Resident Mary alleges county appointees received pay and retirement from Lifeways, calls it a conflict

Mary told the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners she had left FOIA documents on commissioners' desks that, she said, show 2025 earnings and retirement contributions for members of the Lifeways board of directors. "You will see on there that ... representatives from Hillsdale County were receiving between $65 and $70 per hour for their services on the board meeting," Mary said, and that a deduction labeled "457 board" was paid by Lifeways into retirement for board members.

Mary cited statutes and county rules in the packet she distributed, reading excerpts she identified as "MCL 33022" and "330.124," and pointed to county bylaws she said limit per-diem payments to $30 for a half day and $60 for a full day unless "otherwise compensated." She argued the Lifeways compensation and the fact that some county appointees are employed by Lifeways create a conflict of interest: "So the bottom line is you should be receiving no more than $60 a day for your services on that board and instead you're receiving $65 to $70 an hour from Lifeways and Lifeways is paying you retirement. That is a direct conflict of interest," she said.

Mary also accused commissioners of denying the payments in public remarks and of misleading the public, saying, "You lied both times to our faces and continue to collect money and make decisions when you're not representing just the county." She urged the board to remove those individuals from the Lifeways board and the county board at the next meeting.

The board chair ended Mary's time without a recorded substantive response from commissioners on the record to the specific allegations. No formal disciplinary or removal action was taken at that meeting; the public comment period closed and the board moved on to the consent agenda.

Why it matters: Mary framed the issue as a statutory and ethical concern that could affect how county commissioners represent local taxpayers when they also receive compensation and retirement benefits from an agency those commissioners appoint to. The board will need to consider whether the allegations require staff follow-up, a formal legal review, or procedural changes to appointment or disclosure practices.

What the transcript shows and what it does not: The transcript includes Mary's statements and references to documents she provided; it does not include any substantive rebuttal, explanation, or verification from Lifeways or the named county appointees during the meeting. The statutes and bylaws Mary quoted are cited in the packet as she read them; the article does not independently verify the statutory citations beyond the transcript text and reports the claimant's assertions and the fact that the board did not take immediate action at the meeting.

Next steps noted in meeting: The county clerk and commissioners will process normal agenda business; Mary requested action at the next meeting. If the board chooses to investigate, the typical follow-up would be staff review of the FOIA materials, a legal opinion on any conflict-of-interest statute or rule cited, and potential referral to an ethics or oversight process.