Findings of investigation into Sturgis City Commission conduct leaves key questions unanswered

After a closed session during their September 23 meeting, the Sturgis City Commission unanimously voted to release the findings of the external investigation by Miller Johnson that looked into alleged wrongdoing by commissioners. The report details the events leading up to the public controversy, the investigator’s findings, and his legal conclusions regarding the commissioners’ conduct. 

The investigation followed months of disputes among commissioners after City Manager Andrew Kuk announced his resignation during the April 22 meeting. Vice Mayor Jeff Mullins and Commissioner Aaron Miller repeatedly alleged that Perez and other commissioners had engaged in misconduct connected to Kuk’s departure. Two investigation proposals failed before commissioners unanimously authorized an outside investigation on May 27. 

Several events described in the report are recounted differently by the individuals interviewed, and some details remain disputed. This story presents the events chronologically, drawing on the investigator’s findings and the accounts of those interviewed. The report’s legal conclusions are summarized below, and the completed redacted document is attached for readers who wish to review it.

Chronology of events

On March 23, Commissioner Cathi Abbs met with an unnamed individual at BIGBY Coffee, where the individual raised concerns about City Manager Andrew Kuk, according to the investigation report. 

Following the meeting, Abbs contacted Mayor Frank Perez to discuss the concerns, which she described as “serious,” and arrange a meeting for the following day. Abbs informed Perez that she would be bringing another commissioner to the meeting — the report states she was planning to bring either former Commissioner Linda Harrington or Commissioner Aaron Miller. Abbs said she decided this because she did not want it to be “just Frank Perez, Richard Bir, and her.” 

On March 24, Commissioners Abbs, Bir, and Harrington met with Mayor Perez in his office. The report also identifies a fifth attendee whose name is redacted. That individual presented concerns regarding the city manager to the commissioners. 

During the meeting, members of the commission were presented with the concerns raised, and Bir and Perez said they had heard similar concerns from residents and other city employees. 

The report states, “Harrington recalls Bir and Perez independently observing that the concerns raised by [redacted] were consistent with issues that had been raised to them about [redacted] by constituents and City employees in the past.” 

Multiple commissioners told the investigator that no formal or informal vote was taken during the meeting. However, the investigator later concluded that the discussions nevertheless amounted to a decision under the Open Meetings Act (OMA), though he ultimately found that the commissioners did not violate the law. 

Perez stated he told commissioners a the end of the meeting on March 24 that he would subsequently inform City Attorney TJ Reed and other commissioners. 

On March 28, Commissioner Marvin Smith met with Perez and Bir for breakfast to discuss the concerns raised about Kuk. At that point, Perez had not yet informed Reed or the remaining commissioners who had not participated in earlier discussions. 

Smith stated that during this meeting Perez told him “The [redacted] had shared concerns about the performance of the City Manager at a meeting in his office.” Smith says Perez and Bir “asked his opinion” about next steps, to which Smith said they should inform Reed, a step Smith said he figured they had already determined. 

The participants gave differing accounts of the meeting’s date and details. The investigator determined it most likely occurred March 28, citing witness statements and text messages exchanged that morning.

On March 28, at 7:38 a.m., Perez texted Smith, “I’ll see you at 8 a.m.” to which Smith responded, “Ok,” at 7:40 a.m.

The investigator notes that Perez stated he did not discuss the allegations with any other commissioners after that breakfast meeting. 

On March 30, one week after saying he would do so, Perez reached out to Attorney Reed to see if he was in his office. Reed was on vacation but indicated he could speak before returning to the office on Wednesday, April 1. Perez told him the matter could wait. 

According to Reed’s account, Perez opened their April 1 meeting by saying that the “Commissioners are not happy with [redacted],” referring to Kuk, according to Reed’s testimony. Reed said Perez then stated, “we’re ready to move on and we have the votes to do so.” 

Reed recalled being shocked by the statement, questioning Perez about how he knew he had the votes, suspecting that commissioners had discussed the matter outside a public meeting. 

Reed advised that the commission would need to consider an independent investigation into the allegations, with the matter to be discussed during a closed session at its next meeting. Reed also advised Perez that they needed to meet with the city manager to inform him of the allegations and the proposed investigation. 

Perez acknowledged telling Reed that commissioners had the votes to fire or remove the individual. He subsequently admitted the statement was false and said he regretted making it. 

Perez also told Reed he wanted to give the city manager an opportunity to resign voluntarily. However, the investigator found that Perez had falsely represented the other commissioners’ positions regarding removal. 

Following their meeting, Perez and Reed met with City Manager Andrew Kuk on April 1. During that meeting, Perez and Reed presented Kuk with the allegations against him. 

According to the report, the city manager said he was familiar with the factual circumstances underlying the allegations but disputed the allegations themselves. 

Perez, Reed, and Kuk agreed the next steps following that meeting would come in the form of an independent investigation into the allegations. 

On April 1 and 2, Reed contacted commissioners individually to explain the allegations and the need for an independent investigation. He also informed commissioners who had not attended the March 24 meeting about Perez’s account of the earlier discussions. 

Commissioners Jeff Mullins and Aaron Miller were informed by Reed that Perez claimed he had the votes necessary to remove Kuk. Reed’s account raised concerns that Perez had discussed the matter with other commissioners outside a public meeting. The investigator determined that Perez’s claim about having the votes was false.

Perez told Mullins that Reed told him not to contact any other commissioners, and disputed wrongdoing since his intent was to give the other commissioners a “heads up” about the allegations before their closed session discussion.

Commissioners formally discussed the allegations and circumstances surrounding the earlier meetings during a closed session on April 8.

During the session, commissioners acknowledged there was a separate meeting during which they discussed business. After this was shared, Commissioner Miller asked for a show of hands as to who was present. Commissioner Mullins recalls that Abbs, Bir, Harrington, and Perez indicated they were present.

Although the investigator determined the March 24 and March 28 meetings collectively constituted a constructive quorum, he concluded commissioners did not violate Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The investigator found that their decision to bring the allegations to the remaining commissioners and city attorney did not constitute a decision on a matter of public policy under the law.

A meeting between Miller, Mullins, and Perez occurred in Reed’s office on April 21. Mullins stated that nothing new came about during the meeting, however, details and frustrations were discussed. According to the report, Perez defended his handling of the matter by emphasizing the seriousness of the underlying allegations. Miller and Mullins challenged his explanation and questioned the legality of the earlier meetings.

Key findings and facts

The investigator found that the individual who initially raised concerns was aware of the city’s employee complaint-resolution procedure, which directs certain complaints to the city attorney. The report also found that Abbs was aware of that procedure before the March 23 meeting. The first redacted name is that of the accuser. 

Another finding was Perez’s admission that his claims that he had the votes to remove or fire Kuk were knowingly false.

The investigator found that other commissioners had not authorized Perez to represent their positions on removing the city manager. Several commissioners subsequently expressed surprise or frustration upon learning that Perez had claimed to have their votes. 

The investigator’s OMA analysis focused on whether the March 24 and March 28 discussions collectively constituted a meeting of a public body and whether the commissioners made a decision on a matter of public policy outside a public meeting. 

The investigator concluded that the commissioners’ discussions went beyond merely receiving information and amounted to a decision to bring the allegations to the remaining commissioners and City Attorney Reed. 

“Thus, I find that five Commissioners were involved in this ‘two day total’ and, therefore, a constructive quorum existed for purposes of the OMA,” the report states. 

The report also found Perez knowingly misrepresented the other commissioners’ positions regarding Kuk’s removal, and failed to promptly correct the false impression he had created. 

Conclusions

The investigator reached the following conclusions:

• Mayor Perez violated Chapter IX, Section 4(n) of the City Charter

• Mayor Perez acted in a manner inconsistent with Section 1 of the Commission Procedural Policy
• Commissioners Bir, Abbs, Harrington, and Smith did not violate the OMA through their participation in meetings with each other on March 24 and 28
• Commissioners Bir, Abbs, Harrington, and Mayor Perez did not violate Chapter III, Section 5 of the City Charter through their meeting with [redacted] on March 24

The investigator recommended additional commissioner education on city employment policies and procedures for handling employee complaints as well as reinforcement of OMA compliance. The report states that neither the City Charter nor the Commission Procedural Policy describes specific consequences for the violations identified. 

Regarding the City Charter, the investigator found that Perez improperly interfered with the city manager’s administrative responsibilities and attempted to engineer his removal without the support of the commission. The investigator also concluded that Perez’s conduct was inconsistent with the commissioner procedural policy, which emphasizes collective decision making. 

Although the investigation was prompted in part by allegations that commissioners’ actions contributed to Kuk’s resignation, the section of the report addressing his departure is entirely redacted. The publicly released findings therefore do not establish what role, if any, those actions played in his decision to resign.

Maxwell Knauer is a staff writer for Watershed Voice.