The Livingston County Board of Commissioners has cost us — the taxpayers of Livingston County — $354,000.
For that much money, we got nothing interesting, useful or cool. Instead, our $354,000 is paying $240,000 to Dykema Gossett, the firm that represented Livingston County’s courts in their suit against the county, and $114,048 to Plunkett Cooney, the firm representing the county. (Editor’s note: This paragraph was edited to specify the fees paid to both law firms involved in the suit.)
The suit, filed in March 2024, was resolved by mediation in late October, and when the smoke cleared, the courts got everything for which it had sued: retroactive raises for its employees, money to pay for its salary study, and reimbursement of its legal expenses.
The total cost to the county? Just under $590,000.
So, how did a county board, which boasts of supposedly conservative fiscal bona fides at every opportunity, manage to cost us $354,000?
In a nutshell, it started with the county board commissioning a wage study of its non-union employees — including those at the courts — and then adopting the recommendations of the study.
All non-union county workers got raises, as did some unionized workers, like those at the Sheriff’s Office. For some reason, the county board refused to do the same with the courts’ unionized employees, a move that put the courts in a precarious position; the contract of the courts’ unionized employees included a “me-too” clause mandating that they receive the same percent increase as the courts’ non-union workers. The union then threatened to sue for repudiation of the collective bargaining agreement, unfair labor practices, violation of the Public Employment Relations Act, and violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the Michigan and U.S. constitutions.
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t it make sense that union employees at the court be treated the same as union employees at the Sheriff’s Office? The county board apparently disagreed, and it refused to provide the funds, even though it was sitting atop a $30 million surplus.
You need to understand, too, that while the Livingston County court system is a separate — and supposedly co-equal — branch of government, it depends on the county board for its funding.
It sounds like the county board was squeezing the courts, doesn’t it? I’m sure you’re now asking why in the world it would want to do that.
My money is on the most partisan of politics being at play.
Sheriff Mike Murphy is a Republican, as are all the county’s elected officials. The one and only area in red, red Livingston County in which Democrats have had any consistent, long-lasting, high-impact success is with judgeships, and that’s only because of gubernatorial appointments. Half of Livingston County’s judges were appointed by Democratic governors, and if you think that fact doesn’t stick in the craw of some of our elected Republicans, well, you haven’t been paying close enough attention.
It’s doesn’t feel too far a stretch to imagine that a commissioner or two might seize the chance to flex their political muscle on the courts.
Commissioner Wes Nakagiri has made no secret that he believes court employees are overpaid and underworked, and that there are entirely too many of them. (There are currently 100.45 full-time equivalencies across all the county’s courts.)
At the March 25, 2024, county board meeting, Nakagiri expressed frustration with what what he feels is the court system’s overstaffing: “It is dismaying that the courts have now sued the board of commissioners,” Nakagiri said. “I look forward to a forum where the entire truth will come out, both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion.”
Board Chair Jay Drick, who ran unsuccessfully for judge multiple times and who was once the court’s magistrate, delivered a coup de grâce to the courts by inexplicably moving to whack an additional $200,000 from their budget. It was when that additional cut — made without explanation — landed on the courts that they decided to file suit, claiming the county was trying to starve them financially.
Things got pretty contentious. One mediation failed, and then, finally, a settlement was reached at the end of October. And guess what? The court system got EVERYTHING for which it had sued — nearly $200,000 in retroactive raises; an additional $36,000 budget adjustment; and the payment of its legal fees, which came to just over $354,000. The grand total: $589,793.
The legal expenses — totaling $354,048 — account for a whopping 60% of the cost of the suit. I’ve included a more detailed history of it at the end of this piece. (You can also CLICK HERE for our previous coverage.)
The courts and the county also agreed to reinstate monthly meetings, and the courts agreed to present a budget amendment to the county board before it signs a contract that increases its current fiscal year appropriation.
In a press release posted on the county’s website — a release devoid of any of the details of the settlement, by the way — Chair Drick said that both sides “warmly shook hands and traded hugs upon resolution.”
“Future relations will be far closer to benefit the residents of Livingston County,” Drick said.
It’s too, too bad that those future relations came with such a big price tag.
The money spent on the wage study and employee raises is the cost of running a county. But that $354,000 — which, again, amounts to a gobsmacking 60% of the total cost of the settlement — is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. County residents have every right to be angry about having to foot the bill for its county board to play a misguided game of political hardball with the courts.
So, when 2028 rolls around and commissioners seeking re-election are campaigning on being fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative, demand to know why they cost us a whopping $354,000.
Here is a quick history of the lawsuit:
• The Livingston County Board of Commissioners hired MGT Consulting in March 2022 to conduct a wage study of its non-union employees, including those at the courts, to ensure the county’s wage structure was “competitive with current economic and market conditions,” and helpful to “recruit and retain a talented workforce.”
• MGT Consulting completed its study in October 2022, and recommended wage increases and position re-classifications for Livingston County’s non-union employees. The recommendations were adopted unanimously by the Livingston County Board of Commissioners at its Oct. 24, 2022, meeting, and became effective for all non-union employees — including those in the courts — on Jan. 1, 2023.
• The Courts had been negotiating with the Michigan Association of Public Employees (MAPE), to which its union employees belong, because its collective bargaining agreement was expiring on Dec. 31, 2022.
• A tentative agreement was reached on a two-year contract to run from Jan. 1, 2023, to Dec. 31, 2025. A provision of that contract required that the court system’s union employees get the same wage increases as its non-union workers, and that the courts and the union conduct a wage study before Aug. 1, 2023. (CLICK HERE for the bargaining agreement as filed with the courts’ lawsuit.)
• The courts hired MGT Consulting — the same company the county used; it completed its study on Sept. 22, 2023, and just as it had with the county’s non-union study, MGT Consulting recommended re-classifications and wage increases for the courts’ union employees consistent with what the county had adopted.
• The cost of the study was $22,800; it was expected that cost would be covered by the county, but the county board refused to pay, so the courts had to find money to cover the expense in its existing budget.
• Other cuts to the courts’ proposed budget were made by the commissioners.
• On Sept. 29, 2023, the courts received notice that a discussion of the approval and implementation of its union wage study was removed from the agenda of the county board’s personnel committee by its chair, Commissioner Frank Sample, and that the county refused to consider the matter further.
• On Oct. 16, 2023, the court system learned that a total of $163,220 was cut from its proposed budget, cuts to which it said it did not object “in the spirit of cooperation given that County administration’s proposed budget for the Courts included funding for the implementation of the Courts’ Union Wage Study.” (The cost to implement that union wage study was approximately $213,000 for 2024, assuming 100% staffing of all existing court positions for the entire year.)
• Court administrators and then-Chief Judge Michael Hatty attended the commission’s Finance and Asset Management Committee meeting on Oct. 30, 2023, which was to include a discussion on implementing the Courts’ union wage study. Judge Hatty spoke during Call to the Public, but after that, the board refused to take action. Current Board Chair Jay Drick then made a motion to whack another $200,000 from the courts’ budget. Drick’s motion was seconded by Frank Sample, and it passed with Drick, Sample and commissioners Nick Fiani, Wes Nakagiri, Roger Deaton and Jay Gross voting for it. David Domas and Martin Smith voted against it, and Doug Helzerman was absent.
• The courts claimed that the “decision to strike an additional $200,000 from the Court’s 2024 budget had never been discussed, and there was little discussion at the Oct. 30, 2023, (meeting) about the rationale or reasons for such a cut.”
• The Courts claimed that since its proposed budget had already been cut by $163,220, the additional $200,000 cut resulting from Drick’s motion, coupled with the county’s refusal to pay for the union wage study, “threatened the serviceability of the Courts for fiscal year 2024.”
• Then-Chief Judge Hatty authorized the lawsuit against the county on behalf of the Circuit and District courts; Chief Judge Miriam Cavanaugh of the Probate Court did the same.
• On January 19, 2024, the union representing the courts’ organized employees, threatened in a letter to sue for repudiation of the collective bargaining agreement, unfair labor practices, violation of the Public Employment Relations Act, and violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the Michigan and U.S. constitutions.
• A March 5, 2024, facilitated mediation session between the county and the courts failed.
• In the lawsuit filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals on March 11, 2024, the Livingston County Courts — Circuit, District and Probate — claimed the Livingston County Board of Commissioners was trying to starve them of the constitutionally required funding they needed to operate as the county sits pretty atop a general fund balance $30 million high. (CLICK HERE to see the county’s budget as filed with the courts’ lawsuit.)
• The mediated settlement between the county and the courts was approved Oct. 28, 2024.
