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

OTTAWA COUNTY — Ottawa County’s former board chair Joe Moss issued a stark warning last winter to commissioners: Settle a staff privacy complaint immediately or face a civil lawsuit. 

The Dec. 10 closed-door session revealed the high-stakes political pressure gripping the board as Moss argued a severance package was necessary to avoid “exposure for lawsuit” after an administrative aide alleged the human resources department improperly released his personal information. 

The incident offers a rare look inside the escalating legal risks that have defined the controversial tenure of the far-right Ottawa Impact-led board.

Read More: County confirms $280,000 in payouts to interim administrator, aide

Big payout, big problem

The payout 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 of 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 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 attorney Moss tapped to investigate Epperson’s complaint, the following day, but the lawyer claimed to have never 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 portraved that he was involved in the situation,” VanOsdol said.

A revolving door of administrative staff

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 the previous year — 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 OI had already endorsed him for 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.

The current board hired a new permanent administrator — former deputy administrator Patrick Waterman — in September.

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 Epperson and Wetmore, respectively. After emerging from each closed session, the board approved separation agreements for both men in separate split votes.

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

On Dec. 19, Moss brought the severance agreements before the board for reapproval after VanOsdol pointed out to commissioners that Wetmore continued to have access to confidential county information even though his signed severance agreement said he should have lost that privilege as of Dec. 10, according to internal emails.

“On Tuesday, Dec. 17, Ben (Wetmore) requested HR provide an update on the background check process for Mr. Hawkes. Per the (board of commissioners) approved ‘Severance and Separation Agreement’ for Ben, HR was unable to provide Ben with an update on the process because that is confidential information and violates Ben’s agreement,” VanOsdol said in a Dec. 19 email.

VanOsdol said Wetmore contacted applicant Scott Hawkes directly and told him to report to work on Dec. 19 as the county’s new HR director, even though the required background and reference checks through the county’s systems had not yet been completed.

“This is a blatant violation of the Ottawa County Employee Selection Policy and multiple other county policies regarding security of facilities and information,” VanOsdol wrote in the email. “This puts HR, including myself, in a difficult position of following county policy versus directives made by Ben. This is a huge security concern due to the nature of county business and the records contained with HR. This is a large liability on the county by having an employee start employment without knowing if they qualify for employment with Ottawa County.”

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.

At the current board’s Sept. 23 meeting, the board voted to settle Zimmer's 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 served as board chair 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 then

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.”

Former commissioner Christian Kleinjans confirmed Bonnema’s account of the Dec. 10 discussions, saying commissioners 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 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 in December. “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 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 on 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.

Allegations of malfeasance now

After the board voted last month 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 and Kleinjans' accounts of the closed session regarding Epperson's severance.

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

"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."

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. In a response dated Oct. 10, county corporate counsel said the request was denied because the documents are exempt under attorney-client privilege, but that they might soon be made available.

“That being said, the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners will be voting on the confidentiality of Nate Wolf's documents at their next board meeting, so feel free to resubmit your request if they decide to waive that privilege,” corporate counsel administrative assistant Paityn Grimwood wrote to ONN in the FOIA response.

The Epperson closed session minutes 

Non-OI commissioners appeared confused by Moss’ introduction to the closed session’s subject matter — that Epperson was “requesting dismissal.” 

“He has requested dismissal? What does that mean?” Why not just quit? Commissioner Doug Zylstra, the board’s lone Democrat, asked.

“He's 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,” Moss said.

In his statement to Rosema in April, VanOsdol provided a timeline of when Wolf worked on the complaint and conversations VanOsdol had with the attorney after the severance agreement was approved, citing invoices submitted to the county by Wolf’s firm, Mika Myers. 

VanOsdol’s records indicate that Wolf launched the investigation the week of Oct. 14 — immediately after Anderson submitted his resignation for the second and final time.

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

“What are the nature of those claims?” Zylstra said. 

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

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

“No,” Moss said.

“So, where is HR?” asked Commissioner Jacob Bonnema, a non-OI Republican.

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

OI Commissioner Gretchen Cosby then claimed that a word change that occurred at some point in the executive aide job description somehow damaged Epperson when his resume was published by The Holland Sentinel.

“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 obtained from the county’s website. 

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

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. 

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. 

OI Commissioner Sylvia Rhodea, who served as vice chair at the time of the December meeting, 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. Our employees should not have to suffer political collateral damage and 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.”

Defamation can be spoken (slander) and written or published (libel). To be considered defamation, the statement must be communicated to a third party, be false and cause damage to the person's reputation. 

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.

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.

“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.

Moss said there were “other claims as well, such as things related to Mr. Gibbs and his treatment … hostile work environment,” but he didn’t elaborate on what those claims were.

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.

Cosby and Moss also told commissioners that they had direct conversations with Epperson prior to the closed session about a potential severance for him.

“We want to resolve it as calmly and quietly and simply as possible. So, I have spoken to him. I've asked him for feedback on if he would like to be done immediately. He'd like to stay open to the year,” Moss said. “He said, for the good of the current board, of the future board, he does not want additional controversy next year. He doesn't want to show up on Jan. 2 and be fired.”

Zylstra and Bonnema reiterated that Epperson had the option to quit.

“What he is asking for is to be dismissed. Let's say, ‘Great. Therefore, you’re dismissed. You're asking to be dismissed,’” Zylstra said.

“He is asking for a smooth transition to continue serving the county until the end of the year,” Moss said.

“If somebody wants to be dismissed, then they should be allowed to be dismissed, or they should quit if he has a claim against the county, and he should bring it in the court of law and then let justice take place,” Bonnema said. “But this is, this is, I'm not gonna be bullied into handing out money. … I don't think that us condemning ‘HR is doing something wrong’ on the forefront like this makes any sense. Let him fight it out in court, if he wants to fight for it in court.”

Moss pushed back, saying the myriad lawsuits against the county — seven in a span of 14 months during OI’s leadership tenure — were unpopular with the public.

“All I've heard for the last two years is, ‘Stop the controversy. Stop the lawsuits. Stop all this stuff,'” he said.

“You're not even articulating any claims where he's had financial damages,” Bonnema said. “There's no quantifiable damage.”

Cosby then admitted she had direct conversations regarding Epperson’s alleged damages.

“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 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.’”

The Wetmore closed session minutes

During the second closed session, 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.

“Nate Wolf is not involved in this situation. I have had discussions about the situation with Nate Wolf, but it is not the same as having an open investigation,” Moss said. “Could there be one? Yes, there could, but there is not. Did Mr. Wetmore have the same type of problems with Mr. Gibbs and other things? Sure, but it's not to the same extent. So this is different. 

“I will reiterate what I am asking the board to do, which would be in the best interest of the county to get a release. I'm asking to consider severance because it is the right thing to do in this situation to have a clean transition, so that on Jan. 2, your board can appoint whoever they want … and move on.”

Although all of the OI commissioners claimed in the closed session that the incoming board would appoint retiring county Sheriff Steve Kempker as the county’s next administrator, that didn’t come to pass: The new board appointed retired sheriff Gary Rosema, who preceded Kempker, instead.

Zylstra said he could support some severance for Wetmore in order to clear the path for new incoming leadership, but pointed out that Wetmore only served in the role for 56 days at the time the closed session conversation took place.

“I am in favor of three months for interim administrator Wetmore. I understand that he's taken on some additional duties in the last month, but for me, that doesn't change,” Zylstra said. “He doesn't have a contract. He probably should have asked for one, then included three months' severance. … 

“I go back to the same point that it should be immediate. He's seeking to separate himself from us. If he wants to separate himself from us, he should have the freedom to do that. But that should be today,” he said.

Moss responded the same way he did during the Epperson closed session, indicating that he also had conversations with Wetmore about a severance package.

“He is not looking to leave today. He's looking to provide a clean transition for the current board and the next board. He has no ill will or animosity,” Moss said. “He understands the current political dynamics. He understands, based on statements made and events that have occurred, that he will not be retained. That's totally fine.”

Zylstra pointed to recent severance packages for Shay and Gibbs, who each received one year’s severance pay because they had respective contracts with the county.

“The fact that interim administrator Wetmore did not ask for a contract is not our fault,” Zylstra said. 

“So, I asked myself, ‘What is the right thing to do? He's got nine kids. He's got a family. He has worked very, very hard for the county,’ and I am personally not opposed to affording him the same as was afforded prior administrators,” Moss said. “He's got nine kids, nine months. That's where I'm at. Hate it, love it, whatever … I would go to nine.”

Zylstra and Bonnema said the size of an employee’s family was irrelevant in calculating severance. 

“The fact that you have zero kids or nine kids should not affect this,” Zylstra said.

Moss pushed back, saying Wetmore also was “targeted in the media.”

Despite not presenting any claim Wetmore had that could create liability for the county, Moss hinted that it still could happen.

“The other factor in my mind is that he is a person who could make the argument that he is absolutely being forced out and doesn't want to leave,” Moss said. “He was hired for a job and would like to continue. I understand that won't happen. That's okay, but also I want to at least give that some level of consideration in the conversation.”

Rhodea said just because concrete claims weren’t presented, she believed the liability was real.

“Because while there’s not an active investigation, I think there are also claims,” she said.

“There are,” Moss said. “He has not brought it forward. He has offhandedly stated it, but he is not engaged on it, which may be him holding his cards a lot closer to his vest.”

The non-OI commissioners, including Zylstra, Bonnema and Kleinjans, supported a severance of three months, but the OI commissioners, including Rhodea, Moss and Allison Miedema, strongly backed a year’s pay with benefits.

Moss said he would agree to nine months’ pay if “other people would come to consensus,” asking the non-OI commissioners to flip their vote if the number was more agreeable.

“At the end of the day, I want to release. I want it over, and I care about the optics,” Moss said.

Zylstra said Moss had enough votes to approve whatever number the OI majority preferred.

“You probably have enough votes,” Zylstra said.

“If we have enough votes, I mean, we might as well say it’s 12 (months). I'd like to come to a greater census, and going down to nine will do it. That's what I prefer.”

Lanae Monera, who at the time served as one of the county’s attorneys, left the room to discuss with Wetmore if he would accept eight months' pay and insurance, which Wetmore declined, according to the clerk’s written minutes. 

Commissioners then discussed six months’ pay, which didn’t receive resounding support from the non-OI commissioners.

“For the sake of unanimity, and although every fiber of my being says, ‘No,’ if y'all will go with six, I'll cheerfully and thrillingly go with six,” Kleinjans said.

Not long after, Moss left the room to discuss with Wetmore if he would accept six months' pay and insurance, which Wetmore declined. 

Moss then again tried to get “buy-in” from Commissioner Roger Bergman, who is now retired, and from Kleinjans.

“No. 1, we don't want any more funny business. We don't want any lawsuits. We don't want any controversy next year,” Moss said. “So, I would like more buy-in from Roger and Chris.

Ultimately, Kleinjans agreed to vote with the OI majority for 12 months’ pay and no health insurance in order to cap the costs.

“He's essentially said what he wants,” Kleinjans said of Wetmore. “The alternative to that is the total capitulation to this, which we all see, which a majority seem willing to do,” he said, referring to paying out a year’s severance and benefits. 

“If this saves us something — a lot — then … fine.”

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.

What happens next

The board next meets at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 28. 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.