The Alger County Commission approved a controversial resolution, but a sister resolution that would change how the county addresses health issues was not addressed at the Nov. 20 meeting in the Alger County Courthouse conference room.
The resolution that was approved – 2023-18 Establishing Limitations to State and/or Local Government Emergency Measures – does not take any definitive measures against the LMAS Health Department or any other state actors. Instead, it “strongly recommends … that all state or local government emergency measures affecting or emanating from the county health department regarding a pandemic or epidemic shall expire after 28 calendar days” and “strongly recommends that the county health department not impose, permit or enforce vaccine mandates, mask mandates, mandate testing of asymptomatic individuals, mandate a vaccine passport type system or assist in administering the quarantining of healthy, asymptomatic individuals”.
The resolution passed 3-1, with Chair Dean Seaberg and Commissioners Mick Rondeau and Rick Capogrossa voting in favor and D. Michael Nettleton against. Kelly Livermore was absent from the meeting.
However, a sister resolution that would create a county committee to advise on health issues was not addressed. That resolution was part of a lock-step set of resolutions written by Livingston County, which specifically cited creating a county health committee to combat the local health department over pandemic and epidemic measures.
According to Alger County Clerk Joel VandeVelde, the second resolution has not been addressed by the Resolutions Subcommittee. That means that there has not been a review from Alger County Prosecutor Rob Steinhoff about the legal and financial implications of the resolution. VandeVelde also said that the fluid nature of the Resolutions Subcommittee means that there is not a regular schedule to address proposed resolutions as they come to the county. As of deadline of The Munising Beacon, the subcommittee did not have another meeting scheduled.
The second resolution is dependent on resolution 2023-18 being passed. However, the first resolution does not require the adoption of the second resolution. According to Seaberg, this is a way that the board can express what the county commission values when addressing the intersection of public safety and constitutional rights.
“This is a way for us to say how we feel about these issues. If a township or the city wants to make a resolution, they’re more than welcome to do one also,” he said.
For those in support of the resolution, the move was a necessary statement against what many Michiganders felt was a gross overstep of government when measures against COVID-19 went unchecked by local authorities.
“(The resolution) gives me a voice through you. LMAS is appointed, not elected,” said Christy Knaus when speaking on behalf of Stand Up Alger. “Let’s not repeat mistakes. Let’s learn from this.”
For those against the resolution, they believed that the resolution was not about checks and balances, but rather retaliation for the rollout of anti-COVID measures.
“Whitmer is on trial here. That’s not what this should be about,” shouted Mary Joan O’Halloran-Torongo as she left the meeting.
