Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probate Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Oakland County committee for stronger probate oversight and clearer public‑comment rules
Summary
Public commenters at the April 21 Legislative Affairs & Government Operations Committee meeting urged the county to create a real‑time case review team for probate matters, to increase transparency around judicial complaints, and to adopt procedural rules requiring 48‑hour agendas and public comment before votes.
Residents used the committee's public‑comment period to urge changes to how Oakland County handles probate oversight and meeting procedures.
Phil Lombard of Ferndale asked the committee to adopt four specific rules: require public testimony before votes on agenda items; publish agendas at least 48 hours in advance; prohibit voting on items not clearly described on the agenda; and ensure proportional representation on standing committees so minority party membership reflects the county's composition. Lombard said those steps would improve public access and trust in county decision‑making.
Two other speakers, including a woman who identified herself as Margaret and Jody of the public scrutiny task force for Michigan probate courts, focused on county handling of probate and vulnerable‑adult matters. They said Oakland County budgets about $9 million for staff who serve vulnerable adults and seniors and asked for a case review team that would provide "real‑time" review of concerns such as alleged undue influence and delays in investigations. One commenter said she had experienced long delays and difficulty obtaining case numbers or records, and she pressed the committee for clearer pathways for families to raise concerns.
County staff and commissioners acknowledged the concerns and directed follow‑up: staff asked commenters to provide materials after the meeting and said some oversight conversations could proceed in the county's public health and safety forums or offline. The committee did not adopt any new rules at the meeting.
Why it matters: Petitioners framed their requests as remedies for delays and lack of transparency they say harm families and impede accountability. Commissioners said they would follow up with staff to clarify the status and mission of the local SAVE task force and to determine what records or case‑review mechanisms are available.
Next steps: Staff committed to contacting commenters after the meeting and to providing information on the task force and on how the county is using its existing $9 million allocation for probate‑related staff.
