Leelanau Commissioner Update November 2025
Don’t be alarmed. Leelanau County planning director Gail Myer joined a number of county employees who make Halloween a special stop for kids. These types of spoof grave markers and other spooky decorations were scattered around the county building for trick-or-treaters.
Too often when dealing with county staff we forget that they have lives beyond being public officials. And we forget that they like to have and share fun activities. Certainly the kiddies appreciate them; we should, too.
Leelanau Commissioner Update November 2025
Provided by Alan Campbell
Commissioner, District 5 (Leland and Centerville Townships)
Thank you for opening the Leelanau Commissioner newsletter or visiting the leelanaucommissioner.com website. Please keep in mind that content on the website has been solely produced by me and may not reflect the opinions of other county commissioners.
Information about a variety of topics is included in this edition, including an overview of the County Executive meeting held Wednesday, a story on how the county hopes to control health care costs, and paths commissioners may consider to make the county conflict of interest policy work better for residents.
If you know of someone interested in receiving the information below, please forward this email to them so that they might subscribe. I will not share email addresses — my days of making a living through publishing have long passed — and it's simple to unsubscribe.
Past newsletters and documents of importance can be found at leelanaucommissioner.com. My goal with this newsletter is simple: to make the work of the County Board of Commissioners transparent. Feedback is welcome through a link on this newsletter or by calling me at 231-492-4972. I enjoy our conversations.
Thank you.
Alan Campbell
Leelanau County Commissioner
Overview of the Latest Board Meeting
November 13th, 2025
Now that was fun … sorta.
I’m writing about actions taken at the nearly five-hour County Board executive committee meeting held Wednesday, Nov. 12. Normally, our meetings are held on Tuesdays, but that would interfere with Veterans Day.
Because of the delay, actions taken at the meeting came too late for coverage in local media. By publishing the Leelanau Commissioner Newsletter the day after, I’m hoping to inform residents of the outcomes recommended should they want to offer comment prior to votes to confirm the recommendations at commissioners’ regular meeting set to begin at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 18.
Following are synopses of issues that residents may find of interest:
AI Policy Proposed
County employees would be required to adhere to restrictions while using county-provided laptops and phones under a new policy recommended for approval by the County Board.
The policy limits use and establishes reporting requirements for use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the workplace. The policy has roots in a seminar attended by several commissioners in September at the Michigan Counties Association conference, was drafted by the county IT director, edited by the Human Resources director, and reviewed by the county attorney. It was recommended for approval by county administrator Jim Dyer, who warned that “it is becoming clear that an employee may attempt to use this new technology without clear guidelines for its limitations …” He also informed commissioners that AI “in the workplace could become a useful tool to increase efficiency in some regular tasks performed by departments.”
The policy’s goal is to establish ground rules that “protect the county’s confidential information and the integrity of our operations.” It warns employees not to use GenAI tools to help in employment decisions, upload personal information, use as a substitute for human judgment and creativity, or present AI-generated material as original work.
It also requires employees to “inform your supervisor when you have used a GenAI tool to help perform a task.” That phrasing caught my eye and resulted in my casting the only “no” vote among commissioners against the policy.
While I agree with the bulk of the policy, I also feel the reporting part goes too far. I would prefer to train employees rather than slow down their progress on important projects by requiring them to report to supervisors every time an AI report pops up on their screens. Violation of the policy can lead to discipline, including termination.
Time to Apply for Boards, Commissions
Ever have an itch to become more involved in your community? One way would be to seek appointment to one of the many boards and commissions that operate under the umbrella of county government.
The County Board will consider applicants seeking positions on a variety of public bodies, including the Land Bank Fast Track Authority (two openings, with one now vacant), Leland Dam Authority (two openings), and County Planning Commission (four openings). Positions reserved for county residents within regional organizations will also be filled, including the Benzie/Leelanau District Environmental Health Board of Appeals and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, according to the county website.
Commissioners scheduled a special work session for Tuesday, Dec. 9, to review and recommend applicants for appointments.
One opening on the County Parks and Recreation Commission was already recommended for approval. Commissioners unanimously on Wednesday recommended the appointment of Kathy Dawkins. I voted yes while also stating that I believe the decision was procedurally flawed. I preferred to have the position rolled into our established appointment process but did not want to cast a vote that could be interpreted as reflective of Ms. Dawkins’ qualifications.
Leelanau Will Have New Auditor
The longstanding auditing relationship between Leelanau County and Rehmann Robson LLC of Traverse City and CPA Stephen Peacock has come to an end.
The Rehmann financial group was not one of four bidders seeking to complete the 2025 audit. Commissioners voted to seek bids for the work for the first time in many years. Perhaps having some influence on Rehmann’s decision were the beliefs of some commissioners, including myself, that it’s good policy to every so often seek a new set of eyes on the county books. I did not express that view publicly. It’s nothing against Rehmann and certainly not Mr. Peacock, whose dedication and work results I trusted and appreciated.
A switch may also benefit taxpayers, depending upon which firm is chosen. Bids for the 2025 calendar and fiscal year audit came in at $50,175, $62,840, $76,500, and $84,000.
Rehmann was paid $69,000 to audit 2024 county finances. Little discussion was offered on the bids by commissioners, who preferred to interview representatives from aspiring firms at a future meeting before making a decision.
Fee Increase for Soil Permits
The cost of construction in Leelanau County will increase should a proposal from the Leelanau Conservation District be approved. Commissioners voted 6-1 in favor of the plan, which would fund additional inspectors. A final vote is expected on Tuesday, Nov. 18.
District executive director Jacob Moord presented a detailed report to commissioners whose bottom line was that permit fees were not covering the cost of inspections, which is required by a county ordinance. A second vehicle is also needed, he said. Provided in the report was a graph showing the issuance of 563 permits in 2022, 507 in 2023, and 544 in 2024. Revenue from the three years totaled $82,701, $76,967, and $122,879.
I liked that the new fee structure was designed to better coordinate fee amounts with the level of oversight anticipated for an individual project.
And while I agree with the theory that fees are a better way to fund such permitting than property taxes, I could not agree with the result of the new fee structure. It was estimated to produce $300,000 in revenue annually. That’s more than double the revenue produced in 2024 and more than triple the revenue of the previous two years.
I find that Mr. Moord has been an asset for Leelanau County and readily support most of his ideas and concepts for the future. He’s refreshing. However, I could not support an increase of that much at one time and cast the “no” vote.
Lastly, Budget Hearing on Tuesday
Leelanau County’s real budget hearing — as opposed to the 10 or so budget work sessions held by county commissioners over the past two months — is set for Tuesday evening, Nov. 18. Public input into the budget can still change the final outcome, so please consider voicing your thoughts. Beyond media coverage, copies of the proposal are available for viewing in the county clerk’s office.
The budget came in at $18.4 million in expenditures and revenue. I have some qualms that I’ve mentioned before, including last-minute changes that increased projected revenue by $100,000 with no new information offered, lowering the contingency fund from $300,000 to $200,000, and proposing hundreds of thousands in savings by leasing rather than buying vehicles. The latter I consider a one-time fix that allows the budget to balance after an unexpected increase in health care costs of a whopping $600,000.
Frankly, I felt during the process that the budget was driving commissioners rather than commissioners driving the budget.
But the outcome is workable, and the process served as a learning experience for all involved, including commissioners. Staff worked hard toward a finished product, including members of the county finance department.
Please consider being a part of the process.
Healthcare Cost Skyrocket
November 13th 2025
Health insurance premium increases are breaking family budgets.
They’re causing havoc in the Leelanau County budget, too.
I’ve always been of the mindset that governments by nature tend to shake off higher costs, especially local governments that have grown accustomed to ever-increasing revenue realized by higher property values.
That’s generally a true statement.
However, the verdict is still out as to whether health insurance costs will break the county budget. That will depend on the cost to keep the 100 or so enrollees healthy, as the county several years ago embraced a quasi self-insurance plan that kept the cost of insurance lower for Leelanau and helped shield against the never-ending price increases felt in the open insurance marketplace.
I’ve written many a newspaper story about the self-funded health insurance program that, at least previously, had proven well-suited to meet the needs of the county workforce. That was from a distance. And frankly, those were good times for the county’s choice in providing health insurance to employees.
Leelanau continues to provide what has been termed a “Cadillac” plan at a very reasonable cost to enrollees. There were a manageable number of catastrophic claims. The county would budget high for the number of employees whose expenses hit the stop-loss level of $20,000, but county finances came out ahead because fewer claims than budgeted hit that mark.
But Blue Cross is taking the $20,000 stop-loss option off the table by increasing the premium per individual from $1,220 to $1,830 — 50 percent. The only viable option now is to accept a proposal to switch to a $50,000 stop-loss.
That sets up a much higher level of liability for the county. Presently, Blue Cross picks up health care costs over $20,000 per individual. Under a new policy expected to be approved in January, the county’s share of health care costs per individual would increase to everything under $50,000 rather than $20,000.
Consequently, commissioners were left scrambling to alleviate a major deficit in a budget whose health care line item increased from $2 million to $2.6 million.
Commissioners were flooded with updated information from CMI Agency insurance representative Lou Walters at their executive committee meeting held Wednesday, Nov. 13. He spoke at length about the increased liability the county would take on with the higher stop-loss level, but he also convincingly concluded that the design of the self-insurance program presented a much better option financially and in service provided than entering the open market.
The biggest threat to self-insurance has been the advent and common use of new, high-priced drugs, he said. When Mr. Walters last talked with commissioners in January, he planned to request that some prescription drug enrollees switch to off-brands. However, after-work meetings were canceled, he said, because unions required compensation to attend. It seems to me that the meetings may need to be held during work hours. If such a change results in lower health costs, the result would be worth it. I mentioned that during the meeting.
While I’m no expert on the topic, my ears are open. We are considering raising the co-pay for prescriptions, which is now very low. Our deductibles are also very low ($100 for an individual), which certainly helps in recruiting and retaining talent. One goal is to stay competitive in the workplace.
Please give me a call at 231-492-4972 with your ideas.
Research Toward Writing New Conflict, Grievance Policies
November 13th 2025
Note to constituents:
First off, I apologize for the dryness of this report, but after all, it’s designed as a report to my Commissioner colleagues rather than a story. While I’ve come to realize that many of the county’s policies are outdated or ignored, the work to improve and implement them needs to start somewhere. My priority is to update the county’s conflict of interest policy while infusing wording ensuring ethical behavior within county government. While it will take more than a report with only my views to accomplish that goal, I do believe fellow commissioners and the county administrator are on board. You might want to consider a walk around the room or even a nap should your eyes droop halfway through. Following is the report:
The Leelanau County Board at a previous meeting discussed the need for review and possibly to rewrite the county Conflict of Interest policy. Also identified as needed is a process to avoid conflicts when employees file grievances against the county administrator or anyone involved in the grievance process. The administrator in the current policy is authorized to investigate and resolve complaints. Two such grievances have been filed relatively recently. The following research information may serve as a first step toward developing a policy or policies that will better serve the residents of Leelanau County.
I bring this information to you in hopes you will agree to hold a discussion of the topic at our regular meeting on Nov. 18. After commissioner views are aired, I am asking for your confidence in working with administrator Jim Dyer and others toward development of a new code of ethics and conflict of interest policy for Leelanau County.
Background
The conflict of interest subject came up when the Leelanau County Land Bank voted to have the county assume title of a property sold by Suttons Bay Public School to Leelanau Peninsula Housing, LLC. Placing the property in public title for up to three years allowed Peninsula Housing to avoid paying property taxes, which represented a sizable sum for land purchased for $800,000.
Suttons Bay Village is the highest-taxed jurisdiction in Leelanau County other than the small part of the City of Traverse City north of M-72. At about 41 mills, the property tax paid to state and local governments would come to about $18,640 annually.
The county administrator by statute is a member of the Land Bank Authority. Until recently he was also a member of the Board of Directors for Peninsula Housing, a nonprofit corporation. He did not receive personal gain from his vote.
However, a question arose as to whether holding official positions for bodies on both sides of a government contract represented a conflict of interest. When the issue became part of public debate, it was referred to the county attorney by the County Board chair.
Lawyer Mattis Nordfjord opined that because the definition of a conflict of interest in the county policy and in state law relies almost exclusively on whether a person in public office received compensation in some form for an action taken.
The county conflict of interest policy, written in 2005 and updated in 2007 and in 2013, limits violations to “personal profit, gain or other benefits” and “special favors or privileges.” It fails to address the types of conflicts that place a public servant in a position of representing two sides of an issue that may result in major financial or policy advantages for one body or contractor over another.
Following are overviews of how ethics and conflicts are handled by other local governments.
City of Traverse City
The City of Traverse City took an expanded approach to address the types of conflict situations that are bound to occur in close-knit communities where individuals hold positions in multiple organizations.
I talked with Jackie Anderson, who joined another commissioner and the mayor on a committee that assembled a 12-page ballot proposal to replace an undemanding two-page conflict of interest policy that failed to include many activities that are undertaken by city commissioners.
Clearly an update was needed, Anderson said, and she was proud of the outcome of the committee’s work. Voters agreed, passing Proposal 25-3 by a 4,010–739 margin. That’s nearly 85 percent in support.
According to news reports, the issue arose after a ransomware attack that led to city manager Liz Vogel recommending a no-bid, 3-year contract with Millennium Digital Technologies to install protections against further attacks. Commissioners rejected the recommendation, instead opting to seek bids. Vogel acknowledged knowing the president of Millennium as a “family friend” while also stating the relationship did not affect her recommendation.
The new ordinance requires basically anyone involved in city government, including commissioners, to “avoid any action which may result in or create the appearance of” private gain, preferential treatment of any person or organization, a lack of independence or impartiality of action, and even “affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the local government.” It goes on to address the need for impartiality, avoiding improper use of an official position, and incompatible offices.
Under media relations, it states that “a public servant shall not represent their personal opinion as that of the City.” It is my opinion that adhering to that concept requires starting a lot of sentences with, “It is my opinion that …”
The enforcement section is interesting, requiring the city attorney to “recommend a qualified neutral third party” to serve as arbitrator of reported alleged violations. The arbitrator is authorized to lead a comprehensive investigation.
Complaints are filed with the city attorney — unless they are directed at the city attorney. Such complaints are filed with the city clerk.
As you can see, the new Traverse City ordinance is comprehensive and designed for neutrality.
“It’s good for business,” said City Manager Benjamin Marentette during an interview with The Ticker. “It helps build public trust, and I could see no good reason to ever object to ethical standards for conduct of public employees.”
Grand Traverse County
Grand Traverse employs a six-page “Code of Ethics” that deals with two issues that have come up this year in Leelanau County — conflict of interest, and how to deal with alleged policy violations.
Our neighboring county, like Traverse City, also includes a definition of a conflict of interest that goes beyond financial benefits. Its definition includes any action that may result in:
“A direct personal interest of the Commissioner, a current business partner of the Commissioner, a Commissioner’s immediate family member, or a Commissioner’s immediate family member’s current business partner in the outcome of a cause, proceeding, application, or other matter pending before the body. Although the facts of a given situation may not rise to a legally prohibited conflict of interest, these types of direct personal interests should be disclosed and reviewed prior to acting on a matter before the Board of Commissioners.”
While still left to some interpretation, the definition goes much further than the Leelanau conflict policy by expanding beyond financial benefits. The code also:
• Bans soliciting and accepting gifts, benefits, favors and “anything of value that tends to influence the way official duties are performed.” I prefer wording — eh, make that it’s my personal opinion — that a better wording would include “anything of value that has the potential to influence the way official duties are performed.”
• Bans “food or refreshments not exceeding $200 per person in value on a single calendar day.” (My thought is that individual checks provide a clean alternative.)
• And this: “(A public official should) not engage in or accept private employment or render services for private interest when such employment or service is incompatible or in conflict with the proper discharge of official duties or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of official duties.” (I like this provision.)
The policy also outlines how complaints are handled. They are reported to the Human Resources Director to investigate as to whether they are “credible.”
And then: “However, if the Human Resources Director or County Administrator believes that a particular ethics complaint poses a potential conflict for an internal investigation by their respective offices, either the County Administrator or the Human Resources Director may refer the complaint to an ethics panel to complete an investigation. Notice will be provided to a complainant in the event the complaint is resolved administratively along with information for an appeal procedure to the Board of Commissioners. The appeal shall be in writing and submitted to the Chair of the Board of Commissioners within 21 calendar days from the date of the notice. Upon receipt of a timely appeal, the Chair of the Board of Commissioners shall determine whether to refer the matter to the ethics panel. If the appeal is not timely or not referred to the ethics panel, the matter will be deemed resolved based on the original notice to the complainant.
Ultimately, an appeals decision lies with the County Board, which is authorized to approve one of nine possible outcomes.”
Wexford County
Wexford has a section within its Board of Commissioners Policies, Board and Committees Procedures labeled Ethical Conflict of Interest.
It states, “In situations in which personal bias, prejudice or family relationship might make it difficult for a commissioner to render a reasonable and impartial decision,” the commissioner may request approval from the Board to abstain. Such a request must clearly state the nature of the conflict, and approval must be by a majority of the members present.”
(The lesson here is that a commissioner who believes he or she may have a conflict of interest must gain board approval before abstaining from a vote.)
Emmet County
Emmet has a Code of Ethics and Conduct for County Commissioners whose preamble reads in part, “Furthermore, the effective functioning of democratic government requires that public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions; public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.”
Washtenaw County
The following summation of county ethics policies comes from AI (for what it’s worth):
“Washtenaw County does not have a single, general ‘code of ethics’ for all employees, but it does have specific codes and guidelines for different departments, such as the Community Mental Health (CMH) department and the Senior Nutrition Program. These codes typically focus on professional conduct, including protecting confidential information, avoiding conflicts of interest, and maintaining respectful relationships with clients and the public.”
