At Tuesday’s special meeting of the Houghton County Commissioners, public comment was abridged and the concerns of Cole’s Creek residents, without running water for almost three weeks now, were ignored a second time.

The Open Meetings Act of 1976, Section 3, parts 5 states that a member of the public has a right to address the public body, in this case the board of commissioners, under rules established and recorded by the public body. The rules can be used to maintain an orderly meeting, and to limit individual speaking time so as to allow everyone a chance to speak. Part 6 says that a person may only be excluded from a public meeting for a breach of peace occurring at the meeting itself.

Under Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s Executive Order 154 of 2020, public bodies are allowed to meet virtually rather than in a public place as required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act, provided the public can still participate.

The order states the meeting must be conducted “so that members of the public body can hear and be heard by other members of the public body and so that general public participants can hear members of the public body and can be heard by members of the public body and other participants during a public comment period.”

It also allows for written comments to be read aloud or otherwise shared publicly during the meeting, in the case of a member of the public being unable to connect virtually.

However, these rules were not followed at the Sept. 29 meeting of the Houghton County Board of Commissioners. The special meeting, called to work on the budget, took place with several commissioners meeting in person and several more participants joining on Zoom.

During the sole comment period, Board Chairperson Al Koskela asked for comments only on the budget.

“Anybody have a comment on the budget?” he asked twice.

According to Michigan Press Association legal counsel, this would be an acceptable way of organizing public comment, if and only if an open comment period had followed.

However, immediately following the request for comments on the budget, a motion to adjourn was carried, and the meeting closed.

Meanwhile, at least four people were waiting in the text chat and on the line to address their concerns about their water being cut off to the commissioners.

In an interview after the meeting, Koskela said that comments unrelated to the budget should be held for the next regular board meeting in two weeks, that the meeting was solely for budget matters. However, the commissioners also considered and voted on resolutions concerning the sheriff’s department and COVID-19 safety measures.

Koskela also said the Cole’s Creek Road matter wasn’t one for the Board of Commissioners and that Cole’s Creek Road residents should take their complaints to the Houghton County Road Commission meetings.

“That’s the best place to go make their noise,” he said.

However, the residents have attended road commission meetings and received no response from them, either.

Koskela said the residents are just unhappy because they now have to pay for water they got for free for a long time.

“Which I’d gripe about too, I guess,” he said.

Several people’s comments were submitted to the Zoom text chat, but because they were not read aloud or shared with other meeting attendees, it does not meet OMA requirements.

Sheila Peltier, one of the Cole’s Creek residents, was listening in, but did not try to comment. She was using Zoom for the first time, and said she isn’t sure of the legalities, but doesn’t understand why they would stop people from speaking.

“I’m more confused than angry,” she said.

Peltier was exposed and had to be tested for COVID-19 on Monday, and spent the first three days of the week isolating herself.

“I did come to my office, but it’s locked, nobody comes in, I’m the only one here,” she said.

Fortunately, she was informed Wednesday that her test came back negative, but for three days she avoided going anywhere else, which meant no showers. It also meant being careful about when she used her water, since she couldn’t get more whenever she wanted.

“Am I going to do the dishes tonight, or wait until tomorrow?” she said.

Her new well has been permitted by the health department, and she’s waiting on the well digger to be available, an estimated two more weeks. After the well is dug, it could take weeks more before the water is readily available and drinkable.

“I just want water,” Peltier said.

Chris Woodry had obtained a rushed permit from the road commission to dig a conduit under the road before paving started last week, with the purpose of running a hose with an electric pump under the road and pulling water from the creek.

“It was just so that, you know, we could actually turn it on and flush a toilet,” Woodry said. “Carrying buckets is very limiting.”

However, he has since learned that the health department would not permit such a water supply, after spending nearly $2,000 on the excavation work and supplies.

“Yeah, hindsight, we probably shouldn’t have done it,” Woodry admitted. “But you know, we were desperate and trying to find a way.”

Woodry would like to see someone held responsible for the sudden cutoff of his and his neighbors’ water, and has grown frustrated with the lack of government response.

“Why is nobody holding anyone accountable?” he said.