As Tuesday’s primary looms, the fact that three women are challenging three members of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners in the Republican primary is causing a political ruckus. The women allege that the county board members spend too much time fighting “amongst themselves and with their constutients,” that the board is “combative, rather than supportive” of county employees, and that it micromanages county departments.
And none thinks the current all-male board adequately represents Livingston County.
“There are no mothers or female small business owners on the board,” one challenger said when announcing her campaign. “There hasn’t been a woman on the board in two years and the community can’t risk another four years with no voice and perspective from such a significant part of our residents.”
It appears these women — with a little help from a former commissioner — are landing some blows. This latest public political brouhaha, with tentacles reaching back several years and controversies, involves lots of players and lots of political gamesmanship, and it has resulted in campaign finance law violation complaints filed with the Michigan Secretary of State.
The Republican challengers are:
• Meghan Williams, challenging incumbent Wes Nakagiri in District 4, which includes all of Hartland Township and Oceola Township Precincts 3 and 6.
• Heather Williams, challenging board Chair Jay Drick in District 5, which includes the City of Howell and Marion Township.
• Tara Black Pearson, challenging incumbent Roger Deaton in District 6, which includes Brighton Township Precincts 2 & 6, Genoa Township Precincts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9-12.
The pique caused by the primary challenges has spilled over into board meetings, and it has resulted in not one but two complaints filed with the Michigan Secretary of State, alleging that Drick violated Michigan campaign finance law at the July 22 meeting of the county board.
The first complaint was filed by Judy Daubenmier, chair of the Livingston County Democratic Party; the second was filed by Steve Williams.
It’s simple: Michigan Campaign Finance Law says that public officials can’t use public resources or their office to campaign for election. You can read the statue by clicking here.
In a move I’ve never seen used before in all my years of covering public meetings, Drick claimed a “last-to-speak option” at the July 22 meeting to push back against things said during call to the public by Steve Williams, the former commissioner whose wife is Drick’s primary challenger.
In this case, Drick as chair of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners used official meeting time to give a political Festivus-like airing of his grievances that included all the ways he alone has earned the right to sit on the board, and to talk smack about the women challengers.
So, did Drick violate Michigan campaign finance law? I think he probably did, but the final decision lies with the Michigan Secretary of State. And even if the SOS decides Drick didn’t violate the law, his behavior showed a remarkable thinness of skin and fondness for public axe grinding.
The July 22 meeting of the county board was an odd one. Before Steve Williams Zoomed in to throw some punches at the commissioners, there was a parade of speakers (save for one) who engaged in a nearly hour-long, coordinated public kissing of the rings.
Williams was the last person to speak in the call to the public, and he made efficient use of his 2 minutes, accusing the commissioners of lying for bragging in campaign literature about balancing the county budget (which is required by law in Michigan), and about having the lowest tax rate in the state, which Williams said was set before any of the current commissioners took office.
Was Williams right? Was Williams wrong? It doesn’t really matter because those 2 call-to-the-public minutes were his to use however he chose.
But Drick was having none of it.
Now, before I get into what Drick said, I am going to digress for a moment to sketch out several chapters of the origin story of this political mob war that will help you understand the situation better.
First: The Livingston County Court System filed suit in the spring against the Board of Commissioners for starving it of adequate funding. You can read all about it here; it’s a long piece, but it tells you all you need to know to understand what is going on.
Second: Both Drick and Nakagiri are being challenged in the Republican primary by women with intimate ties to Williams, who plays heavily in this political melodrama. Williams’ wife, Heather, is challenging Drick, and his daughter, Meghan, is challenging Nakagiri.
In 2021, Nakagiri did Williams dirty when he came up for reappointment to the Huron Clinton Metroparks Board. Though the county board’s nominating committee advanced Williams for the position — which in most all instances would have led to his reappointment — Nakagiri, who wielded the power of the board chairmanship at the time, changed the rules to remove Williams and advance his own pick: the Rev. William Bolin of Floodgate Renewal Church, famous in these parts for holding in-person services throughout the course of the pandemic lockdown.
So, why would Nakagiri spend months waging a costly political battle to replace someone who by all accounts served well on a board few in Livingston County even know exists? Williams is no slouch when it comes to conservative bonafides, but his support of funding Metroparks diversity, equity and inclusion training for its employees — which surely includes making facilities accessible for disabled people — was one culture war talking point too many for Nakagiri.
It was a messy, ugly public affair, and it was Nakagiri who rose from the mud victorious.
Fast forward three years, and Williams’ daughter, Meghan, is challenging Nakagiri in Tuesday’s primary. Nakagiri is not at all happy about being challenged — especially by Williams’ daughter — and his reaction makes me think he’s feeling vulnerable, so vulnerable that he sent out a long, weird, rambling, seven-page missive that took Meghan Williams to task for an assortment of reasons that offend Nakagiri, including her being a young and fairly recent college graduate, and not a sufficiently conservative enough Republican. You can read Nakagiri’s mailing in its entirety by clicking here.
Can you imagine that? Nakagiri spent time and effort to produce seven single-spaced pages ripping on his opponent, saying things like she won’t “battle the cultural corruption of the far left,” and bragging about the part he played in the current controversies on the Hartland school and library boards, how he “expanded the battlefield,” and leveraged his role as a commissioner to “help win the ‘culture war’ in our local school district.”
Meghan Williams responded to what she politely called the “disparaging letter authored by Wes Nakagiri” by saying that her campaign is “founded on the principle that our community thrives when it has choices.”
“I seek to be that choice,” Williams wrote in her statement. “Despite the anticipated criticism from my opponent, I remain undeterred.”
Third: The commissioners are being criticized for releasing only part of its recent employee survey.
Tara Black Pearson, who is challenging Commissioner Roger Deaton in the primary, filed a Freedom of Information Act to get access to the employee comments portion of the survey. (Does anyone else think it odd that taxpayers, essentially the bosses of the county government, are being denied by the county government the ability to know what our employees think?)
The county denied Pearson’s request, citing the privacy of the employees who completed the survey; when she appealed to the Livingston County Board of Commissioners, she was denied. Pearson even pitched a compromise of sorts — that the names of the commenting employees be redacted — but the commissioners were unmoved.
How sensitive is the county board to criticism that it is hiding employee complaints? Drick’s wife, Debi Drick, who serves as the communications point person for the local Republican Party, spoke during the call to the public of the July 22 meeting to support the county’s denial of Pearson’s FOIA request.
Debi Drick also jumped into the fray on Facebook to take Steve Williams to task for filing a complaint against her husband by suggesting Williams violated the federal Hatch Act by wearing his wife’s campaign T-shirt in public — which is a big maybe, but I am not an expert here, either — and encouraging others to file complaints against him.
The Hatch Act is a federal law passed in 1939 that limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. Under the act, federal employees may not engage in political activity while on duty, in the workplace, wearing a uniform or official insignia, or in a government vehicle.
As explained by the government, this means that if you are a federal employee, you cannot wear any campaign apparel into the office or while you are on duty. This means, for example, that when you are on duty or in the Federal workplace, you cannot wear any campaign buttons, stickers, ball-caps or T-shirts with political campaign messages, slogans, logos or items purchased from a political campaign’s website.
Also, You cannot display pictures of candidates for partisan political office in your Federal office or in a Federal building, unless it is a personal photo and all of the following apply: The photograph was on display in advance of the election season; the employee is in the photograph with the candidate; the photograph is a personal one (i.e., taken at a personal event or function such as a wedding, and not at a campaign event or other partisan political event); the employee must not have a political purpose for displaying the photograph, namely promoting or opposing a political party or a candidate for partisan political office
Jay Drick responded on Facebook:
If you read Debi Drick’s post carefully, while she accused Steve Williams of violating the Hatch Act, and while she said his filing of the complaint was “petty” and not in keeping with how Republicans should treat one another, what she didn’t say was that her husband didn’t violate Michigan law.
But that’s up to the Michigan system to decide.
You be the judge. The video from the meeting is included at the end of this post. Jay Drick begins his “last to speak” speech at about the 1:24 mark.
After slamming his opponent for living in the county for just four years when he’s been here for 40, Drick launched into his speech:
“I’ve provided service to many different people in many different ways.
I’ve worked the events.
I’ve flipped the pancakes.
I’ve served the spaghetti.
I’ve raised the funds.
I’ve been the treasurer.
I’ve been the secretary.
I’ve been the president.
I’ve been the clean-up crew.
I’ve licked the envelopes.
I’ve taken attendance.
I’ve signed guests in.
I’ve volunteered.
I’ve purchased hundreds of sponsorships.
I’ve eaten thousands of rubber chicken dinners at charity events and I’ve bid at auctions, and as a commissioner I’ve watched over funds and made sure they’re spent wisely and responsibly.
My opponent claims this board of commissioners needs a former loan office with experience in developing budgets, according to her latest postcard.
My research into her finance shows extreme concern. My research shows a public record of a Detroit federal bankruptcy judge revealing that my opponent confessed — under penalty of perjury — to her 100% failure to keep approximately 16 written promises to repay money owed. She broke all 16. The unsecured debt totaled over $358,000. That’s 358,000 reasons not to let her anywhere near our county budget for bonds or borrowing. This is not evidence of (a) fiscal responsible individual.
I promise taxpayers I will live up to three things that my parents taught me: I spend less than we earn here. We save for a rainy day. We shun debt.
I’ve kept my promise.
Thank you.”
