Moss, Brugger face separate ethics complaints from residents

OTTAWA COUNTY — A rarely used procedure governing the ethical conduct of the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners will be tested on Tuesday after separate complaints were filed against two sitting members.

Vice Chair Josh Brugger, a moderate Republican, and Ottawa Impact Joe Moss each face separate complaints from residents over their conduct as sitting commissioners.

On Tuesday, commissioners will consider forming a committee to investigate both complaints.

The board's Code of Ethics permits the board to create a three-person committee to investigate complaints if a three-fourths majority — in this case, nine of the 11 commissioners — finds there is a legitimate basis for the complaint.

The appointment of the special committee and any procedural rules it follows also must be approved by a three-fourths majority. If created, the committee would investigate the complaints "including findings regarding intent, motive, or maliciousness," according to the policy. The committee then would make recommendations to the board on any potential action, although the policy does not outline any possible scenarios.

If a commissioner is found to have violated the policy, he or she may appeal the findings to the full board, "which may accept, reject, or modify them," the policy said.

The Moss complaint

Moss, founder of far-right political group Ottawa Impact, faces two complaints from residents surrounding his handling and conduct when he served as board chair in December 2024, when commissioners approved two controversial severance agreements.

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

Moss told fellow commissioners last winter that the public release of former aide Jordan 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

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

The closed session minutes and supplemental materials were released after the current board reached a settlement agreement with Port Sheldon Township resident Dan Zimmer, who filed a lawsuit in December challenging the legality of the agreements.

During the Dec. 10 closed-door session, Moss told commissioners that the severance packages were necessary to avoid “exposure for lawsuit,” despite no evidence being brought forward that supported his claim.

At the time, his OI political group held a six-seat majority on the 11-member board, all of whom supported the severance agreements.

In June 2024, the HR attorney who briefly investigated Epperson's complaint said via documents submitted to the county that Moss initially hired him for the job, then terminated the investigation before it could be completed.

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

Despite Moss’ assertion that Epperson had “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?” Commissioner Jacob Bonnema, a non-OI Republican, asked during the Dec. 10 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.”

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.”

During a second closed session on Dec. 10, Moss said Wetmore didn’t have any known complaint against the county, but said the interim administrator went through “the same type of problems” that Epperson had with Gibbs.

That agreement was also approved in a split vote, with the OI majority endorsing the deal.

Two residents filed ethics complaints against Moss after the closed session minutes and Wolf materials were released to the public over the past few weeks.

One resident was Zimmer, who filed his complaint Oct. 24.

"I emphasize this is a formal complaint into the abuses of public trust and orchestrated manipulation to achieve a premeditated result under false pretenses as has been demonstrated in the actions taken to be summarized as the December 10, 2024, severance agreement(s)," Zimmer wrote.

At the board's Oct. 28 board meeting, Zimmer said it's important to hold elected officials accountable.

"[The] Code of Ethics are guidelines that help organizations and individuals navigate moral and ethical decisions. It outlines the valued standards and expectations that guide behavior and decision-making within an organization, ensuring integrity, fairness and accountability," he said.

The second complaint was filed by Holland resident Luke Sanner, who said

"It's becoming increasingly clear that over a quarter million dollars in taxpayer money was given away under false pretenses. Please secure outside counsel to investigate this situation. This will not simply disappear. The damage has been done — those responsible now need to be held accountable," Sanner said in the email complaint he filed on Oct. 23.

The Brugger complaint

Brugger faces a complaint from Allendale resident Rebecca Patrick, who alleges the commissioner attempted to leverage Patrick's chances of being appointed to various boards and committees in exchange for her no longer criticizing commissioners on social media.

On Sept. 30, Patrick emailed the entire board over her concerns about changes made to the landscaping at the county's Fillmore Complex in Fillmore Township. Patrick's concern centered around a discussion during the board's Sept. 9 Finance and Administration meeting, where commissioners asked then-interim administrator Gary Rosema about emails and calls from residents concerned about the rumored landscaping changes that would remove native grasses and plants.

At the September meeting, Rosema indicated to commissioners that they might have been misinformed: "The thought is we'd bring a total plan back to the board once we have the numbers in place," he said. "I have a concern as to the improper information that all of [you] got."

The board did not publicly discuss the issue further and the landscaping was removed as of Sept. 29.

Patrick, who submitted her concerns the next day to the board, told commissioners: "Your administrator ought not to lie to you or the public."

On Oct. 1, Brugger responded, saying: "Yes, communication could have been better. But no one lied."

Later that day, Brugger sent Patrick another email saying he had spoken with Rosema, who said the area in front of the sign at Fillmore was not a part of the native landscaping project.

"Whether or not we each choose to believe him is, of course, subjective," Brugger wrote to Patrick. "While others may differ, I personally have no reason not to take him at his word."

Brugger then goes on to what he called a "sidebar" issue about appointments to various committees and boards. Brugger chairs the county's Appointment and Alignment Committee.

"We have a lot of appointments coming up. I'm very keen on doing my best to land you on one of our committees working in an area that you have experience. The groundwater board comes to mind, but perhaps there are others," Brugger wrote.

"I have to be candid, though, one of my questions of you is, are you willing to work through the board apparatus to have concerns addressed before going to social media?

"Obviously, all of us are free to do what we wish with social media. I just want to make sure, as best I can, that the people we appoint are willing to work with and 'play well' with others who share a similar passion for the county but may see things differently. Sounding off on social media ought to be, in my mind, the last resort and not the first," he wrote.

Patrick, who ran for county commissioner unsuccessfully as a Democrat in 2024, told Brugger she believed that her work in being an active and engaged citizen over the past three years "has been fair and factual, and includes public and private instances of thanking and praising commissioners of all parties and factions."

As to her social media habits, Patrick told Brugger: "I don't see that changing. You must do as you think best on the board and commission appointments, and I will do likewise in my role."

On Oct. 13, Patrick filed an ethics complaint against Brugger, saying he "appears to make my appointment to an Ottawa County board or commission contingent on my agreement 'to work through the board apparatus to have concerns addressed before going to social media.'"

Brugger's email "questions my social media posts in relation to county matters and suggests that the fact I make such posts could influence whether I am appointed to a board or commission. ... Put plainly, this statement appears to be an attempt to interfere with my freedom of speech," she wrote to Chair John Teeples.

Patrick told ONN that she struggled over whether or not to file a complaint.

"It wasn't something that I did on a whim. I waited almost two weeks after the email until I filed it," she said.

Patrick said it's about the ethical conduct of officials.

"It's not about the landscaping issue, and it's really not even about Ottawa Impact. It's about an elected official who appears to not understand that you may not try to get something out of a resident in order for them to get your vote to place them on a board of commission," she said.

Patrick said it was also about the appearance of infringing on her First Amendment rights.

"We all have watched some disturbing things happen at the federal level and I'm not willing to have that happen at the local level, especially when, in this particular situation, there's no ambiguity, at least in my mind, about what happened," she said.

She said she was disappointed not only in Brugger's words, but also that all 11 commissioners were copied on the email exchange.

"Because it was copied to the entire commission, the individual seemed to be quite comfortable saying those things," she said. "My remedies are few at this point, because I do not want this to happen to somebody else, and so the only way to make sure that [it] happens to nobody else is to shine a bright light on it. And this is one way to do that."

Brugger told ONN on Oct. 14 that the intent of his email had "nothing to do with politics."

"My message had nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with anything other than a principle, which is that when you have a disagreement with somebody, you reach out to them and you try to hash it out before you go to social media. It's that simple," Brugger said. "I genuinely mean what I said in the end there — I want to make sure that we've got people that are willing to do that, and I genuinely believe that Becky is willing to do that."

Teeples told ONN on Oct. 17 that the complaint against Brugger was "unfortunate."

"Josh Brugger has bent over backwards for this county in 10 months, working harder than anybody could ever imagine. And it's tireless. Nobody could even imagine how many lost hours he puts into this," Teeples said.

Teeples said he would like citizens to see the larger picture of what the new board is trying to accomplish after the Ottawa Impact era.

"People are talking now about things that are like the trees and not seeing the big forest, and we wouldn't even be talking about the trees if we hadn't been fixing the forest for the last 10 months," Teeples said.

Patrick was not selected for any boards or commissions at the Appointment and Alignment Committee's Nov. 11 meeting; she had applied for three separate appointments.

What happens next

Despite the gravity of both complaints, it is unlikely that nine members of the commission will vote to form special committees for either investigation.

The current makeup of the board is six moderate Republicans, four OI Republicans and one Democrat. The majority and OI minority have clashed over many issues since OI lost its controlling majority at the beginning of the year.

"The 75% rule within the Code of Ethics violation procedure is an embodiment of the saying the fox is guarding the hen house," Zimmer said at the Oct. 28 board meeting during public comment.

"The events leading up to and on Dec. 10, 2024, will be a test of belief system, and reveal those beliefs as a result of reactive or decisive actions taken [in] a dilemma where inaction is a passive endorsement, establishing an environment devoid of consequences," Zimmer said.

"The community of Ottawa County and the County Board of Commissioners alike are at an inflection point, a litmus test that will yield the tolerance level of conduct, past, present and future. What is the standard of good governance? What is acceptable or unacceptable conduct? ... Will wrongdoing be based on an innate sense of right and wrong, acceptable or unacceptable actions?"

The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners meets at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 25.

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