By Meegan Zickus
Being a good steward of public money means treating every dollar as a responsibility. Before government starts a program, we should know what problem it is meant to solve, what it will cost, and how we will tell whether it works. We should test promising ideas, review the results, and be willing to change course when the evidence calls for it.
That is the standard I would bring to Lansing. It is also the standard voters should use when judging Joe Moss’s record as chair of the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners in 2023 and 2024.
What did the disputes cost?
By January 2025, Ottawa News Network reported that the county had paid more than $700,000 to settle four lawsuits filed between February 2023 and December 2024. Some payments were approved after Moss’s term as chair ended. Settlements resolve disputed claims; they do not prove every allegation was true. The payments, however, are real.
That total includes $190,000 paid to former administrator John Gibbs, whom the board hired and fired during Moss’s chairmanship. Moss opposed the settlement when it came to a vote in January 2025. The dispute arose from decisions made while he led the board.
In December 2024, the board also approved separate severance agreements totaling more than $280,000 for interim administrator Benjamin Wetmore and executive aide Jordan Epperson. Those were separation payments, not part of the four-lawsuit settlement total reported above. Moss argued that the agreements would reduce the risk of future lawsuits; other officials questioned the basis for that risk. FOX 17 reporting; Ottawa News Network reporting.
The $4 million question
During Moss’s chairmanship, the county offered $4 million for health officer Adeline Hambley to resign, then withdrew the offer, saying it had only been tentative. The parties disputed whether they had reached an agreement. Hambley remained in her job when the litigation ended. The county did not pay her $4 million, and it must not be counted as money spent on settlements. Associated Press reporting.
But stewardship calls for questions before a proposal reaches that scale. What outcome was the board trying to achieve? What alternatives had it evaluated? What were the legal and financial risks? How would residents have benefited from spending that money?
How I would make decisions
I believe good government makes smart, informed decisions, then checks its work. For a new plan or program, I would ask:
- What problem are we solving? Define the need using evidence from the people affected.
- What are the options and costs? Compare approaches, including the cost of doing nothing.
- Can we test an idea first? Set a limited scope and a clear measure of success before committing more money.
- What did the results show? Publish the spending and outcomes in language residents can understand.
- Should we continue, improve, or stop? Put resources where they produce results.
That approach applies to housing, healthcare, schools, and county services. A program should not be protected simply because someone proposed it. It should earn continued support by helping people at a responsible cost.
The more than $700,000 in reported lawsuit settlements and more than $280,000 in separate severance payments are distinct costs tied to disputes from Moss’s time as chair. Legal fees added further expense, but published figures can overlap, so I will not invent a larger total. Residents deserve an accounting of each payment, the legal bills by case, and the decisions that led to them.
Stewardship means doing the homework before spending public money and being honest about the results afterward. Ottawa County families do that with their own budgets. They should expect the same care from the people elected to serve them.