At the heart of it: Should individual Ottawa County commissioners be allowed to use official county letterhead to express personal opinions? If so, how should that letterhead look—and does slapping a disclaimer at the bottom make it more professional or just more absurd?
What emerged from the discussion was less about graphic design and more about power, speech, and who gets to wield the weight of the Ottawa County logo.
The Letterhead Lightning Rod
The issue started gaining traction weeks ago when Commissioner Joe Moss sent a letter to Grand Valley State University, urging compliance with federal executive orders that called for the rollback of DEI programming in public institutions. Acting in his individual capacity as an elected official, Moss used a letter format that included the county logo—a move that some called bold, others called inappropriate.
In the week that followed, Commissioners Allison Miedema and Sylvia Rhodea also wrote letters to GVSU with the county logo, advocating for their constituents and compliance with the executive orders.
While the letters reflected their well-known commitment to constitutional governance and removal of DEI practices, the action triggered backlash from some commissioners who saw it as blurring the lines of official endorsement. The response? A proposal that would standardize commissioner communication by mandating the use of county-approved letterhead—and attaching a disclaimer disavowing collective board endorsement.
The History of County Letterhead: Confusion or Control?
The conversation turned especially pointed when Commissioner Jacob Bonnema questioned the entire premise: “There’s never been a commissioner letterhead,” he said flatly. To him, this was all new, and if anything, commissioners cobbling together their own PDFs with county logos was less about governance and more about “arts and crafts.”
Gary Rosema, former sheriff and current County Administrator, who countered with institutional memory.
“There has been letterhead,” Rosema said. “Every department had it—including the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners. The county logo’s been there all along.”
Jacob didn’t budge. “If there was letterhead, I never saw it,” he said. “None of these letters floating around are using any standard format.” He argued the issue wasn’t about preserving tradition, but about controlling speech.
Gary's point was that official county letterhead—including versions used by commissioners—has existed in some form for years, even if it hasn't been consistently distributed or formally updated. To him, this wasn’t a new practice, but rather an attempt to bring consistency to a tool that had quietly been in use.
.jpg)
Freedom of Speech or Stationery Abuse?
Commissioner Joe Moss pulled no punches. To him, the real issue wasn’t stationery; it was censorship. “This is transparently agenda-driven,” he said. “Nobody has a problem with commissioners sending letters unless it’s what they’re saying.”
He criticized the disclaimer language as unprofessional and unnecessary. “No legislator in Lansing or D.C. adds a disclaimer to their letter,” Moss said. “This is about suppressing voices some folks don’t want heard.”
Commissioner Allison Miedema stated during the meeting, "I'm just going to reiterate that the issue before us today is not the issue of who sent it and making sure that that's clear. That's not any of the emails I received. It was about the content. And so that's really, I believe, what the crux is here. That's the real issue about why certain commissioners have brought this forward today, and that's disappointing to me, because we were all elected in our own to have our own voice, to be able to speak freely. That doesn't mean that everyone's going to always agree with us, but we should definitely be protecting the freedom of speech of all of our commissioners."
Compromise Emerges… Eventually
Amid the back-and-forth, Commissioner Josh Brugger attempted to find middle ground. He floated an amendment to prohibit the use of the county logo altogether. That failed.
Eventually, Commissioner Moss introduced a counter-amendment: Allow the letterhead but strike the disclaimer—just add a printed name and district under the commissioner’s signature. That, surprisingly, passed with near-unanimous support.
Commissioner John Teeples summed up the intent: “I don’t care what a commissioner says—I just want it to be clear who they’re speaking for.”
The final vote on the letterhead motion was nearly unanimous with all commissioners voting "yes" except Doug Zylstra, who voted "no."
Why It Matters
At first glance, this might sound like the kind of bureaucratic nitpicking that only local government junkies would love. But at its core, this was about more than paper. It was about political speech, public trust, and the constant tug-of-war between transparency and control.
Can an elected official ever truly separate personal opinion from public office? Who gets to decide when a logo implies endorsement—or when a disclaimer is enough to protect against it?
Eric McKee is a lifetime resident of West Michigan. Married with two energetic boys, he spends his days balancing work with dad life. Also, a firm believer that Almond St. Claus Windmill Cookies are the ultimate snack (and maybe a little too good).
Copyright © 2025 Hollander Media. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without written authorization. By providing your email or phone number, you are consenting to receive emails, calls, and SMS/MMS messages from The Hollander and affiliates. Msg & data rates may apply.
