Walled Lake board accepts $1.7 million under Michigan’s contested '31‑aa' grant after legal warning

Walled Lake Consolidated Schools' board voted 5–1 to direct the superintendent to accept funding under Section 31‑aa of the State School Aid Act, a one‑time package the district estimates at about $1,700,000.

The decision followed a 90‑minute briefing from Adam Blaylock, outside counsel with Miller Johnson, who told the board the statute requires districts that accept the money to "affirmatively waive any privilege" that might otherwise protect certain communications in the aftermath of a governor‑appointed, comprehensive investigation after a mass‑casualty event. "I don't like this language," Blaylock said in the meeting, calling the waiver broad and ‘‘not good for schools’’ but also describing it as the current statutory text.

Blaylock reviewed recent litigation and a Michigan Court of Claims opinion that interpreted "any privilege" broadly, explained that the definition of "mass casualty" in the statute can include events ranging from significant injuries to multiple fatalities or a surge that exceeds local resources, and warned the board about practical consequences including insurer behavior, possible erosion of candid legal advice to district counsel, and increased settlement exposure in the event of litigation.

Board members debated the tradeoffs. "It's a deal with the devil," said Trustee Lippitt, who voted against the motion and said he worried the waiver could bind future boards and staff beyond the immediate funding cycle. Trustee Siegler described the choice to accept the grant as difficult but ultimately said he would vote in favor because of the dollar amount and the district's needs. Trustee Zellner, who moved the motion to accept, said the money could sustain mental‑health and safety positions and argued prevention was worth the risk: "If we can prevent something horrible because we have the staff and infrastructure, we will be better off," Zellner said.

Administration said the deadline to rescind an opt‑in decision is December 30; the district had previously opted in by the earlier statutory deadline and was evaluating whether to rescind. Blaylock recommended the board articulate a clear will so the superintendent could act before that rescission window closed.

The board did not attach conditions to the motion specifying a limited duration for the waiver; counsel and multiple trustees said the court opinion makes a short‑term construal unlikely but cannot be guaranteed. Blaylock said that while the state conceded during litigation the intent was for the waiver to apply only while the money remains available, the statute itself is silent about duration.

Next steps: the superintendent will follow the board's direction and accept the funds unless the board later rescinds; trustees said they could call a special meeting if appeals or legislative action change the legal landscape before Dec. 30.