GRATIOT COUNTY — A request for comment that Gratiot County Whistleblower sent to the county's Animal Control director after the Sept. 15 Board of Commissioners meeting was answered by the county administrator, who wrote that he is the board's official spokesperson and that he will not respond to questions posed by anonymous persons.

This publication is a participant in the exchange described here, not an outside observer of it. For that reason the report relies on the emails themselves, quoted exactly as written, and separates what those emails establish from what they do not. It reaches no conclusion about why any person acted as they did.

The Original Request

Commissioners discussed Animal Control at length during the Sept. 15 meeting, including a request to reclassify Animal Control officers' pay. To understand the department's perspective on those topics, the publication emailed Animal Control Director Jaime Haase on Sept. 17, 2026, under the subject line “Questions Regarding the September 15 Meeting.” The full text follows, unedited, including a misspelling of the director's first name in the greeting.

The email asked whether someone would answer questions. It did not ask for any public document or record.

Animal Control Seeks Guidance

Later that morning, Haase forwarded the email to Gratiot County Administrator Timothy J. Dolehanty. Her forwarding message, which appears in the email thread reviewed by this publication, reads:

The message does not further identify “Tom,” and this report does not attempt to. The documented fact is that the director sought guidance before responding.

County Administrator Responds

Dolehanty responded after Haase sought administrative guidance. His reply came directly to Gratiot County Whistleblower, and the body of his email reads:

The reply did two things. It identified Dolehanty as the official spokesperson for the Board of Commissioners and as the county's FOIA coordinator. And it stated that he will not respond to questions from anonymous persons.

Request for Comment vs. Public-Records Request

The two are different things. A request for comment asks a person or an office to answer questions. A public-records request asks a government body to produce documents, and Michigan's Freedom of Information Act sets out how such requests are made.

The Sept. 17 email was the first kind. It asked whether someone at Animal Control would answer questions and requested no documents. The administrator's reply addressed both inquiries and requests for public documents, and it cited FOIA's identification requirements for the latter.

This report draws no legal conclusion from that. It notes only that the original email did not seek records.

What the Emails Establish

  • The publication asked Animal Control for its perspective on topics from the Sept. 15 meeting.
  • The Animal Control director forwarded the request to the county administrator and asked how she should respond.
  • The county administrator replied to the publication himself.
  • He identified himself as the board's official spokesperson and as FOIA coordinator.
  • He wrote that he will not respond to questions posed by anonymous persons.
  • The original email did not request public documents.

What Is Still Unknown

The current record does not establish any of the following. Each is an open question, not a finding.

  • Whether Animal Control employees are allowed to respond directly to media questions.
  • Whether county departments are required to send media inquiries through the county administrator.
  • Whether Haase simply chose to seek guidance in this instance.
  • Whether the county has a written media-relations policy.
  • Whether there is an internal directive that is not publicly posted.
  • Why FOIA requirements were included in a response to an email that did not request records.

Nothing in the emails shows that anyone was prevented from speaking, that any law or policy was violated, or what any person's reasons were.

Where It Stands: Closed Oct. 2, 2026

On Sept. 19 we asked the administrator whether Animal Control employees may answer our questions directly, or whether all questions about county departments must go through his office. As of Oct. 2 he had not replied, and his Sept. 17 email says he will not respond to questions from anonymous persons. We have closed this report with that as its final status. If the county answers, we will add the answer in full.

Our requests. County: one request for comment (Sept. 17), answered by the administrator rather than the department, and one follow-up (Sept. 19) with no reply. Separately, on Oct. 2 we emailed four requests for comment to the City of St. Louis, federal energy regulators and the Michigan Public Power Agency for a report on the St. Louis hydroelectric plant, each with a requested reply date of Oct. 9. All of our requests are listed with their full text on the Requests for Comment Log.

What we are doing. We are recruiting three to five volunteer public representatives who will contact public officials under their own names on the publication’s behalf.

Our position. This is the publication’s view, not a finding. A publisher needs to be able to ask the officials and departments that hold the information. Sending every question about a county department through one office, and declining questions from anonymous persons, limits what we can verify and what readers can learn. The county decides how it responds, and we will keep contacting officials and departments directly. Any county official named here is welcome to respond, and any response will be added.

Sept. 15 Board meeting recording Our report on the Sept. 15 meeting County Animal Control page