Garrett Neese/Daily Mining Gazette
Houghton city attorney Patrick Greeley answers council questions about any potential legal issues resulting from Councilor Virginia Cole’s presence on the council. He determined Cole had properly recused herself from votes involving her brother’s company, which is suing the city; other votes on issues that could indirectly benefit the company were not against the rules, he said.

HOUGHTON — After reviewing questions submitted about conflicts of interest of City Councilor Virginia Cole, Houghton’s city attorney found no legal issues that would prevent her from continuing to serve on the council, or with two instances where she voted in ways that could have indirectly benefited her brother’s property, he said Wednesday.

Patrick Greeley of the city’s law firm Kendricks Bordeau appeared in person at Wednesday’s council meeting. He had previously tried to participate in the Jan. 11 meeting over Zoom, but technical problems forced its postponement.

In December, the council voted 6-0 to consult the city attorney and an ethicist over any issues posed by Cole’s presence on the council, and any other potential conflicts of interest. (Cole recused herself from the vote.)

Cole is the sister of Hall Building owner Edward Cole, who has filed multiple lawsuits against the city regarding a planned mixed-use development at the adjacent building at 326 Shelden Ave.

Virginia Cole also serves as a registered agent for the Hall Building and other limited-liability companies associated with her brother.

After the Jan. 11 meeting, council members were asked to write emails for Greeley with any questions.

Mayor Pro Tem Joan Suits asked if there was any legal concern regarding Cole continuing to serve on the council. After reviewing Michigan law and the city charter, Greeley said no.

“…There is nothing that prevents Councilor Cole from serving on the City Council due to her relationship with the Hall Building LLC,” he wrote. “Councilor Cole is required to refrain from taking part in city business where she has a conflict of interest or where the state Ethics Act dictates.”

Consulting the attorney had been a request of Councilor Mike Needham, who asked the council in November to consider seeking an opinion regarding conflict of interest or any other ethical concerns regarding Cole continuing to serve on the council. Greeley also answered questions posed by him.

Houghton’s conflict of interest policies pertain to cases where a councilor might have contracts with the city; that doesn’t apply here, Greeley said.

State ethics law requires a public officer to recuse themselves in situations where their other role conflicts with their official duties or when it “may tend to impair his or her independence of judgment or action” in their official role.

“It is my understanding Councilor Cole, out of an abundance of caution, requested to abstain from partaking on issues directly related to the Hall Building LLC on numerous instances,” he wrote. “The rest of the Councilors approved the abstention. Based on my review of the law, this was appropriate.”

Cole had abstained from votes pertaining to the Hall building or to her specifically, including the council’s approval of abandoning an easement on a sidewalk adjacent to the proposed development. She also abstained from votes last night, including the decision to make Greeley’s letter to the council available to the public.

Greeley also weighed in on two instances when Cole voted on issues indirectly related to the Hall Building LLC. In a July 2021 vote, Cole was the only councilor to vote against the removal of the Lakeshore Drive parking deck adjacent to the Hall building. Another was related to the appointment of a Planning Commission member.

“Both of those instances, while potentially benefiting the Hall Building, LLC, generally would not require abstention unless Councilor Cole determined that she would tend to be impaired in the performance of her official duties,” Greeley wrote. “It is my understanding that Councilor Cole affirmatively determined that she was not impaired.”

Moving forward, he wrote, conflicts should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Residents brought up additional issues. During public comment, Jennifer Julien, co-owner of Braveworks, which is developing the 326 Shelden Ave. property, mentioned a vote in which Cole was part of a majority that voted to task the Planning Commission with revisiting height restrictions in the downtown. Julien was previously on the Planning Commission before the council appointed another applicant in December.

One of Edward Cole’s points in the Hall suit is that Braveworks’ proposed building, which would be five stories above street level, would block the facade of his building and be out of character with the surrounding buildings. Julien said Virginia Cole should have recused herself from the vote, which she said could eventually lead to new city bylaws that could affect the city’s legal stance in Edward Cole’s suit.

“I think the general concern is not what has happened, but what could happen,” with respect to further actions while the lawsuit continues, she said.

The addition of an ethicist to the December resolution was the suggestion of Councilor Craig Waddell. (At the previous City Council meeting in January, former 97th District Court Judge Mark Wisti said he planned to launch a recall effort against Waddell over the request.)

In discussion with Greeley at Wednesday’s meeting, Waddell brought up a 17-page document Waddell had submitted to the city about potential conflicts between the city charter and city ordinance regarding conflict of interest. Greeley said he believed the two policies complemented each other. Where conflicts occur, the city charter overrides it, Greeley said.

Waddell also asked about Greeley’s background in dealing with ethics.

“I looked at the catalog from your university; there’s no courses called ethics,” he said. “There’s several courses with ethical description … it’s not necessarily the purview of an attorney to address ethical issues.”

Greeley said the law school classes educated them on their ethical obligations as lawyers. His advice to the council was premised on the legal standards regarding ethics and conflict of interest, which the city is bound by.

“Ethics generally, theoretically, can be debated at length for many hours, days, months,” he said. “There’s classes on ethics. That’s not what I do. What I deal with is the law.”

If the city wants to enact a more detailed conflict of interest policy, it could look to policies in place in larger municipalities such as Detroit, Greeley said.

Waddell also asked Greeley if it was appropriate for the council to single out one member for a potential concern. Greeley said the council had acted correctly in consulting their attorney after a majority vote.

“What we want to foster is a relationship where if someone feels they have a conflict, or if any council member believes they have a conflict, you raise it and we address it,” Greeley said Wednesday. “What I don’t want to see happen is what’s happened here, and I’m not blaming anyone. The situation is, it’s kind of gotten to a point where it’s been discussed a lot and taken on a life of its own in many ways.”