We recognize that our township board members serve with a commitment to our community, and we appreciate the time and effort required to serve in public office. At the same time, elected officials are entrusted with representing the people who elected them. When their actions or decisions depart from the expressed will of the residents, they should be held accountable through respectful, informed public discourse. That is the purpose of this article: to encourage transparency, accountability, and informed discussion about decisions that affect our community.

What Happened at Monday Night's Meeting

​Township Supervisor Laurie VanHaitsma called a special board meeting for Monday, August 10, with one stated purpose: to vote on putting the road millage back on the November ballot (as the filing deadline for ballot language was August 11 at 4pm). The meeting was legally posted on the township website the night before—the minimum required notice under Michigan law.

Residents who found out about the meeting showed up to voice their opposition. What they witnessed next caught everyone off guard
‍

At the opening of the meeting, Supervisor VanHaitsma made a motion to add the failed fire department millage to the agenda as well—a millage that was not listed anywhere in the official meeting notice the public had been given.

Notably, when the chair called for a vote on amending the agenda, Trustee Wade Windemuller did not vote—he was silent both when asked to vote yes and when asked to vote no. The agenda amendment was not adopted by unanimous consent of all board members.

The board voted 5–2 to put the road millage back on the November ballot. Board members Wade Windemuller and Ben Miller voted no, saying the voters have spoken and should be respected.

Then the board voted 4–3 to put the fire department millage back on the November ballot as well. Again, Windemuller and Miller voted no—joined this time by Treasurer Scott Brouwer.

The votes that sent both failed millages back to the ballot came from Supervisor Laurie VanHaitsma, Clerk Candy DeHaan, Trustee Tim Tacoma, and Trustee Tom Wolfert (and Treasurer Scott Brouwer for the road millage).

​

The People Who Showed Up Said No—The Board Majority Members Thought They Knew Better

The residents who attended made their voices heard during public comment. They asked hard questions. Trustee Ben Miller pointed out that the fire department's annual spending overage has been $20,000–$30,000 (yet the new 0.30 mill would raise $232,675 in the first year) and was curious what the extra money would be used for.

Trustee Wade Windemuller made perhaps the most pointed observation of the evening: "The three (of five) Jamestown precincts that voted NO on the road millage are the three precincts where all the gravel roads are—so maybe they don't want their roads paved. Not everyone wants a paved road."

Windemuller added, "Do elections even matter if we are just going to keep putting these millages up for another vote? People are already questioning the validity of our elections, and now we are essentially saying their vote doesn't matter. For me, this is not about a millage, it’s about the people and their vote. Did it count? Did it matter to us? The people have said no. I think we should respect that. As for the fire department, I think that should be the first line item on our general budget. I think they should be funded to the full, but there is plenty of funds to do that in other ways rather than asking for a tax increase from people who are already stretched."
‍

‍‍

Windemuller noted that the township's general fund, not a new millage, should be used to fund the fire department, instead of being spent on "extra projects" like a new park. He noted that the final $600,000–$700,000 debt payment for the new park will be paid off by the end of this year. Once that debt is paid off those funds would be freed up and could potentially be used to fund the fire department without asking taxpayers for a dime more.

Supervisor VanHaitsma argued that the road millage only lost by 77 votes, and that she hears complaints from people who live on gravel roads. There are only 10 roads left to pave and once paved the county takes over maintenance responsibility. She said paving costs approximately $2.5 million per mile of road. We ask—at that rate, is the township getting competitive bids?

‍VanHaitsma was concerned that the low voter turnout caused the millages to fail. Yet, she voiced no concern over the two millages that passed under the same low voter turnout nor any plan to put them back on the ballot for a revote.
‍

Figure 1: Jamestown Township Road Millage Renewal Results from the August 4, 2026 Election

Jamestown resident Tom Vierzen noted that renters often vote for millages thinking they won’t have to pay for them. But when their rent prices go up as a result, they are free to leave and find a cheaper place to rent, leaving permanent residents stuck paying for the millages for years. He also pointed out that Ottogan Hills, a local development, covers the cost of its own roads and asked why that model couldn’t be applied more broadly.

Trustee Tom Wolfert responded to one commenter at the end of the meeting, “I take offense to you saying that we didn’t listen. This thing really bothered me, and I spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I discussed it with my wife. I said, ‘I am really sick of millages not being passed, and then it passes. To me, if it passes the next time, then we are at a tie. We should vote once more to break the tie.’ But when I sit up here, I got to make a decision, and I got to do what I feel is best. And I totally agree with the people [who] spoke, and we probably should have listened. But I couldn’t bring myself to do it. But I did listen to you. I listened to all of you, and I think you made very good points. And I don’t like when you say we didn’t listen to you…”
‍

The Law Is Clear

Here is where this goes beyond a policy disagreement.

The fire department millage was not on the agenda. The official, posted notice for the August 10 special meeting listed only one action item: the road millage. The fire millage was added to the agenda at the start of the meeting itself, on a motion by the Supervisor, with the claimed justification that all seven board members were present and therefore could add whatever they wanted.

​

Does Michigan law allow that?

What transpired is not allowed according to the Michigan Open Meetings Act (MCL 15.265), which requires that the notice for a special meeting state its purpose and be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting. The fire millage was not stated as a purpose. The law exists to protect the public's right to know what the government is doing before it does it and to give citizens the opportunity to attend and participate before a decision is made, not after. It is not a courtesy—it is a requirement.

What makes this even more troubling: the township had already posted a separate special meeting for Tuesday, August 11, at 9:00 am—specifically and properly noticed for the fire millage vote. After voting on the fire millage on Monday night without proper notice, the township cancelled that meeting.
‍

Figure 2: Screenshot from the township website of the cancelled special meeting for August 11 to discuss putting the fire millage back on the November ballot.

In other words—the township knew the fire millage required its own separately noticed meeting. One had already been scheduled. Then the township bypassed that requirement, voted on it without notifying the public, and cancelled the meeting that had been promised.

Furthermore, the board's claimed justification—that unanimous presence of all seven members authorized the agenda change—does not hold up. First, the agenda amendment was not adopted unanimously. Second, even if it had been, board members cannot waive the public's right to notice. The Open Meetings Act protects citizens, not board members. A private agreement among elected officials to expand an agenda does not satisfy the public's legal right to advance notice of government action.

Under MCL 15.270, decisions made in violation of the Open Meetings Act are voidable—a court can throw out the vote entirely. Jamestown citizens have formally notified the full township board, Ottawa County Clerk Justin Roebuck, and State Representative Rachelle Smit and have preserved copies of the official agenda and the cancelled meeting notice as evidence.
‍

Frustrated citizens Tom Vierzen (left) and Joel Studebaker (right) speak out at the Jamestown Township board meeting on Monday, August 10, 2026.

The Bigger Question

Trustee Miller put it plainly at the meeting: "We put the library millage on the ballot three times until it passed. Is that what we are going to do again with this millage?"

That is the question every Jamestown Township resident should be asking. If five board members can simply keep putting the same rejected tax increases back on the ballot until they finally pass, what did your vote on August 4 actually mean?

The people of Jamestown said no to tax increases. Twice.

​Five elected representatives have chosen to move forward despite 1,618 Jamestown residents voting no.

If you are among those residents, you have an opportunity to make your voice heard. The next township board meeting will be held Monday, August 17, at 7:00 pm. Residents are encouraged to attend and respectfully share their concerns with the board.

‍