Dave Duenow, an Orion Township resident, recently discovered that Dan Kelly, the attorney that represents both Orion and Oakland Township, was involved in a Driving under the influence incident a year ago near Gaylord, Michigan along with Deputy Oakland County Executive Matthew Gibbs. Although Dan Kelly was not the one charged in the incident he was involved in a manner that raised concerns by the Judge hearing the case. On August 6, 2014 Dave Duenow’s discovery was reported in the Clarkston Review.
Here are the specifics:
- On June 7, 2013 Matthew Gibbs, the current deputy Oakland County Executive and former Orion Township Supervisor, was charged near Gaylord, Michigan with operating under the influence of alcohol, careless driving, and having an open bottle of intoxicants between his legs.
- Township Attorney Dan Kelly was in the passenger seat.
- Matthew Gibbs posted a $400 bond and was released.
- On June 26, 2013 the court hearing for the incident occurred.
- Dan Kelly was the attorney that represented Matthew Gibbs.
- Dan Kelly did not disclose to the Judge that he was in the vehicle at the time of the incident.
- The case was settled by Matthew Gibbs pleading guilty to having an open intoxicant in the car. The other charges were dropped.
- Per Dan Duenow, Judge Erhart later was informed that Dan Kelly was in the vehicle at the time of the incident. The Judge indicated that had he known Dan Kelly was in the vehicle, he would not have allowed him to represent Matthew Gibbs.
Here are several links to press articles pertaining to this incident:
Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Dan Kelly’s ethics come into question when he decided to not disclose that he was in the vehicle at the time of the incident. Oakland Township is currently spending record levels for legal fees. Dan Kelly, and his firm, are making significant amounts of money at the Township expense. His recommendations to the Township to proceed on legal matters result in significant personal benefits to him and his firm. One recent example was the decision at the August 12th Board meeting to proceed with a lawsuit against the Clinton River Watershed Council for alleged violations related to the Paint Creek Dam removal. The Board approved it, but our Attorney must have contributed in the decision. Was this a ‘self serving’ recommendation?
Here is another incident regarding potential ethics issue involving Supervisor Gonser and the Township Attorney:
Township Attorney is buying lunches for Supervisor Gonser as part of Township’s retainer fee