Gratiot CountyWhistleblowerFacts. Records. Accountability. Support

Public record

Requests for Comment Log

When we ask a public official or agency for comment, we list it here with the date, who we asked, and what came back, whether the answer helped us or not.

The log records what happened. It does not guess at why an office answered, declined or did not reply, and over time it lets readers see for themselves how requests are handled.

Log at a glance

8 requests logged · last updated

Response rate: 0 of 4 requests whose reply date has passed were answered or partly answered (0 percent). 4 of the 8 requests did not set a reply date and are left out of that figure.

How to read this log. Each entry has one status: awaiting reply (the reply date has not passed), answered, partly answered, redirected (someone other than the person we asked replied), declined (an office said it will not answer) or no reply (only after the date we asked for has passed, or when no date was set). An entry that fits two labels is counted once, under its first. We list offices and roles, and name an official only when acting in an official capacity. A private person’s message is never published without that person’s consent.

Get this log as data (requests.json)

No reply yet

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Chicago Regional Office

Sent to: Regional office staff contact named in the commission’s Sept. 18, 2026 letter, Mr. Henri (as addressed)

Topic: the status of the Hydro #5 and #6 units at the City of St. Louis dam (Project No. 11428), and where the city’s operating filings can be found. Sent to the staff contact named in the commission’s Sept. 18, 2026 letter.

Our report →

Read the full email we sent

Sent Oct. 2, 2026, from contactus@gcwhistleblower.com. Subject: Question on Project No. 11428 (St. Louis, Mich.): status of Hydro #5 and #6

Dear Mr. Henri, Your Sept. 18, 2026 letter to the City of St. Louis, Michigan (Project No. 11428, accession 20260918-3076) notes that Hydro #6 is down for repairs due to a faulty exciter. We are an independent local news publisher in Gratiot County and are preparing a report based on public records. Answers or pointers to public filings are fine. Q1. Has the city notified FERC since Sept. 18 that the unit is back online or will be down for an extended period? Q2. Does FERC have information on the operating status of Hydro #5? The city's engineer wrote to the city on Oct. 27, 2025 and May 28, 2026 that "the generators are not functioning, and the dam is not generating electricity." Q3. Does the license require the city to report generation or operating status, and where would the public find those filings? We will publish any response in full and will note if we have not received one by Friday, Oct. 9, 2026. We understand if the commission cannot comment and will gladly accept a pointer to the public record. Thank you, Gratiot County Whistleblower contactus@gcwhistleblower.com
No reply yet

Michigan Public Power Agency

Sent to: Chief Executive Officer and General Manager, Patrick Bowland

Topic: whether the St. Louis hydro units count toward the city’s capacity or energy credit, whether the city’s supply arrangements depend on its generating units operating, and which projects or purchases supply the city’s energy.

Read the full email we sent

Sent Oct. 2, 2026, from contactus@gcwhistleblower.com. Subject: Question about the City of St. Louis (Mich.) membership: supply and hydro capacity

Dear Mr. Bowland, We are an independent local news publisher in Gratiot County, Michigan, preparing a report based on public records about the City of St. Louis's municipal electric utility, which is an MPPA member. We have three questions about public matters. Answers, or pointers to public documents, are fine. Q1. Does MPPA count the city's Pine River hydro units toward capacity or energy credit in St. Louis's supply arrangements? If so, since when and how many megawatts? Q2. Do the city's supply or capacity arrangements (for example the zonal resource credit) depend on the hydro or diesel units being operable? Q3. Which MPPA projects or market purchases supply the city's energy, and is any of it purchased from Consumers Energy? We will publish any response in full. If MPPA cannot comment, please tell us who can, or point us to the public document. We would appreciate a reply by Friday, Oct. 9, 2026. Thank you, Gratiot County Whistleblower contactus@gcwhistleblower.com
No reply yet

City of St. Louis: City Manager and a city staff member (follow-up)

Sent to: City Manager and a city staff member, Mr. Giles and Ms. Mayle (as addressed)

Topic: three added questions on whether electric rates include hydro or dam costs, whether customers are credited for hydro output, and who supplies the city’s purchased power. Sent as a follow-up to the request below.

Read the full email we sent

Sent Oct. 2, 2026, from contactus@gcwhistleblower.com. Subject: Follow-up: three added questions on electric rates and power supply (reply by Oct. 9)

Hello Mr. Giles and Ms. Mayle, Following our Oct. 2 message, we have three added questions. Short answers, or a pointer to the document that answers each, are fine. Q1. Do the electric rates in effect since Oct. 1, 2026 include any hydro or dam operating or repair cost? If so, how much? Q2. Are customers credited for hydro output in any billing or power-cost line while the hydro units are down? Q3. Who supplies the city's purchased power, under what contract or agreement, and what did the city spend on purchased power in the last fiscal year? We will publish what the city tells us, in full if you wish, and we will note anything the city declines to answer. Please reply to this address by Friday, Oct. 9, 2026. Thank you, Gratiot County Whistleblower contactus@gcwhistleblower.com
No reply yet

City of St. Louis: City Manager and a city staff member

Sent to: City Manager and a city staff member, Mr. Giles and Ms. Mayle (as addressed)

Topic: current status and cost of the hydroelectric units and dam, the basis for the city’s “seven percent” statement, what the 1958 and 2001 electric bonds paid for, who paid for the 1977–79 rebuild, and when the city acquired the dam.

Our report (part one) →

Read the full email we sent

Sent Oct. 2, 2026, from contactus@gcwhistleblower.com. Subject: Request for comment by Oct. 9: St. Louis electric utility and Pine River hydro plant

Hello Mr. Giles and Ms. Mayle, Gratiot County Whistleblower is preparing a report, based only on public records, about the city's electric utility and the Pine River dam and hydro units. Before we publish, we want the city's account. Short answers, or a pointer to the document that answers each question, are fine. 1) Current status. NTH Consultants told the council (Nov. 4, 2025 packet, and again May 28, 2026) that "the generators are not functioning, and the dam is not generating electricity." FERC's Sept. 18, 2026 letter (accession 20260918-3076) says Hydro #6 is down for repairs due to a faulty exciter. What is the status of each hydro unit, the cause, and the expected repair cost and date? 2. Cost. From council packets and audits we count at least about $545,000 in hydro and dam-specific spending from 2005 through 2026 (Unit 5 repair ~$130,000; 2008-10 generator rebuild $179,000-$190,000; gate automation $109,000-$112,000; plus 2014-2026 gate and engineering items). Are the final costs of the 2005-06, 2008-10 and 2013 projects available, and is our total missing anything? 3. "Seven percent." The Electric Department web page says the wheels supply approximately seven percent of the city's energy. When was that written and how was it calculated? By our arithmetic from the city's 2019 federal filing (EIA-861), hydro was about 2.5 percent that year. 4. Bonds and rebuild. What did the 2001 ($995,000) and 1958 ($275,000) electric revenue bonds pay for? Who paid for the 1977-79 dam rehabilitation, and what did it cost? (A 2023 city filing to FERC says the dam was rebuilt in 1972; which date is correct?) 5. Ownership. A 1913 county history says the county board in June 1901 allowed the St. Louis Milling Co. to build a new dam. When did the city acquire the dam? 6. Anything the city believes we have wrong or should include. We will publish what the city tells us, in full if you wish, and we will note anything the city declines to answer. Please reply to this address by Friday, Oct. 9, 2026. If the city would rather handle any of these as a formal records request, please tell us whom to send it to and in what form. Thank you, Gratiot County Whistleblower contactus@gcwhistleblower.com
No reply yet

Gratiot County Herald, Editor

Sent to: Editor

Topic: why searches of the statewide public-notice repository return no Gratiot County Herald notices, and whether the Herald submits its legal notices there. The Herald is a private business, so a reply is published with its consent.

Our report →

Read the full email we sent

Sent Sept. 30, 2026, from contactus@gcwhistleblower.com. Subject: Question about legal notices and the statewide repository

Mr. MacDonald, Gratiot County Whistleblower published a report on Sept. 30 about legal notices and Michigan's statewide public-notice repository. We should have asked you before it ran, and we are asking now. Your answer will be published in full. MCL 691.1051(2) says a newspaper that publishes a legal notice must also place it on the statewide repository kept by the state newspaper association. The Herald is listed as a publication on mipublicnotices.com, but searches there on Sept. 24 and Sept. 30 returned no notices for it. 1. Does the Herald submit its legal notices to that repository? If so, since when, and do you know why none appear? 2. If not, is there a reason, such as a technical problem or a different understanding of the law? 3. Your website shows notice bundles for several weeks between October 2025 and January 2026 posted 6 to 14 days after the print date. Was there a cause for that? 4. Is there anything in our report you believe is wrong? We will correct it publicly. Our report: https://www.gcwhistleblower.com/articles/gratiot-legal-notices-missing-from-statewide-archive/ Thank you, Gratiot County Whistleblower contactus@gcwhistleblower.com
No reply yet

Michigan Press Association

Sent to: Association staff

Topic: whether the statewide public-notice repository is receiving submissions from the Gratiot County Herald, any known technical issue, and whether any newspaper is submitting Gratiot County notices. The association is a private organization, so a reply is published with its consent.

Our report →

Read the full email we sent

Sent Sept. 30, 2026, from contactus@gcwhistleblower.com. Subject: Question about mipublicnotices.com and the Gratiot County Herald

Hello, Gratiot County Whistleblower is a local news publication in Gratiot County. We are reporting on public notices and have three questions about the repository at mipublicnotices.com. 1. The Gratiot County Herald appears in the repository's publication list, but a search filtered to it returns no notices. Is the repository receiving submissions from the Herald? If it did in the past, when did they stop? 2. Is there a known technical issue that would keep a publication's notices from appearing? 3. A search by county for Gratiot returns only statewide notices from 2020. Is any newspaper currently submitting Gratiot County notices? We will publish your answer in full. Thank you, Gratiot County Whistleblower contactus@gcwhistleblower.com
No reply yet

Gratiot County Administrator (follow-up)

Sent to: County Administrator, spokesperson for the Board of Commissioners and FOIA Coordinator, Timothy J. Dolehanty

Topic: whether Animal Control employees may answer questions from this publication directly, or whether all questions about county departments must go through the administrator’s office. No reply as of Oct. 2, 2026. This follow-up did not set a reply date.

The exchange, with both emails quoted in full →

Read the full email we sent

Sent Sept. 19, 2026, from the publication's original Gmail account (before the contactus@ address was set up), in reply to the county administrator's email

Mr. Dolehanty, Thank you for your response and for clarifying that you are the official spokesperson for the Gratiot County Board of Commissioners and the county's FOIA Coordinator. I would like to clarify that our original email to Animal Control was not a Freedom of Information Act request and did not request any public records or documents. Our inquiry was simply a request for comment. We were asking whether someone from Animal Control would be willing to answer a few questions regarding topics discussed during the Sept. 15 Board of Commissioners meeting so that we could accurately represent the department's perspective in our reporting. We understand that formal FOIA requests are subject to the identification and contact-information requirements contained in MCL 15.233, and we will comply with those requirements if we submit a FOIA request in the future. Separately, we understand from your response that you will not answer questions submitted by anonymous individuals. Gratiot County Whistleblower is an independent local news and public-records publication. The individuals operating the publication have chosen to remain anonymous, but our reporting is based on documented information whenever possible, including meeting recordings, agendas, minutes, policies, budgets, public records, and direct responses from officials and departments. Our anonymity is not intended to prevent accountability or avoid scrutiny. Our website identifies our reporting standards, sources, correction practices, and contact information, and we make a reasonable effort to provide officials and departments an opportunity to respond when their perspective is relevant to a story. For clarity, could you please confirm whether: Animal Control employees are permitted to respond directly to questions from our publication; or All questions regarding county departments must instead be directed through your office. If the county's position is that no response will be provided while the individuals operating the publication remain anonymous, we respect your decision. We would simply like to accurately understand and represent that position in any future reporting. Our goal remains the same: to provide Gratiot County residents with accurate, documented information and to give the people and departments involved an opportunity to provide their perspective. Thank you for your time. We look forward to your clarification. Respectfully, Gratiot County Whistleblower Independent Local News & Public-Records Reporting https://gcwhistleblower.com contactus@gcwhistleblower.com
Redirected · Declined to answer anonymous questions

Gratiot County Animal Control

Sent to: Department (message addressed to its director; the county administrator replied)

Topic: Animal Control’s perspective on topics discussed at the Sept. 15 Board of Commissioners meeting. The county administrator, writing as the board’s official spokesperson, replied instead of the department. He wrote that he will not respond to questions from anonymous persons.

The exchange, with both emails quoted in full →

Read the full email we sent

Sent Sept. 17, 2026, from the publication's original Gmail account (before the contactus@ address was set up). Subject: Questions Regarding the September 15 Meeting

Hello Jamie I am reaching out on behalf of the Gratiot County Whistleblower page. The purpose of this page is to help provide the public with clear, documented information about local government, public meetings, county departments, policies, spending, and other matters that affect Gratiot County residents. Our goal is not to spread rumors or attack individuals, but to ask questions, review available information, and give departments or officials an opportunity to provide their perspective when questions or concerns arise. We are currently looking into some of the topics discussed during the September 15 meeting and would like to better understand Animal Control's perspective on a few of those issues. Would someone from Animal Control be willing to answer a few questions via email or countact us on Messenger when you have time? For privacy reasons, the person operating this page will remain anonymous, but these questions are being asked in good faith, and any responses provided will help us accurately represent Animal Control's position. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Gratiot County Whistleblower
Our Rules for This Log (read the rules)

Every request for comment we send to a public official or agency is listed, with the date sent and the date we asked for a reply.

Names. We name an official only where the recipient is a public official acting in an official capacity. Private organizations and businesses are listed by role only, and we never print email addresses.

Awaiting reply means the reply date has not passed. Answered means the office responded to the questions. Redirected means someone other than the person we asked responded. Declined means an office told us it will not answer. No reply by the date is used only after the requested date has passed.

Full text, every time. We publish the complete text of each request we send, as sent, so readers can see what we asked before any article runs and judge it for themselves. Replies are published in full too, as written. We remove only personal contact details such as home addresses and personal phone numbers.

Notice in every email. Each request tells the recipient that we publish our communications with public officials on public business, including their replies, as written. Communications about public business are part of the public record, and publishing them is part of our accountability to readers. Anyone who does not want a reply published can tell us before sending it, and we will note on the log that the office declined to have it published. A message from a private person is never published without that person’s consent.

Which address. Requests since Oct. 1, 2026 are sent from contactus@gcwhistleblower.com. The first county emails, in September, were sent from the publication’s original Gmail account, before that address existed. The Gmail account remains a backup.

Where an office answers, we publish the answer in full or link to it. Dated changes to an entry are noted on the entry. We list offices and roles, not private individuals.

We are an anonymous, independent publication. We say so up front and explain it on our How We Work page. If an office believes an entry is wrong or incomplete, email contactus@gcwhistleblower.com and we will fix or add to it.