Does OI's newest resolution lay a 'trap' for health department staff?

OTTAWA COUNTY — The Michigan Court of Appeals has denied Ottawa County Health Officer Adeline Hambley's request asking the court to order her possible firing be supervised by a circuit court judge, claiming recent actions from the county board of commissioners are aimed at trying to oust her.

In a Monday, June 26, filing, Hambley said the Ottawa Impact-led board intends to use a newly approved resolution to "protect child innocence," as well as statements critical of the health department's participation in various county Pride Month events, as a way to make a case to fire her for cause.

Hambley's attorney, Sarah Riley Howard, asked the COA to amend its June 6 order to require trial court supervision of the process, should the commissioners take action "to assert adequate statutory cause for initiating due process proceedings to remove her."

Howard said it's "reasonable to conclude that relief is needed as soon as possible, and that (the commissioners) could be planning to initiate sham proceedings against (Hambley) shortly following the commission meeting on June 27."

The resolution, which prohibits county staff and resources from being used for "activities, programs, events, contents or institutions which support, normalize, or encourage the sexualization of youth," was approved Tuesday, June 27.

The resolution is the latest in a series of moves from conservatives nationwide to limit "child sexualization" they link with the LGBTQ+ community.

Most notably, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis championed the Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay Law," which prohibits public schools from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade and prohibits adopting procedures or student support forms that maintain the confidentiality of a disclosure about gender identity or sexual orientation from parents.

A national version of the bill, the "Stop the Sexualization of Children Act," was introduced last year, but did not advance out of committee.

Ottawa Impact, a far-right fundamentalist group formed in 2021 over outrage at the county and state responses to the global COVID-19 pandemic, has been emphatic in its stances against diversity, equity and inclusion and any discussion surrounding sexual health behaviors in minors.

In November, OI founders Joe Moss and Sylvia Rhodea crafted a 14-page manifesto titled “The Sexualization of Michigan Children in Public Schools." In it, they make the argument that “the sexualization of Michigan’s children and the push to eliminate parents from education and medical decisions … has occurred under the strategic influence of activists within Michigan government and special interest groups.”

Tuesday's resolution passed 9-2, with Moss and Rhodea joined in voting yes by Commissioners Allison Miedema, Rebekah Curran, Roger Belknap, Lucy Ebel, Kyle Terpstra, Gretchen Cosby and Jacob Bonnema. Commissioners Doug Zylstra and Roger Bergman voted no.

Although the resolution doesn’t mention specific organizations or events, Rhodea said it’s time to "define the plus” in LGBTQ+. She also criticized the health department.

“Our health department has advised school districts on implementing radical comprehensive sexuality education and has used results from the intrusive, over-the-top, sexualized (Youth Assessment Survey) as a justification for doing so,” Rhodea said. “We must always weigh the risk of harm to children in public policy decisions. Taxpayer-funded government bureaucracy should not be utilized for the promotion of a sexuality agenda to children.”

From dictating to Hambley that Ottawa County will not issue any health orders that "overstep parental rights" to erroneously claiming the county's health department sponsored Grand Valley State University’s recent Sex Ed Week to refusing to approve federal grant-funded mental health positions and state-funded nonprofit projects, OI commissioners have been laser-focused on the health department since taking office at the beginning of the year.

During a report from Hambley before the Health and Human Services Committee on June 20, several OI-linked commissioners questioned the department’s involvement in Pride Month events in Grand Haven and Holland, with Rhodea going so far as to say the event was “grooming children,” a term used to refer to lowering a child's inhibitions with the goal to sexually abuse them.

"Commission Vice Chair Sylvia Rhodea complained that attendance at a public festival like a Pride Festival or Sex Ed Week at Grand Valley State University by the health department showed 'a pattern of a lack of discernment on some of these issues, especially in particular to the grooming of our children,'" Howard wrote in the most recent filing.

Miedema said children would pick up "deviant" behaviors from attending such events.

"Miedema said that a drag queen show, as one of many events held during the Grand Haven Pride Festival, encouraged any children present at the show to later imitate giving tips to drag queens in their play and to exhibit 'deviant' sexual behavior," Howard wrote.

"She said, 'By being in attendance [at Grand Haven Pride Festival], the Ottawa County Department of Public Health is promoting sexual promiscuity, which in turn, can contribute to future clients of public health, who will be seeking positive STD testing along with mental health services.'"

Hambley defended the criticisms at the HHS committee meeting, saying the department frequents several well-attended events, including local farmers markets and Holland's Tulip Time Festival, to provide vaccines and information on sexually transmitted diseases.

Gwen Unzicker, the county’s medical director, also has said it's the role of the health department to meet people where they are.

During discussion Tuesday, Zylstra questioned the portion of the resolution that forbids allocation of resources to "sexualize" children, asking for a list defining those activities, programs, events, content and institutions.

Zylstra said it's “only fair to staff” to know what’s not allowed ahead of time. Moss said there's not a list drafted and it wouldn’t be possible to capture all potential future events in such a list.

Bergman said the resolution doesn't address things such as poverty, hunger and homelessness that also harm childhood innocence.

“This resolution is wrong on so many fronts,” Bergman said. “For you to vote 'yes' is a slap in the face to parents who don't share your beliefs.”

Moss said the resolution deals with county employees, not parents at large.

Cosby suggested a policy be drafted to address Zylstra’s concerns, which many commissioners found favorable. Ebel suggested a 90-day timeframe to create such a policy. Zylstra asked to table the resolution until the policy could be drafted, but didn't receive support.

Rhodea said she supports working on a policy, but said the resolution lacks specifics intentionally to leave room to discuss with staff.

“I don’t think it was ever the intention to just have a resolution stand by itself with staff unsure where to go with it,” she said. “Clarity and discussion around what this means with staff is important, which is one reason why exact specifics are not in the resolution, to give opportunity for staff input as policy is created.”

Zylstra said he worries the resolution is “laying a trap for staff," which Cosby and Rhodea disputed.

“This was not written to be a trap, this was written as a resolution for our county to follow,” Rhodea said.

Zylstra concluded the discussion by asking for grace for staff while policy is being developed.

On Wednesday, June 28, Hambley released a statement in response to the move:

"On Tuesday, the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners took an alarming step under the guise of 'protecting childhood innocence' to restrict county programs, services, and funding if they are not deemed 'wholesome, good, and honorable,' by the Board of Commissioners. The resolution draws a target on staff and funding for failure to comply with its subjective and unclear requirements.

"Our staff have never provided services that sexualize or abuse children. The Health Officer has explicit legal authority and responsibilities under the Michigan Public Health Code to prevent disease, prolong life, and promote public health for everyone. These laws exist to ensure local public health is nonpartisan and acts without moral judgement in the duty to protect health.

"The Ottawa County Department of Public Health does not, and will not, discriminate against any group of people. We will continue to do our jobs to the best of our abilities within the framework of the laws of Ottawa County and the State of Michigan."

Hambley sued the board in February, claiming the OI-linked commissioners have repeatedly interfered with her ability to do her job. The suit was filed days after Moss made statements on a conservative West Michigan radio show claiming the health department was "promoting radicalized sexual content.”

More: Judge: Ottawa health officer will remain in place until trial on broader issues

More: Ottawa Impact broadens control in new communications lockdown mandate

On April 18, a circuit court judge in Muskegon granted Hambley a preliminary injunction that allows her to remain in her role until a trial can take place later this year. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied the commissioners the right to appeal the lower court’s ruling prior to a trial, but later granted a narrow window to appeal certain aspects of the lower court's findings.

The court limited the appeal to issues over whether the trial court erred in awarding Hambley declaratory relief — determining she was appointed the health officer of Ottawa County by the previous board of commissioners — and whether the trial court erred in granting the preliminary injunction.

In Monday's filing, Howard says the latest criticisms of Hambley and the health department, coupled with the upcoming resolution, are a clear indication the OI majority intends to move forward with firing Hambley, which she claims is politically motivated.

Howard cited a June 7 interview with WZZM TV-13, during which the commission's lead attorney, David Kallman, said, "I think that the board wants to exercise its authority and bring someone on board that they’re comfortable with."

Howard argued that Kallman's statement is directly contrary to the requirements of MCL 46.11(n), the state statute that regulates how health officers may be removed from office. The statute states the board may "remove an officer or agent appointed by the board if, in the board's opinion, the officer or agent is incompetent to execute properly the duties of the office or if, on charges and evidence, the board is satisfied that the officer or agent is guilty of official misconduct, or habitual or willful neglect of duty, and if the misconduct or neglect is a sufficient cause for removal."

Hambley said her position grants her certain powers through the state and that her position is of a “just cause” nature, where the supervising authority — the board of commissioners — would need to provide a reason, or cause, to fire her, and could only do so after a public hearing, where she could be represented by legal counsel.

Kallman and Moss' recent statements are "exactly the scenario that the preliminary injunction aimed to prevent, and which this court kept in place pending its hearing of appellants’ interlocutory appeal," Howard wrote.

Howard said when Hambley's lawsuit was heard before the 14th Muskegon County Circuit Court in March, Kallman said Hambley had been doing a "fine job" and that she "might have been the commission's pick."

"Counsel for appellants had acknowledged that they had no statutory cause for removal of (Hambley)," Howard wrote.

Howard said the totality of the issue equates to the board forcing her client to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Subscribe: Get all your breaking news and unlimited access to our local coverage

"Appellees intend to insist that (Hambley) discriminate in the provision of public health services on the basis of LGBTQ+ status, under the guise of 'protection of children,' in a manner that would both violate Michigan and federal law, and in a manner that diverges from (Hambley’s) professional judgment about what actions are appropriate and necessary to promote public health in the county," Howard wrote.

Kallman filed a response Wednesday, June 28, arguing Howard had no legal or factual basis for her request and that the motion was "merely a rehashing of the same legal issues previously raised prior to the June 6, 2023, order under the guise of 'new' facts."

Kallman claims in his response the COA vacated the lower court's ruling that prohibited the board from firing Hambley.

"Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), the court vacates the April 19, 2023, order to the extent that it prohibits the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners from taking action allowed by MCL 46.11(n) to remove plaintiff-appellee as the health officer for Ottawa County. Under MCL 46.11(n), a county board of commissioners has authority to remove a health officer in limited circumstances and when certain processes are given," the higher court wrote in its ruling.

Kallman said it's no secret that the board plans to remove Hambley.

More: Health experts: The actions of Ottawa Impact commissioners aren't really for the greater good

More: Ottawa County's prospective health officer has no experience. Here's why that could be a problem

"(The commissioners) have argued since the very beginning of this matter that (Hambley) is not the permanent Ottawa County Health Officer, and the BOC will eventually need to appoint someone permanently to that position. This is a surprise to no one," he wrote Wednesday.

"All of the alleged statements referenced by (Hambley) merely reflect their long-known position that (Hambley) is only in her position on a temporary and interim basis and someone permanent must be appointed, whether that be (Hambley) or someone else."

Kallman said Howard was making a "conclusory leap to a grand conspiracy" that commissioners wouldn't follow the law.

"It is preposterous to argue that the BOC merely putting on the agenda a proposed resolution to protect children is somehow the first step of a nefarious conspiracy to illegally fire (Hambley)," he wrote. "Indeed, the resolution does not even mention (Hambley), anyone in the health department, or the health department itself. Despite (Hambley's) unfounded fears, not everything the BOC does is about her."

Hambley has claimed the OI commissioners plan to install their preferred health officer candidate, who aligns ideologically with their views.

"It appears appellants plan to use this to make another unlawful attempt at removing (Hambley) and installing their preferred candidate, Nathaniel Kelly, before this court can rule," Howard wrote in her Monday request.

Kelly, a COVID-19 minimalist who has no experience in public health, is a health and safety manager at a Grand Rapids-area HVAC company.

Kelly and his wife both commented on the county's live YouTube stream of Tuesday's meeting.

"I absolutely cannot wait to run the health department," Kelly said. "It's going to be an eye opener for the county to see how an effective leader operates."

— Sarah Leach is executive editor of The Holland Sentinel. Contact her at sarah.leach@hollandsentinel.com. Follow her on Twitter@SentinelLeach.

This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Does OI's newest resolution lay a 'trap' for health department staff?