State Looking Into Newton Twp. Inspections
Conflict of Interest Policy in Question
By Ryan Schlehuber

Newton Township is under investigation by the state's Bureau of Construction Codes and Fire Safety after the state received a complaint that the township's building inspector was violating state and township code.

The complaint, sent to the state by a "licensed builder in Newton Township," alleges that John "Hughey" McNeil, Newton Township's building inspector and once a self-employed contractor, inspected projects constructed by himself.

The charge said the complainant was unable to secure some contracting jobs in the township because the building inspector is competing for those same jobs.

The state bureau is now instructing the township board to write a response that addresses all the allegations and code issues contained in the complaint. The township must also include its conflict of interest policy, which the township does not have, at least not in written form, Township Supervisor Bob Brotherton admitted at a special meeting about the matter Monday, February 26.

Repercussions will vary regarding any action from the state bureau, depending on what is found during the state's investigation, said Scott Fisher, director of the Office of Local Government and Consumer Services, a subdivision of the state's Bureau of Construction.

Mr. Fisher said that because the state investigation is ongoing, he does not want to speculate as to what could happen to the township. He pointed out that the bureau will follow Public Act 230 of the state's Construction Code Act, which evaluates the performance of enforcing agencies, which, in this case, would be Newton Township.

"Newton Township is under fire because we didn't check up on Hughey," Township Clerk Alice Zdebski explained to members of the audience after some questioned why the issue is being brought up again, even after Mr. McNeil completed a 60-day probationary period granted earlier by the township to give him an opportunity to improve his work.

Mr. Brotherton explained the issue is being revisited because the state is now investigating, after receiving a written complaint.

"I don't think, Hughey, you did things right," said Mr. Brotherton to Mr. McNeil, "but we're as much to blame, because we didn't follow up on you."

The state is withholding Mr. McNeil's inspection license renewal until the matter is resolved. His license expired last September. Richard Oliver, the township's assessor, has been the interim building inspector since December 2006, when it was discovered by the board and Mr. McNeil that Mr. McNeil's license expired. Mr. McNeil has been the township's building inspector since June 1992.

In an investigation on Mr. McNeil conducted by the township board in August 2005, it was discovered that he had not conducted final inspections on building projects and was not giving required occupancy permits to residents.

Owing to the violations, two township board members, Mr. Brotherton and Mrs. Zdebski, sought to remove Mr. McNeil as building inspector last year, however, the board's three other members, Marilyn Strickland, Rick Frisch, and Frank Kuehnl, abstained from voting.

Mr. Brotherton said Mr. Frisch abstained because he believed he could not vote owing to conflict of interest; his father is married to Mr. McNeil's daughter.

Mrs. Strickland said she abstained because she felt the motion to remove Mr. McNeil at that time was unfair.

It was then decided by the board to put Mr. McNeil on a 60-day probationary period to give him a chance to improve his work. The probation period started in November 2005, at which time Mr. McNeil announced that he is no longer in the self-employed construction business. Mrs. Zdebski continued to find violations in Mr. McNeil's work during the probationary period, Mr. Brotherton told The St. Ignace News, however, the majority of the board continued to keep Mr. McNeil as building inspector.

"That is the crux of the issue," Mr. Brotherton said.

To prevent further violations, the township provided Mr. McNeil with a digital camera to record construction projects and he was given a checklist to follow during inspections. At the township board's December 2006 meeting, however, it was discovered that Mr. McNeil's inspection license had expired in September 2006.

Mr. McNeil, at the February 26 special meeting, told the board he was never informed by the state that his license had expired.

"I wouldn't have let it lapse if I had known about it," said Mr. McNeil. "None of this stuff would've come up if I hadn't let my license lapse."

Residents and family members supporting Mr. McNeil attended the special meeting and asked why Mr. McNeil is continuing to be questioned after serving the 60-day probation period in 2005. Many said that because Newton Township does not have a written conflict of interest policy, Mr. McNeil should not be held liable. Others believed it was the lack of Mr. Brotherton and Mrs. Zdebski's support for Mr. McNeil that led to the state's investigations.

"All of this is making us feel like we're on trial," said Mr. McNeil's wife, Rachel.

"He's had a few discrepancies in his work, but we've corrected those and he's more than willing to improve, that's why I think he should continue to be our building inspector," said trustee Mrs. Strickland. "He's very knowl- edgeable of his work, he's been building all his life and now he is retired from his [private business]."

Resident Ronnie Rushford pointing out that neighboring townships have conducted inspections similar to how Mr. McNeil has conducted them. "This is ridiculous," he said.

"Sure, it happens all the time in other townships, but it's happening here in Newton Township and the state is looking at it here," responded Mr. Brotherton.

"This is a very bad thing for us, with the state coming in and going through here with a finetooth comb," added Mr. Brotherton. "The board has been very forgiving to Hughey for not doing final inspections and not issuing occupancy permits, but the problem is I don't think the state will be as forgiving."

Property Owner Donates

Land To Resolve

Baseball Field Dispute

Mr. Brotherton announced some good news for the township during the special meeting, although only one audience member, Dale Laidlaw, remained following the discussion of the building inspector issue.

The board received a letter from Dr. Thomas Latus of Florida, who offered to donate two lots, a 65 foot by 120 foot lot and a 65 foot by 74 foot lot next to the township baseball field, which may help resolve the township's problem of access to the field.

"It's a gift that dropped out of the sky," exclaimed Mr. Brotherton about Dr. Latus' donation, which will provide parking space for the public and allows a much closer access point from the main road.

The township has been in a dispute with Mr. Laidlaw, who owns property next to the fiveacre field, for more than a year about blocked access to the ball field. The driveway to the field infringes on Mr. Laidlaw's property, which, Mr. Laidlaw argues, makes him liable if anyone should be injured on that access point.

In light of the new information, Mr. Laidlaw agreed to donate 15 feet of his property to the township for an access easement if the township installs fencing along the west and south side of the field to keep vehicles off his land.

"I've been trying to work with you guys from the very beginning," said Mr. Laidlaw to the board. "I'm just glad to see this thing through without having to involve our lawyers."

Mr. Laidlaw also suggested to the board to ask for 15 feet of property from another property owner, Kurt Doepke, who owns property next to Mr. Laidlaw and the township's baseball field, which would provide a much wider easement.

Mr. Brotherton agreed to contact Mr. Doepke about the idea.