Jessica Mathews / news@whmi.com


The Genoa Township Board of Trustees will not pursue a costly, independent internal investigation related to accusations made by the former clerk.

Former Clerk Janene Deaton resigned last November citing a “toxic environment”. She served in the role for almost a year after being elected to the position in the November 2024 General Election. She brought a previous 23-year real estate background.

Some board members at the time expressed disappointment in how Deaton chose to handle her resignation - referring to Genoa Township as “Dysfunction Junction” in the media, naming individuals, making accusations against the township manager, and placing blame on others. Trustees Bill Reiber and Candie Hovarter spoke in Deaton’s defense.

At issue at Monday night’s board meeting was whether or not to pursue an investigation into Deaton’s departure. That could cost in the arena of $35,000 based on proposals obtained and various inquiries into it.


Below is the memo issued by Supervisor Kevin Spicher:
“Last November, when our former Clerk resigned, a resignation letter was provided to the press. It contained allegations of a “Toxic” work environment within Genoa Township Hall, and accusations that specific staff members acted to prevent her from doing her job. A handful of residents and several board members requested a full investigation into these allegations. As a result, Clerk Soucy reached out to several law firms recommended as “specialists” in the labor law area with experience doing this sort of investigation. Each pointed out that “Toxic work environment” is not a legal term, and as such, no legal remedy is available to any party should it be determined a particular workplace is an unpleasant place to be. A “Hostile work environment” is a legal definition with remedies, but the law says the victim must be a member of a “protected” class, and the hostility must be based on membership in that class. Given the similar class status of the majority of Genoa Township staff, all the legal firms discerned that establishing the presence of a Hostile work environment was extremely unlikely, especially since none was alleged. The investigation would also examine whether any specific employees acted with “intent to harm”, a high bar that was lifted higher in light of explanations that a thorough review of standards and procedures were acted upon immediately when the allegations were made. While an investigation is unlikely to produce legally actionable results, if completed, it could determine if Genoa Township is a pleasant, or unpleasant place to work, and allow for policies or procedures to be changed or created to improve the environment if needed. If it was able to be determined that a specific employee or employees were responsible for unpleasant conditions, recommendations could be made to address the behavior of those employees and correct the situation. The proposed costs range from $15,000 on the low end to $35,000 on the high end to complete this investigation. The suggestion was made to start with a $25,000 budget and return for authorization if additional funding is required.

Staff welcomes any review of their job performance. It is also of relevance to highlight that during the recent Employee Review process, staff was given a survey about working at Genoa Township. No respondent indicated any dissatisfaction with Genoa Township’s work environment and results showed that 92.3% rated Genoa Township an “excellent” place to work, and 7.7% rated it a “good” place to work. These numbers include 3 employees that began employment within the past year. It is critical that we as a board ensure we provide the best work environment possible to allow staff to service the needs of Genoa Township residents to the best of their ability. The attached employee survey feedback results suggest we are doing that. The issue before the Board is whether allocating $25,000 in taxpayer funds to investigate claims raised by a single elected official at the time of their departure is appropriate. The claims had not been previously reported, have not been substantiated since, and are not expected to result in liability for the Township, raising the question of whether this expenditure aligns with our fiduciary responsibility to the residents we serve”.


Trustee Reiber was the only member pushing for an investigation. His motion failed. Reiber said he felt an investigation “would strengthen trust with the community and dispel any myths”. He had previously defended Deaton during public meetings, and at the time of her resignation, and said he ran for office with her.

Reiber argued the survey questions were “softball questions” and did not get right down to the point of the investigation and Deaton’s resignation.

It was clarified the survey was not targeted toward Deaton - there was an accusation that Genoa was not a good place to work so the thought was a survey of employees would be a good place to start.

The board debated whether it was worth spending that much of taxpayer dollars, and some members expressed a desire to move on, referencing the positive employee survey.

It was also asserted during the meeting that there is no subpoena power by an attorney when interviewing past employees etc. – meaning they cannot compel anyone to talk.

Spicher questioned “is it proper of me to commit to spend $35,000 of the people’s money for people to trust me? How about my actions just create trustworthiness? So if I vote yes, I’m voting to spend $35,000 in taxpayer money so that people will trust me – I’m not comfortable with that”.

During call to the public, former board member Jeff Dhaenens addressed the internal employee survey and prospect of an investigation saying “it just seems like that ship has sailed, and it’s time to move on”. Dhaenens cited the excellent responses from the employee survey, and said it would seem the investigation would be frivolous at this point. He said back when the situation occurred and accusations were made; an investigation may have been warranted but not now six months later to “spend that kind of taxpayer money and find you have happy employees who are thrilled to be here and love this place to work”.

Employee survey responses can be viewed in the board packet, along with more information. That link is provided.