On Wednesday, May 15, the Saline Area Fire Board (SAFB) convened for a special meeting after posting a notification for it less than twenty-four hours earlier. The sole agenda item was a request to enter a closed session to discuss the written opinion of legal counsel, and speculation about the nature of the legal opinion was rampant. 

The most prominent theory among social media users is that the SAFB is considering dismissing Saline Area Fire Department (SAFD) Chief Jason Sperle. That possibility drew a significant number of supporters to the meeting, including firefighters from Saline and the surrounding areas and at least one from as far as Novi. Several attendees voiced their ardent support for the chief during the meeting’s public comment period.

“I just want to say as a senior officer and member of the Saline Area Fire Department I feel I can speak on behalf of the staff and definitely my shift. I can tell you that we are all pleased with Chief Sperle at the Saline Area Fire Department,” said Kurt Schneider, a captain at SAFD, in a video posted online by The Saline Post. 

The video also shows Saline Professional Firefighters Union president Jay Carter praising the chief. “Chief Sperle has been awesome. He’s pushed us to be better–in training [and] personal education. He’s gotten us better equipment. He’s gotten us new trucks. He’s gotten the station upgrades.”

One attendee asked about the purpose of the meeting and if it was related to the fire chief’s employment. But then, in a surprise turn, also asked, “Did Mayor Marl deliver a document regarding this meeting to (Lodi Township) Supervisor Godek and ask her to destroy it? Was it destroyed?”

The Saline Area Fire Board consists of representatives from the City of Saline, Lodi Township, Saline Township, and York Township.  Saline Mayor Brian Marl and Council Member and Mayor Pro-Tem Janet Dillon represent the City of Saline on the board while Township Supervisor Jan Godek serves as one of Lodi Township’s representatives.

The video shows that everyone wishing to speak had a turn, prompting the end of the public comment period. The board then voted unanimously to move to a closed session.

The online video was accompanied by a post containing several unsubstantiated accusations about Mayor Marl and other officials.  The posts prompted a public response from Marl, who vehemently denied the accusations and condemned the author’s attempt to mislead the public. 

“There is much speculation and conjecture here, but very little substance,” wrote Marl. “The assertion that I have some grievance with Chief Sperle due to his ‘by-the-book’ approach to codes and/or fire inspections, is absolutely scurrilous, and a potentially liable falsehood. I’d ask the author, what evidence/facts do you have to justify these claims?”

He continued, “This ‘mystery’ packet with Lodi Township, that’s nonsense, as is the assertion that my colleague, Councilwoman Dillon attempted to keep individuals out of the public portion of Wednesday’s meeting.”

When contacted for comment by STN, Marl wrote, “Elected or appointed officials can not legally disclose conversations or documents provided in closed or executive sessions. It is not only inappropriate and potentially detrimental, but there are also clear and unambiguous consequences if individuals engage in this behavior.”

Lodi Township Clerk Christina Smith, when contacted by STN, confirmed that a confidential package was delivered to Grodek by Marl more than nine days before the meeting on May 6th and that it was destroyed later that same week. Smith wrote, “I can tell you that it is Lodi Township’s policy and standard procedure to always follow the law with regard to documents whether that law requires them to be kept or destroyed.”  Smith could not confirm whether the contents were SAFB-related or not.

Neither Lodi Township Supervisor Jan Grodek nor Fire Chief Jason Sperle responded to requests for comment. 

The Saline Area Fire Board, along with most governing bodies in Michigan, is subject to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (OMA).  In place since 1976, it requires that operations and decisions of public bodies (i.e. boards, committees) are transparent, available, and open to the public.  However, it also specifies certain conditions under which a public body may enter a closed session. 

Many conditions allow for a closed session, including labor negotiations, personnel issues, pending litigation, and, as seems to be the case with this meeting, attorney-client privilege.