GRATIOT COUNTY — County Administrator Timothy Dolehanty told the Board of Commissioners on Oct. 20 that he will not attend its Nov. 3 meeting, which falls on Election Day, and that a performance evaluation his contract calls for “usually in November” could be held Nov. 17, according to the county’s recording of the meeting.
What he said about the evaluation
In his report (14:01), the administrator said he will not attend the Nov. 3 meeting and called it “kind of an opportune time for me to not be here because in my contract, it says you will do a performance evaluation usually in November.” He said he had asked the deputy administrator to develop the evaluation, that “You’ll get to talk about it without me here, which will maybe reduce some some awkwardness,” and that “we can do the performance review on the 17th as well.” The meeting minutes do not yet record any of this. His contract began Dec. 1, 2025, as described in our Oct. 21 report; this report has not seen the contract’s evaluation clause.
Dates to know
- Nov. 3: the board’s next meeting. The administrator said the deputy administrator will be there in his place. The meeting falls on Election Day.
- Nov. 17: Michigan Association of Counties executive director Stephan Currie is scheduled for a presentation of about 15 minutes. The administrator said the association tries to visit each county on a three-year cycle. He said the resolution for the tax capture plan for the Pine River Township housing development is the only item he knew of in the queue for that meeting, and that he would keep the agenda light.
The rest of his report
The administrator said he attended an invitation-only local government capacity symposium in Lansing on Oct. 13, hosted by MSU Extension, the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy and the Citizens Research Council, and toured the Switch data center in Gaines Township on Oct. 19 at the invitation of the Michigan Association of Counties (5:31). He said Gratiot County is unlikely to attract a data center of that size, citing distance from population centers, the county’s electric capacity and the amount of land needed.
What the county’s Oct. 6 minutes say about this publication
The county’s minutes of the Oct. 6 meeting, approved on the Oct. 20 consent calendar, record under the administrator’s report: “GC Whistle Blower.com was asking questions, and Tim is not going to respond unless they identify themselves.” That matches his written reply to our Sept. 17 inquiry. Our questions and his reply are on the Requests for Comment Log.
What the record does not show
The record does not show the contract’s evaluation provision, the criteria the deputy administrator will use, or whether the Nov. 17 meeting will include a closed session. It does not establish any connection between the evaluation timing and any other matter before the board.
Questions that remain
- What does the administrator’s contract say about the timing and process of the evaluation?
- What evaluation form or criteria will the board use, and who prepares them?
- Will the evaluation be held in open or closed session on Nov. 17?
Corrections and responses are welcome.