ITHACA — Eight people spoke at the June 2 Gratiot County Board of Commissioners meeting about workplace conditions at the county jail. What followed, according to county records, was a formal review of the Sheriff’s Office work environment, a new countywide harassment policy, and — weeks later — a pointed public statement from the county administrator responding to a television interview given by a fired corrections sergeant.
The June 2 meeting. The minutes record eight residents during public comment, who, the minutes say, “came to talk about Sexual Harassment in the work place, that it is not acceptable.” The minutes record no further detail of what any individual said.
The review. According to a written summary the county administrator presented to the board July 7, a team including the administrator, the sheriff, the deputy administrator, the county attorney and officials from two unions representing Sheriff’s Office employees interviewed every employee of the department on June 17 and June 24. Each was asked three questions: whether they had seen or heard anything concerning about another employee’s conduct; whether they were afraid to report concerns out of fear of retaliation; and how confident they were that a report would be addressed.
The summary reports that 31.0% of employees said they had witnessed concerning conduct — corrections deputies at 75.0%, versus 3.8% among patrol deputies and bailiffs. It reports that 38.1% said they feared retaliation for reporting — 62.5% of corrections deputies versus 23.1% of patrol deputies and bailiffs. And it reports that 21.4% were not confident a report would be addressed — 37.5% of corrections deputies versus 11.5% of patrol deputies and bailiffs. The report says most of what was described did not meet the definition of harassment, but that some conduct was “concerning and deserves further review,” which it says was underway. It says mandatory training for all county employees was being developed.
The summary states one thing plainly at the outset: most of the eight June 2 speakers referenced “an event that occurred in 2024 that is presently the subject of litigation,” and that the county would not address that matter “out of respect for ongoing judicial proceedings.” We are following that same restraint here. This report does not describe or characterize the 2024 event or the pending litigation, because we do not have the underlying filings and the county itself has declined to discuss it publicly.
The policy. On July 21, the board adopted Resolution 26-442, a countywide Harassment in the Workplace Policy, unanimously and effective immediately, superseding all prior policy and past practice. The policy defines two categories of sexual harassment recognized under Michigan and federal civil-rights law — “quid pro quo,” where a benefit is conditioned on a sexual demand, and a “hostile work environment,” severe or pervasive conduct that unreasonably interferes with a person’s work — and separately prohibits harassment based on race, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or other protected status.
The broadcast report and the county’s response. A statement titled “Administrator’s Response to Broadcast Media Report,” filed with a later board packet, says a former Sheriff’s Office corrections sergeant gave a television interview describing an internal Sheriff’s administration document he said he found at the jail. The statement says he made copies and distributed them to command staff and subordinate employees, and quotes him as saying he did so “knowing I could be disciplined,” and separately, “I drew a line in the sand of right and wrong, and I am standing on the right side of history.”
The county’s statement says that conduct violated department rules — it lists insubordination, unauthorized duplication of internal documents, and disrespect toward a supervisor among them — and says it led to his termination. It disputes his on-air assessment of the July 7 workplace review, and offers its own example of what it considers to meet the definition of workplace toxicity: “sending a package of manure to a coworker’s home,” which the statement calls “an unmistakably deliberate display of negativity, disrespect, aggression, bullying, and harassment.” The statement does not say who sent it or who received it. It closes with the administrator’s statement that he “fully support[s] Sheriff Clark and his command team.”
What we have not done. We have not seen or independently verified the broadcast report itself, the internal document at the center of the dispute, or any personnel record. We are not naming the former sergeant; no Gratiot County record we have obtained names him. The county’s statement is one side of a dispute with a person no longer employed there, written by the side that made the termination decision; we are reporting what it says, not adopting its characterizations as established fact. If the former sergeant, Sheriff Clark, or the county wish to add anything on the record, we will publish it.