claimed Tuesday.

The county tackled a slew of big topics in a contentious meeting this week between the moderate Republican majority on the board of commissioners and the minority far-right Ottawa Impact faction.

The most disputed topics included finalizing a contract with the next permanent administrator as well as settling two lawsuits filed in late 2024 — remnants of OI’s tenure as the controlling majority on the board, which inspired serious allegations against Moss that Commissioner Jordan Jorritsma said "may even cross into corrupt or possibly fraudulent territory."

Here’s a rundown of what happened:

Zimmer lawsuit settled, accusations fly

On Tuesday, the board settled a lawsuit challenging a pair of controversial employee severance agreements approved by the former OI-led majority on Dec. 10.

At issue are 11th-hour severance agreements of $175,000 for Benjamin Wetmore, the interim county administrator who briefly served in the role for the last six weeks of 2024, and his executive aide, Jordan Epperson, for $100,000 plus five months of benefits.

Read More: Severance agreements for Ottawa interim administrator, aide to exceed $280,000

Plaintiff Daniel Zimmer, of Port Sheldon Township, filed a lawsuit Dec. 16, claiming three decisions the board made at the Dec. 10 meeting were legally unenforceable: a contract for remediation of Crockery Lake in Chester Township and the severance agreements for Wetmore and Epperson.

On Feb. 25, the new board voted 7-3 to ask the courts to review the legality of the lake contract — worth more than $560,000 — after raising concerns about the public process, the agreement’s language that gave the county little control over the project and increased liability should the lake cleanup go wrong.

On Sept. 22, an Ottawa County circuit court judge agreed and ruled that the contract was not valid because the county overstepped its legal authority when it bypassed the parks and recreation commission.

Read More: Judge tosses out Crockery Lake contract, claims former county board overstepped authority

After the board voted to seek clarity with the courts, Zimmer dropped the Crockery Lake contract portion of his lawsuit and continued with the challenges to the severance agreements.

On Tuesday night, the board was poised to vote to go into closed session to discuss a settlement offer from Zimmer’s attorney, Sarah Riley-Howard.

When commissioners reached that item on the meeting agenda, however, a motion from the current moderate majority was made to accept the settlement agreement, drawing strong opposition from Moss.

"I don't think that we should settle," Moss said. "I think that there's a very good argument to be made that in a prior year, the board went into closed session to discuss the dismissal of employees. That's what was stated, that's what occurred in closed session and then that's actually what happened. ... I'd rather fight this one."

Howard has previously said the county board violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act in multiple ways when approving the severance agreements at the December meeting.

One violation, Howard said, was by not going into a closed session for a legally valid reason — the county wasn’t actively seeking Epperson's or Wetmore's dismissal — nor had complaints or charges been raised, nor were evaluations requested.

Both employees allegedly told commissioners they would pursue legal action against the county if they didn’t receive severances, multiple sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter previously told ONN after the December meeting.

Secondly, Howard said the resolutions to approve the severance agreements didn’t disclose any details of what the board was voting on and might not be clear enough to be legally binding — another potential violation of OMA. 

“In failing to disclose any details about the agreements with Epperson and Wetmore, (the county) also violated OMA’s requirement that all decisions of a public body take place in a public meeting,” Howard said in the filing.

Non-OI commissioners have said they felt pressured and misled by Moss as the board deliberated in December to approve the agreements.

Read More: County commissioners say they were misled, pressured to approve severance agreements

Commissioner Jacob Bonnema said Moss claimed Epperson had legal claims against the county over an alleged investigation into the county’s human resources department.

“The severances in question are not being awarded based on merit; these individuals worked for the county for just over a year,” Bonnema said at the Dec. 10 meeting. “In my view, the primary reason for the inflated severance packages they are receiving stems from their connections with Chairman Joe Moss and Ottawa Impact."

In the weeks that followed, the Zimmer lawsuit prompted non-OI commissioners to openly question the information they were presented in the justification for approving the severances.

“What concerns me is that no substantial evidence has ever been presented to board members, the HR department, or our HR attorney to substantiate either Moss’s narrative or Epperson’s allegations,” Bonnema told ONN in late December.

“Throughout the negotiations for Epperson's severance, Moss repeatedly invoked Attorney Nate Wolf's name in order to establish credibility. Additionally, Moss and other Ottawa Impact commissioners actively lobbied non-Ottawa Impact commissioners for increasingly extravagant severance figures, arguing that the evidence was so compelling that Epperson could secure millions in court against us. At the time, I openly criticized this absurdity to the board.”

Former commissioner Christian Kleinjans confirmed Bonnema’s account of the Dec. 10 discussions, saying commissioners “were also presented with a document to review, which contained essentially what we were told — that an HR investigation had been conducted, and the county faced exposure from litigation.” 

Kleinjans said he felt the minority members on the board were pressured to vote with the OI majority to “show consensus” — otherwise, the OI majority would force through higher payout numbers because they had enough votes to do so.

“What we were discussing was an offer to attempt to stave off a possible lawsuit. The original amounts were high, very high,” Kleinjans said. “Again, we were told this was the low amount as recommended by HR legal. As the discussion evolved and the amount the board would offer was reduced, it was indicated that unless at least one non-OI affiliated member of the board voted for this agreement, to show there was consensus, the majority would just vote for and approve the original amount.”

Bonnema has repeatedly asked for the board to have access to Wolf, a Grand Rapids-based attorney, to verify the fact that an investigation into the county’s HR department had taken place.

“It has recently come to my attention that Attorney Nate Wolf never conducted a thorough investigation into Epperson’s claims against the county,” Bonnema said at the board’s final meeting of the year Dec. 31.

“The taxpayer funds disbursed to these two individuals seem to be based solely on a fabricated account presented by Joe Moss. I have always opposed inaction in the face of wrongdoing, and I believe this situation warrants a thorough investigation,” he said.

Howard told ONN hours prior to the meeting that the settlement details include:

• The parties agree that the court orders that the county clerk release to the public the closed session minutes and meeting recording (from the Dec. 10 meeting) as authorized by statute, within three business days of the court’s order, based on Zimmer’s filing of a complaint under authorizing portions of the Open Meetings Act.
• Zimmer concedes that invalidating/unwinding Wetmore’s severance agreement is no longer practically viable, and voluntarily withdraws his claim for that relief.
• Zimmer is awarded $500 in statutory damages.
• The county pays Zimmer’s attorney fees of $18,000 to his attorneys.

Wetmore, who successfully joined as a party to the case, also must agree to the deal, Howard said.

After the board approved the settlement offer on Tuesday night, Jorritsma indicated there were multiple documents that supported Bonnema's and Kleinjans' accounts of the closed session regarding Epperson's severance.

"I will just say it's unfortunate when taxpayer time and money are spent addressing what appear to be avoidable and possibly intentional mistakes, he said. "But this lawsuit that we just settled today, it's been difficult for me. ... Every time I read about it or speak on it, I find myself frustrated and asking, 'How did we get here?'

"But to enlighten you, based on the documents we've received, the circumstances around the dismissal of Jordan Epperson and possibly Ben Wetmore appear to be deeply troubling," he said. "In my view, they may even cross into corrupt or possibly fraudulent territory, and it seems clear that Joe Moss misled the board in order to arrange substantial payouts, at least in Epperson's case."

Jorritsma proceeded to outline a timeline where Epperson allegedly made a complaint against former permanent administrator John Gibbs — a hire OI championed in January 2023 until they fired him in February 2024 — where Moss sought input from Wolf.

"This memo led to a closed session discussion of Epperson's dismissal. In that meeting, Moss said HR counsel Nate Wolf recommended a clean break, including a severance deal. According to the [closed session] minutes, Moss presented a draft agreement he said came from Wolf, suggesting Epperson received six months' pay, health insurance and $150,000 cash payment," Jorritsma said.

"That alone should raise concerns, not just due to the amount involved for an executive aide, but because Nate Wolf never made that recommendation, nor did he draft that agreement. ... And let me say that again for emphasis, Nate Wolf never made that recommendation and he never drafted that agreement, but Joe Moss said he did."

Jorritsma said Wolf initiated an investigation into Epperson's claims — and interviewed him three times. Moss allegedly then spoke with Wolf about a possible separation agreement, where Wolfe said: "I told him that I did not see a significant buyout being appropriate; however, Jordan Epperson's complaint could change that analysis, but I was still investigating."

On Dec. 3, Moss asked Wolf for a template separation agreement, which Wolf provided. On Dec. 6, Moss told Wolf to terminate his investigation into Epperson's claim — even though the board didn't approve the severance agreement until Dec. 10.

"At some point between Dec. 3 and the Dec. 10 meeting, someone took the template separation agreement that Nate Wolf provided to Joe Moss and added in the six-month severance and $150,000 figure," Jorritsma said. "Where those numbers came from, I don't know, but they certainly didn't come from any formal recommendation made by the attorney who is investigating this situation."

Jorritsma said, despite multiple documents and interviews supporting the account he presented Tuesday night, Moss told the former board at the Dec. 10 meeting that "Nate Wolf had written the agreement, recommended it be adopted and was unavailable to be at the meeting. According to the sworn statement we received from Nate Wolf, none of this is true."

After Tuesday's meeting, Bonnema said Moss should be held "personally liable to repay the excessive severance packages back to the county," given his actions.

"Now that it’s clear former board chair Joe Moss knowingly misled commissioners in closed session about the severance recommendation from the investigating attorney — while personally shutting down the inquiry into claims involving himself — and then presented falsified settlement documents to funnel massive payouts to his allies Jordan Epperson and Ben Wetmore, the question remains: how will the public hold him accountable?" Bonnema said in a statement.

"Moss abused his position of power to lie, manipulate and divert taxpayer dollars into the hands of his friends. The released documents expose a consistent pattern of corruption from Joe Moss that can no longer be ignored. The wheels of justice in Ottawa County may grind slowly, but they do grind. Based on the evidence in the released documents and sworn testimony, it is my belief that Joe Moss should be held personally liable to repay the excessive severance packages back to the county."

Ottawa News Network has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the documents Jorritsma referenced during the meeting after the board voted to disclose the closed session minutes for both severance agreements.

Hill-Sanner lawsuit settled

Another lawsuit from the OI-majority era was settled Tuesday, this one alleging that the county didn’t properly handle public records requests.

On Oct. 30, plaintiffs Adrea Hill and Luke Sanner sued in Ottawa County’s 20th Circuit Court, claiming Freedom of Information Act requests they filed separately were not fulfilled adequately to what state law requires.

Hill asked for emails and text messages during a brief window on one day in 2024 by one OI-aligned public official on the county’s compensation commission. Sanner asked for digital communications between six OI-aligned county commissioners from a two-day window in 2023.

The county denied both FOIA requests, saying the county didn’t have the authority or obligation to search commissioners’ private devices for text messages that may have discussed public business.

In February, Allegan County Circuit Court Judge Margaret Bakker ruled that the Ottawa County Officers Compensation Committee and the Ottawa County Commission are both “public bodies,” however, she said individual members of those bodies are not required to comply with records requests unless the record is "used" by the body to perform a public function — a legal interpretation that could have far-reaching legal repercussions on how public bodies answer FOIA requests.

Read More: Judge orders county to pursue records, but says local electeds not subject to disclosure

Bakker then ordered that the county’s FOIA officer had 14 days to contact the officials and ex-officials who might still hold pertinent records. She also gave the county 28 days to show evidence that the FOIA coordinator complied with Bakker’s instructions, that the officials had acknowledged the requests and responded to them, and that “responsive material” had been identified and turned over to the county for review.

At a Sept. 15 hearing, Bakker ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying the 

“We have a situation where, as I've indicated, to some extent, both sides have it wrong in regards to the individual, who was on the Compensation Commission,” Bakker said. “The response by the county was that, since he wasn't a county employee, they basically didn't have to respond to that, and they didn't have anything in their possession.”

Regarding Hill’s request, Bakker said the commissioners had county-issued cellphones, but also personal ones. 

“There's really no debate that the county did not have the cellphones in their possession, so they couldn't provide anything from those. My understanding is that those are all personal cellphones,” she said.

The question, Bakker said, came down to whether the county put forth a good faith effort to try to secure messages that could have existed to satisfy the public inquiries when they were filed two years ago, as well as after the judge’s February order. 

“Should the county have taken that next step without the court ordering it to inquire of those prior commissioners or current commissioners as to any cellphone communications? … They did respond, but did they respond as fully as they should have? I guess that’s where this court ends up in regards to analysis and so to a certain extent, the plaintiffs are granted summary disposition,” Bakker said.

Despite winning a summary judgment, Bakker stopped short of awarding Hill and Sanner attorney’s fees when issuing her ruling.

“Because of the complexity of the situation, regardless of the law and the facts, the court does not believe attorney fees, costs or damages should be awarded,” Bakker said. “This is a complex situation that is not clear to the court as to the level of response by the county. … I do believe the county should have gone a step further, and I do believe that in this particular case, the summary position is in favor of the plaintiffs …

“But I don't believe, because the lack of supporting case law, the complexity of the case in regards to the decisions about public bodies and non-public bodies, and the overall situation here … I do not feel it is a situation where the court should award attorney fees.”

Howard said Bakker’s finding on the fees isn’t in compliance with current law.

“It's completely wrong under the law. If I win summary disposition, I get attorneys' fees,” Howard said shortly after the Sept. 15 hearing. 

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that “if a person asserting the right to inspect, copy, or receive a copy of all or a portion of a public record prevails in an action commenced under this section, the court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements. If the person or public body prevails in part, the court may, in its discretion, award all or an appropriate portion of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements.

Howard said summary judgment in her client’s favor is a full win, not a partial one.

“It is clear error that I should have gotten attorney's fees,” she said, “so that is a really good position to go to the Court of Appeals with; however, we made a settlement offer to the defendants last week.”

The settlement offer sent to the county to consider on Tuesday night included:

• The county’s payment of $21,000 in attorney fees and costs.
• The county’s acknowledgement that it should have inquired about the existence of potentially responsive documents in personal accounts per the court's ruling back when the FOIA requests came in (or negotiable language to that effect).

Howard said her fees have totaled more than $34,000 in fees and costs in the case, not including Monday’s hearing, concluding to the county “we are proposing a significant discount.”

“This is the best offer of a discount that I can make on the fees and costs in this matter,” she said.

Howard said if the board hadn’t approved the deal, she and her clients were prepared to “go the distance through the appeal process if we are unable to reach a settlement. We consider the FOIA issues to be sufficiently important to continue litigating. We also believe that the court granting judgment to us, but denying us attorney fees and costs, clearly violates FOIA on its face and provides us with a solid appealable issue,” she wrote to Bogren, who is representing the county in the case.

“But we recognize the value to everyone, particularly the county’s taxpayers, in ending it now prior to the appeal, given the way in which the appeal will escalate attorney fees and costs,” Howard wrote to the county.

Despite the county's corporation counsel’s recommendation to reject the settlement offer, commissioners voted 7-4 Tuesday night to accept the deal.

After Moss made a motion to reject the settlement agreement, Vice Chair Josh Brugger seconded the move, then immediately made a motion to amend the resolution to accept the agreement.

"This one, by accepting, we settle and we save the county money by avoiding further litigation," Brugger said. "So, I am in favor of wrapping up as many lawsuits today as possible. This would be number three in 48 hours, and I would be thrilled."

Brugger's move to accept the deal seemingly surprised the four OI members on the board, and it quickly moved to a vote, which also fell along party lines: 7-4.

"You do realize what you're accepting, right? You understand the case before you?" asked OI Commissioner Allison Miedema.

"You understand that there was nothing that gives this person any authority to receive a dime from Ottawa County? This is about as clear-cut of a case as you can possibly get, and you are awarding her how much money?" she said, referring to Howard.

"I do," said Board Chair John Teeples, a practicing attorney. "We also know that if this goes on to appeal, I've been advised by counsel, it will cost more than the $21,000. We're saving the county litigation costs going forward. That's what this is all about. This is ending a matter of a lawsuit and shutting off the spigot."

Miedema said the move to accept the deal felt personal.

"It almost feels like an in-your-face. And this is being very irresponsible with the constituents' money of Ottawa County, as well as setting our county up for success for the future," she said.

New administrator’s contract

The board voted 7-4 on Tuesday to approve its contract with new permanent Administrator Patrick Waterman, who was hired during a special meeting Sept. 12 — also by a 7-4 vote. 

Waterman was hired after the county embarked on three searches to find its sixth administrator — three permanent and three interims — since Jan. 3, 2023.

Read More: County picks former deputy as next county administrator as far-right faction cries foul

The vote to select him fell down familiar political lines, with the moderate conservative majority touting his qualifications, extensive experience and history with Ottawa County, while OI commissioners refused to back the hire, calling his return to the county "a step backwards."

The majority of the board authorized Teeples to enter into negotiations with Waterman to have a contract in place for him to start work. 

Key differences between Waterman’s new contract and those of previous permanent administrators John Gibbs and John Shay include an annual compensation of $230,000 — up from $210,000 — as well as proposed language for more expansive powers of hiring and firing county employees and department heads.

The latter drew heated debate in previous discussions between commissioners and Gibbs, when he was still with the county, as well as with Benjamin Wetmore, who served as interim administrator for the last few months of 2024.

The proposed language in Waterman’s contract on Tuesday granted him “the right to hire and fire all county employees except for elected officials and their deputies, and officials whose are statutorily appointed by the board of commissioners.”

The language hearkened back to an Oct. 16 meeting, when Wetmore was appointed to the role, when Commissioner Doug Zylstra, the board’s lone Democrat, challenged the decision to grant wide-sweeping hiring and firing powers to Wetmore, including full authority over all county employees for “behavior” and “discipline.”

Although Waterman’s contract didn't include the behavior and discipline wording, Zylstra said Tuesday that the language could set a precedent that would lead to unintended consequences for the board and future administrators.

He motioned to amend the hiring/firing language to read: "The county administrator shall supervise the operation and performance of all county departments and department heads except elected officials and their officers, and with the approval of the board, appoint and remove all heads of departments other than elected officials."

The board ultimately approved Zylstra's amendment, but the OI commissioners — Moss specifically — had other concerns with the contract.

Moss made a motion to add that the administrator "champions colorblind equality in all facets of the role, committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect."

The motion kicked off an intense debate, with OI commissioners insisting the language was necessary.

"Responsibility to champion colorblind equality in the role — it needs to be clear, because we've had a lot of issues in Ottawa County with the county bureaucracy and the county administration in past years promoting left-wing political ideology," Moss said.

Despite assurances that the added language had no ulterior motive, other commissioners weren't biting.

"I wish I could trust you guys on that, but I've seen you rip apart staff over the last nine months over this stuff, so I just can't do it," Brugger said.

After Moss' motion failed, Teeples suggested adding language that said "to serve every person with dignity and respect in accordance with state and federal law," which drew ire from the former board chair.

"How does that address DEI?" Moss asked.

"You're arguing a moot point," said Commissioner Jim Barry, a moderate conservative.

"Is it a moot point?" Moss asked.

"The only one bringing up DEI is you," Brugger said.

Despite several contract edits that drew unanimous support, all of the OI commissioners refused to vote in favor of the overall contract when it came up for a vote.

"I personally will not unify in offering a contract to an individual who has betrayed the trust of the seat of administrator, a seat that works on behalf of each commissioner and as an extension of the county at large," Miedema said.

Zylstra thanked Teeples for being open to amending the contract to be more appealing to all board members.

"I thank the chair in this instance where it is a divided board, right? We all didn't vote for Waterman, but there were significant changes to this contract, and I think John has shown himself to be very open and willing to go through those changes," Zylstra said.

Miedema then alleged the administrator search process was a "sham."

"When I look at the process that we went through, I believe that the entire process was a sham," she said. I don't believe that any one of the other people truly was given any true thought."

Despite the vitriol, Teeples ended the meeting on a positive note.

"I'm happy we're settling these lawsuits," he said. "And Patrick Waterman is excited to start and he's excited to be here."

Support Our Work

Ottawa News Network is a nonprofit news service dedicated to providing the residents of Ottawa County with trustworthy, community-driven news. ONN treats journalism as a public good — something that enriches lives and empowers Ottawa County’s 300,000-plus residents to stay engaged, make informed decisions, and strengthen local democracy. Please consider giving today.

The county board's next full meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 28, at the Fillmore Complex's administration building.

— Sarah Leach is the executive editor of the Ottawa News Network. Contact her at sleach@ottawanewsnetwork.org. Follow her on Twitter @ONNLeach.