GRAND RAPIDS, Mich — Three judges of the Michigan Court of Appeals heard arguments on Wednesday in the case of embattled Ottawa County Health Officer Adeline Hambley.
Hambley is fighting to keep her job in a lawsuit stemming from the County's move in January to replace her.
"I was pleased that the judges that, obviously, they're well-prepared and know the issues, and we're hopeful that we'll get a result that will permit us to continue the status quo," Hambley's attorney Sarah Howard said. "But we'll just have to see what happens."
Hambley is looking for a full reinstatement of a previous court order that said she could not be removed from her position before the lawsuit goes to trial. That order was later vacated in June.
It comes as some commissioners have already begun moving to oust her for what the board chairman said was her incompetence in the post, when going to the press and the public about potential cuts to the health department budget.
"I'm hopeful that the court today will allow us to have that fair process so that, again, we can maintain the integrity of the position and protect the public health for Ottawa County," Hambley said following oral arguments.
David Kallman, representing Ottawa County in the lawsuit, argued the judges shouldn't reinstate the order and that she is not the permanent health officer, based on minutes from the previous county Board of Commissioners in December that said Hambley's hiring was based on three things: clearance through a background check, clearance through the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and approval from the Board of Commissioners.
Kallman's argument is based on the county's assertion that the board didn't actually vote on approving Hambley, but instead voted to approve the three hiring conditions.
At least one of the judges seemed skeptical of Kallman's argument. The judge indicated the language of the signed resolution appointing Hambley likely made clear the then-board's approval.
"What you're suggesting is the equivalent of digging back into legislative history or comments made during the course of a debate on the floor to override what the ultimate act is when, the legislature for example, passes a bill," Judge Christopher Yates said. "And I don't see why we would accept that invitation to create chaos in determining what a county commission did by looking at every scrap of information we can get from the meeting to try and figure out what they actually did when a resolution is clear and unambiguous on its face."
Kallman, however, asserted that the county was following the language of the original motion in designating Hambley as an interim officer.
"If the motion had said, 'We're appointing Ms. Hambley as the permanent health officer once she clears MDHHS credentials and once she passes a background check,' I would agree with you; we would not be sitting here," Kallman said. "But that's not what the motion said."
At other times, judges questioned whether the Court of Appeals was the appropriate place for Hambley to seek remedial action.
The Board of Commissioners hearing on whether to remove Hambley had originally been scheduled for Oct. 19. Following potential legal concerns being brought up, however, the hearing was rescheduled on Tuesday for October 23rd. However, Howard said on Wedensday that she would not be able to be present for the new date, meaning it could be subject to change.
►Make it easy to keep up to date with more stories like this. Download the 13 ON YOUR SIDE app now.
Have a news tip? Email news@13onyourside.com, visit our Facebook page or Twitter. Subscribe to our YouTube channel.