The Open Meetings Hacked with Richard Wilson

[XLFD]

In reading the local newspaper's account of the meeting, you would have thought that Ludington City Attorney Richard Wilson was there to make a presentation on how to comport with the Open Meetings Act (OMA), but the topic actually came up organically at about 36:00 into the meeting, and stayed as the topic of discussion for the next fifteen minutes. 

January 5, 2016 Ludington Planning Commission from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Attorney Wilson should be very familiar with the act, since he has been a city attorney for Ludington and places in Manistee since the last millennium.  But the information he dispensed this night was not very reliable, and it goes to show why I have taken the City to task for violating the OMA twice and have had many other chances to do so over fairly glaring violations of that law for government transparency. 

Among his misrepresentations of the law were his advice to Commissioner Moloney, who started out the discussion by wanting to attend a subcommittee meeting to give input for master plan modifications.  Wilson gave the advice to post the notice for subcommittee meetings on the bulletin board so as not to be in violation if some other PC members show up.  However, if a quorum of PC members (four) come and deliberate on issues, then it becomes a meeting of the Planning Commission and needs to be noted not as a subcommittee hearing, but as a meeting of the PC.  Not to do so would be a violation of the OMA.  Subcommittees are not designed to be public bodies in themselves.

In Wilson's recommendation for the PC to play safe and notice subcommittee meetings and run them as a regular meeting, would obviate the need for committee meetings if the OMA were to be invoked at each.  And whereas, his advice on deliberating over multiple party E-mails was close to the mark, his solution was not sufficient.  If an informational E-mail is sent out and responses come back in future E-mails, by phone and in person indicating deliberation or decision making, the OMA would be violated.  (This is what happened effectively in my first OMA lawsuit). 

Another piece of fiction Wilson eschewed was that open meetings could not take place in private residences, also intimating that they could only take place in areas open to the general public (i.e. public property) during the course of the discussion.  The law itself has no such restriction, and even gives guidance for what must happen if an open meeting takes place there (MCL 265(6)):  "For a meeting of a public body that is held in a residential dwelling, notice of the meeting shall be published as a display advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or township in which the meeting is to be held."

As for other venues, in 2014 a quorum of city councilors went to the Manistee National Golf Course, privately owned property, to sit in and discuss regional economic development.  This was noted as a special meeting.  It is questionable whether that venue was open to the public.

If you listen to the full fifteen minutes, the advice seems self-contradictory and confusing at times.  It was ironic hearing Wilson telling us how decisions by the public body need to be made in open meetings, while he and his partner, City Manager John Shay, preempted the city council's decision making process in hiring the water rate consultants and several other actions in the past that should have been initially granted by the council at an open meeting.

The precedent Wilson delves into involving the U of M presidential search is also off.  In BOOTH NEWS., INC. v. U OF M BD. OF REGENTS , the Michigan Court of Appeals found that the use of overlapping, intercommunicating, subquorum committees of public bodies as a means of directly circumventing the OMA is not legal and is in direct contravention of the objective of the OMA to promote openness and accountability in government.  The underlying issue of a "committee of one" did come up, but it had already been refuted by previous precedent and was not a major point in that instance. 

Overall, it's easy to see why the legal footing of Ludington is in poor standing with our lawyer from the north county leading the way.  Is it any wonder why our city manager, who depends on Wilson for his legal guidance, has chosen the wrong path himself in leading Ludington.

OTags:

[Willy]

X, it sounds as though Wilson needs to take the refresher course "Legal Opinion Basics 101."  This brings up an interesting question. How does anyone really know, including the City of Ludington, if the attorney they hire is knowledgeable and competent to give advice and if what he is saying is actually so. For all anyone knows, including the Council, the information and advice given to them by Wilson is correct and factual. Unless we or anyone else has the time and is smart enough to actually understand and access the legal World, how are we to know if what we are getting is the real legal low down or just a line of B.S. Even if the laws and opinions are laid out before us it still takes a sharp intellect to decipher what is written down and accepted as the law. It's a good thing you can understand and research the tangled mess the City and it's legal adviser have spun and fed to the public.

[AQUAMAN]

A lot of what is given here as good sound sense for a legal analyst and adviser is quite true, if you were looking for someone with the highest principles of legal practice. That's just NOT the case here. What we have is a legal eagle that is skewed for the "fixed agenda". That in particular is why he was hired, and why he came to be the City Attorney in Ludington. Someone of the same ilk and lack of professionalism with skewed principles like Roger Anderson, the last unethical attorney to hold that position. When City Fathers look for someone for legal assistance, they don't want a good honest law-abiding attorney to advise them, someone that will follow the strictest and safest rules of law, they want and desire a lawyer that get's their "fixed agenda" in place, and looks for any and all avenues of deceit and conniving to get it, period. From everything we have witnessed of Wilson since his inception of employment, he fits that bill exactly. That's why he needs replacement, and it will never get done as long as he tows the line and does as his maters have ordered, as long as the masters are so inclined to bend and twist the law to achieve that "fixed agenda" of outcomes.

[Barry R. Schrader]

XLFD is perhaps our only good citizen.  He does what we all should be doing.  I third what Willy and AQUAMAN said.

[XLFD]

I would argue with your point, Barry, because you, your son, and everyone else who goes to these public meetings and speaks up for what's right is a 'good citizen', as are those who remain mostly quiet on the sidelines due to being intimidated or not knowing enough of the facts to speak out.   You and your son are good citizens, everyone that expresses their concerns here in their own search for truth or justice are good citizens. 

I include a video from Mr. Majestyk, where the 'bad guys' came and shot up Charles Bronson's watermelons.  Figuratively, city officials have done such despicable acts to me on a few different occasions, but I am still figuratively growing my melons in spite of their vile acts.  A growing number of people are getting their own watermelons shot up by the COL gang (such as landlords, tenants, private marina owners, etc.), and more good citizens will be produced.  Tyranny cannot be allowed to flourish  in America.

[AQUAMAN]

Tyranny and exploitation will continue to flourish and expand at every level until and unless the "people and real justice" decide it's time for change!!! Of course this cannot happen without people making a voice and vote for change. That is the key for real democracy. Demanding right over the status-quo!