Scottville Embraces Vice Thrice

[XLFD]

Scottville City Hall has traditionally been a bit prudish through the years in regard to what are commonly called 'vices'.  While they haven't interfered with the drinking establishments in the downtown, they have notably been reluctant to accept recent relaxations of community standards in the realm of drinking and toking.  Two examples come to mind. 

The state permitted the creation of social district zones early in the summer of 2020 to help alcohol-serving businesses sell their product to quaff outside the establishment in the era of Covid-19.  Many cities adopt these districts in 2020, nearby Ludington approves them early in 2021, and they have some success.  Scottville's city commission does nothing.

The citizens of Michigan pass Proposal 1 in 2018 permitting Michigan cities to immediately allow recreational marijuana production and sales.  Scottville's City Commission studies the issue in 2019 and all but one decides to opt out of allowing marijuana businesses in the city.

  

So it may be surprising to some that the commission would not only pass a social district resolution, but also show a great willingness to permit marijuana businesses in the small town on the first day of rifle season deep into the year of 2021.  Commissioner Rob Alway explains a little backstory behind this change of mind in an article the day after the commission's meeting:

"Last week, the city’s ordinance committee — which consists of Mayor Marcy Spencer as chair, Commissioner Aaron Seiter, and myself — along with the city’s planning commission, held a joint meeting to discuss zoning of marijuana-related establishments if an ordinance allowing the sale and growing of recreational marijuana were to be adopted.  Both committees are recommending a limitation of two provisioning establishments in a portion of downtown."

The title of this article indicates Scottville engaged in three vices, while one may believe from the introductory paragraphs that the vices would relate to marijuana or drinking, the vices referenced are actually procedural by the commission. 

The first vice has to do with the joint (Alway missed the marijuana pun) meeting between the ordinance committee and the planning commission.  The ordinance committee has three distinct commissioners on it, the planning commission has additionally Nathan Yeomans, who also serves as a city commissioner.  Four commissioners of a commission made up of seven members (a quorum of the city commission) sat at a meeting to discuss public policy.  

Those familiar with the Open Meetings Act (OMA) know that a quorum of a public body that gets together and deliberates over public policy is a 'meeting' of that public body, meaning that the city commission was required to notice this as a meeting of the city commission (among a host of other things).  That was not done, and thus the commission violated the OMA.

The second vice deals with the resolution made for the social district.  The resolution and various state forms are provided in the November 15 meeting's agenda packet, they are enough to show that the resolution effectively needs to be rewritten and repassed.  At the end of the resolution it reiterates that the commission grants the city manager with power and authority to set and create these 'common areas', so that the city commission doesn't have to be bothered when someone wants to join:

Yet, on all the state paperwork, you see that the governing body (the Scottville City Commission) is the one that approves, sets, and creates with no indication that they can ever delegate that authority away to an administrator (the state's social district law does not allow it).  The resolution has no indication that each potential participant in the social district must be approved individually by the governing body:

The third and last vice of Scottville this week occurred at a motion hearing regarding my lawsuit with the City of Scottville, and five named officials.  One of those officials, City Attorney Carlos Alvarado, made a motion of summary disposition to dismiss the charges on him in relation to the OMA.  The charge against him, Police Chief Murphy, and Mayor Spencer had to deal with those three being part of an investigative committee in late 2020 looking into why the city manager had almost missed a deadline. 

Alvarado admitted at the time that the committee met on 12-17-20 and two members met together other times to conduct business using authority that the city charter explicitly grants to the full commission, which can designate a subcommittee to perform those same limited activities.  Alvarado's attorney tried a legal theory that the committee formed was not a 'public body' under the OMA, strictly advisory, and thus not subject to the OMA.  Judge Sniegowski, reviewing the laws and precedents submitted by both parties, did not buy that argument, and so the motion failed on that part.  Ergo, the court did not entertain the notion that the ad hoc Investigation Committee formed late last year was anything other than a public body.

One would think that a city attorney would recognize that having four commissioners discuss public policy at a gathering would require abidance of the OMA, just like having a subcommittee acting with the power of the full city commission with limited authority and scope would require following the strictures of OMA law.  One would also think that the drafter of the social district resolution (presumably City Attorney Alvarado) would follow the rather simple stipulations plastered in the various applicable forms and state law.  

These three vices would be easily avoided by a city attorney competent in municipal laws and attentive to detail, but that doesn't seem to be the case in Scottville since early 2020.  The cost of the city attorney's services has certainly skyrocketed though.

[Willy]

Thanks for the information X.