During the January 25, 2024, meeting of the Grand Haven Board of Light and Power (BLP), the board passed a resolution to indemnify board member Andrea Hendrick (p.37) and pay her expenses related to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for her emails. On August 16, 2023, General Manager Dave Walters submitted a FOIA request for “emails and text correspondence to or from personal and/or GHBLP email addresses and cell phones of GHBLP Board Member Andrea Hendrick mentioning, discussing, or addressing in any way GHBLP employee Dave Walters.”
After Walters filed his FOIA request, two additional requests were filed for the same information. As of January 25, 2024, the FOIAs have not been fulfilled. The issue stems from Hendrick using her personal email address to perform BLP business. Once the initial FOIA request was made, she hired a personal attorney, Sarah Howard, to protect her interests. To cover her personal attorney costs, Hendrick shamelessly submitted a request to the BLP’s insurance authority. The insurance authority denied the request and a subsequent appeal filed by Hendrick’s attorney because they have not seen the emails in question.
In an effort to resolve the matter, the BLP board passed a resolution agreeing to cover Hendrick’s current and future personal attorney fees associated with this FOIA request, and directed “its attorney and Director Hendrick’s attorney to resolve their respective clients’ positions regarding these FOIA requests as promptly as reasonably possible.”
(1:08:30) The board voted four to one to approve the resolution. Even though Hendrick had a personal interest in the outcome, she did not abstain from voting in the matter.
Board Chairman Mike Westbrook stated, “I’d like to note the resolution includes a 30-day timeline to get things resolved, which I think is great. Time is money when it comes to legal.”
(1:15:30) Board member Todd Crum, who voted against the resolution, speaking to Andrea stated, “It’s my understanding that you are not complying with a FOIA request. You are not under investigation.” Turning to the rest of the board, he continued, “she’s not being sued. You know, this is over a request. So, in my opinion, this does not follow the indemnification intent of our bylaws. If our ratepayers are expected to pay for legal representation; we as a board, we can’t go out and solicit legal representation as we want, even as a majority of the board. We have to take it to city council. So, I just take issue that a single board member would take it upon themselves to rack up legal fees without following any kind of process.” After some discussion, Crum continued, “The board, we have procedures on how to spend money here. Anything over a certain dollar amount, we have to get board approval. What did I just hear? $6,050? That’s coming to the board after. There’s no cap on this. We don’t have a say on any of this. It’s you and your private attorney. [] I want you to be indemnified, just go through our proper channels. In my opinion, going out and hiring your own personal lawyer without any discussion with the people who are going to be footing the bill is not okay. As a ratepayer, that’s very upsetting.”
(1:20:50) Board Chairman Mike Westbrook stated, “The BLP provides this wonderful iPad to do business on. They pay for a monthly service for internet. A lot of this could have been avoided by using the document management tool provided by the Board of Light and Power. That was covered when the parliamentarian was here; we talked a lot about what records can be FOIAed someday, and how you can get yourself in trouble, and at that meeting they said sending emails from your personal email opens you up to exposure. [] We spent $10,000 to Dickenson Wright already, to Ron Bultje. We are now talking about spending $6,000 additional dollars for your indemnification.” Then Westbrook again reiterated, “that this is wrapped up in 30 days shows me that this is going to be done quickly.”
General Manager Dave Walters took issue with the resolution and submitted a document for the record with his comments. In his response Walters explained:
The BLP bylaw reference in the resolution neglected to include a key statement.
The resolution provided the purpose he submitted the initial FOIA request which was completely inaccurate.
It is “not his responsibility, obligation, or desire to investigate.” That it is the board’s responsibility.
It is the board’s responsibility to comply with FOIA requests and they are not following through on their response to his FOIA. (document attached above)
Two whereas statements make the claim that his FOIA request is broad and imply this is the reason, not the fact that Hendrick used her personal email to conduct board business, attorneys will have to examine each email. These statements are inaccurate, not relevant to the resolution, and should be removed.
Attorney Ron Bultje completed his review of the emails in November and “determined that there were additional applicable public documents” which have not yet been released.
The resolution implies the FOIA requesters created the expense, when it was actually “Hendrick’s poor governance decisions.”
During the meeting, Walters made an additional comment regarding the resolution. He first noted that whereas statements 4, 6, and 7 were incorrect, and then Walters stated (1:24:00),
“The characterizations by the city attorney on what my stated purpose was for the FOIA request or what it said, or why I did whatever I did, I’m the only one that can explain that. The city attorney cannot, and I did not tell him. These characterizations of my statements in your resolution, don’t have any bearing on it, and they should be taken out. Period.
Secondly, the characterization of my FOIA request as an investigation of me, I have told the board specifically that every document that I have, I’m going to turn over to the board so that they can conduct an investigation. It is not my investigation. I have no desires what-so-ever to take a board member to court. I have no desires to do so, and I’ve made it very, very clear. Yet in this resolution, you suggest myself and two other members of the public that have requested FOIA documents are doing it so they can bring suit against Andrea Hendrick. At no time did I ever say that.
Lastly, in the therefore statement, it suggests, exactly like Mike contradicted, that the reason we are having to indemnify a director is a result of the general managers FOIA. As Mike just pointed out, there would be absolutely no reason for us to spend this money if it wasn’t a result of a board member putting BLP business on a private email.”
Over the past few years, actions taken by some members of the BLP board in conjunction with the Grand Haven City Council led to a strained work environment inside the BLP. Prior published emails established that Hendrick, along with three members of the Grand Haven City Council, had been working together in an effort to take over the BLP. One year earlier, Hendrick had filed a claim of sexual harassment against the BLP board and Walters that was unsubstantiated. In addition, numerous mischaracterizations of the BLP board and Walters had appeared in public communications. Walters made a whistleblower complaint which does not appear to have been satisfactorily investigated. Serious allegations have been made against a BLP board member and the public deserves to know what is happening behind the scenes. It appears there is more that has not yet been revealed.
Hopefully, the passage of this resolution will lead to the release of all relevant emails and therefore, the truth, but I have my doubts. This resolution sets a precedent that could have detrimental consequences for the public. It places the rights of board members accused of misconduct above the rights of employees who raise concerns. It establishes that a board member is free to use their personal email account to perform public board business. Furthermore, if any documents are requested in which a board member wants to keep hidden, the board member can hire a personal attorney to slow the process and perhaps prevent disclosure. As evidenced by this situation, the board will pay for it — where is the accountability?