Berrien County Prosecutor Michael Sepic says that County Commissioner Teri Sue Freehling will not be charged with a violation of the Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities Act as a result of votes held at the County Board level involving her husband’s business.
Here is the full statement from the Prosecutor, released late this morning:
A complaint was referred to the Berrien County Prosecutor’s Office questioning whether a Berrien County Commissioner complied with the Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities Act. That act requires municipal elected personnel to disclose financial interests in contracts between the municipality and, in the case of a county, a commissioner, which directly or indirectly benefits the commissioner. That act says, in part, that a public servant shall promptly disclose any pecuniary interest in a contract to an official body that has the power to approve the contract. A violation of this act is a 90-day misdemeanor.
The Michigan State Police was asked to investigate this complaint. That investigation revealed that Commissioner Teri Sue Freehling (R-Baroda) voted to approve payments by the county to one Douglas Hartzler. Hartzler contracted with the Berrien County drain commissioner to work on county drains. Hartzler was a business partner of sorts with Patrick Freehling, Commissioner Teri Sue Freehling’s husband. Patrick Freehling owned a variety of heavy equipment machinery often used in drain work. This machinery owned by Freehling was rented to Hartzler for his county drain work. Payments by the county on behalf of the drain commissioner to Hartzler over the course of a 2-year period reached some $400,000. A significant portion of that amount paid to Hartzler made its way to Patrick Freehling.
While there is evidence Commissioner Freehling knew of the rental of equipment by her husband to Hartzler for county drain work, as she abstained on some votes authorizing payments to Hartzler, but not all, the facts known through the investigation would be insufficient to prove she knew the full extent of the moneys paid to her husband for county drain work. Such proof would be necessary for a criminal conviction. In addition, she did disclose in county board meetings her husband’s involvement in renting equipment to Hartzler but not to the full extent of the actual involvement. In addition, her husband filed an LLC (limited liability corporation) to insulate her from the income.
There is also a legal question whether moneys used to pay the contracts for drainage work are county funds or drainage assessment districts funds for which Freehling’s disclosure as a commissioner may not be necessary.
Commissioner Freehling could have known and perhaps should have known the full extent of her husband’s work for Hartzler on county drain work; however, her actual knowledge, and her failure to disclose that knowledge, would be necessary in order to sustain a conviction. In a criminal case, the prosecutor has the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. These factual and legal issues are simply too great to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In addition, through her attorney, Commissioner Freehling has agreed to acknowledge, whether legally bound to or not, that she should have researched and sought out the extent of her husband’s interest in drain commission contracts and disclosed that to her fellow commissioners. And, though her husband has since died, she has indicated she will research and disclose any future interest she or her close relatives may have in continuing the rental of heavy equipment machinery to drain commission projects.
Because of the foregoing, no charges will he authorized relating to a violation of the Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities Act by Commissioner Teri Sue Freehling.
There has been no information culled from the investigation that suggests there should be further inquiry into any related matters.
