Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lawsuit Settlements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ottawa County settles two lawsuits: $8.02 million in Zimmer case, $21,000 in Hill Shaner matter
Summary
The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners approved settlements in two pending lawsuits on Sept. 23 after divided debate. The board voted to accept a settlement in Zimmer v. Ottawa County that included release of certain closed‑session material and a monetary payment; the board also approved a $21,000 settlement to resolve the Hill Shaner Open‑Meet‑
The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners voted Sept. 23 to resolve two pending lawsuits by approving settlement offers for Zimmer v. Ottawa County and Hill Shaner v. Ottawa County.
Zimmer v. Ottawa County: The board accepted a settlement offer that, according to the motion on the floor, would release minutes and an audio recording of a closed‑door session from Dec. 10, 2024, and resolve the matter with a monetary payment to the plaintiff. During public and commissioner comment, members were sharply divided on whether to settle or continue litigation. Several commissioners urged settlement to avoid further litigation costs; others argued for fighting the suit on principle.
Commissioner Joe Moss said releasing the minutes would provide “more transparency for the public.” Opponents of settlement warned that settling could be viewed as paying to avoid scrutiny and preferred litigation. Public commenters also addressed the matter during the meeting.
Hill Shaner (Open Meetings Act matter): The board approved a separate settlement to resolve a claim that the county had violated the Open Meetings Act; the recommended settlement amount discussed at the meeting was $21,000. Commissioners said accepting the settlement would avoid additional litigation costs and close another pending claim.
Both motions were taken by roll call after discussion with county counsel and litigation counsel. Some commissioners said they opposed settling the Zimmer matter and preferred to litigate to vindicate county interests; others said settling the cases would limit future costs and produce immediate transparency through release of the disputed closed‑session material.
Public comment during the meeting included calls both for and against settlement, and several commissioners used their time to explain their votes. One commissioner noted the county has faced “a lot of lawsuits” and expressed a desire to end litigation to reduce taxpayer expense; another commissioner said documents and sworn statements raised concerns about earlier board conduct and supported settlement and release of material for transparency.
The board approved both settlements by roll call.
