Almont DDA Chair questions transparency

Roosa hints at stepping away from DDA position

 

ALMONT —Tension and communication issues appear to be handcuffing the Almont Downtown Development Authority from operating in a somewhat normal manner.

Recent conflict between DDA Chairman Andy Roosa and DDA members, as well as Village of Almont council members, has led to the most recent flurry of issues, including what is possibly a preamble of Roosa’s resignation from the DDA Board.

At the November 2024 meeting of the DDA, Roosa shared concerns that had surfaced in regards to what he felt were transparency issues.

As he prepared for the January 2025 meeting, to be held January 22, Roosa wrote:

“Contrary to what wasn’t afforded to your chairman by actions taken at the December DDA meeting, I will be very transparent of what we will be discussing in January’s meeting, as you will see listed in the agenda. There are proper processes, rules, and laws that need to be followed when entrusted with public funds.”

He went on to add, “Making decisions on emotion, especially without verifying facts and proper process is highly ineffective as evident by what occurred. When I decided to volunteer in the public sector about six years ago, I took the same approach as I have done with any business that I have been a part of or tasked to lead. That approach is knowledge, sharing that knowledge, learning from mistakes, and developing the next leaders.”

Roosa said he had zero background in municipality processes and (now) has more than he would have imagined having as of today.

“Ironically I probably should have taken the offer seriously by a couple Village Council members to be the interim manager prior to (David) Trent, as I would have at least gotten paid for all I have been trying to help to correct.”

In sharing comments with the DDA board, Roosa added, “In the many conversations that I have had over the last month with those much legally smarter than I, there has been one consistent conclusion. My time and talents in the public sector have unfortunately become more of a liability to myself, my business, and my family than it’s worth. This liability isn’t due to my efforts, it’s due to the actions or inactions of others.”

In hinting towards his potential resignation, Roose went on to say, “My time with the DDA and the public sector will be coming to an end in the near future, once I work though a few concerning issues that still need to be addressed. As I have tried to help develop the next leaders, it is up to the DDA board to make that selection. Best of luck when those efforts are needed, although I would start thinking of who your next leader should be.”

He added, “As I own every action I’ve taken, hopefully that continues with others as they will probably be tasked with helping the DDA stay on a successful path forward.”

At the December 2024 meeting the DDA, according to Roosa,   approved a motion made during a Discussion item that potentially violated the rights of its members in seeking advice from its legal counsel regarding DDA business, along with violating protections guaranteed by its legal counsel for Personal & Confidential matters while acting in a DDA business capacity.

According to Roosa’s message with the January agenda, the DDA may request legal opinion regarding charging (the) Chairman with abuse of power as officially rendered in the 12/18/24 meeting.

Roosa stated, “During a Discussion item, DDA Board member Melissa Schneider stated that (Andy Roosa), the Chairman of the Almont DDA, abused his power while in charge of DDA matters and did not provide legal opinion by its attorney supporting her statement. Subsequent motions were made reliant on this statement making the charge effective.

Chairman Roosa had made it known he could not attend the December DDA meeting. He had previously asked to table the Discussion item to January’s meeting, however this was declined by the Vice-Chairperson (Hollie Miller) and the executive board.

Chairman Roosa said he was not made aware of the charge of abuse of power prior to the meeting, in turn not giving him a voice to the charges at the meeting, and then not giving him the option to request a closed session.

This action by the board potentially violated provisions of the Open meetings Act in several sections, according to Roosa.

At the December meeting, an approved motion was made during a Discussion item to create a policy regarding that only the DDA Director may post to the DDA website once board approval is confirmed.

Roosa said this new policy was very vague to what should be posted to the website regarding what is currently held on the website. The DDA does not have a policy manual in existence as of January’s meeting.

Policies are standing instructions and need to have legal review to verify they are not violating any laws or procedures before use.

Policy motion was acted on effective immediately. The motion was made on future items with no acknowledgement of ANY of the items already previously existing on the DDA website.

At the December meeting, during a Discussion item, Vice-Chairperson Miller directed the DDA Director to remove two transparency documents already deemed by its attorney and the DDA board to be directly DDA business related without a motion and board approval.

“This was acted on by use of the (ineffective) policy motion made in the last topic,” Roosa pointed out.

“Per the approved 11/20/24 meeting minutes, the transparency talking points were referenced as valid and part of the DDA’s meeting with no objections made to their existence prior to the actions taken at the December meeting,” he said.

According to the current DDA Chairman, the removal of items has potentially caused an OMA violation by Vice Chairperson Miller.

During the November 2024 meeting, the Homecoming Committee, a public body of the Village of Almont, was challenged to its process and procedures along with adhering to OMA.

Without any objections by the DDA Board, FOIA’s were sought for transparency purposes.

According to Roosa, now that the DDA has the FOIA results, the DDA needs to decide on whether to move forward with filing an OMA violation(s) complaint(s) with the State of Michigan.