After all, why should your city government tell you anything? You’re just the suckers who pay the bills.
In my last post about the clerk, I gave you a summary of where we were at with Angie Guillen, our erstwhile and apparently current city clerk. For those of you who aren’t regular readers, here it is again.
You’ll recall the clerk position wasn’t good enough for Guillen in 2024 after she learned we didn’t offer health insurance for our part-time, four-day-per-week employees; then we hired her as a contract clerk to handle the November 2024 election at $40/hour, a rate we were told was necessary to match what she was being paid by the City of Montrose (which was actually $35/hour, so either city manager Jonathan Smith or Guillen misrepresented the rate to the city council to give Guillen more money); Smith fell hopelessly in love with Guillen and insisted we hire her at all costs if we wanted to continue being a city (but he would “never, ever, would ever” propose that we raise taxes to do it); taxpayers were forced to pay for up to $4,000 for a salary survey that Smith trashed after it revealed that a competitive salary for the clerk was nowhere near the secret compensation number Guillen had shared with Smith that she required before she would work for us – because the consultant suggested Guillen be placed in the range at a salary of $38,470; and despite a maximum consultant-recommend salary of $44,850 for the clerk position (the absolute top of the salary range), Smith demanded taxpayers pay Guillen $50,000 plus health insurance, bringing her total compensation package to $60,000 when health insurance and increased retirement savings matches were added in – plus all the other leave time benefits offered by the city, including 14 paid holidays, 10 vacation days, 6 sick days, and an awesome 32-hour work week. And as an additional middle finger to taxpayers, Smith recommended – and your sheep-filled city council agreed – to break an express promise to taxpayers about the lifetime library millage rollback and raise our taxes by .691 mills without taxpayer consent to pay for salary increases for Guillen and our five other city employees (including himself) after promising taxpayers he never, ever, would ever recommend a tax increase to pay for salary increases.
But even a .691 mill tax increase – bringing us to the absolute maximum tax rate allowed by our charter – wasn’t enough to pay for all the salary increases, so Smith proposed the difference would have to be paid for by using additional revenue from the natural property tax increases that come from home sales and new construction (rather than using this money for things people in the city actually care about). And my recollection is that Smith started smarmily injecting a claim that the city needed “revenue enhancements” in city council meetings almost immediately after the new budget year started and before the ink was dry on the salary increases. Translation – even Smith knew we couldn’t afford the giant salary increases but he wanted to hire Guillen and greedily grab all he could for himself and the other employees before talking about raising taxes for a second time in two years. And if I’m reading between the lines correctly, Smith and the finance committee are proposing to raise your taxes once again without your ability to vote on it (more on that in another post).
And all of this started because Smith wanted Guillen at any cost (or at least as long as you were paying the cost).
I provided you with the city manager’s report to the public stating he was “sad to report” that Guillen notified him in “late December” that, even though she totally loved working for Clarkston, “recent increases in personal expenses no longer make it feasible.” I also provided you with a copy of Smith’s email to the city council and attorneys telling you what “late December” meant – that Guillen didn’t bother with a written resignation and orally resigned on December 30, telling Smith she “simply cannot afford to continue” to work for Clarkston, was “extremely apologetic,” had “given this decision a great deal of thought,” she saw “no alternatives,” and she was starting a new job on January 5. This means Guillen’s first day of notice was whatever was left of the day on Tuesday, December 30, she was eligible for holiday pay for December 31 and January 1 when city offices were closed, and her last day with the city was Friday, January 2. At the January 12, 2026, city council meeting, Smith affirmed that Guillen’s only reason for leaving was “high expenses here and her home and her healthcare,” adding that she had no complaints and loved everyone. Oh, and how much she was going to be paid at her new job and where that new job was located were secret – even though it was public information.
So, that .691 tax increase you’re going to eat forever because Smith insisted on meeting Guillen’s salary and benefit demands? It wasn’t enough to keep this precious little snowflake in Clarkston for very long. For those of you keeping score, Guillen lasted six months and one day (from July 1, 2025, to January 2, 2026).
And then Guillen was back as suddenly as she’d left. Smith publicly announced this in his January 30 “City of the Village of Clarkston Weekly Communication Letter”:
Return of City Clerk Angela Guillen
I am happy to report that our Clerk Angie Guillen has returned after just two weeks. Angie is an important asset to the City operations and we are absolutely thrilled to have her back!
“We” are absolutely thrilled to have her back? Pretty sure none of the smart people in the city are thrilled to have her back after her hire resulted in a tax increase for us and she thanked us by abruptly leaving on two business days’ oral notice after six months. Smith’s “thrilled” claim is apparently limited to dumb, clueless, or uniformed people who like being abused (and I’m pretty sure my readers are all in the smart group). Not only did Guillen’s employment history have a lot of red flags that I discussed here, but she’s also added some new ones.
Want to know even more about the backstory? Read on. FYI, the records I’m providing came from FOIA requests to Clarkston and Meridian Township.
Guillen’s lack of consideration for our tiny city of about 900 people began well before last December when she unprofessionally left with less than two business days’ notice and couldn’t be bothered to write a resignation letter. Nope, indeed. While the sting of a July 1 tax increase was still fresh in everyone’s mind, Guillen was already applying for a new job with Meridian Township on September 19:
And that’s just what I can confirm. Guillen may have started applying for other jobs with other municipalities sooner than that (if there were any openings for a clerk in the area, which is not something I follow). I’m curious whether Guillen applied for the Meridian job on a Clarkston workday (since the city offices are now open five days a week and our 32-hour per week office employees stagger their work time). If so, it wouldn’t have been the first time she did something like that. She was given a written reprimand by Mundy Township for “violations of Policy and misuse/misappropriation of Township resources and time for personal gain or commercial ventures.” This discipline was for Guillen’s use of township equipment to prepare a resume and cover letter she delivered to a potential new employer while being paid by Mundy to attend election training. (I discussed that in this post.)
I’ve attached Guillen’s employment application/submission to Meridian here and have a few comments on it (please note the blue highlights are mine). First, Guillen notes that she learned of the Meridian job through “MAMC Job postings.” That would be the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks – did Clarkston taxpayers pay Guillen’s dues to be a member of MAMC so she could search for other job openings? Second, Guillen states she would be available for employment with Meridian “[t]wo weeks from hire date,” which would have given Clarkston the consideration of a two-week notice, something the city never actually received. Third, while the text of her cover letter states she was the “current City Clerk for the City of Clarkston,” her resume states her title while working for Clarkston was “City Clerk, Election Director” and that she held this position from 10/2024 to present. Our contract relationship with Guillen started in October 2024, but she was contracted as a “contractual election assistant,” a position Smith referred to as a “contract election worker” in his pre-contract communications with Guillen regarding her first contract with the city. This contract was renewed on multiple occasions and by the time of her last contract expiring on June 30, 2025, she was referred to merely as a “contractual clerk assistant.” During her contract term, Smith was the acting clerk during meetings taking roll call votes, not Guillen. Guillen wasn’t hired by the city until July 1, 2025, her given title at that time was simply “clerk,” and we don’t have an “election director.” This isn’t the only time Guillen has inflated her title to include a nonexistent position she doesn’t hold in Clarkston. (More on that later.)
Meridian made an employment offer to Guillen on December 17. (I’ve cut and pasted pieces of the email string so I can comment, but you can find the whole string here.
So, Meridian made a conditional employment offer at $37.25/hour ($77,480 per year when calculated at 40 hours per week); the job security of being in a union; 100% of all premiums for health, dental, and vision insurance paid by Meridian; a sweet old-time and extremely rare defined benefit pension plan (when most employers limit new employees to 401(k)-style savings plans with an employer match); life insurance; long-term disability; sick leave; vacation time; and 13.5 paid holidays (almost as much as Clarkston). The employment offer was conditioned only on Guillen passing a background check and pre-employment physical; otherwise, it was firm.
When Guillen didn’t immediately answer, Meridian followed up the next day:
Guess the compensation was too low for Guillen, so she made a counteroffer – of $85,000/year!
Hear that, Clarkston taxpayers? Guillen was “genuinely excited” and “very enthusiastic” – about working somewhere else. This follow-up paid off for Guillen, because Meridian made its own counteroffer, almost but not quite matching her demand (and noting she was eligible for a salary increase in 2027):
On December 29, Meridian formalized its employment offer (that Guillen had already accepted):
That January 5 starting date wasn’t pulled out of the air. There would have been a discussion between Guillen and Meridian agreeing on that date because the Meridian letter is quite clear the letter was a confirmation of discussions between Guillen and Meridian. Had Guillen given any effs about Clarkston, she would have negotiated a starting date that would have allowed her to give Clarkston a professional two-week notice – just as she had negotiated for the higher salary for herself – but she didn’t bother to do that.
Meridian added Guillen to the staff directory posted online:
And then something quite strange happened. At this point, I don’t know what it was, when it occurred, and I am waiting for a response to a second FOIA request from Meridian that may shed some light on it. But here is what I do know based on the records I’ve already received:
Boy, do I have questions about this Smith email.
So, on the morning of Wednesday, January 14 Guillen shows up to turn in her building key and pass. Wait, what? Why didn’t Smith demand that Guillen turn in her key and pass on January 2, her last day of work? Does he care so little about office and building security that he let a person who walked out with only two business days’ oral resignation notice to have the continued ability to access the building that taxpayers paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for after her employment relationship with the city was severed? Who does this? (A clueless city manager who doesn’t know what he’s doing and doesn’t care about security, that’s who.)
And why was Guillen available in the middle of the week to drive from her home in Flint (based on online records) to Clarkston to cry on Smith’s shoulder and beg him to take her back the following Monday?
What exactly was the “terrible mistake” that separated Guillen from Meridian, a 40% salary increase, and a sweet benefit package that I doubt any of my readers have from their employers? Who initiated the separation – Meridian or Guillen?
Why did Smith offer to enter into a contract with a then-former employee when he has absolutely zero authority to make offers or enter into agreements on his own without city council approval? And is it coincidental that Smith zeroed in on a one-year commitment for Guillen when that coincides with his ability to leave city employment and collect the maximum social security benefit at age 70 (to add to whatever he’s getting after working for 30 years for a “big three” employer)?
And who cares that Sue Wylie “fully supported” Guillen’s return? Like Smith, Wylie also has zero independent authority to do anything notwithstanding her “mayor” title. She’s but one vote on a seven-member city council, but it’s really curious that, after everything that happened, Wylie would express “full support” for taking Guillen back.
Let me give you a brief employment law primer based on many years of experience as a human resource professional and several years as an employment law attorney before I share the next document. Employers zealously guard the right to employ people on an “at will” basis. To be employed in an “at will” relationship means the employer can terminate the employee at any time, for any reason, with or without cause (or for no reason at all). This freedom to fire someone is only limited by the fact that the employer can’t have an unlawful reason for doing it, such as race, sex, etc. If you aren’t in a union or working with a contract, you are likely an at-will employee. It’s the way of the world, but it also means you can quit your job at any time and for any reason – even as unprofessionally as Guillen did last December 30.
Clarkston has an “at will” employment relationship with its six employees. The city’s Policies and Procedures Manual (revised June 2025 and found here) expressly states on page 4 that the manual isn’t intended to create a contract of employment with anyone (“This manual is not a contract of employment either expressed or implied.” FYI, a contract of employment is the exact opposite of “at will” employment). On page 11, the manual distinguishes between contract employees and “at will” employees (“At will employees may be discharged at any time when it is deemed in the best interest of the City. Contract employees may be let go at any time after their contract has expired when it is deemed in the best interest of the City”).
So concerned was Clarkston with keeping its “at will” relationships intact that the city expressly stated that even its contract relationship with Guillen was “at will” while she worked for us as a contracted “clerk assistant.” The city did this by including the following language in her contracts: “The Contractor understands that for the term of this Agreement, she is an at-will Contractor of the City of the Village of Clarkston and this Agreement may be terminated by the elected Council of the City of the Village of Clarkston in accordance with the City Charter.” (I’ve attached Guillen’s last contract here. The yellow highlights are presumably Smith’s. The “at will” language can be found in Section X on page 4 of the agreement.)
Despite that, as of February 3 (the date he answered my FOIA request) Smith is apparently attempting to bring his dream girlie back under contract because he’s currently working on a draft agreement between the city and Guillen that I’ve linked to here. Here are some highlights of this incredibly moronic agreement that I hope our “assistant” city attorney Kristen Kolb or city attorney Gerry Fisher have advised against (though Mr. Fisher hasn’t been very active in city matters recently).
So, we’re giving away our “at will” right to terminate Guillen at any time, for any reason because Clarkston will only be able discharge her for misfeasance (taking an action that is wrongful), malfeasance (engaging in misconduct or unlawful acts), or nonfeasance (failing to perform a duty). What do we get in exchange? A promise that Guillen will work for the city for one year with renewable one-year terms – and this promise isn’t worth the powder to blow it to Hades because it has no teeth.
How much are we paying her? Who knows. I guess we’re leaving that open.
We don’t need no stinkin’ city council. Smith is apparently entering into agreements all on his own now.
So, if the city terminates Guillen because it decides taxpayers would be better served by contracting out election work, we’ll have to cash out Guillen for the remainder of her then-current one-year term. What this really means is Smith will not be exploring any other alternatives to protect us from Guillen walking off the job again with virtually no notice because the city wouldn’t want to risk having to pay off Guillen, even if it would benefit Clarkston to go somewhere else for election services.
But hey, why should we worry about Guillen leaving her Clarkston job with little notice? It’s not like she did it before, right? Oh, wait. She did.
Does this new agreement with Guillen sound like a deal, Clarkston? You don’t have to be a lawyer to know it’s not because the only one who has to pay up if the contract is terminated is the city. In reality, Guillen is free to leave without consequence because the city would have to prove how much Guillen’s leaving damaged the city, and this would be a royal pain in the butt and quite difficult to prove.
What are the city’s damages if Guillen leaves without finishing a year of employment? The value of the free job postings on the city’s website and on the Michigan Municipal League’s website? The city manager’s time spent looking at resumes and doing interviews? The likely lesser cost of contracting with another public body to do our election work? And do you think our wishy-washy city council would ever agree to sue Smith’s dream girl to force her to reimburse us for whatever costs we could prove? Yet if/when Guillen leaves again, there absolutely would be a cost to Clarkston because it upends our ability to have smooth and lawful elections, but it’s hard to establish a dollar value for that and there really isn’t a good way to quantify the cost. And who among you is so filled with childish wonder as to believe Guillen will stay after telling us unequivocably that she can’t afford to work here at the salary we’re paying her less than five-and-a-half weeks ago?
When parties to a contract can’t readily quantify financial damages if the other party violates the agreement, contract law provides a great solution – the addition of what is known as a “liquidated damages” clause. This means that the parties decide ahead of time how much a contract breach will cost. In this case, a liquidated damages clause would mean that Guillen would be obligated to pay Clarkston a fixed amount if/when she walks out again. I think $10,000 would be a good amount. Or at least $5,000. But whatever dollar value used, it is a concrete amount the city could sue over and force Guillen to pay us without undergoing the nearly impossible task of calculating damages – and the amount should be high enough that it stings and makes her think twice about effing us over again. I doubt Guillen would agree to a liquidated damages clause because I don’t believe she has any intention of staying in her Clarkston job, but making the request for liquidated damages will give the city a better read on her sincerity about staying in Clarkston.
Without a liquidated damages clause, the city has given away its “at will” employment right to terminate Guillen at any time for any reason and gotten nothing in exchange, including the ability to contract with another city or township for election services for the benefit of taxpayers without paying Guillen off for the value of her unpaid wages and benefits for the remaining year of her contract. Maybe someone from the city can explain to me why the city is giving away so much to someone who clearly doesn’t want to work here?
I asked Smith to provide me with copies of records showing what office or position Guillen currently holds with the city, and on January 28, Smith provided the following:
And, while Smith is desperately trying to get a contract in place to “employ the services of [Guillen] as its City Clerk” (see page one of the draft employment agreement) and has affirmed that Guillen’s position with the city is only as the city’s clerk, Guillen has apparently given herself a promotion and is signing her email correspondence this way:
(Note: the photograph was provided to me by a concerned citizen.)
WTF? Why is Guillen is holding herself out to the public as the “deputy city manager” and the city clerk? Has Smith or anyone else made secret promises that taxpayers aren’t aware of? Exactly what qualifications does Guillen have to be a deputy city manager?
FYI, there is absolutely zero authority for either Smith or Guillen to make a false representation that Guillen is the “deputy city manager.” We don’t currently have an office called “deputy city manager,” and only city council can create new offices under Section 5.1 of the city’s charter (as the council did when it created the office of “deputy city clerk” for Evelyn Bihl):
It also seems pretty clear that falsely holding herself out to the public as the “deputy city manager” should result in immediate termination of employment as outlined in the city’s Policies and Procedures Manual approved by city council:
I think we’re entitled to know what in Hades happened in Meridian Township because it has a direct bearing on whether it serves the interests of the taxpayers to allow Guillen to have access to city assets and records again. I will be more than happy to publish what I receive from Meridian once they get around to answering my second FOIA request concerning her abrupt departure from that job. In the meantime, I think city council also needs to make an inquiry during a public meeting about this because does anyone seriously believe Guillen walked away from an $83,000/year salary and one of the richest benefit packages I’ve seen in recent years – a benefit package that cost her nothing in premium sharing – to come back here and make $50,000/year, all for love of Clarkston after telling Smith she “simply cannot afford to continue” to work for Clarkston, had “given [her resignation] decision a great deal of thought,” and she saw “no alternatives” to quitting for more money less than five-and-a-half weeks ago on December 30?
The only negative that I can see about the job in Meridian Township is that Guillen would have a longer drive from home to work (around 45 miles) than she did when she worked in Clarkston (around 27 miles), but her new commute was about as long as mine when I went to law school and worked in Detroit and I managed it for decades. A slightly longer drive that Guillen was aware of before accepting the employment offer should not be enough to prompt a departure from such a richly compensated job after a week or two after claiming that it was only financial pressure that made her resign from Clarkston – so what is going on and why aren’t Clarkston officials concerned about it?
I’m sure Guillen is delighted with Smith’s pathetic attempt to get her to sign an employment agreement that gives the city fewer rights than it had before and allows her to pay her bills until the time she decides to walk away when the next job opportunity comes along with no real penalty to her for doing so. The gratuitous and unauthorized addition of the nonexistent “deputy city manager” title to her city email signature block is likely just Guillen’s way of padding her resume as she searches for that next position.
Hey city council, are you seeing the red flags yet?