ACCOA Special Meeting | 12/06/2022

Yesterday was the Alcona County Commission on Aging’s (ACCOA) Special Meeting regarding the tabled contract with the Sidock Group to move forward to Phase 2 of the Community Hub Project. Read more about this special meeting, and watch the replay of it, below.

Meeting Replay

Before we begin with my commentary on the meeting, I want to present you with the video replay of the meeting. That way, you can easily watch the video at any time throughout this article.

My Observations About The Meeting

The meeting started much like all the others do, with the Pledge of Allegiance. From there, Mike, the President of the Board, started by reading over the agenda for the meeting. You can view a copy of this below.

Once we got to the motion to approve the agenda as it was presented, and the discussion for that motion took place, that’s when things started getting good. Apparently, the Board was given a new addendum to the contract that they’re meeting to discuss. And they were not given any sort of ample time to go over this new addendum before this special meeting. There were an additional four pages to the new contract given to the board members. And if you’ve seen contracts, that can be quite a bit to go over.

Anyhow, after much discussion, they did a roll call vote to approve the agenda as presented. Here are the votes:

• Dolores – No
• Doctor Turek – No
• Jacquelyn – Yes
• Will – Yes
• Rolland – No
• Leroy – No
• Pam – Yes
• Mike (even though he wasn’t supposed to vote here, as disclosed later in the meeting) – Yes

The motion failed. Some discussion took place about what to do going forward. Leroy wants to go forward with voting yay or nay from the contract from November, and motioned as such. Bob seconded this motion. Jacquelyn suggested listening to the presentations by the guest speakers, and then going forward with voting on the new contract that was presented today.

Bob and Leroy disagree with that. They’re fine with going forward with presentations, however, they’ll still need time to go over the new contract before voting on it. At this point, Lenny starts to make “some clarifications”. He states:

It’s not a new contract, it is an addendum. (Then he tells someone in the audience to not interrupt.) It is an addendum to the existing contract that was already reviewed by our attorney. (Dolores asks Lenny to speak up because she can’t hear him.) It was already—It’s an addendum to their current contract based on a new scope of work that the planning committee met and adjusted the scope of work. So the addendum, as it says at the top, through the community center square footage, it will increase the community center square footage, and it moved the housing to a later phase. So those are the things that were already asked of the board, in November, in the language, was, and I believe that Will St. John, made that suggestion, that the language be as such that the housing would not be prioritized, that the community center/senior center be prioritized in the language. They made that change; that’s why you have a different contract. And then they spelled out exactly what you asked in the November meeting, that the housing portion would be put back to ensure that the senior center would be completed first. And that the monies allocated to the—So they did exactly what you asked for. So then why then, when they’re here, ready to explain the changes that you asked for, then you want to go back on something that we could have had a decision on, back in November? I do not understand that logic. Because what was the whole point of this meeting, if we’re going to vote on something we could have voted on two weeks ago? So, why not, continue with what you asked for? I agree with Director Schwanz, in that they’re here to talk to you, and explain to you, you know, where we are, where we’re going, what’s in the project, to remove all doubt. Or do we need to have a repeat from the last meeting?

I added some emphasis onto “different contract” in the quote from Mr. Avery above. Simply because, as he’s explaining to the board why an addendum is not a different contract, he then goes on to state that it is in fact, a different contract. There are several mishaps from Mr. Avery in the meetings I have personally attended so far, where he does something similar to this. Says something is not something else, and then goes on to state that it is actually, that something else.

Anyhow, an interesting point was made by Mike after Mr. Avery’s quote above, and that is that a new policy for the board meetings has been agreed upon by the Policies and Procedures Committee, which is that each board member gets 2 turns to speak. And that is only after everyone on the board has gone once already. (This is per discussion/debate.) There is also a time limit for each turn the board members speak, and that is 10 minutes per turn. (So a max of 20 minutes per discussion/debate topic.)

After even more discussion, Mike called for a Roll Call Vote to proceed with the contract as was given to the board at the November 22, 2022 meeting. The Roll Call vote went as such:

• Dolores – Yes
• Doctor Turek – Yes
• Jacquelyn – No
• Will – Yes
• Mike – (He states here that he only votes in cases of tied votes. So he did not say yes or no here.)
• Rolland – Yes
• Leroy – Yes
• Pam – No

The motion passes and they will move forward on the contract that was given to them at the November meeting.

It then went to the first section of Public Comment. These are the ones of note… (They will be summarized, and not verbatim.)

Rick of Lincoln: He worked at GM for a lot of years. And he wanted to let them know about contracts. Anytime you add an addendum, it creates a new contract. They operated that way for years during his time at GM. Yes, some of the verbiage will be the same from the original, but you have to double check to make sure of this. But yes, it does create a new contract. We need to clear this project up for the public, because there is a lot of confusing terms being thrown around by everyone.

Rich of Harrisville: You can delegate your authority to the Executive Director (Lenny Avery), but not your responsibility. You are a 501C3 organization, as seen in your IRS 990 form. Your 990 has to be made available to the public, and it states in the mission that they will enhance the life of the “elderly”. If you use funds of the organization outside of the mission stated, even if the project is an act of charity, you can lose your 501C3 status with the IRS. MCL 15.261, which was brought up by Bob Turek, is the Open Meetings Act, and he reads off the penalties that the board may face if they violate this act. He points out again, that this is the Boards’ responsibility, and not the Executive Director’s. He then asked the Board to lead the organization as they’re supposed to, and not delegate it unto the shoulders of the Executive Director.

Phil of Harrisville: He talked about Robert’s Rules on tabling a motion and then untabling a motion. He then asks if the Board ever untabled the motion from the November meeting. And if you have not untabled that motion or meeting, then you cannot discuss that motion/meeting. (Mike thought they might have but then realized they had not done this process.)

Judy of Harrisville: She wanted to remind the board, that the subcommittees are there to make recommendations to the board, and not decisions for the board. Especially after hearing so many on the board say, “Well the committee made the decision…” The decisions the board then makes after the recommendations from the subcommittees, are then to be recorded into the minutes.

Lisa of Harrisville: She pointed out the fact that earlier in the meeting, Pam said that one of the vote counts was 5 to 4, but Stan was not present today. Then Pam said that Mike had two votes for that particular vote, and Lisa questioned her on that. Pam retracted that statement, and Mike began to ask about that vote, and it was clarified for all.

Rich of Harrisville (more time was given to him from another member of the audience): The grant writers are not the IRS, and they cannot stop the IRS from taking away the 501C3 status of ACCOA.

After many other public comments, the Board got back to business. They started with a motion to untable the tabled motion from the last meeting. (That motion passed.)

Then came the presentations. I won’t go over much of these, but you can see from the photos in the small gallery below, what was talked about during these presentations.

After the presentations from the people of Sidock, it was time for the Executive Director do a presentation, which was more of a summation of what the other presenters had said, along with some back story on what the ACCOA had attempted to do in the past. A few board members made some comments after this summation.

One notable comment was made by Leroy, and it was a verse from Luke, which was essentially, “A man who starts a project without the money to finish it, is a fool.” I’m not sure of the exact quote, but the point made by it is quite clear.

Another poignant point that was made, was made by Will. He told everyone, in no unsure terms, that this project is one with strings attached. You must build the housing, the community center, and the recreation facilities all together, or you don’t get any of the funding at all.

After comments from the Board, then came more motions. Dr. Turek wanted to make a motion that had two parts, and after discussion and semantics being argued, they went like this.

A motion to reject the contract/addendum as presented to the board on November 22^nd. There was a unanimous approval of this motion. Then, a secondary motion, which was to take the new addendum/contract and send it to the Building Committee for review and recommendation to the board by the next public meeting in January. This too, had a unanimous approval.

There were then, a couple of Christmas party notices announced, before Public Comment started again.

Here are the notable comments:

Debbie from Barton City: Used to work for the ACCOA, and thanks the staff for always being fantastic at what they do for the seniors they help. She had two questions, one was she had seen an interview with Lenny Avery and WBKBTV, and he had told them that the $12.5 million would be a big part of paying for the project, but that the rest of the funding would be coming from Donations and Investors. So she’s wondering if 1) that’s still the plan, and if so, what have the investors been told in order to get a return on their investment?

The Executive Director responded:

For the love of God people, we have a new proposal with a budget in hand (Leroy attempts to make a Point of Order, which Lenny immediately shuts down. I must point out, that this is a direct violation of Robert’s Rules of Order.) Excuse me. You asked me to respond, please don’t interrupt. (At this point, Leroy asks Lenny to please respond in a respectful manner.) Very well. I apologize. But here’s the situation. Reaching back from 2000 to 2001, to old ideas when we were in the conceptual phase, is not where we are currently at now. We have presented to you, for over an hour and a half, of where we are at now. We have crossed the river Jordan. Okay? And the scripture that was quoted, also it says to take an account. And that is what we have been doing. Taking an account of our budget, and what we can do. I will point out one more time: We have taken an account, and I have only spent the money that we are looking to do, only spends the grant money for the seniors. There are very few community amenities in the project for the community center. Yes, I would like additional community stuff but you know what? I’m going to go find more money. Because that is what the overall phased approach of this project is set for. So, the shortfalls are the additional funding sources that we are trying to get for the phased project. However, if they don’t happen, we build what we can build. That’s it. If I go to a restaurant and I got 12 bucks and it costs 11.50 for a burger and fries, I don’t add a soda, because that’s all I got. But if I see my friend, and he gives me a five spot and says ‘hey man, why don’t you—why don’t you sit down and have one with me’. Well, now I can add a soda. But if that doesn’t happen, I stick with what my budget is on the menu. Can we follow that? Okay.

(Watch this exchange here. It will go directly to Debbie’s comment and then the Executive Directors’ response.)

Will then responded too, and informed everyone that there are no investors in the current project.

Judy of Harrisville: Brought up the land and $60,000 that was offered to ACCOA by the village of Lincoln for a new Senior Center. Doesn’t like that they’re gonna run out of money, which means they’ll then have to pay what was spent of the grant, and ask the citizens for help, and we’re not gonna give it to them. She then asked about the fact that one of the presentations mentioned MSU Extension for one of the surveys, and would like more information on that survey. She’s also worried about the bidding process as explained by the presenters.

Rich of Harrisville: Not against a community center. Mentioned that the ACCOA would have to change it’s name and bylaws/mission statement to make sure the IRS doesn’t revoke the 501C3 status they currently have in order to be okay on both fronts for the IRS and the community project. He felt he would be remiss if he didn’t mention this. He also mentioned the rough numbers to the surveys and explains to the board why no one had heard of them. Roughly only 2.5% of the population of Alcona County might have received one, and is one reason why so many seniors are upset about this project.

Lisa of Harrisville: Wanted to let everyone know that an Incubator Project had been done once before in Harrisville and it didn’t pan out at all.

Potential Open Meetings Act Violations

The meeting started with a member of the Staff of the ACCOA going around, and taking attendance of the crowd (asking them to sign a notepad with their names.) Some of the crowd tried to warn this staff member that this could construe a violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, under section 15.263, Sec. 3. (5). (View the Open Meetings Act document at the end of this article.) However, due to this being a voluntary thing, I think the ACCOA is safe on this aspect.

However, speaking of the Open Meetings Act, I feel it is upon me to make a side note, that the ACCOA has failed to comply on Section 15.269, Section 9 (3) of the Open Meetings Act. “How?” you may be asking yourself. Well, the ACCOA has failed to place the minutes from the a few months on their website for us to view. (There are meeting minutes that are notably absent from 2021 and 2022.) This section of the act states:

3. A public body shall make proposed minutes available for public inspection within 8 business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall make approved minutes available for public inspection within 5 business days after the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body.

Unless the bylaws of the ACCOA (which I cannot find on their website as of writing this article), specify differently, then it would appear that the ACCOA is in violation of this part of the Open Meetings Act. (And even if the bylaws attempted to override the OMA, I doubt that would be legal either.)

There may be other violations at hand, but as for now, we’ll be investigating this and other disparities deeper.

Robert’s Rules of Order Violations

When Leroy made a point of order, and Lenny told him to not interrupt him… I was floored. This was a blatant violation of Robert’s Rules of Order.

When someone is making a Point of Order, they can do the following:

• Can interrupt a speaker who has the floor (in this case, Lenny)
• Doesn’t need to be seconded
• Isn’t debatable
• Can’t be amended
• Is decided by the chair (Will addressed this after Lenny had finished, instead of Mike)
• Can’t be reconsidered.
• Can be raised at any time when any member notices a violation of the rules.

This is a way for members to ensure that the rules of decorum aren’t being trampled on. I suggest that the entire board, and the Executive Director, all receive copies of Robert’s Rules of Order, and get familiar with them as soon as possible.

In Closing

This meeting was pretty intense, but less so than previous meetings we have attended. I’m happy to see so much community participation from all walks of life, and I hope it continues. Please watch the video (above) for a more perfect description of what took place. Also, I have a transcript below, which was provided by YouTube, for those who would rather read than watch.

God be with you until we meet again patriots!
Jess Dobbs

YouTube Transcript