St. Clair County commissioners split as public weighs Dr. Remington Nevin’s contract revisions

The St. Clair County Board of Commissioners heard hours of public comment and legal explanation on July 2 as commissioners considered proposed revisions to the medical director contract for Dr. Remington Nevin, including language that would allow the board to terminate the contract without cause by unanimous vote if the director agreed to that path.

Supporters and critics of Dr. Nevin filled the public-comment period. Don Faulk of Port Heron Township praised the changes as strengthening accountability and continuity, saying the revisions “help ensure continuity of leadership and medical guidance for both staff and the community.” By contrast, Patty Samar, reading from a county human-resources summary alleging repeated staff complaints, told the board: “Stop negotiating a new contract and fire him now.”

The debate focused on three linked issues: (1) a clause that would permit termination without cause by a unanimous vote of the board if the director accepts that option; (2) a proposed deputy medical director role intended to provide medical coverage when the director is absent; and (3) programmatic controversies tied to the director’s tenure — notably proposals affecting Title X family-planning services and local fluoride policy — that speakers said could affect teen health clinics and preventive care.

Corporation counsel Todd Shay told commissioners the contract does not eliminate the board’s statutory routes for removal under MCL 46.11 and that those statutory, for-cause procedures (which include due-process protections) remain available by majority vote. Shay said the unanimous-withdrawal clause is an additional, voluntary route: "if the full board and the director agree, the director may forgo the statutory process and accept termination by unanimous vote," he said, describing it as a concession the director could choose to accept.

County Administrator Tom (last name not specified in the record) and legal counsel also told the committee the draft aligns with state public-health regulations that define separate administrative (health officer) and medical (medical director) responsibilities and that minor language clarifications could be provided before final action.

Commissioners debated procedure and timing. A motion to forward the medical-director contract to the full board as presented was moved and seconded but failed on a roll call vote at the committee level. After discussion about public concern and the need for coordinated review, the board voted to place the contract on the August committee agenda for further consideration and potential amendments.

Commissioners also voted to waive attorney-client privilege to allow the corporation counsel’s written analysis of contract compliance with the public-health code to be shared publicly with citizens who had raised legal questions.

Why it matters: The contract changes under consideration touch both governance and public-health services. Opponents warned that a unanimous-termination clause and added protections could hinder accountability, and many speakers said prior decisions under the director — including changes affecting Title X services and school-based teen clinics — have reduced access to preventive care. Supporters countered that the draft clarifies responsibilities, ensures medical coverage during absences and protects medical judgment.

Next steps: The medical director contract will return to committee in August with suggested edits and counsel’s clarifications; full-board action would follow after that committee review.