VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 2025:
Never Trust Someone That Prefaces A Statement With “To Be Honest!”
- The Pitch:
Bill Lewis got so much resistance from Village residents when he tried to publicly reduce or eliminate debts owed the Village by his friends, or friends of friends, or associates, or supporters, that he has resorted to moving the negotiation of the debts out of public view. At the November 4, 2025 Village Council meeting he persuaded the four Trustees in attendance to allow him to turn the “negotiation” of the debts over to the present Village attorney. Of course, it will be Bill Lewis pulling those strings.
The attorney is just a hired-hand who takes his orders from the Village. And who speaks to the attorney for the Village? Bill Lewis! Bill Lewis directs the attorney by setting out Lewis’ objectives for the debts. And, we’ve already seen what his objectives are.
As previously pointed out on this site, it has not been easy to clearly know who the client actually is. Appearances have suggested that the client is Bill Lewis promoting his own agenda. But, one thing is certain – the Village has paid the attorney’s legal bills.
So now Bill Lewis has the ability out of public view to betray the trust of the residents of the Village once again – remember renting our building to the library for $75 a month? He is in a position to reduce or eliminate the debts owed the Village through the attorney and avoid the blame and direct connection to the betrayal.
Sure, there are seven members on the Village Council but with his vote Bill Lewis controls four of them. While Bill Lewis has only one vote, he has demonstrated that he can rely on three others which are Denise Pyle, Carolyn Kelly, and Ben Moore.
So, here’s the pitch that Bill Lewis used to persuade Trustees Nick Ludwig, Janet Sutherland, and Joline Chaney to go along with this scheme. Paragraphs, punctuation, and emphasis have been added as this was spoken without a written text available. We’ll unwrap it as we go along. Here is what he said:
“We’ll move to old business which is property liens and costs. We did get one letter from the County. We have one of the properties that we need to fill some paperwork out on from the Treasurer’s office. It looks like it’s going delinquent. We need to fill some stuff out on that to take care of it.”
The delinquency is in property taxes. Is it the property at 115 Watson St., where Trustee Ben Moore is purported to live?
There is a lien on the property of $2,850 in favor of the Village for a court sanctioned cleanup that was done in 2022. The County Treasurer’s office shows the owner to be Lisa Moore, though Trustee Ben Moore has said before witnesses that he, his brother George, and their sister own the property.
The present attorney for the Village has said that he looked at the divorce file for George and Lisa Moore and couldn’t tell who owns the property. Curious! If Ben Moore is an owner of the property, he cannot be a Village Trustee per Michigan Statute 62.7, Sec. 7(2) which says:
“62.7 Qualifications for office; void votes; “in default” defined; oath.
Sec. 7.
(2) A person in default to the village is not eligible for any office in the village. All votes in an election for or any appointment of a person in default to the village are void. As used in this subsection, “in default” means delinquent in payment of property taxes or a debt owed to the village if 1 of the following applies:
(a) The taxes remain unpaid after the last day of February in the year following the year in which they are levied, unless the taxes are the subject of an appeal.
(b) Another debt owed to the village remains unpaid 90 days after the due date, unless the debt is the subject of an administrative appeal or a contested court case.”
This would blow up Lewis’ majority. Better for him if the actual ownership is left in limbo.
Lewis continued:
“Because of the fact that – and I’m going to bring this up the way that I brought it up the last time but kind of explains but kind of explains in a little different theme
We have literally three areas one is four years old that has been setting there as a lien for almost four years. The other one is been there over a year – well over a year – um. Then the last one is the one where we had the daily charges.
Because of the cost of those we are looking at if we add those all up – it’d be – it could be anywhere from $25,000 to $30,000 that the Village has to look at where we’re at.”
This is a misstatement of the costs incurred in obtaining the liens. The actual costs are in the neighborhood of $18,000 expended to obtain compliance with the Village Code when property owners would not voluntarily comply. Much less than Lewis has spent on attorney’s fees to set up his unnecessary bureaucracy and to cover himself.
The property at 115 Watson St. was cleaned up as it was seriously blighted. This required multiple 40’ roll-offs to hold all the junk and cast-offs existing on the property. The property at 329 W. Maple was torn down after multiple attempts and court orders for the owner to secure the old house there; and multiple refusals by the owner to so much as acknowledge and work with the Village and obey the Court’s orders. The property owner at 110 S. Main St. was held in contempt for not obeying the Court’s orders to obtain after-the-fact permits and inspections work he had or had done.
Lewis continued:
“No matter what we do we don’t legally have the right as a Council – we have the legal right but we don’t have the where-for-all to step it forward. That’s where we need the attorney. That’s why the last time I may not have explained it as well as I should but that’s where we need the attorney to be able to step in and do the negotiations, bring it to the point where if he doesn’t get the answer he needs we move it to a – either a – on to the taxes where we have leverage because they will get charged – they will get charged interest or if they do not we move it further in and do what we have to do.
The Council has the “where-for-all” to make these decisions. It just needs the information that Lewis has not shared with the Council and the public. It’s like playing poker with someone and never seeing their cards. Lewis has never had the attorney give an analysis and options to the Council. The written opinions that the attorney gave on rights-of-way trees and Lewis’ holding incompatible public offices under Michigan Statute 15.181, et. seq., are no longer forthcoming like they were on those matters. Curious!
And, who is the attorney going to negotiate with on the 115 Watson St. property – Lisa Moore or Trustee Ben Moore? What does Lewis think he’s going to get for the effort? Does Lewis think that putting the lien on those taxes is going to do anything but wipe out the lien?
We can surmise the positions of the owners of the properties at 329 W. Maple St. and 110 S. Main St. without negotiations. Is there any doubt that Lewis has already had discussions with them? There are Court sanctioned liens on the 329 W. Maple St. property and a Notice Of Pending Lien and Municipal Conditions on the 110 S. Main St. property. At the time of this writing both had been unpaid. All that’s left to do is enforce those claims. That is a Council decision. Not for Lewis or an attorney whose strings are pulled by Lewis.
And, have the liens on 115 Watson St. and 329 W. Maple already been put on the taxes of those properties.? Lewis hasn’t said. He has not made those files or that information available to the Council and the public. Surely, he’s already asked the Village Treasurer who would have that information. Lewis certainly hasn’t disclosed the information in a public meeting so the Council and the residents of the Village could know.
The attorney’s marching orders should be from the entire Council, not just Lewis who has held his communications with the attorney largely to himself. Had Lewis had the attorney present an analysis and options to the Council, all the trustees and the public would be able to watch those deliberations and make their own judgments on the approach to the liens.
Lewis continued:
“But we don’t have the expertise that’s why I would like to put in front of the Board the ability for the attorney to work on this to try to recoup this money because when we have that kind of money setting out there laying in – in the weeds that has not been brought back that – most of that money to be honest with you $18,000 of that money about has been spent by the Village already. We have spent that money without recouping that – we are really in a position where, um, we’re not doing our due diligence to be able to collect that money. And if we spent a couple of thousand dollars to get $18,000 or so back and then we get the other money that is in the daily fines – they work through that with the attorney, we get that solved that would bring in revenue to this Village that right now is not coming in.
So that’s why I propose to make the motion to allow the attorney to get involved in those three cases to be able to bring them to fruition and recover money for the Village.”
Now Lewis is telling the Council members that the actual costs incurred by the Village are closer to $18,000 rather than the $25,000 to $30,000 he claimed at first.
How can the entire Council participate in performing “due diligence” if the members in the minority are not provided with copies of court documents, correspondence, analysis and options to meaningfully participate in the instructions to the attorney?
The likely answer is that Lewis wants to manipulate the liens himself feeding the Council and the public just what he wants them to know colored by his end goals.
According to Lewis the Village has costs of $2,200 or so invested in connection with the property at 110 S. Main St. and that is what Lewis first urged the Council to collect from Anthony Bates, the record owner of the property.
One thing to note here – the Village incurred those attorney’s fees because Anthony Bates resisted voluntary compliance. Another thing to note – there were no attorney’s fees awarded to the Village by the Court in that case. The Notice Of Pending Lien And Municipal Conditions is for contempt fines only.
Calling any collection on that debt a recovery of costs is disingenuous. The Village would be collecting something that the Court did not order, which Lewis makes a big point of rejecting below.
Question by Trustee Joline Chaney: “You say work with the person who gets the daily fines – how did you put it – the daily fines?”
Lewis responded:
“It’s – yeah, when I say work with him (Anthony Bates property110 S. Main St.) he’s (the attorney) going to be the one who sends the letters, he’s going to be the one doing what he does. I don’t know what his opinion is of it. I can, we can only hand him the paperwork we have, the paperwork the court has, that’s the only thing we can hand him”
Lewis doesn’t know what the attorney’s opinion is? These debts were discussed by Lewis with the present Village attorney as far back as February 2025. If no one else knows what the attorney’s opinion is, it’s because Lewis has kept it from them. The minority members on the Council and the public should have already been apprised of an analysis and options to deal with the debts. Lewis appears to have decided against that. Curious!
Lewis admits here that he has the case documents. He hasn’t shared them in public. When those for 110 S. Main St. were offered to him in public at the October 7, 2025 Council meeting, he blew a gasket. Why? It wasn’t citizen time was the excuse. So, their contents remain hidden from the minority Council members and public view.
Question by Trustee Joline Chaney: “So he (the attorney) makes the decision or we do?”
Lewis responded:
“He can make it or he can bring it back to us to make the final decision. That’s what we have to decide when we send it to him.
I mean at that point I look at one way – I mean I’ve done a lot of leg work with the Court and talked to the Court and talked to the Magistrate. They have one opinion, the attorney has an opinion, everybody has an opinion.”
Lewis said above that “I don’t know what his opinion is.” but now indicates that he knows that the attorney has an opinion. How would he know that unless he’s discussed all of this in depth with the attorney? He says that he has “… talked to the Court and talked to the Magistrate …” and “They have an opinion …”. Shouldn’t that be the opinion that counts since the Magistrate entered the order? But he shared neither the attorney’s opinion nor that of the Magistrate with the Council or the public.
Lewis Continued:
“One of the things they did say to me we is – we have to really look at one thing – we can’t charge for something that wasn’t in the case. If we’re charging for a – got a permit that wasn’t in writing on the case. We could not charge for that for we could not have held it out. I don’t know because I wasn’t involved in the original, I can read what the Court said, I can read what those things are – some of it to me, I don’t know I’m not an attorney.”
No one has ever mentioned charging Anthony Bates “… something that wasn’t in the case.” Anthony Bates was ordered, on May 15, 2023, to:
“Apply for the after-the-fact permits for the construction to the house, accomplish the following work and obtain inspections for the work on or before June 1, 2023:
- New windows
- Addition of Air Conditioning
The Court also ordered that:
“… there shall be no occupancy of the house on the subject property until the provisions of this Order are complied with and the Building Official has approved it.”
Then the Court ordered that:
“… if Defendant (Anthony Bates) fails or refuses to obtain permits and inspections as indicated herein on or before June 1, 2023, the Court authorizes the levy of a daily fine of $25.00 until the provisions of this Order are complied with.”
It is believed that Anthony Bates paid three months of the fines totaling approximately $2,250. Which is oddly close to the amount of attorney’s fees Lewis and Trustee Denise Pyle claimed early on that the Village only needed to recover – money that was never awarded to the Village. What’s Lewis up to?
Lewis continued:
“I don’t know how it falls in. I can talk to SAFEbuilt, I can talk to all of the people. I have done _____. But when we look at some things they were not in the original case. Look, I know it’s been said in here that he (Anthony Bates property 110 S. Main St.) put a deck on, the deck was not in the original case. So, was that a secondary case? I don’t know. I didn’t see a secondary case. But that was not there so that falls off from that.”
The addition of the deck was only mentioned by resident Roger Smith to indicate that perhaps the resistance to compliance with the Village Code and Court’s orders continues. It was never claimed to be a part of the contempt order. There is nothing “… that falls off …” from the fines. Is Lewis giving his best shot at creating confusion to discount the debt regarding the 110 S. Main St. property? The answer is likely “yes”!
As noted above, the $25 daily fine was imposed for the failure to obtain after-the-fact permits and inspections on the newly installed windows and air conditioning. Not difficult to understand for someone who claims to have studied the Court documents and spoken to those involved.
Lewis continued:
“Um, there’s some things that I don’t know. I, that’s why we have to have someone involved that can actually interpret that law and say where are we at. I, to me doesn’t matter to me one way or the other how it comes out. The Village expended money. Whatever we expend we need to get back. Um, we need to figure out how to do it and the only way we’re really going to be able to do it because, to be honest, at this table we’ll never come up with a solution because we, everybody has their opinions and everybody has this and as we’ve seen in most cases it’s been a big argument when we bring it up.”
Competing for the most laughable statement in Lewis’ whole spiel is:
“… to me it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other how it comes out.”
Lewis and Trustee Denise Pyle broached the subject of reducing the debt on the 110 S. Main St. property arguing that the Village should only recover the money it invested in the case – about $2,250. After it came to a head on September 16, 2025 when Denise Pyle began to make a motion, likely to recover only that amount, she was interrupted and did not finish her motion. When Trustee Nick Ludwig pointed out that if Anthony Bates was relieved of the Court ordered fines, future orders wouldn’t mean much, the matter was dropped. The meeting ended without the Village being denied the money owed.
But of course, that wasn’t the end of Lewis trying.
Lewis continued:
“By putting someone in that does not have anything and any history with anything in this Village we may be able to do a better job of recouping it. Like I say one of them is four years old so it’s been there a while. You know.”
Knowing the history of the debts is important. Knowing that the majority of the Village residents oppose compromising them and why they do is important. The lien on the property at 115 Watson St. came about because it was blighted. The owner or owners would not voluntarily clean it up. It looked like a veritable junk yard. If memory is correct, they refused to respond to Court invitations to address a solution. There were complaints. That property remains the subject of repeated complaints about the inoperable and junk vehicles and other code violations that are now there again.
Knowing the history of the debt related to the property at 110 S. Main St. would also reveal that neither SAFEbuilt nor the Court could persuade the owner, Anthony Bates, that permits were required in connection with the work being done on the property. The owner even sued the Village seeking to obtain a Court order that permits were not required which suit was dismissed by the Court. It is very simple to check with SAFEbuilt and see if the owner has complied with the Court order of May 15, 2023. If so, it is a simple matter to calculate the total of unpaid fines accrued, if any. According to the then Village attorney, they amounted to almost $10,675 on November 12, 2024, just eight days before Lewis took office on November 20, 2024.
Knowing the history would reveal that the owner of 329 W. Maple St., the old house that was torn down by the Village, never responded to multiple letters from the Village asking for his plans for the property; asking him to deal with the unsafe condition of the structure; and he didn’t even respond to notices by the Court inviting him to participate in finding a solution. When the Court’s patience wore out, the Village was given the go-ahead to demolish the structure. Only after that time did the owner decide that he wanted a re-do which the Court denied. Now, it has been said in Council meetings that that owner has made some type of transfer of the property without payment of the lien.
Lewis continued:
“The first one has been there for four years and its just laying there. Um, there’s no leverage to get it back because it just lays as a lien on the property. There’s no leverage to get it back. Is there a statute? I don’t know if there’s a statue that says it runs out like anything else. I don’t know, I can’t tell you that.”
The owner or owners of the property at 115 Watson St. may be the one or ones Lewis was referring to as being “delinquent” on the property taxes. He didn’t reveal the subject of the letter from the County Treasurer where he said “We have one of the properties that we need to fill some paperwork out on from the Treasurer’s office. It looks like it’s going delinquent. We need to fill some stuff out on that to take care of it.” Of course, he revealed nothing about the “paperwork”.
The County’s taxes are “super-superior” to all other liens. Lewis risks wiping out the Village’s lien by putting it on the taxes. And yes, there are time limitations applicable to all of this and that is one piece of information, among many others, that Lewis should have provided publicly to all the Council members so that they could make informed decisions and the public could know what Lewis is doing with Village assets.
Question by Trustee Joline Chaney: “Do know, can you, can you say which one?
Lewis responded:
“Actually, I can tell you the address 115 Watson (Moore Property) is out there for the last four years it’s been on the property. And that was the $2,850 that’s been sitting. There’s nothing been done to recoup it.”
What Trustee Joline Chaney was asking was on which property had there been a Village lien for around four years.
Question by Trustee Joline Chaney: Unknown as the audio did not pick it up.
Lewis responded:
“That was where it was cleaned up. And stuff was hauled out and a garbage truck was brought in. So that money’s been spent four years ago or so. There’s nothing been recouped on it. Good, bad, or indifferent it was placed in a position where it just laid not, no one knowing it was there.”
Yes Bill Lewis, the property owner or owners knew about it, the Village Treasurer and likely the Village Clerk knew about it, as did the members of the Council at that time. And, the present Village attorney obtained files from the former Village attorneys.
Lewis continued:
“So sometimes, because of how it happened or where you were told to put it, where it went, I don’t really know because when I read through there even myself and talk to the Magistrate it’s basically very difficult to figure out where they were actually telling you where to put it. Could it be put in a levy on taxes, which it should be. But I don’t know because wherever it was put an attorney had to file the paperwork to put it there. So, was it done correctly at that point in time, did the attorney put it there and not reciprocate back to the board where it went?
There’s a lot of things, moving parts in this that as being a layman and not a lawyer I can’t tell you those answers.”
This is double-talk! For someone who claims to have done so much “legwork” and communicated with the Court (presumably the Court Clerk) and Magistrate, Lewis should know that the lien was properly recorded by the former Village attorney. The lien has been properly recorded.
And wasn’t Lewis the Deputy Clerk of Climax Township for years reading and processing all kinds of documents? For him to now claim that he is unable to read very simple Court documents in a Village Code Enforcement case seems to be insincere. These orders are made easy so that laymen can understand them and do. As the TV ad used to say “It’s so easy a caveman could do it.”
Question by Trustee Joline Chaney: “I’m okay with it going to the attorney, however, I’m not okay with him making the final decision.”
Lewis responded:
“No, the final decision would come back to the Board. We just want him to get involved in negotiation, figuring where we’re at and bring us back what is and bring us the legal points where we could vote on the final things to say. If it goes to, if it goes on then it has to go on. But this Board would be the seven members that make the decision.”
Always at that point this board becomes the decision factor. And to be honest with you that’s where we’re at because, because I’m only, we have seven people to vote. I’m one of seven. It doesn’t matter how everybody anybody can vote the way they want to. Everybody should vote their own consciouses. But guess what, majority rules because that’s what government is.”
What Lewis appears to be saying here is that the three minority Council members, Nick Ludwig, Janet Sutherland, and Joline Chaney, needn’t put up much resistance to an outcome that Lewis will dictate. Lewis knows that with his vote and the three others that vote with him, he will do as he wishes.
Question by Trustee Joline Chaney: “Well, I hope that it doesn’t cost us a fortune going to the attorney.”
Lewis responded:
“Well, it probably, I don’t know what it will cost but I know right now setting there with the possibility of $30,000 that hasn’t been claimed at all. And we, we’re setting there with the possibility of $28,000 to $30,000 that if we don’t do something it just sets there forever. And setting there forever isn’t doing this Village any good.
If we can recoup that money, guess what, that helps to pay for some of the things we’re looking at doing.”
This is the carrot or pot of gold held out by Lewis, that is, the “possible” recovery of the full amount of the liens to advance his goal. It is unlikely to be the end result unless the residents of the Village become vocal.
Lewis then said:
“So – I will make the motion to be able to take those three to the attorney to do leg work and bring back to the Board a resolution we can vote on.”
Trustee Carolyn Kelly seconded the motion and it passed.
2. Conclusion:
A thriving democracy relies on a well-informed public. We expect that our elected representative will be transparent, straight-forward, and completely truthful not leaving out key pieces of information.
We pay the bills here. Village government is a representative government. None of us as ordinary citizens appreciates being mislead with bits and pieces of truth. Shading the truth in a courtroom can result in perjury charges. Deceiving the IRS or providing false information to banks brings severe repercussions. These consequences range from hefty fines to incarceration. Even inaccurately filling out an official form can land someone in hot water.
Our expectations of openness and candor are higher for our elected representatives because of their trust relationship with us.
The ability of the populace to make informed decisions, whether voting for representatives, understanding policy, or promoting the interests of law-abiding citizens remains paramount. Yet muddied waters of public information challenge citizens in navigating and making informed choices, undermining the representative democratic process.
We pay dearly for the privilege of living in the Village. We expect full disclosure and complete honesty from our elected representatives – all of them. Anything less must result in a recall.
END
