Public commenters and county commissioners pressed the Oakland County committee on Thursday to take formal steps after allegations that a county road commissioner threatened and intimidated employees.

Mary Gillis, a 30-year road commission employee from Waterford, told the committee an independent legal entity produced a report she said the county "has seen" but not acted on, and urged commissioners to seek an investigation independent of the sheriff's office. "You're the only ones that can do anything about it," she said.

Laurie Doran, who identified herself as a 29-year road commission employee from Auburn Hills, urged the board to consider whether it could ethically remove a commissioner it appointed and called for removal if the allegations are accurate. Baltimore Seedloff of Lake Orion said the matter had "gone on this long is utterly ridiculous," repeating concerns about conflicts of interest among elected officials who are longtime associates of the person named by speakers.

The committee later considered agenda item 9b, described in the packet as "providing written notice of charges and scheduling a hearing regarding Road Commissioner James Saki." The chair moved adoption of an amendment described in the meeting as the "Johnson amendment," which clarifies the procedural pathway the sponsor said is the appropriate legal route for action.

Commissioners debated whether the statute governing removal requires formal charges before a hearing and whether committee members had seen the outside report referenced by public speakers. Several commissioners said they had not seen the full report and urged caution; others said the amended resolution provides a public hearing for both sides. One commissioner noted the report available in the public press has a date discrepancy and said the amendment was adjusted to match the report available to the chair.

The Johnson amendment passed on a roll call of 5 yeas and 2 nays. The amended motion to refer the matter to the county's EDNI process was then approved 6-1 and will move to the next step in the process specified by county procedures.

The committee did not vote to remove or to discipline the commissioner at Thursday's meeting; it approved sending the amended resolution and the matter on to the appropriate county review process. The committee recorded votes as follows: Johnson amendment 5-2; referral to EDNI 6-1.

Next steps: The referral directs county staff to proceed under the county's established EDNI procedures for written notice and a hearing; the committee did not set a final hearing date at the meeting.