Why We Started, What We Have Tried, and What We Found Is Working

GRATIOT COUNTY — This is an account by the people behind this publication, labeled as such: part explanation, part record of what we have done and found, written to be checked. Where it states a fact, it names the document.

Why we started

We are residents of this county. We live with the results of what local government decides: the tax bill, the road, the school bond, the budget. Every one of us has asked at some point where our tax money is going. The information is out there, but it is spread across the county site, city sites, school sites and state databases, and buried in packets of 100 pages or more, written for people who already know what they are looking for. Most people work and raise families and do not have the time. So we started reading the documents and putting them next to each claim, so no one has to take our word for it.

What we have attempted

• We read agendas, audits, budgets, minutes and contracts and publish what they say, with the document linked.
• We asked questions. On Sept. 17 we emailed a county department. The director forwarded the email to the county administrator, who serves as the Board’s spokesperson, and he replied: “I will not respond to questions posed from anonymous persons.” We sent one follow-up asking whether department staff may answer us directly or whether everything must go through his office. As of Oct. 3 there has been no reply. Both emails are published in full. We have reached out to more than one office and asked more than one question.
• On Oct. 2 we sent questions to the City of St. Louis, federal energy regulators and the Michigan Public Power Agency, asking for answers by Oct. 9.
• We post every request we send, word for word, on a public log.

What we found does not work

Asking as an anonymous publisher. Some offices say they will not answer, and a records request under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act must carry the requester’s name and address (MCL 15.233). Public comment at county board meetings also asks speakers to identify themselves under the Board’s Rules of Organization (section 5.8.4(a) of the April 2026 amended Rules).

Routing everything through one spokesperson. We went looking for the rule. We searched the county’s Rules of Organization, its policy manual, its posted personnel documents and job descriptions, and board minutes and packets back to 2020. We found no document that says reporters or residents must go through the county administrator to reach a department. What we did find:

• The Rules of Organization name the Board Chairperson as spokesperson “for Board of Commissioner action,” or someone the Chairperson designates in writing (section 2.1; unchanged in the Jan. 6 and Apr. 21, 2026 versions).
• A 2013 Board policy (Policy 114, Media Communications Officer Policy) also names the Chairperson and says it is “not intended to limit or replace the media interactions” of other elected officials or of county department heads “in their normal course of business.” The same policy says that when someone other than the Chairperson receives a media request specific to the opinion, action or intent of the Board, they should refer it to the Chairperson. We could not confirm whether the 2013 policy is still in force; it is not in the county’s online policy manual.
• The county administrator is the county’s Freedom of Information Act coordinator, which covers records requests, not questions.
• We did not find a written designation of the administrator as spokesperson. We could not search anything not posted, such as an internal or oral directive, and we are asking the county to show us anything we missed. The request will be posted on our log.

Relying on documents alone. Documents tell you what was decided. They rarely tell you why.

What a single spokesperson gains and costs

There is a real case for one voice: the information is consistent, misquotes are less likely, a lawyer can review it first, and one person can be held accountable for it. The cost falls on readers: when only one person speaks, no one can check what he says against anyone else. For a publisher, that is the difference between reporting and repeating, and it limits what we can verify, which affects our reporting, our articles and our reputation.

What the law does and does not say

Officials are not required to answer a publisher’s questions, and we are not claiming anyone broke a law. Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act covers records, not questions. A records request, from a named person, must be answered within set deadlines. That is why the next step, when questions go unanswered, is a formal public records request, which we will publish.

A question for county officials

Do other news outlets, such as the Gratiot County Herald or the Morning Sun, reach department heads directly, or do they also go through the spokesperson? If they reach them directly, we would like to understand what is different about us, because we are asking the same kinds of questions. If the same rule applies to everyone, we would like to know that too.

We are a newer publication, and we understand that the name “Whistleblower” can sound as if we are someone on the inside. In the words of one of the people behind this page:

“As one of the main individuals behind Gratiot County Whistleblower, and the one who wrote this post, I can transparently say that none of these public officials know me directly, and I am not a part of the government.”

We would welcome a direct reply from any office, and we will publish it.

What we found is working

• The documents. Every claim links the record.
• Our public log. Every request, with the date, who it went to, and what came back, including silence.
• Corrections in public. This week we fixed a ballot story we got wrong and removed private residents’ names from two reports. All of it is on our corrections page.
• Neighbors. People write in with questions and things they have noticed, and some want to dig in themselves.
• A meetings page, so you can see what is happening this week and how to speak.

What transparency means to us

This is our view, and we would like yours. Posting a document is not the same as being transparent. Full transparency means the numbers behind the numbers: the completed dollar amounts, the invoices paid out of taxpayers’ pockets, what was voted and why. It means public officials who are willing to talk to the press and answer the hard questions residents have. We hold ourselves to that first: we publish every question we ask and every answer we get.

Where we are headed

1. Named neighbors behind our questions. Our public representatives send them under their own names. Every answer goes on the log.
2. Formal public records requests when questions go unanswered. We will publish every one.
3. “Where does the money go?” A series following the county’s dollars: budgets, audits, drains, bonds and millages.
4. A weekly newspaper and meetings tracker.
5. More coverage of what few cover: townships, school boards, the road commission, drains and courts.

We are anonymous. That is legal, other counties have independent publishers like us, and most people could not name the owner of the paper they read. We publish our reasons and the trade-off. What counts is whether the facts hold up.

Tell us what you think

We would rather hear it than guess. Write to contactus@gcwhistleblower.com or use the Ask the Whistleblower form: What do you think our intentions are? What are we doing right? What could we do better? Do you care whether we are anonymous, or is that mostly a concern for public officials? What is one question about the county’s money you wish someone would answer?

What this report does not establish

It does not establish why any office has not answered, whether any internal directive exists, or whether the 2013 media policy is current. It does not say any law was broken or that anyone acted with any motive.