Epperson claims abuse, fear as HR lawyer disputes Moss's narrative of severance deal

OTTAWA COUNTY — In a move that has fueled public outcry and demands for transparency, Ottawa County, in closed session, agreed to pay a former executive aide over $100,000 to walk away at the end of 2024. 

Now, the board of commissioners — under new leadership — has released documents that could finally explain whether the costly severance package was a legitimate legal settlement or a politically motivated backroom deal.

The controversy centers on former aide Jordan Epperson and a supposed "privacy complaint" against the county's human resources department. 

Former board chair Joe Moss told fellow commissioners last winter that the public release of Epperson’s resume and job description could legitimately ruin his future employment prospects, providing the grounds for a significant payout.

Read More: Recordings: Moss pushed county board to approve $280K in controversial payouts despite no evidence of legal liability

The attorney hired to investigate the complaint tells a different story: The claim was never properly vetted, because Moss abruptly terminated the investigation, bypassing due diligence that fast-tracked the six-figure settlement — raising serious questions about the true justification for spending taxpayer dollars.

Big payout, big problem

The payout on Dec. 10 was $100,000 plus five months of benefits. The deal — along with two other controversial decisions made by the board that day — inspired a lawsuit that ultimately led to the current board releasing the minutes and audio recordings Monday of the closed sessions from the Dec. 10 meeting.

In the recordings, Moss tells commissioners that “HR legal counsel has not provided a written report, [but] has explained it is in the best interest of the county to get a release of claims” from then-aide Jordan Epperson. 

“Legal counsel for human resources has been conducting an investigation at the request Mr. Epperson, due to potential claims against Ottawa County — that would be Nate Wolf,” Moss told commissioners in the closed session for Epperson. “Although HR legal counsel has not provided a written report, he has explained it is in the best interest of the county to get a release of claims from Mr. Epperson. 

“Furthermore, HR legal counsel has indicated the exposure for any such release and severance is likely less than the exposure for lawsuit, legal fees, settlement, if a lawsuit in the future occurred,” Moss goes on to say. “Per [Wolf], the potential outcome could be one year of additional pay for damages … plus attorneys' fees and the county's attorneys' fees notwithstanding a jury verdict. 

“This means the exposure is estimated at approximately $90,000 for potential damages paid, plus possible attorneys' fees, anywhere maybe between $25,000 to $75,000 … who knows? HR legal counsel indicated the Board of Commissioners should consider a clean break to clear any and all claims by using a severance and separation agreement with Mr. Epperson. He then provided a draft of a release of claims agreement, separation agreement.”

Former HR staff and legal counsel, however, say that never happened.

Zac VanOsdol, who served as assistant HR director at the time Epperson was hired, denied claims that he and his colleagues improperly leaked information, other than to fulfill a Freedom of Information Act request filed in July.

“HR did not release Jordan Epperson's personnel file or hiring documents except to corporate counsel (Kallman Legal) or as allowed by county policy (to the employee's supervisor),” Van Osdol said via email Tuesday. “Media requests were sent to the appropriate channels through communications or legal counsel for FOIAs.”

VanOsdol, who left the county in early 2025, said his former department was never even notified that Epperson had made a complaint until after the severance agreement was approved at the Dec. 10 meeting.

VanOsdol said he contacted Wolf the following day, the attorney Moss tapped to investigate Epperson’s complaint, but the attorney claimed to never have recommended a severance package and that Moss ordered him to halt the investigation before it could be completed.

“Wolf stated that he was asked by Joe Moss to conduct an investigation and that Epperson had details of the situation. Wolf was told not to contact HR because they were the subject of the complaint,” VanOsdol wrote in an April 28 written statement he submitted to Interim Administrator Gary Rosema prior to leaving his position with the county. 

“Wolf stated that he was later called and told to stop the investigation. In this same phone call, he was asked for templates of separation agreements. 

“[Wolf’s] email response states that he did not negotiate the terms and conditions of the agreements, provided no advice to the appropriateness of any provision, and that he was concerned with the way it was portrayed that he was involved in the situation,” VanOsdol said.

Ottawa Impact’s hiring decisions

Moss formed far-right political group Ottawa Impact in 2021 after taking issue with pre-K-6 school mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

After OI secured a seven-seat majority on the 11-member board, the group pushed through a series of controversial decisions on Jan. 3, 2023 — their first day in office. Those decisions included firing then-administrator John Shay and replacing him with former Republican congressional candidate John Gibbs.

The board would go on to fire Gibbs for cause on Feb. 29, 2024, alleging “gross misconduct, and/or committed willful malfeasance.”

At the time, the OI commissioners cited allegations reported by then-deputy administrator Benjamin Wetmore and Epperson — both of whom Gibbs hired just months earlier — that alleged Gibbs acted inappropriately and neglected his job duties.

Gibbs sued for wrongful termination and settled with the county for $190,000 in January 2025. 

Read More: 'We're in this bad deal because of you': Gibbs lawsuit settled as allegations fly between officials

After firing Gibbs, the OI majority appointed Jon Anderson, who at the time was a Republican running for sheriff, as interim county administrator.

The appointment was controversial because Anderson didn’t have any prior experience as a county administrator, and he already was a declared OI-backed candidate for county sheriff, prompting critics to claim at several public meetings that the decision was intended to elevate Anderson's profile to better his election chances. 

Anderson lost to Undersheriff Eric DeBoer in the Aug. 6 primary by 20 points. The primary election also determined that OI would lose its board majority at the beginning of 2025.

Wetmore was named as the interim administrator on Oct. 16 in an emergency board meeting just days after Anderson resigned — for the second time and launched a formal search for the next permanent administrator, although the two top finalists withdrew without completing the process.

How we got here

At issue are a pair of 11th-hour severance agreements: one for $175,000 for Wetmore, who served in the role for the last three months of 2024, and his executive aide, Epperson, who received $100,000 plus five months of benefits.

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

At the Dec. 10 board meeting, commissioners went into separate closed sessions “at the request” of aide Jordan Epperson and Wetmore, respectively. After emerging from each closed session, the board approved separation agreements for both men in separate split votes.

Plaintiff Daniel Zimmer, of Port Sheldon Township, filed a lawsuit Dec. 16, challenging the agreements as legally unenforceable.

A third claim in the lawsuit was dropped earlier this year.

At the board’s Sept. 23 meeting, the board voted to settle the lawsuit, agreeing to release the closed session minutes from the Dec. 10 meeting as well as to pay Zimmer $500 in statutory damages and pay his legal fees of $18,000.

The decision drew fire from Moss, who leads the far-right political group Ottawa Impact, which controlled the board’s majority bloc in 2023 and 2024.

"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."

Allegations of malfeasance 

Non-OI commissioners on the board in 2024 said they felt pressured and misled by Moss as the board deliberated in the December closed sessions to approve the agreements.

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

Jacob Bonnema, who is still a commissioner on the current board, said Moss claimed Epperson had legal claims against the county over an alleged investigation into the county’s human resources department.

“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," Bonnema said in December.

“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 said.

“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.”

Bonnema said he 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.

After the board voted in September to settle with Zimmer — a decision opposed by all four OI commissioners who remain on the board — more detailed allegations against Moss were brought forward, this time by freshman Commissioner Jordan Jorritsma.

During commissioner comments at the end of the Sept. 23 meeting, Jorritsma indicated there were multiple documents that supported Bonnema's account of the closed session regarding Epperson's severance.

"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."

At the September meeting, Jorritsma outlined a timeline where Epperson allegedly made a complaint about Gibbs and 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 receive 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."

Ottawa News Network filed a FOIA request for the documents Jorritsma referenced during the Sept. 23 meeting. After an initial denial citing attorney-client privilege, the documents have now been made available after a second request Oct. 28.

The documents vs. the closed session

In the closed session, Moss said Epperson was “requesting dismissal” and that he had been “working with our HR as legal counsel for a couple months, I believe, due to issues that have arisen over the last year, year and a half.”

In a memorandum Wolf submitted May 2, he said Moss called Wolf on Oct. 16, 2024, “regarding an employee complaint filed by Jordan Epperson.”

The timing of the investigation was nearly simultaneous with Anderson’s resignation for the second and final time.

“I was asked to investigate the complaint and prepare a recommendation,” Wolf said in a supplemental declaration he submitted to the county June 2.

Wolf said Epperson filed the complaint with the county via email to Moss, Wetmore, former OI Commissioner Gretchen Cosby and Sylvia Rhodea, Moss’s OI co-founder and then-vice chair of the board — something Rhodea disputed at the board’s last meeting Oct. 28. 

“I didn't see it,” Rhodea said.

Moss told commissioners that Epperson “has claims,” but that “he doesn't want to sue the county.”

“What are the nature of those claims?” asked Commissioner Doug Zylstra, the board’s lone Democrat. 

“There’s a laundry list … a lot of it stems directly from issues he's had with HR,” Moss replies.

“Okay, but do we have that list?” Zylstra asks.

“No,” Moss said.

In his seven-page complaint, Epperson lists numerous complaints, including defamation, emotional distress, public disclosure of private facts, various forms of discrimination, and “false light,” a legal term used to describe an invasion of privacy where a person is portrayed in a misleading and highly offensive manner to the public. 

The most serious claims Epperson alleged were against Gibbs, who Epperson said “treated me like his own personal servant.”

“Gibbs’ domination over my personal life and constant abuse had cost me relationships, friendships, opportunities, and my livelihood, and if it continued, my life in general,” Epperson said. 

“I have endured attacks in the media, and constant harassment on social media, including doxing, sexual harassment, religious harassment, online stalking, and worse due to the county's mishandling of my information,” Epperson said. “The county has made no effort to protect me, defend me, work with me, or indemnify me. I have suffered countless damages as a direct result of the county's actions, and I do not feel comfortable or safe as a county employee. The county has made no effort to defend me, and has actively blocked my attempts to defend myself, further damaging me.”

Epperson said he filed an anonymous complaint with Moss about Gibbs’ behavior — although he doesn’t indicate when — which he said “drastically escalated the hostile work environment, and the dynamic between me being in the middle between John Gibbs and Joe Moss.

He said the “constant provocation almost escalated with a physical confrontation with John Gibbs.”

Gibbs did not respond to a request to comment for this ONN story.

The only specific examples Epperson provided pertained to his interactions with Gibbs. 

“He kept my employment contingent on becoming a member of his church, managing his daily prayer calendar, completing odd religious homework assignments, as well as extensive other projects that had little to nothing to do with my actual job description,” Epperson said. 

“He would often contact me very angry, much to my confusion, and often in the middle of the night, making incoherent claims and verbally abusing me or threatening me,” he said. 

“Gibbs would often bring me into his office, turn on his multiple sound machines to cloak the noise, and begin yelling and going on unhinged tantrums. He was completely paranoid of anything and everything at the county, and kept close tabs on the day-to-days of county employees and their personal lives, without them knowing. He would record employees without their consent and was obsessed with finding out information on the religious lives of every single employee,” he said. 

“I was forced to pray scripted prayers with Gibbs every morning and every evening and I was supposed to pray intentions for him, as well as convert various friends and family members to his faith. Any minor deviation from his overbearingness and manic control was always met with extreme verbal abuse and threats of my termination.”

Moss and Cosby indicated that they knew of Epperson’s complaint at the time of the Dec. 10 meeting.

“I called Jordan and spoke with Jordan about this particular subject,” Cosby said. “So that's the only reason why I know more.”

Despite Moss’ assertion that there were “other claims as well, such as things related to Mr. Gibbs and his treatment … hostile work environment,” he didn’t elaborate on what those claims were and didn’t provide a copy of the complaint to the board.

“So, where is HR?” Bonnema, a non-OI Republican, asked during the closed session.

“They are not here because of the nature of the investigation … because it is against HR,” Moss said.

Wolf, however, said he could have been available to attend the meeting if Moss had requested it.

“I was not asked to attend the Commission meeting on December 10, 2024. I had meetings out of town on December 11, 2024, but was available the evening of December 10, 2024, to attend the Ottawa County Commission meeting if requested,” Wolf said in the materials he submitted to the county. “He did not ask me to attend a commission meeting or inform me that the Board was going to consider the termination issue at an upcoming commission meeting.”

Zylstra said it was impossible to assess legal liability without concrete details, and insinuated that the OI commissioners had more information than the non-OI members.

“It would be helpful to have this list so we could understand it, but I guess we don't get that furnished to us. But I mean, apparently there's knowledge in this room that we don't have,” he said.

Moss then told commissioners that if a lawsuit were to be filed, the county could face significant costs.

“I will reread what I read earlier: If a lawsuit in the future occurred, potential outcome, or damages could be one year of additional pay, and this is Nate's assessment,” he said.

“Whose assessment?” Zylstra asked. 

“From Nate Wolf and HR legal counsel,” Moss said. “Plus the county's attorneys' fees to defend and then, potentially, if there was any award, it could also include the attorneys' fees spent to pursue the county.”

“That’s not evidence, though,” Bonnema said.

Commissioner Rebekkah Curran then tried to get more information from Wolf.

“Is Mr. Wolf available?”

“He's not, no. And he doesn't have a report,” Moss said. “And honestly, I don't think he wants to create a report stating what would likely need to be stated, even though it could be kept within closed session minutes. … so I'm relaying exactly what he has told me. He has recommended that the county pursue a release of claims for Mr. Epperson.”

“We should be able to talk to the attorney,” Curran said.

“I'm telling you exactly what he's told me,” Moss replied.

The non-OI commissioners weren’t convinced.

“I don't wanna speak for anybody else, but not knowing the nature of his claims against the county, I just think six months is crazy,” Zylstra said.

Wolf disputed Moss’s claim that he made any concrete assessment or recommendations, as he never completed his investigation into Epperson’s claims.

“On Dec. 11, 2024, I received a call from Zac VanOsdol … and told him I was not involved in drafting the agreements for Epperson and Wetmore, although both agreements derived from the templates that I previously sent to Moss,” Wolf said. “I was not involved in amending the template agreements for either Epperson or Wetmore and did not discuss and was not consulted regarding any changes to the template.”

The template Wolf refers to was a severance document template Moss requested on Dec. 3, when he instructed the attorney to terminate the complaint investigation.

“I received a text message from Moss asking for a template separation agreement. I located a sample separation agreement from my files, redacted the names and any client-specific information, and forwarded it to him. It was my understanding that Moss wanted to review the template separation agreement to aid in his general [knowledge] of the basic terms and to request that I draft one for the county to provide to Epperson. 

“I did not receive any further contact regarding the template separation agreement, and was not requested to make any changes to the template,” Wolf said.

At the Oct. 28 board meeting, Moss claimed Wolf’s statements to the county contained “serious errors,” including who it was who hired him to investigate the Epperson complaint.

“I was not the person who contacted him to investigate the complaint, like he wrote. It was actually corporate counsel Jack Jordan who contacted him. It was not my decision,” Moss said.

Wolf seemingly differentiates in detail his points of contact with the county pertaining to the investigation, including when communications were by phone call, text message or email and with whom.

He noted in his memorandum that after the Oct. 16 phone call with Moss, “I received an email from counsel for Ottawa County, Jack Jordan, and Joe Moss attaching the complaint document from Jordan Epperson, an employee of Ottawa County. After the email, I reached out to Jordan Epperson to schedule an interview.”

Moss also denied directly terminating the investigation.

“Another element of confusion … [was] to terminate the investigation that was ongoing. That was not accurate either,” Moss said. “I told Mr. Wolf, if the board voted to approve a severance and release of claims that that vote would terminate his investigation, and that's exactly what happened. The board voted and terminated the investigation.”

Moss also admitted he spoke to Wolf on Dec. 9 via phone call “for 21 minutes about the upcoming board meeting, including if he would attend.”

“It starts false and it ends false and it omits important information.”

Wolf documented two phone calls with Moss, one on Nov. 29 and the other on Dec. 6.

On Nov. 29, he said Moss “informed me that it was likely that Jordan Epperson would be terminated after the new year when the new board comes in and that the new board wanted to start fresh with a new administration.” 

He said Moss asked me about a separation agreement and what a “reasonable severance” would be for Epperson. 

“My recollection is that we discussed general dollar amounts for separation agreements and how they are often related to years of service. We also discussed the separation agreement in this case and that it could be more difficult and potentially more costly because we were dealing with an employee who filed a discrimination and retaliation complaint,” Wolf said.

He noted, however, that “at the time of the conversation, the investigation was ongoing.”

On Dec. 3, Moss asked for the severance template.

Then, on Dec. 6, the two spoke again.

“He informed me that Ottawa County was planning to terminate Jordan Epperson's employment after the new year. He then instructed me to terminate the investigation,” Wolf said. “I discussed the risks of terminating an employee after the employee filed a complaint … for discrimination and retaliation.”

Moss also told Wolf to send the legal bills directly to Jordan and to bypass county HR.

“Joe Moss instructed me to send the bills to Jack Jordan at Kallman Legal Group, PLLC because Human Resources was implicated in the complaints from Mr. Epperson,” Wolf said.

Despite several specific complaints alleged against Gibbs, Moss spent little to no time during the Dec. 10 closed session discussion of that portion of Epperson’s complaint. 

In fact, Epperson hinted at wrongdoing by Moss, saying the former board chair published Epperson’s “confidential complaint” against Gibbs on social media prior to firing Gibbs, which “further broke my trust with the county.”

"Today, Ottawa County's legal counsel sent a letter to the attorney representing John Gibbs," Moss wrote in a since-deleted Facebook post on Feb. 23, 2024. "The letter is not confidential and may be shared with the public. Transparency and accountability are hallmarks of representational government in America ... I am sharing this letter with you in that spirit. The board will meet again next week to consider this matter. I will share more information as I am able."

“My confidential complaint was posted online by the Board Chair, and my name/involvement was illegally leaked by one of the commissioners to the press from closed session,” Epperson said. “This sharing of confidential information and illegal leaking further broke my trust with the county. This also brought me back into the crosshairs of the news, further damaging my reputation, mental health and emotional stability immensely.”

Instead, Moss and Cosby focused on the resume disclosure in the Dec. 10 closed session.

Cosby claimed a word change that happened at some point in the executive aide job description somehow damaged Epperson when his resume was published in The Holland Sentinel in August 2023.

“He was hired in on one job description. The second job description with different role requirements was released to Sarah Leach and The Holland Sentinel with his personal information as well and attached his resume, which also had his personal identifying information,” Cosby said.

“With his personal information as well,” Moss said.

“Yes, attached his resume, which also had his personal identifying information,” Cosby said.

The story Cosby referenced was published on Aug. 15, 2023, by The Sentinel — after Epperson began working for the county — and included his resume, which redacted his home address, email address and phone number. It also included a screenshot of the position’s job description that was published on the county’s website. 

State law requires public bodies to make a good faith determination of the balancing test of public interest in privacy versus disclosure because job applications become part of an employee’s personnel records under FOIA. 

In his complaint, Epperson admitted that VanOsdol notified him on June 29, 2023, that his resume was lawfully redacted and released to a citizen via a FOIA request. He then was offered the job a month later.

Zylstra attempted to clarify how the job description issue caused legal liability for the county.

“We don't have the benefit of your knowledge,” he said. “What you're saying is that his claims center around the job description? Is that fair to say?”

Cosby said at some point the job description changed the list of applicant qualifications from “required” to “preferred,” but didn’t explain how the word discrepancy created a legal claim.

According to the job description posted by the county in March, the preferred candidate for the senior aide had to hold:

• Master in Business Administration from an accredited institution, with specific experience in strategic management, innovation, and marketing/branding
• Dean’s List or Honor Roll
• Undergraduate major or minor from an accredited institution in an analytical or engineering discipline is strongly preferred
• Working internationally at the non-profit level is strongly preferred
• At least two years of experience serving on a major board

Of the five mandatory criteria listed, Epperson had one — a bachelor's degree.

“He was not qualified for the role of the five objectives that were required; he was only qualified for one. There’s a difference between a preferred master's versus a required master's degree,” Cosby said.

“But why is his suit with HR?” Zylstra asked.

“Because HR is where the leak originated from, Mr. Zylstra,” Moss said.

“There's only Jordan, who had his application and what he had submitted. And then human resources can't say who did, but it got to Sarah Leach at The Holland Sentinel, and then [the] subsequent news articles, condemnation and comments,” Cosby said. 

Rhodea supported the claim that county HR acted inappropriately.

“Our HR was intentional in a leak and caused—”

“Malicious,” Moss interjected.

“And caused intentional damage,” Rhodea continued. “And we've had a situation where employees of this county, specifically and especially in the media, with the intent of destroying strong Republicans.”

Despite handpicking Gibbs as their preferred administrator in 2023, who then hired Epperson and Wetmore subsequently, Rhodea blamed the need for a severance package on politics and biased media coverage.

“What has happened to Jordan is political collateral damage, and that's something that happens to elected officials. We kind of all know that going in, that that's a possibility. It's still horrific and disgusting when it happens, but we're elected; but our employees should not have to suffer political collateral damage and to be personally dragged through the media and defamed and have it happen in an intentional manner from our HR department,” she said. 

“Our county is responsible for what happened to Jordan.”

Epperson’s resume was released by the county in August 2023 as the product of a FOIA request — filed by Zimmer, who eventually would be the plaintiff in the lawsuit that led to the disclosure of the closed session recordings.

VanOsdol said when his department received the FOIA request, he and his staff followed all legal procedures that were overseen by Kallman Legal Group, the corporation counsel Moss and his fellow OI commissioners selected to contract with at the beginning of 2023 after firing longtime county attorney Doug VanEssen. 

“We were required to provide Jordan Epperson's hiring documentation for a FOIA,” VanOsdol told ONN. “FOIAs are submitted through a portal that corporate counsel, Kallman Legal, managed. Kallman Legal asked HR to provide Epperson's hiring documentation to them (Kallman Legal) for review.”

VanOsdol said it’s ultimately up to the county’s legal department to decide how to respond to FOIA requests and what, if any, information to release.

“As per established practice, Kallman Legal's responsibility was to review the requested information, redact information as allowed by law, then respond to the FOIA by releasing the appropriate documentation,” VanOsdol said. “If any documents were provided, it would have been released by Kallman Legal through the FOIA process.”

Once Zimmer received the redacted resumes from the county’s FOIA coordinator, he shared the documents with this reporter, who at the time worked at The Holland Sentinel.

Read More: Documents: Executive aide hire falls short of county's mandatory credentials

Cosby said the attention to Epperson’s credentials humiliated him.

“I used to just cringe when I would hear, because his back is to the people in the audience who are accusing him of not being qualified for his position repeatedly, and he has no way of defending himself at all.”

Only one candidate of the 30 who applied for the executive aide position appeared to have all five necessary qualifications the county was seeking. After The Sentinel published the story, one of those candidates, Ryan Kimball, sued the county for age discrimination.

The county settled in September with Kimball receiving $225,000.

Epperson referenced the Kimball lawsuit, saying he also suffered “damage” from being the preferred candidate Gibbs hired.

“How much damage has Ottawa County caused me by setting me up to be falsely labeled by the media as unqualified to work at my current position?” he said in the complaint.

Epperson told Cosby prior to the Dec. 10 closed session that he had applied to other jobs, but was denied, although he nor she provided any evidence that his status with the county was to blame.

“He told me that he has been denied two or three jobs,” she said. “That young man right now makes approximately $81,000 a year. If we were to assume that he just sat in that job and did a 3% increase year over year for 42 years, that's $10 million.”

Bonnema said Cosby’s numbers were unreasonable.

“That's baloney. You know that nobody's gonna give him that kind of money. Don't give me that, Gretchen. That's ridiculous,” he said.

“No, that's the potential risk,” she said

“We're capitulating to … one of your friends who’s strong-arming us for money here,” Bonnema said. “You guys want to hand over a bunch of money because he’s your friend. That's what you're doing. I'm the only one that's willing to say it, but that's exactly what's going on here. You want to hand these guys golden parachutes to move them on, because that's all that you can do right now. And it's ridiculous.”

Moss went on to reiterate that Wolf “spent hours and hours and hours working through the issues,” despite Jorritsma and VanOsdol disputing the extent of Wolf’s involvement.

“It is in the best interest of the county, no matter what else happens, to gain a release,” Moss told the commissioners in the closed session. “This is not coming from me. This is between Nate Wolf and Jordan. And it came to a head like a week or week and a half ago or something where it became obvious that he needs to exit and that would be in the best interest of the county. I said, ‘Okay, I will bring it to a closed session.’”

Commissioners, officials react

After the Sept. 23 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."

Sarah Riley-Howard, who represented Zimmer in his lawsuit, specializes in employment law, including workplace discrimination, wrongful termination and severance packages.

After listening to both closed session audio recordings, she said there was no legal basis for the county to approve either severance package.

“Release of the meeting recording shows that the Epperson and Wetmore severance agreements were nothing more than payoffs to cronies, not in response to any true legal risk,” Riley-Howard said. “No employment lawyer would have concluded these two men had any kind of valid claims, much less justifying settlements of this nature. Where was their attorney? Why wasn’t she correcting statements she knew to be false?

“Circumstances like this make evident why it’s so important to require compliance with laws like the Open Meetings Act and to insist upon transparency,” she said.

After reviewing the Epperson complaint and Wolf’s materials, Howard said the complaint wasn’t handled properly on the county’s end.

“There are a lot of credibility concerns I have about the claim just on its face. It’s not appropriate for an employment relations issue to be handled by two commissioners alone,” Howard said. 

Howard said even if the premise that county HR could not be trusted, the complaint should have been handled with much more formality and care.

“It should be turned over to an attorney acting on behalf of the county to fully investigate and give informed advice, with notification to the other commissioners about why you were skipping HR,” Howard said. 

“We now know that didn’t happen. Two commissioners shouldn’t be deciding on their own that an investigation can be prematurely shut down and then undertake secret negotiations on behalf of the board, which is really what they did.”

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.

Howard also had serious reservations about the veracity of Epperson’s allegations.

“I don’t think there are viable employment claims,” she said. “This amount of severance is highly excessive under these facts, and you don’t pay severance to an employee and keep them working there. 

“There are so many problems here and it was an absolute waste of county money. It would have cost less than this to defend the claims, if he found a lawyer willing to bring them.”

What happens next

The current board hasn’t indicated if it will take additional action after the disclosure of the minutes and supplemental materials.

The board could vote to refer the matter to the sheriff’s office or Michigan State Police, which would then need to be reviewed by the county prosecutor or attorney general to determine if criminal charges would be appropriate.

Internally, the board has the option to censure Moss and others, if they were to find that he committed misconduct; he also could be stripped of committee assignments, which is at the discretion of the board chair.

County commissioners may be removed from office prior to the expiration of their term through a citizen-led recall effort, which can only be brought in the second and third years of the four-year terms now in effect, per state law. That means that all commissioners on the board would not be subject to a potential recall until Jan. 2, 2026.

The board next meets at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 25. The agenda has not yet been made public.

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