| Lucido Calls for Transparency, Says Public Has Right to Know How Taxpayer Dollars Were Spent |
| Macomb County Prosecutor Peter J. Lucido called on County Executive Mark Hackel to publicly disclose the amount of taxpayer money spent on outside attorneys used to fight financial transparency and oversight. Lucido described the legal expenditures as “secret legal fees” and said the public has a right to know how much Hackel’s administration paid lawyers to argue against disclosing county contracts, to argue against complying with county commission budget resolutions, and to argue against giving county commissioners direct access to the county’s financial management system, access that courts including the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled must be granted by Hackel. “Taxpayers don’t want a photo op executive waging a public war against transparency with a secret price tag,” Lucido said. “We estimate Mr. Hackel spent over a million dollars, and the public deserves to know the exact number. County commissioners deserve to know. What is Mr. Hackel trying to hide, and how much did he spend trying to hide it?” Lucido said it is more important than ever to shine a light on county finances as Macomb County moves forward with an over $228 million jail project. The county executive’s office is responsible for overseeing contracts tied to the project, which Lucido said underscores the need for full transparency and financial oversight. The high court’s ruling in June follows a years-long legal battle in which Hackel’s office repeatedly refused to provide real-time access to the county’s accounting software, a tool similar to the county checkbook that commissioners say is essential for financial oversight. The court also upheld a ruling that Hackel cannot block funding authorized for the Prosecutor’s Office to hire independent legal counsel. There is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Lucido said the lack of disclosure and refusal to provide access to financial records might be considered to mirror some of the troubling behavior seen under the former elected county prosecutor, who opposed financial disclosure. “Some people may try to dismiss this as business as usual, but I’m fighting against County Executive Mark Hackel’s version of business as usual. It’s about restoring public trust,” Lucido said. “It’s about learning from the past. Taxpayer dollars should not be used in secret to fight against the public’s right to know how their money is spent.” The ongoing tension between the county executive and the Board of Commissioners predates Lucido’s tenure. In 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed that the Commission has broad authority to approve contracts without limitation. In that case, Hackel fought against a $35,000 threshold requiring board approval for contracts. In 2018, the executive’s office approved a $9 million increase to a building renovation contract originally, with change orders, including a $315,900 fee, executed without board oversight, according to the Detroit Free Press. See story here. Lucido noted that Hackel’s total legal costs tied to all disputes remain undisclosed. The 2012 legal battle cost the county over $320,000 in legal fees alone, according to a press report. More recently, the Hackel administration missed deadlines for the county’s annual budget audit, raising further concern about fiscal accountability. The county’s financial system upgrade, which was intended to streamline accounting processes, has also significantly exceeded its original budget, including unexpected “project management” expenses. See “Macomb County audit to be late again this year,” Macomb Daily 06-16-2025. Lucido said this pattern of decision-making, combined with the secrecy surrounding legal costs, should prompt action. While the County Commission has subpoena power, commissioners have not announced whether they plan to formally investigate the county executive’s legal expenditures or review the policy that currently allows the executive to bypass board approval in certain contracting situations. In response to a reporter’s question in June, the Macomb County Deputy Executive “could not immediately provide data on how much the Executive Office has spent on legal fees for the cases.” See “Lucido criticizes Hackel over state Supreme Court rulings – It’s his second win over Hackel in state high court,” Macomb Daily 06-18-2025 “Our county commission and every taxpayer deserve answers,” Lucido said. “We need to know how much was spent, who authorized it, and why Mr. Hackel treated transparency like a threat.” The court cases for which Macomb County Executive incurred legal fees to fight against financial transparency and against county commission budget resolutions, include: MACOMB COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Plaintiff, v. MACOMB COUNTY EXECUTIVE & COUNTY OF MACOMB, Defendants., No. 374004, 2025 WL 2110070 (Mich. Ct. App. July 28, 2025) (“Macomb III”). “Given our conclusion that Hackel improperly impounded funds for outside legal services, as in Macomb II… we also conclude that the appropriate remedy in this case is a writ of mandamus directing Hackel to release the funds for outside counsel…” See opinion HERE. Hackel v. Macomb Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, No. 166363, 2025 WL 1689298 (Mich. June 16, 2025). “Therefore, we hold that the plain language of Ordinance 2017-04, § 10(H) requires the County Executive to provide the Commission or its agent with access to real-time, read-only access to financial software programs used by the county.” See opinion HERE (starts on page 4). Macomb Cnty. Prosecutor v. Macomb Cnty. Exec., No. 370065, 2024 WL 3209166 (Mich. Ct. App. June 27, 2024), appeal denied, 21 N.W.3d 458 (Mich. 2025) (“Macomb II”). “Here, it is undisputed that the purpose of the appropriation is plaintiff’s retention of independent counsel, so Hackel was without authority to frustrate that purpose.” See opinion HERE. Macomb Cnty. Prosecutor v. Macomb Cnty. Exec., No. 359887, 2022 WL 982147 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2022), appeal denied, 977 N.W.2d 527 (Mich. 2022) (“Macomb I”). “[W]e grant plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment to that effect and declare that the Board may adopt an independent budget and that defendant Hackel exceeded his authority by impounding the …appropriated funds at issue.” See opinion HERE. Hackel v. Macomb Cnty. Comm’n, 298 Mich. App. 311, 826 N.W.2d 753 (2012). “The Macomb County Charter unambiguously grants to the Commission the discretionary authority to approve contracts.” See opinion HERE. |
