PRETEXT TO BETRAYAL:
Told You So!
At the March 3, 2026, Village Council meeting, Bill Lewis and four other Trustees refused to collect a debt of approximately $15,000 Lewis said was owed to the Village. Bill Lewis, Denise Pyle, Carolyn Kelly, and Ben Moore voted to abandon the code enforcement related contempt debt that Lewis has continually maintained was owed to the Village by Anthony Bates. Nick Ludwig joined in the vote but more on that below.
There was no legal, practical, or reasoned justification for this vote. It appears to have been motivated by the relationship between Lewis and Bates which goes preceded the formation of the Lawrence Memorial District Library and Mr. Bates tenure as president of the Library Board. The same District Library board that employed Bill Lewis and by which he continues to be employed.
The debt arose from unpaid fines that were ordered by an 8th District Court Judge in Kalamazoo in 2023 after finding Mr. Bates in contempt of court for failing to obtain permits and inspections for work done on his property at 110 S. Main St. The unpaid fines totaled in excess $15,000. Attorney Rolfe indicated that after initially paying some of the fines, Mr. Bates declined to pay over any portion of the rest.
It should have ended there and collection action commenced by the Council to recover the debt. But that was never Bill Lewis’ intent as indicated by his efforts over the last year beginning shortly after he became president of the Village.
In the first week of June 2025 – two years after he was held in contempt and ordered to obtain certain permits and inspections, Mr. Bates finally did so. In that time Bates never asked the Court for a rehearing, never pointed out any error that would invalidate the order, never moved to set the order aside, never asked the Court for a determination of the amount of the debt, and never appealed the contempt order. Only recently did Mr. Bates hire a new attorney “… to dispute the validity of the Village claims.”, whatever that means.
Was all of this a pretext to eliminate the debt? What’s a pretext you ask? It’s a reason, contrivance, or set of circumstances given or used to hide the real reason for doing something.
According to attorney Rolfe, he was unable to identify legal authority for a “lien” that Rolfe claimed Bates believed was filed on his property at 110 S. Main St. in November of 2024. For the last year Bill Lewis has repeatedly referred to a “lien” having been filed by the Village on that property. Rolfe himself has done likewise. Without clarifying to the Council members that no such lien was ever filed the Council members were left to believe that there was indeed such a lien.
Rolfe also claimed to be unable to find legal authority for the Village’s then interim president, Dave Miller, to direct such a “lien” be placed on the property.
Rolfe must have concluded that his inability to locate authority for what he called the “lien” must mean that Bates just might have a basis for legal action against the Village and prior Village officials. That he couldn’t find the authority does not negate its existence. Maybe he was asking the wrong question in his search field.
Mr. Rolfe’s lack of explanation of whether the Village’s insurance carrier would defend the Village and/or individual members of the Council in claims that Bates might “hypothetically and potentially take … against individual officials of the village, past or present.” was uninformative and gave the appearance of lack of preparation. The same is true of his failure to set out any claims that he believed could be “hypothetically and potentially” filed by Bates against the Village or its former officials.
Attorney Rolfe also claimed that to proceed to collect the debt, the Village might have to spend money on attorney’s fees. He related as how filing a motion for contempt to bring the matter to issue before the Court would cost money. But it didn’t seem to bother Bill Lewis spending over $34,000 on attorney Rolfe since Lewis took office in November 2024. Much of that spent trying to find a way to avoid collecting this debt.
Anyway, such a motion would be ill-advised as Mr. Bates had, according to Lewis and Rolfe, complied with the Court’s order to obtain permits and inspections in the first week of June 2025. The proper approach to the Court would be to request a hearing to determine the amount of the debt.
Attorney Rolfe claimed that collection efforts would be adversarial and cost the Village thousands. But that depends on the knowledge and effectiveness of the attorney. Craig Rolfe opined that recovery was not certain. But, having an unquestioned order in hand that is over two years old is not expensive to enforce and next to the certainty of night following day, it’s pretty close. There are also one or more Michigan state statutes that come to bear on this and these were not discussed with the Council.
So, as the Village attorney, Craig Rolfe urged the Council to enter into a settlement agreement with Anthony Bates that the Village would discharge the “lien” and take no action to recover the contempt fines (~$15,000) that Lewis claimed were due the Village.
But wait just a minute! There was no “lien” placed upon the property by the Village. A lien is a nonpossessory security interest. They can be consensual such as a mortgage or nonconsensual arising by statute or operation of law. Whether consensual or nonconsensual they can be placed upon both real and personal property. Mortgages, tax liens, and car liens are familiar to most people.
Craig Rolfe described a situation that did not exist, i. e., that the Village had placed a lien on Bates’ property at 110 S. Main St. Did it affect what was already a fait accompli before the vote was even taken?
Combined with the informational shortcomings described above, would Nick Ludwig have voted differently? By the time his vote was taken, it wouldn’t have made a difference. The Lewis four (Lewis, Pyle, Kelly, and Moore) had already voted to abandon collection of the debt. Nick Ludwig has indicated that what he was told by Lewis and Rolfe was the basis of his vote.
Attorney Rolfe never mentioned that the court could order Bates to pay the fees and expenses of collection. And given the history of the case, likely would.
Rolfe did not analyze any “claims” that Bates might have against the Village and its officials so that the Council would have an idea if any existed or if each had merit or not. Anthony Bates is the same man that sued the Village trying to get a Kalamazoo judge to declare that he did not have to obtain permits and inspections for the work done on his property. Of course, the Court found that Mr. Bates was no exception to the Village Code and denied his claims.
Anyone can threaten to file a lawsuit. And anyone can file a lawsuit. If collections of debts ceased when someone yelled “I’m gonna sue!”, no Village, Township, or County could function. If you’ve ever worked in or around insurance companies or auto dealerships or state government, you would have heard it many times.
Given the words and actions of those involved, it could reasonably be inferred that this public spectacle provided a pretext to the vote of the Council. But, that’s one person’s opinion and the residents of the Village will have to make that determination themselves.
This whole fiasco is reminiscent of another that recently occurred at the Climax-Scotts high school. It’s no wonder why these things have happened. Too many good people are busy or comfortable or think they’re not equipped to give their two cents or serve in elected office. So, they don’t get involved. Running for and holding office is just not in most folks’ wheel house. And those are exactly the people that need to run. Those that don’t want the job make the best elected representatives.
We are a people who have the privilege of self-government. If good people don’t get involved, you know who fills the void. You get results like the one here or the one that occurred recently at Climax-Scotts high school.
What’s the lesson? Quit electing people that do this kind of crap.
END
