Gov. Whitmer continues taxpayer-funded separation agreements; critics call it an ‘assault’ on transparency
(The Center Square) – On Friday, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer issued an executive directive, effective immediately, which revises and continues her office’s use of government separation agreements.
But critics say the change doesn’t enact meaningful change, as taxpayers can still foot the bill for behind-closed-door deals.
“The measures laid out in my Executive Directive ensure greater accountability and promote transparency,” Whitmer said in a statement. “Michiganders should have confidence in the activities of state government, including the expenditure of public funds on separation agreements. I am proud of these measures because they will benefit both state employees and the people of Michigan.”
The new directive states a state department can seek a severance deal with a non-disclosure clause if it maintains “confidentiality regarding an employment decision or dispute.”
It’s unclear what would qualify as a dispute.
In a press release, Whitmer defended using separation agreements to define employment terms during transitions, to secure the return of state property, and to mitigate legal exposure and potential costs to taxpayers through a release of claims against the state.
The directive prohibits separation agreement terms that require a party to deny the agreement’s existence or prevent the release of the contract’s text. It also provides that any separation agreement involving a monetary payment must secure a release of claims and be based on a reasonable judgment that securing that releasing claims will mitigate financial risk for taxpayer money.
The directive requires separation agreements cannot deny a party the right or opportunity to disclose the underlying facts and circumstances regarding unlawful workplace acts, including discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, or fraud.
All separation agreements must be submitted to the Attorney General for review.
Michigan Freedom Fund Executive Director Tony Daunt called the new directive an “assault on Michiganians’ right to know what their government is doing.”
“Michigan residents of all stripes are demanding answers from Governor Whitmer about the secret hush money deal she engineered to buy the silence of her fired health department director, but instead, today she brazenly doubled down on secrecy,” Daunt said in a statement.
“Governor Whitmer’s new directive is a direct and arrogant assault on Michiganians’ right to know what their government is doing. It will make government less transparent, it will mean more-common secrecy agreements, and it will force taxpayers to fund her administration’s cover-up attempts.”
The announcement follows reports exposing Whitmer paid out nearly $253,000 in taxpayer-funded, secret payouts to government employees. Another deal from her administration paid former CEO of the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) Jeff Mason $128,500 – 26 weeks of pay – to “retire” last year.
Whitmer’s administration paid the state’s former health director, Robert Gordon — who overlooked COVID-19 economic shutdown orders — $155,506 in taxpayer money to remain silent after he abruptly departed his position.
Whitmer has refused to discuss Gordon’s departure, citing the separation agreement saying, “there are terms to it and you can’t share every term to it.”
Although Whitmer said the use of six-figure, taxpayer-funded severance agreements were common in government, many disagree. The recent reports have fueled a charge for more clear transparency of FOIA in the governor and lawmaker’s officers. Some Republicans have also considered subpoenaing those involved.
David Guenthner, the libertarian Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s senior strategist for state affairs, said the agreement didn’t go far enough.
“No separation agreement involving taxpayer money should include compensation beyond the cash value of that employee’s accumulated paid leave,” he told The Center Square in an email. “No separation agreement involving a government employee should include a confidentiality clause unless mandated by the settlement of an introduced lawsuit.”
Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square
