Why Michigan law demands it, and what the Heartwood 2 record shows in Fayette Township
First, credit where it’s due: Fox 47 News showed up, asked the obvious questions, and put conflicts of interest on the public record when many outlets would’ve looked away. Their reporting covered the packed Fayette Township meeting at Jonesville High School, the public pushback, and the statements from officials about recusing due to conflicts tied to the Heartwood 2 solar proposal.
Next public meeting
The Fayette Township Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 19th at 7:00 PM at the Jonesville High School Auditorium (meeting location change).
What “recusal” really means
Recusal is not a vague promise to “be fair.” Recusal is a formal separation from a decision because the official (or an immediate family member) has a private stake in the outcome.
A real recusal includes four things:
- Disclosure on the record (minutes should reflect it).
- No discussion, no deliberation, no influence (not in public, not behind the scenes).
- No vote.
- Best practice for land-use decisions: the official physically steps away during that agenda item.
If a conflicted official stays in the room, stays in the conversation, shapes the agenda, “clarifies facts,” or pressures other members, the public is still watching private interest ride on public authority.
What Michigan law says (and why this is not optional)
1) Planning Commission conflicts must be disclosed, and failure is malfeasance
Michigan’s Planning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3815) requires disclosure of a potential conflict of interest before voting, and it is explicit that failure to disclose is malfeasance in office.
That matters because “malfeasance” is not an ethics slap on the wrist. It’s the kind of statutory language tied to removal procedures.
2) Michigan zoning law anticipates conflicts and provides a way to keep decisions lawful
Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3601) contemplates alternate members being called to serve when a member has abstained for reasons of conflict of interest, so the body can still reach a lawful decision without conflicted participation.
3) Due process requires an impartial decision-maker when property rights are at stake
When government bodies function in a quasi-judicial way (land use approvals, special use permits, site plans, etc.), the core due process principle applies: decisions affecting property rights must be made by an impartial decision-maker, especially where a pecuniary interest creates an intolerable risk of bias. This principle is recognized in longstanding U.S. Supreme Court recusal jurisprudence.
You don’t have to prove “corruption” to require recusal. The law is built around something simpler and more important: the process must be clean enough that the public can trust the outcome.
Why this is happening in Fayette Township
Fox 47 reported roughly 200 neighbors came out to the meeting, many urging the board to say no to the Heartwood 2 expansion proposal by Ranger Power.
Fox 47 also reported recusal statements tied to conflicts of interest—specifically including the Township Supervisor stating he would recuse because his father stands to benefit, and the Planning Commission Chair stating he would recuse due to conflict.
So the question becomes:
What are these conflicts worth—and why does the public believe officials are positioned to benefit personally while the community opposes the project?
That brings us to the attached payout estimate.
Attached image at the end is titled:
“ESTIMATED Combined Board Member Payout (Heartwood I & II)”
It states the estimate is based upon $1,400/acre annual payment during operation and does not include planning, construction, or decommissioning payment.
Here are the figures shown:
Baker Family
- Annual: $1,403,962.00
- 20 years: $28,079,240.00
- 30 years: $42,118,860.00
- 40 years: $56,158,480.00
McElroy/Timeus
- Annual: $268,702.00
- 20 years: $5,374,040.00
- 30 years: $8,061,060.00
- 40 years: $10,748,080.00
Prosser
- Annual: $138,838.00
- 20 years: $2,776,760.00
- 30 years: $4,165,140.00
- 40 years: $5,553,520.00
Total (combined)
- Annual: $1,811,502.00
- 20 years: $36,230,040.00
- 30 years: $54,345,060.00
- 40 years: $72,460,080.00
This is why recusals are not a “technicality.”
If even a portion of this estimate is accurate, the public is not imagining a conflict. They’re staring at a life-changing incentive structure attached to a decision being processed by local government.
And when citizens see officials and connected parties standing to gain while the room is filled with opposition, the public conclusion is predictable:
“This looks like government being used for private enrichment.”
Whether that enrichment is “intentional” is not even the central point. The law doesn’t rely on mind-reading. The law relies on separation.
Alongside the payout estimate, attached are three agreements that relate to Heartwood Solar II, LLC:
- Dale Baker Heartwood II Option Agreement (Exhibit A) Dale Baker Heartwood II Option …
- Carol Baker Heartwood II Option Agreement (Exhibit B) Carol Baker Heartwood II Option…
- McElroy/Timeus Heartwood II Option Agreement (Exhibit C) McElroy Timeus Heartwood II Opt…
These exhibits are included so every reader can verify the documentary record for themselves.
What Fayette Township must do if it wants a legitimate process
If any official or commissioner has a financial stake, or an immediate-family stake, in Heartwood 2, then recusal must be total and provable:
- Disclose the conflict on the record before the item begins.
- No discussion, no “informational” participation, no behind-the-scenes influence.
- No vote, and the minutes must say so.
- Use alternates / lawful substitutions where applicable so the body can still reach a decision without conflicted members.
If recusals become so widespread that a neutral decision is impossible, then the township has a duty to follow a lawful alternative procedure, not to power through with conflicted participants.
The bottom line
The public doesn’t have to “prove corruption” to demand recusals. Michigan law requires disclosure and conflict handling, and due process requires impartial decision-making where property rights are affected.
And the reason this is erupting in Fayette Township is simple:
When the public sees massive private upside attached to a public decision, and the community is overwhelmingly against the deal, recusal is the minimum standard—not the maximum.
Meeting reminder
Fayette Township Planning Commission
Monday, January 19th, 7:00 PM
Jonesville High School Auditorium
in liberty,
the Hillsdale Conservatives
Leave a Reply