Sturgis commission rejects calls to investigate and censure Mayor Frank Perez

The Sturgis City Commission remained sharply divided Wednesday night, rejecting two resolutions aimed at investigating and censuring Mayor Frank Perez as internal tensions continued to spill into public view.

The votes leave many of the questions that have circulated in recent weeks unanswered, including allegations raised by some commissioners about whether Perez and other officials violated state law, city procedures, and the Sturgis City Charter. The dispute was first made public at the commission’s April 22 meeting, when Vice Mayor Jeff Mullins called on Perez to resign and led two unsuccessful attempts to discipline him. You can read Watershed Voice’s previous reporting for additional background.

Commissioner Aaron Miller introduced two resolutions during commissioner comments at the end of the May 13 meeting. One called for an independent investigation into Perez, Commissioners Rick Bir and Cathi Abbs, and former Commissioner Linda Harrington. The second sought to formally censure Perez.

Both measures failed by identical 4-3 votes.

Commissioners Miller, Mullins, and Dan Boring supported both resolutions. Perez, Bir, Abbs and Commissioner Marvin Smith voted against them.

The debate marked the second consecutive commission meeting in which attempts to discipline Perez failed on split votes.

Questions linger amid closed-session restrictions

Much of the underlying dispute remains unclear to the public.

Commissioners have said the most detailed discussions occurred during closed sessions held April 8 and April 22. City Attorney T.J. Reed has advised commissioners that certain matters discussed in those sessions cannot be disclosed publicly.

That limitation has frustrated some commissioners and residents who say they want greater transparency about what led to City Manager Andrew Kuk’s April resignation announcement.

For most of Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners moved through routine business, and a work session focused on the city’s search for Kuk’s successor.

During the earlier work session, as commissioners discussed the city manager search, Perez asked Miller how he was feeling.

“We shouldn’t be here,” Miller replied, adding he had no further comment.

The brief exchange foreshadowed the more pointed discussion that came later.

Public comment criticizes mayor’s role

Only one resident addressed the controversy during public comment.

The resident, John Mikulenas, criticized Perez and argued the mayor should abstain from voting on matters involving his own conduct.

“As long as rules are followed, a flawed council can’t do much damage,” Mikulenas said. “The problem, as I see it, is that you have chosen to bend the rules.”

Mikulenas also questioned whether the commission’s ongoing conflict could discourage qualified candidates from applying to become the next city manager.

“What high-quality candidate for city manager in their right mind would apply for a position where half the city council is openly hostile to and undermines management staff?” he said.

Miller raises severance agreement and alleges broader concerns

When commissioner comments began, Miller delivered a lengthy statement tying Kuk’s resignation to broader concerns about leadership and governance. He also addressed several claims Perez made during a recent appearance on the 500 Media podcast, the mayor’s first media interview since the commission’s previous meeting. Miller said some of Perez’s statements in the interview were inaccurate.

Miller said Kuk’s separation agreement provides for the city to continue paying his salary and benefits for 12 months after his employment ends.

The agreement, signed April 23, states Kuk will resign effective July 24, and will receive his regularly scheduled payroll and benefits for 12 months after his last day of employment. 

Miller asked whether a similar arrangement had been offered to former City Manager Mike Hughes when he resigned. 

Kuk, who was present, responded: “Not to my knowledge.”

Miller referred to Kuk’s resignation as “semi-forced” and suggested his departure stemmed from both the treatment of city staff, and what Miller alleges were violations of Michigan law.

“What is going on at the City of Sturgis?” Miller asked. “That’s a really good question, one that needs answered, and the answers, I’m really, really sad to say, unfortunately lie cloaked in having been found in closed session of this body.”

Miller then directly asked Perez whether he had violated Michigan law “as it pertains to the duty of being a city commissioner during your time as mayor.”

Perez did not answer the question directly.

“That has nothing to do with doing the right thing, Aaron,” Perez said. “You’re causing further damage to our community. We have a lot of work to do and we have to hire a city manager, and your continuing to engage this way is not helping us.”

“Yes or no,” Miller replied.

Perez did not provide a yes-or-no answer.

Miller also criticized how city officials have treated Kuk and other department heads.

“You can treat people that way as an elected official,” Miller said. “There’s no rule saying you can’t treat people like garbage.”

Proposal calls for outside investigation

Miller then introduced a resolution asking the commission to authorize an investigation by outside counsel.

The proposal would have examined whether Perez, Bir, Abbs and Harrington potentially violated Michigan law, applicable case law, commission procedures and the city charter.

Miller said an outside review would provide a path toward greater transparency.

Reed clarified that any investigative report would first be reviewed by the commission, which would then determine what information, if any, could be released publicly.

“My recommendation would be the commission would review that,” Reed said, referring to a potential report. “At that time the city commission would have the ability to determine what, if anything, from a report could be released if it was not protected.”

During discussion, Perez said he would support a broader inquiry.

“I think this is great, Aaron,” Perez said. “But if you’re going to do this … you’re going to have to do it all.”

Reed interrupted Perez during his remarks, cautioning him about discussing matters that may be protected by closed-session confidentiality.

After the discussion, the investigation resolution failed on a 4-3 vote.

Here is Miller reading the resolution to the commission:

Following his vote against the resolution, Bir crumpled the paper copy and tossed it away.

Reed then recommended commissioners enter closed session so he could provide a legal opinion on what information from previous closed sessions might be disclosed publicly.

Mullins moved to enter closed session, and Boring seconded the motion.

The proposal received four votes in support and three against, but failed because entering a closed session requires a two-thirds vote of the commission.

Miller said he plans to continue introducing the investigation resolution at future meetings until it is approved.

Censure resolution defeated on same split vote

Miller then introduced a second resolution seeking to censure Perez.

The resolution stated that Perez “represents an inherent lack of willingness to adhere to Michigan law and instead has repeatedly given evidence for his belief in his view being the right view instead of Michigan law being the right view.”

Before the vote, Abbs said she found some of Perez’s past statements troubling, particularly comments suggesting he would continue doing what he believed was right even if those actions violated Michigan law.

Despite those concerns, Abbs voted against the censure.

Perez responded by saying he intends to comply with the law.

“No, no, I’ll follow the law,” Perez said. “But I will continue to do the right thing for my community.”

The censure resolution also failed 4-3.

Commissioners express frustration over transparency

In closing comments, Mullins said he has heard from numerous residents asking what is happening within city government.

“It saddens me that the majority of us sitting here tonight don’t see it in the best interest of the ones that we represent, that elect us into office, to make sure that we are running a transparent operation,” Mullins said.

“Some feel that their personal appearance is more important than the health of the city at-large.”

Perez said the resolutions brought forward by Miller and Mullins over the past two meetings amounted to “personal attacks.”

He also referenced additional allegations he said he could not discuss publicly because of closed-session restrictions. Reed again cautioned him about discussing confidential matters.

Perez concluded his remarks by speaking about conviction and the importance of standing apart from others.

“As parents we spend so much time worrying about whether our children are fitting in that we forget to teach them the value of standing apart,” Perez said.

“The reality is, if you live with conviction, you will essentially become an inconvenience to people who don’t. We need to teach our children that being disliked by the wrong people isn’t failure; it’s often a sign of success.”

What’s next

The Sturgis City Commission is scheduled to meet again on May 27 at 6 p.m.

With the commission still split and the underlying allegations unresolved in public, questions surrounding Kuk’s resignation and the conduct of city officials are likely to remain a central issue.

Maxwell Knauer is a staff writer for Watershed Voice.