Swartz Creek Residents Want School District Transparency

06/11/2025

Another school year finished at Swartz Creek Community Schools, another superintendent that focused on passing a bond to pad his resume so he can move on to a better district at higher pay…Ben trained him well.

The Superintendent position at Swartz Creek is quickly becoming a joke, no one is it to make long term improvements in the district and community, the are only focused on short term fixes with long term community implications and getting out as soon as possible.

Hopefully he gets the job!✌️

https://www.hollandsentinel.com/story/news/education/2025/06/09/zeeland-public-schools-names-final-candidates-for-superintendent/84067081007/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwK2XfFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHmQItJjv6ESaxSIRF9nQen9Gjpd7uMkEwkLGK16nGTjGasDZgDWHaLzxWH_n_aem_O16xgmZIALc_KeMmuRCwPg

ZPS has selected six candidates to interview for superintendent, including one internal candidate, one superintendent of a neighboring district, three superintendents from other state districts, and one out-of-state school leader.

03/26/2025

Link to the live feed of tonight’s BOE meeting for those interested in watching it.

Swartz Creek Board of EducationAgenda: https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3693/SCCS/5456251/Agenda_3-26-2025_-_Google...

03/26/2025

Did the SCCS Board of Education Illegally Approve the Ballot Measure for the 2024 Bond? All evidence points to yes but we’ll let you decide

Another community member recently posted about this issue but I’m sharing the information here as well so it has greater reach.

On July 17, 2024, the Swartz Creek Board of Education convened to vote on approving ballot language for a $38.8 million bond extension for the district’s schools. What unfolded during this meeting has raised serious questions about procedural integrity and potential legal violations. Meeting details, text messages, and YouTube video evidence, uncovers a troubling sequence of events that may have undermined the democratic process.

The board’s vote on the bond extension language resulted in a 3-3 tie, as announced by the Board President. Under standard parliamentary procedure, a tie vote means the motion fails. However, the Board Secretary made an unusual motion to table the vote, a delay tactic to secure a predetermined outcome. The board then waited for an absent Board Member to arrive before holding a second vote. Minutes later, after the Board Member’s arrival, the vote passed 4-3.

Video evidence appears to show the Board Secretary and Superintendent may be texting during the debate on the tie vote, 1:52:50, 1:53:10 and 1:53:54 with the Board Secretary interrupting at 1:54:40 to table the motion. Once the missing Board member returned the Board President stated on video, “We are going to now reconsider…,” but the official meeting minutes omit any mention of this reconsideration, raising transparency concerns. This was not a proper reconsideration of a failed vote and the specific process for reconsideration was not followed.

YouTube Meeting Link: https://
www.youtube.com/live/zbJ4V7M4DYU?
Si=oBZ30hYcSDU73qYI

Evidence of Coordination?
Text messages from July 17, 2024 confirm the deliberate delay.

At 7:43 PM, the Board Secretary texted the absent board member and asked, “Why are you taking a break…what are you coming back to?”

The Board Member replied at 7:52 PM explaining why she left and at 7:55 PM, “Just got home.”

The Board Secretary urged, “Come!!!” at 7:55 PM, and when the Board Member asked, “Can I come late?” the Board Secretary responded, “Yes,” adding at 7:57 PM, “We tabled the item until you can get here.”

This exchange directly aligns with the meeting’s timeline, showing the Board Secretary’s intent to delay the vote until the absent Board Member could arrive and tip the scales in favor of the bond.

Legal Issues at Play
Several legal concerns emerge from this incident, each supported by the event details and text messages:

1. Open Meetings Act (OMA) Violation: The Michigan Open Meetings Act (OMA) requires that all deliberations by a public body be conducted openly. The text messages between the Board Secretary and the absent Board Member, as well as the video evidence of the Board Secretary and Superintendent texting during the debate, suggest private deliberations outside public view. The Board Secretary’s message at 7:57 PM, “We tabled the item until you can get here,” indicates a decision made privately, potentially violating the OMA’s mandate for public deliberation.

2. Improper Voting Procedures: The reconsideration process was not properly followed. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, commonly used by public boards, a motion to reconsider must be made by someone who voted on the prevailing side (in this case, against the bond) and requires a formal vote to proceed. The immediate reconsideration after the Board Member’s arrival, without adhering to this process, undermines the second vote’s legitimacy. Additionally, the OMA handbook notes that a tie vote constitutes a failed motion, meaning the initial 3-3 tie should have ended the matter.

3. Missing Public Records: The absence of the reconsideration in the official minutes violates public records laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which require accurate and complete documentation of public proceedings. The meeting minutes don’t mention anything about reconsidering, which prevents the public from understanding the full decision-making process. When asked about updated these minutes the Board President has stated that the minutes are correct and they will not be updated, despite the failed vote and tabling and reconsideration of the vote not being included in the minutes.

The text messages align closely with the event details, providing clear evidence of coordinated manipulation. The Board Secretary’s text at 7:57 PM, “We tabled the item until you can get here,” directly correlates with the meeting’s delay tactic, as confirmed by the summary and video evidence. The Board Member’s initial uncertainty about attending, followed by their arrival after the Board Secretary’s urging, supports the claim that the tabling was a deliberate strategy to secure a favorable outcome.

The Swartz Creek School Board meeting on July 17, 2024, was marred by procedural misconduct and potential legal violations. The deliberate delay to secure a favorable vote, private texting during an open meeting, and omission of key details from the public record suggest violations of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, public records laws, and proper voting procedures. The text messages reveal a premeditated effort to manipulate the outcome, undermining the democratic process. As of March 26, 2025 these issues still have not been addressed by the board, the Swartz Creek community deserves transparency and accountability to restore trust in the board’s governance.

There’s a Board Meeting tonight, will they properly address this or just brush it off?

From the original poster has stated:

“I have formally requested that the board correct the July 17th minutes to reflect what actually happened.
I have filed a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request for the text messages exchanged between the Superintendent, Board Secretary, and absent Board Member.
I have also sent a legal preservation notice to ensure these messages are not deleted.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
If the board refuses to correct the minutes or if text messages were deleted, I will be filing a formal complaint with the Michigan Attorney General's Office.
The public has a right to know if their elected officials manipulated a vote.
Transparency should not be optional.
This isn't about politics-it's about fair governance and protecting the integrity of our school district.
The truth matters. The community matters. And I don't plan on stopping until we have real answers.”

Swartz Creek Board of EducationAgenda Link: https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3693/SCCS/4586272/Agenda_7-17-2024_-_G...

03/26/2025

The image is being shared between the students via Snap repeatedly tonight. Had someone not posted this on FB and had the HS principal not provided additional information about it parents would have no info to reassure their students that’s it’s not a credible threat and there’s nothing to worry about.

03/26/2025

Interesting that this snap was sent out 5 days ago. From what’s being reported the Admin was made aware of this, the student has been suspended and the police are involved but the district chose not to alert the community and parents about it. There are ways to handle these situations without disclosing the students involved and put peoples minds at ease. Our district always chooses to let the rumors and uncertainty grow before addressing things like this and typically chose to just brush these things under the rug and let everyone panic about pontential threats and issues.

Even if it was a baseless threat parents should have been notified.

01/28/2025

To add to the Superintendents Message:

1. State, County and local officials and representatives have been in contact with district admin and the board is aware about the Genesee County Economic Development Centers interest in the Morrish Elementary property.

2. One of the conditions set by the board in the meeting where the Elms and Bristol area land purchase was approved was that they needed to make sure it was buildable, one board member stated that they needed to make sure because they knew there may be a need to put a building on it.

More information coming soon.

12/18/2024

While we’re on the subject of District Administrators let’s talk about the salary approval from our Board of Education for our current superintendent.

For reference, our previous superintendent, with 5 years of experience as a superintendent was making $168,580.75 per year when he left the district.

Our current superintendent in his previous position was making $124,369 per year.

Upon his promotion, The Board of Education approved a starting salary as a first year superintendent of $178,876.

$10,295 more than someone with 5 years experience and a 43.8% increase from his previous salary. From a business standpoint that’s a very reckless decision.

We’ll cover other reckless budget/spending decisions in future posts. If you want to find salary information for our district you can do so via public database at

As part of our efforts on government transparency, we obtained data on the compensation of most public employees in the state. This information has been used to fact check claims about salaries, verify data from other open records requests, and hold government spending accountable. We offer this dat...

12/18/2024

If you're ever curious how much these administrators and administrative support/assistants get paid it's all public knowledge and available at The Mackinac Center for Public Policies website.

12/17/2024

The buzz going around the district is that the district administration is looking at ways to fund a brand new central office building, you know the one we expanded and remodeled with the last bond?

It’s being said that the size of the district’s administrative staff is outgrowing the space in that building. Will the cut the promised proposed bond projects to try and do this or will they use other general improvement funds for this, once again taking funds away from educational building needs?

How about we stop adding positions to the administrative staff to make up for the incompetence of other administrators? How about we use the empty spaces at the Cage, the elementary buildings and other buildings in the district for these offices? I prefer the first option. If someone doesnt have the ability to doing the job that they were hired to do, find someone else who can and start focusing on needs of the district that directly impact student learning.

10/29/2024

The bond proposal information states they want to add card access systems to the interior doors throughout the district to add safety and security and be able to track who accessed specific doors. So let’s discuss.

Pros:
✅Convenience of not needing a key
✅Ability to track who accessed specific doors

Cons:
❌You can still lose an access card just like a key.
❌Doesn’t add to additional safety and/or security. With the vulnerability of these systems utilizing IoT technology it actually decreases. Anyone wanting to gain access to a door can hack the system quicker than you can pick a lock or duplicate a key. There a devices that you can purchase online for less than $100 that can quickly hack these systems if the individual knows the platform the system runs on. 2 years ago over 3,000 hotels and businesses were hacked by similar devices. Now, a new, more secure platform has since been released but during a recent technology conference a group showed that the new technologies for card access systems are still just as vulnerable and easy to access.
❌Doesn’t create a convenience for teachers or staff in anyway other than not having to insert and turn a key to unlock a door
❌These systems are expensive to operate, maintain, repair and update and will create an ongoing expense to use and maintain.

10/29/2024

While early voting is already underway, there are still several who not yet voted in this year's election. With one week left until election day, we want to make sure you have all of the facts on the new bond proposal so you can make an informed decision on how you vote.

First few items aren't specific to the bond details itself but are meant to help you understand how the district is riding the line between informing us of the bond information and advocating for it to pass while utilizing school district resources to seemingly advocate for the proposal. Based on information gained from a campaign finance law attorney, here are some of the concerning items.

1. This bond is being subjectively promoted as a zero-tax-rate increase bond proposal.
It's careless and misleading for the district to advertise this as such and the State of Michigan advises School Districts not to do so. While this bond proposal would not increase the bond rate, it does not guarantee that your tax-rate will not increase. Debt millages rates (such as a bond rate) and overall tax rates fluctuate with changes in tax base. If our tax base changes the millage rate and our tax rate can and will change. If the ballot measure does pass and at some point the tax-rate does increase over the course of this bond the district has now created a liability for themselves since they paid to promote this as a zero-tax-rate increase bond proposal.

2. The district is subjectively advertising the planned use of the bond, using words like "critical" and "crucial" when outlining details of the plan. By not remaining objective they are projecting that there are consequences if this measure does not pass or that failure to pass the bond with impact ongoing projects, i.e. New Baseball field at Mary Crapo site, which as stated by the Deputy Superintendent during the Dragon Nation Podcast, Phase 2 will be completed with bond funds if the bond passes. See previous post and link.

3. The district is paying for the informative materials being distributed and promoted on social media, through newsletters, mailers, etc. Which is allowed since it doesn't advocate for you to vote yes on the proposal, although some of it could be considered subjective and not just informative. There is not a registered committee for the advocacy of the bond proposal, although when you look at Facebook there is a page titled Vote Yes for Students in Swartz Creek, the primary admin doing the posting does not appear to be an employee of the district. This page seems to function as communication and advocacy from a campaign committee. Especially since another member of the page commented on a post that her and the admin are both on the bond committee working together on this.

There are a couple issues with this:
1. They've stated their a committee, yet it's not registered with the state as a campaign committee.
2. Hopefully they're self appointed and weren't asked and chosen to be part of this committee by the school district.
3. They're using materials that were produced as 'objective'/informative materials distributed by the district to share information about the bond to advocate for the bond but just remove the district logo. The committee is not allowed to use materials that were created using school district resources. Since they're not registered this wouldn't affect the "committee" but they are creating a liability for the school district because they're using district funded materials to advocate for the bond.

Enough about the campaign finance violations and other liabilities. Post outlining the specifics of each project will follow.

Send a message to learn more