State: Drick violated campaign finance law when criticizing opponent from the dais
Drick has reimbursed the county $2.56 and received a formal warning for his actions.
During a board meeting on July 22, 2024, Drick responded to criticism during public comment from former commissioner Steve Williams.
At the time, Drick was running for re-election against challenger Heather Williams, who is married to Steve.
'I've sat here quietly week after week, listening to a litany of allegations, bogus issues about three commissioners running for re-election. I've looked the three challengers and their husband and their father and their friends in the eye from this seat as they've attempted time and time to discredit our good works and I've never responded until now," Drick said, proceeding to argue some of the points made against him.
More: Livingston County Board Chair accused of campaigning during public meeting
More: State: Drick overstepped by criticizing his opponent during a public meeting
After a second round of public comment, Drick 'exercised (his) option to be the last to speak.' From the dais, he criticized Williams for how long she's lived in the county and for a lack of experience in public office. He also alleged she'd filed for bankruptcy and had $358,000 in unsecured debt she hadn't repaid.
Williams told The Daily the bankruptcy filing and debt were her ex-husband's.
Drick went on to list his qualifications and experience in the community and on the board.
Daubenmier filed her complaint soon after, arguing Drick's criticism of his opponent and promotion of his own campaign violated campaign during an official meeting, in an official capacity, violated campaign finance law.
Daubenmier cited Michigan Campaign Finance Act Sec. 57 '... which prohibits public officials from campaigning while on the job and being paid.'
Drick's attorney, Mattis Nordfjord, said the complaint failed to show his comments were outside the "scope of exemption." He also argued Drick had a right, under the First Amendment, to express his views on policy issues.
On Dec. 18, 2024, an attorney with the Michigan Department of State sent a letter to Nordfjord. In the letter, the state found, after reviewing the video, Drick's first statement where he defended the actions of the board weren't a violation — but his critiques of Williams and the promotion of his own campaign were.
'(The second comment was) directed at his opponent and criticizing their qualifications for public office," the letter read.
The letter cited an opinion from former attorney general Frank Kelley, which said a commission or board can 'expend appropriated funds to inform the public in an objective manner on issues relevant to the function of the commission or board,' but not to encourage support or opposition for a specific candidate or ballot proposal.
On Thursday, May 8, the state sent a letter to a different attorney for Drick, Rich McNulty. The letter acknowledged that Drick reimbursed the county for the two-minute comment, for a total of $2.56.
'Given this, the department concludes that a formal warning is a sufficient resolution to the complaint,' the letter read.
The price tag left Daubenmier frustrated, she said.
'The paltry reimbursement to the county, calculated by someone who reports to Jay Drick in the county chain of command, will not deter any elected official from blatantly campaigning during county meetings,' she wrote in an emailed statement to the Daily.
'But the stigma remains that the state did find there is reason to believe that Jay Drick, a lawyer who should know better, violated the law — and that will always be on his record.'
— Contact reporter Tess Ware at tware@livingstondaily.com.
This article originally appeared on Livingston Daily: State finds Livingston County's Jay Drick violated campaign finance law
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
7 hours ago
- New York Times
How the George Floyd Protests Changed America, for Better and Worse
SUMMER OF OUR DISCONTENT: The Age of Certainty and the Demise of Discourse, by Thomas Chatterton Williams Over the last several decades, the United States has occasionally experienced dramatic transformations during compressed stretches of time. In 1968, the twin assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, separated by merely two months, yielded broad disillusionment. Six years later, as the simmering Watergate scandal boiled over and prompted President Nixon's resignation, many Americans adopted a posture of deep distrust toward elected officials. And, of course, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, inaugurated an enduring era of anxiety over safety and security. In these critical periods, an existing American order declined and a new paradigm ascended. In 'Summer of Our Discontent,' Thomas Chatterton Williams argues that the United States witnessed another such epoch-defining moment five years ago. The inflection point, he contends, arrived on May 25, 2020, when Derek Chauvin slowly extinguished George Floyd's life outside the Cup Foods convenience store in Minneapolis. The ensuing indignation over Floyd's murder, alongside the then-raging pandemic and extensive lockdown orders, fused to generate the largest protest movement in our country's history. That activism at once marked and marred the American psyche, Williams insists, as 'the residues of the normative revolution of 2020 have lingered.' In his view, a grave shift in mores and attitudes fomented a racialized 'wokeness' on the left that, in turn, generated a ferocious backlash on the right, bequeathing our current, anguished hour. Williams is right that the last several years have brought unusually intense ferment to American racial politics, and that the turmoil packed into what we might call the Long George Floyd Moment — beginning in the Obama years and stretching into Joe Biden's presidency — deserves rigorous scrutiny. A staff writer at The Atlantic and prominent commentator on race and identity, Williams would seem well suited to explore how these recent seismic shifts have jolted American society. Amid a sea of intellectual orthodoxy, he admirably stands out for his willingness to pursue independent lines of thought, no small feat given his combustible topic. Much of his recent journalism can be construed as a broad-gauged expansion of the project initiated in his last book, 'Self-Portrait in Black and White' (2019), which denounced what he viewed as America's pathological fixation on race and racial categories. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Post
18 hours ago
- New York Post
LA City Council bans N-word at public meetings, triggering legal threats
Watch your mouth! The Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to ban the use of the N-word and C-word at public meetings — triggering free speech backlash and the threat of a $400 million lawsuit. The controversial vote by the body allows council leadership to issue a warning for any use or variation of the slurs. Repeat offenders can be booted from the chamber and barred from future sessions. Advertisement Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who is black and introduced the measure, said the use of slurs during public comments has made residents hesitant to attend meetings. 3 The council chamber where a 14–0 vote Wednesday banned use of the N-word and C-word during meetings, citing years of disruptive outbursts. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images 'It is language that, anywhere outside this building where there aren't four armed guards, would get you hurt if you said these things in public,' Harris-Dawson told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year. Advertisement He added that public comment has become 'rank, cantankerous, and rude and demeaning and insulting' since Donald Trump's election in 2016, according to the LAist. The Wednesday ban is already drawing legal threats. Wayne Spindler, an attorney and longtime City Hall commenter, said Wednesday he intends to sue. 3 Critics of the new rule, including frequent City Hall speakers, claimed the city was infringing on free speech and promised legal challenges. Getty Images Advertisement 'I'm going to file my $400-million lawsuit that I already have prepared and ready to file,' Spindler said during public comment, adding he plans to read explicit Tupac Shakur lyrics until he's banned from a meeting. Spindler was arrested in 2016 after submitting a public comment card showing a burning cross, a man hanging from a tree and the phrase 'Herb = [N-word],' referring to then-Council President Herb Wesson. Prosecutors declined to bring charges. David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, warned the council's policy likely won't survive in court. 3 Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said offensive speech has surged since 2016, creating a chilling effect on civic engagement. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Advertisement 'The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech because it disapproves of that speech,' Loy wrote in a letter to the City Council. The city has lost similar battles before. In 2014, it paid $215,000 to a black man who was removed from a meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and a T-shirt with the N-word. The new rule took effect immediately.
New York Post
20 hours ago
- New York Post
Queen's ‘Garden of Hate' taking case to federal court, rips judge and ‘scurrilous' NY Post coverage
The fight over a community garden in Queens is getting thornier. The attorney for the anti-Israel leaders of Sunset Community Garden in Ridgewood withdrew their state lawsuit against the city and the Parks Department — to make a federal case out of the issue. Since last fall, Jewish Ridgewood residents haven't felt welcome at Sunset Community Garden, thanks to the garden group's pro-Palestinian rhetoric, which included a special section labeled 'Poppies for Palestine.' 4 Some local residents said they do not feel welcome in the community garden, whose leaders asked incoming members to pledge 'solidarity' with the people of Palestine. Instagram @sunsetgardenridgewood Incoming members are also made to pledge 'solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized people' of Palestine' by the garden's management. The Parks Department wanted the group out by June 6 for 'violat[ing] the terms of their license' with the 'unconstitutional wording' of their 'ideological litmus test' for membership, according to court documents. The group responded with a state lawsuit in early June to block the eviction, and The Post was in the courtroom when attorneys for both sides met in court this month. But Jonathan Wallace, the garden leaders' attorney, withdrew the state lawsuit Monday, and told the city he plans to refile the case in federal court, a source said. In a letter this week, the lawyer accused Judge Hasa Kingo of allowing the 'scurrilous' New York Post's coverage to guide his rulings in court. 'The plaintiffs in this case are a community group composed largely of trans people of color, many of whom are immigrants, and who share a powerfully-rooted moral opposition to the horrifying violence committed by a political entity, the nation-state Israel, against the people of Gaza,' the letter read. 4 Attorney Jonathan Wallace objected to coverage from The Post. Michael Nagle 4 The garden's leaders are fighting the city's efforts to oust them. Helayne Seidman 'We could not be further from the ideals and goals stated by Justices Holmes and Brandeis when the Post appears to be influencing outcomes in judicial proceedings,' he added. 'As an old white, proudly Jewish attorney (something that in a 43-year career I never thought until now I would need to mention) I like and am content to be associated with' the garden leaders, Wallace concluded in his letter to Kingo. Christina Wilkinson — a Ridgewood resident who worked to secure funding for the green space, but is now one of its most vocal critics — said the switch to federal court a 'stall tactic,' and believes 'Parks must now remove the violators and find a community partner that will make Sunset Garden an open and inclusive place for all.' 4 Members planting in the garden in June 2024. Instagram @sunsetgardenridgewood She added, 'You have to love the irony of an attorney arguing that the City violated his clients' First Amendment rights, then turning around and complaining about [a Post reporter] being present in the courtroom.' Wallace did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Parks Department refused to respond to requests for comment.
