Sunshine Comes Early This Year: Lawsuit Filed Against Two Unlawfully Closed Sessions of the Ludington City Council

[XLFD]

Pardon my absence from the weekend conversations.  No bout of the coronavirus for me, I have been busy doing legal research to remediate the Ludington City Council's unwillingness to admit a couple of unlawfully held closed sessions amounted to wrongdoing on their part and voting against making the otherwise non-exempt minutes of those sessions to be able to be inspected by the public they threw out of their chambers.  I managed to complete the complaint and file it two weeks before Sunshine Week.

In that regard, as promised to them at the last meeting, they have gotten the lawsuit they effectively forced me into with their lawless behaviors over four meetings.  The full city council is the biggest bugbear in the room, effectively shutting down any negotiations made by myself along with the new city attorney and manager, and effectively giving themselves previous city attorney Richard Wilson's famous 'get-out-of-jail-free' card on their own infractions.  

Instead of doing what's right, they wanted to change the narrative to who's right and wanted people to measure their lofty city official status against my low-profile, humble-but-disgruntled citizen's status.  That miscalculation on their part is why they will waste tens of thousands of dollars in the vain hope of having it appear that they did not do anything wrong.  Big mistake, but it's not their money they want to waste in their charlatanry.

The city council is not all bad, Councilor Angela Serna effectively convinced me that the people who missed the first Open Meetings Act violation were not adequately briefed about it when they were given legal instruction at the last minute by the city attorney that turned out to be very bad advice, effectively telling the council to fix unlawfully going into closed session at one meeting by doing it all over again at the next meeting.  

If you break into my house and steal all my stuff one week and two weeks later break into my house and return things, I might feel better, but I still have to buy two new door jambs and return all the replacement stuff I brought in those two weeks.  Of course, I'll feel twice as violated and take action so that it doesn't happen again without consequences.  

And that's what I did.  I had planned to serve the summons and complaint at tonight's council meeting during my public comment, but Mayor Steve Miller realized I came in with one of my trusted process servers, took me aside before the meeting, and asked politely whether I could serve the court papers before or after the meeting.  Apparently, city leaders do not like the optics of being sued, but don't care whether they violate the laws of accountability and transparency which put them in that position.  

Because my beef, and everybody's beef, should be with a council that wants to shut the public out of their discussions (as the prior lawsuit noted had been going on for years at the committee level), I agreed this time to show humility against the council's hubris.  Here is the lawsuit copied from the .pdf file, please feel free to comment, question, or critique:

TOM ROTTA,
Plaintiff, pro se

BRANDY MILLER, DAVID BOURGETTE, CHERI ROZELLE
and CITY OF LUDINGTON,
Defendants, individually and corporately
______________________________________________________
COMPLAINT

NOW COMES TOM ROTTA, pro se, and as his complaint states as follows

INTRODUCTION

1) This is an action under the Michigan Open Meetings Act ('OMA'), MCL 15.261 et. seq. and the Freedom of Information Act ('FOIA'), MCL 15.231 et. seq. for appropriate relief of defendants multiple violations of the former and the release of public records in accordance with the latter as a consequence of that relief. Supportive exhibits for this complaint not included for brevity's sake (primarily meeting agendas, minutes and videos) are either publicly available or already accessible by all parties, and will be formally submitted to this court to resolve disputed elements of facts or support arguments at a later date when necessary.

PARTIES

2) TOM ROTTA is a resident of Ludington in the County of Mason in the State of Michigan
3) BRANDY MILLER, DAVID BOURGETTE, CHERI ROZELLE are individual members (councilors) of the Ludington City Council the governing body empowered by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, and rule to exercise governmental and proprietary authority for the CITY OF LUDINGTON.
4) BRANDY MILLER, DAVID BOURGETTE, CHERI ROZELLE are 'public officials' as per OMA.
5) CITY OF LUDINGTON is a home rule city, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Michigan
6) CITY OF LUDINGTON is a 'public body' as that term is defined under OMA and FOIA

JURISDICTION, TIMELINESS, and VENUE

7) This court has jurisdiction by statutes MCL 271(2) and MCL 240(1)(b) and MCR 2.605. The minutes of each relevant meeting were approved in December 2019, satisfying timeliness of those statutes and of MCL 15.273(2) at the time of filing, 2-2-20.
8) Venue is proper in this court as Mason is the county where the public body serves and where the public records or an office of the public body is located, MCL 15.271(2); MCL 15.240(4).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9) On the November 25, 2019 meeting agenda of the Ludington City Council (hereafter 'Council') a closed session permitted under section 8(e) of the OMA was scheduled for discussing a proposal to settle pending litigation (hereafter, 'prior lawsuit').
10) At the meeting, only 4 of 7 councilors were in attendance, including the three named in this lawsuit, a quorum which conducted numerous orders of business before the scheduled closed session.
11) One order of business they did not conduct that evening was a vote to exempt itself from Public Act 152 of 2011. Defendants MILLER moved and ROZELL seconded a motion to postpone the vote due to the fact that state law required that 2/3 of the council (five) must vote to do so and only four votes were possible.
12) A roll call vote was taken to enter into closed session using section 8(e) to discuss settlement of specified pending litigation; all four councilors present voted to do so. In a separate vote, four other City of Ludington ('CITY') officials were invited to participate in the session, as well as legal counsel.
13) The public, including Plaintiff and several others, left council chambers for a period of roughly 16 minutes, when they were notified that the council would come back into open session.
14) The four councilors present voted unanimously to accept the settlement; this was the last action before the meeting was adjourned.
15) The two other parties involved in the newly-settled litigation with the City (I was one) signed the settlement contract immediately after the meeting and had it notarized. On information and belief, the city signatories (clerk and city manager) did the same. We were informed that it would be promptly filed with the court.
16) ROTTA consulted the OMA statutes and found a problem he suspected after the meeting had adjourned.
17) Early the following morning I wrote an article on my website titled: "City Settles Open Meetings Act Lawsuit After Illegal Closed Session" detailing how the council properly postponed their vote on Act 152 of 2011 in this meeting due to too many absences, while failing to postpone their vote to go into closed session under the same reason. MCL 15.267(1) requires that 2/3 of the council (five) must vote to go into closed session under section 8(e) and only four votes were possible. I also contacted the city manager to alert him of that shortcoming.
18) The following day, the city manager replied, noting that he consulted with counsel, recognized the violation, and they were planning to do a reenactment of the problem areas as a curative at the next meeting on 12-9-2019.
19) On 12-6-2019 the 12-9-2019 council meeting's agenda was published and posted.
20) Agenda item 12 had the council going into closed session under 8(e) of the OMA; item 13 had the council acting on the settlement of the same case the council had already decided to settle at the previous meeting. The 151 page council packet had nothing supplemental about the previous meeting's violation of the OMA.
21) The unanimous decision on 11-25-19 in open session to settle was proper and binding.
22) The unanimous decision on 11-25-19 in open session to deliberate on the settlement in closed session under section 8(e) of the OMA was improper under section 7(1) of the OMA.
23) The 16 minutes of deliberations on 11-25-2019 by a quorum of the council in an unlawfully held closed session violated MCL 15.263(3).
24) Reenacting an improperly held vote which had zero chance of success at the 11-25-19 meeting at the 12-9-19 meeting would not cure the impropriety of that earlier vote.
25) Reenacting a proper decision on a settlement already made binding by both parties two weeks prior was improper and violative of settlement terms already agreed to by both parties.
26) During public comment, ROTTA recounted a summary of the last meeting and the violations of OMA, finishing with a warning about violating the OMA if they took the proposed course: "[The City] believes that reenacting the decision to close with presumably 5 or more votes will make the minutes of the unlawful session at last meeting exempt from disclosure. The problem is that they are not allowed to go into closed session even with 5 votes tonight. Here's why. The act allows consulting with attorneys in closed session under section 8(e) "only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body". The pending litigation was settled following the vote by the council and plaintiffs' signatures on the settlement papers. To go into closed session tonight on any other pretense will be a violation of the Open Meetings Act."
27) After this comment and another supportive comment by ROTTA's co-plaintiff in that prior lawsuit, the council voted unanimously to go into closed session despite hearing the verbatim words of the law they would be going against.
28) In the motion to go into closed session under section 8(e) the council did not identify or even imply any "detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body", a necessary requirement.
29) The prior lawsuit had been settled on November 25th, there could be no detrimental financial effect on the City's already settled position.
30) The six councilors present disregarded state law read verbatim to them which was never refuted by their city attorney, Richard Wilson who advised: "We did some research, we cannot find any case where there was an error into going into closed session because of a lack of a sufficient number of people to make up the 3/4 [sic] requirement and so the best advice of the City Attorney, and I believe is also concurred with Bradley Yanalunas, is that the OMA does allow us an opportunity to re-enact a potentially violated decision, and it is our advice for the City to go back into closed session, if you do so desire, because it will take five of you to do that, have a discussion with Brad who will be on the phone with us, and then re-enact the decision when we come back out of closed session, so there is no question going forward that we acted properly in approving the settlement."
31) With four councilors present at the 11-25-19 meeting a lawful decision could not be made to enter a closed session under section 8(e).
32) A quorum of councilors deliberating in closed session without proper recognition by the OMA was the issue to address and remedy, not decisions made in open session that were properly conducted but may have been insufficient actions to convene a closed session in view of the law.
33) The attorneys effectively advised the council to cure going into one closed session unlawfully by going into another closed session unlawfully.
34) The council went into closed session for 23 minutes ostensibly to discuss a settlement that had already been agreed to by all parties two weeks earlier.
35) When the council emerged from closed session they reenacted the decision they had already made on 11-25-19 by unanimously agreeing to settlement of the prior lawsuit, then adjourned.
36) No reason was given for the lengthy closed session.
37) Plaintiffs of the prior lawsuit were not contacted or expected to re-sign the paperwork they had signed two weeks prior when the settlement was actually reached by both parties.
38) On 12-13-19, ROTTA sent a FOIA request to the CITY explaining the violations of OMA and asking for "The minutes of the unlawfully closed sessions held by the [Ludington city council] on November 25, 2019 and December 9, 2019."
39) After receiving an extension notice on 12-23-19, ROTTA received a response on 1-6-20 from the CITY instructing him that the request was granted in part. The minutes of the 11-25-19 'closed' session were provided with the content of the closed session redacted. The 12-9-19 minutes were not provided at all.
40) The only exemption cited for denial was MCL 15.243(1)(d), Records exempted from disclosure by statute, naming the statute as section 7(2) of the OMA, which exempts minutes from a (legitimate) closed session.
41) On 1-8-20, ROTTA filed an administrative FOIA appeal sent to every councilor explaining why he believed the records should be available, a summarized argument written in plain language covering why the closed sessions were unlawful and why it would be unlawful to not disclose their minutes.
42) At the 1-13-20 council meeting, ROTTA offered support for his arguments for disclosure in his public comment; CITY's FOIA Coordinator offered arguments supporting his legal theory for non-disclosure and that only a court could order the records up. The 6 councilors ruled against disclosure.
43) Trying to avoid litigation, ROTTA attempted to bargain with councilors in between the next two meetings, believing that taking it to court would be a waste of municipal and judicial resources when they had the power to proclaim that the two closed sessions were not lawful, make the two closed session's minutes available as they were officially 'open', and add closure to the controversy.
44) Despite the city attorney and city manager urging further negotiations, at the 2-10-20 meeting the council concluded that rather than try to solve the issue out of court, they preferred letting it go to court.
45) Councilor BOURGETTE made a motion to keep the minutes of both closed sessions sealed, which was approved unanimously by every councilor.
46) On 2-13-20, I wrote the six councilors present on 12-9-19 along with the city manager and attorney of my intent to pursue 'intentional' violations of OMA and offer full lenity if they would voluntarily admit they violated the OMA by going into closed session on 12-09-2019 without a proper enunciated reason in compliance with the OMA.
47) One of the three councilors not present at the 11-25-19 meeting contacted me and explained how they had not been briefed on what happened when they voted to go into closed session on 12-9-19, relying on the city attorney's assurance that they were doing things properly.
48) In review of the materials available to the three councilors missing the 11-25-19 meeting but present at the 12-9-19, it appeared there was not enough material or time available to make an informed vote, as the gaffe made was not divulged until I mentioned it in my public comment, minutes before they went into the closed session.

COUNT 1: OMA VIOLATION [MCL 15.267(2] BY CITY OF LUDINGTON AT 11-25-2019 COUNCIL MEETING

49) The previous allegations are re-alleged within this Court as if pled word for word herein.
50) Defendant's governing body, the Ludington City Council, is a public body as that term is defined by the Open Meetings Act.
51) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members shall take place at a meeting open to the public, unless specifically permitted under a closed session [MCL 15.263(3)].
52) One of those permissible purposes is to consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body [MCL 15.268(e)].
53) A 2/3 roll call vote of members elected or appointed and serving is required to call a closed session under MCL 15.268(e) as per MCL 15.267(1).
54) The Council has seven members elected and serving; five would need to vote to enter a closed session permitted under MCL 15.268(e).
55) Only four councilors were present at the 11-25-2019 council meeting, a simple quorum.
56) The council could not enter closed session under MCL 15.268(e) with only four members present.
57) Nevertheless, the council voted, ejected the public out of the meeting, and went into closed session.
58) Neither the motion, the video, or the minutes reflect how the council decided that an open discussion in that instance would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body.
59) Failing to follow statutory law in proceeding to a closed session without having sufficient votes and sufficient reason to do so are violations of the OMA.
60) Plaintiff incurs court costs and disbursements in seeking to enjoin Defendant's on-going violation of the Open Meetings Act [MCL 15.271(4)] and in seeking declaratory relief of those violations as this court has the power to grant under MCR 2.605(A)(1).

COUNT 2: OMA VIOLATION [MCL 15.263(3) and MCL 15.268(e)] BY CITY OF LUDINGTON AT 12-9-19 COUNCIL MEETING

61) The previous allegations are re-alleged within this Court as if pled word for word herein.
62) The OMA permits closed sessions to consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body. [MCL15.268(e)].
63) Although the prior lawsuit could liberally be defined as 'pending' at the time of the 12-9-19 meeting, the terms of settlement had already been agreed to at the 11-25-19 meeting, signed and notarized by the other party.
64) It is unclear and unstated how the CITY rationalizes how there could be a detrimental financial effect in discussing already settled agreements with already set financial terms.
65) If the CITY had a rationale, they never shared it with the public before entering a closed session for 23 minutes to ostensibly discuss trial or settlement strategy of the prior lawsuit when the settlement agreed to on 11-25-19 obviated such concerns.
66) The council could not enter closed session under MCL 15.268(e) on 12-9-19 to discuss trial and settlement strategy over already settled litigation which pre-empted trial or further settlement.
67) The council could not enter closed session under MCL 15.268(e) on 12-9-19 without announcing a valid rationale showing a detrimental financial effect on the CITY if they hadn't.
68) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members shall take place at a meeting open to the public, unless specifically permitted under a closed session [MCL 15.263(3)].
69) For 23 minutes, a quorum of councilors met in closed session after ejecting the public out from the chambers, and allegedly deliberated over what had already been decided two weeks prior.
70) Failing to follow statutory law in proceeding to a closed session without having sufficient reason to do so is a violation of the OMA.
71) Plaintiff incurs court costs and disbursements in seeking to enjoin Defendant's on-going violation of the Open Meetings Act [MCL 15.271(4)] and in seeking declaratory relief of those violations as this court has the power to grant under MCR 2.605(A)(1).

COUNT 3: OMA INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS [MCL 15.273(1)] BY COUNCILORS MILLER, BOURGETTE, AND ROZELL AT 12-9-19 COUNCIL MEETING

72) The previous allegations are re-alleged within this Court as if pled word for word herein.
73) Although each councilor present at both meetings voted for closed sessions each time despite the illegality of doing so, only those who were present at both meetings are named as intentional violators of the OMA using the following rationale.
  a) The councilor present at the first meeting but absent the second meeting effectively was part of a 'technical' violation where the depleted council had a quorum for normal business but not for entering closed session under MCL 15.268(e). Intent would be impossible to show without admission of intent, carelessness was the more likely factor.
  b) The 3 councilors absent the first meeting but present the second meeting were not adequately briefed on the details by support staff and had to make a decision based primarily on the city attorney's position without reviewing the details or being able to adequately look into my claims in public comment. Intent would be difficult to show, when ignorance or negligence could be claimed.
74) Those present at both meetings, MILLER, BOURGETTE and ROZELL (hereafter 'the TRIO') had scienter, knowledge of wrongdoing, when they acted in their official capacity at the 12-9-19 meeting to go into an unlawful closed session.
75) The TRIO were aware by acknowledgement of the city attorney and by ROTTA's comments that they had went into closed session unlawfully at the 11-25-19 meeting, they also were aware that they voted legally to accept the settlement terms in open session on that day, and that the agreement was signed by the parties of the prior lawsuit.
76) Despite this knowledge, and despite the clear wording of MCL 15.268(e) allowing a closed session only if trial and/or settlement strategy of a pending specific lawsuit was discussed and only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body, the TRIO intentionally ignored these requirements and went into closed session for 23 minutes.
77) A public body may meet in closed session only for the purposes listed in MCL 15.268. The closed session exemptions are to be construed strictly to limit the types of situations that are not open to the public. Wexford County Prosecuting Attorney v. Pranger, 83 Mich. App. 197, 268 N.W.2d 344 (1978)
78) Lacking the need to deliberate over trial strategy or settlement strategy by the lawful decision made by the TRIO to accept settlement terms at the 11-25-19 meeting, the need to go into closed session was non-existent.
79) Compounding this non-existent need to enter closed session, the motion, the minutes, and the meeting's video all indicate that the TRIO and their three peers didn't even try to fabricate any rationale to enter closed session at the 12-9-19 meeting.
80) Rather than be contrite about their unlawfulness, rather than surrender the minutes of their 'closed' sessions that should never have been closed, the TRIO has actively pursued a course of keeping the minutes of those unlawful sessions sealed and away from public inspection.
81) The TRIO are all 'public officials' under OMA law as noted under 'PARTIES'
81) A public official who intentionally violates this act shall be personally liable in a civil action for actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500.00 total, plus court costs to a person bringing the action [MCL 15.273(1)] This may be joined with an action for injunctive relief [MCL 15.273(3)].
82) A public official who intentionally violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. [MCL 15.272(1)].
83) ROTTA incurred court costs and disbursements in seeking to hold the TRIO accountable for their intentional violation of the Open Meetings Act on 12-9-19.

COUNT 4: WRONGFUL DENIAL OF REQUESTED RECORDS THROUGH THE FOIA

84) The previous allegations are re-alleged within this Court as if pled word for word herein.
85) The CITY's denial of the minutes of the two unlawfully closed sessions are based on their non-acceptance of the errors in going into those sessions in the first place.
86) The denial is rooted in OMA section 7(2) which states that the minutes of closed sessions are to be sealed and shielded from public inspection.
87) OMA Section 7(1) indicates that section 7(2) applies only if the closed session was lawful.
88) As argued in complaint, both closed sessions were in violation of the OMA's requirements.
89) Minutes of open meetings are public records as defined by the FOIA and readily disclosable.
90) If the court finds that one or both of these closed sessions were unlawfully held, it should do as other courts have done in the past and order release of the minutes of the sessions which should have been held openly.
91) The CITY's denial solely under section 13(1)(d) of the FOIA does not apply unless the closed sessions are legitimate closed sessions.
92) ROTTA incurred court costs and disbursements in seeking the release of public records in accordance with FOIA and should have those costs reimbursed upon disclosure of the records, as per MCL 15.240(6).

RELIEF REQUESTED

93) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TOM ROTTA respectfully requests this Court to—
a) Declare that the CITY violated the OMA on 11-25-19 by going into closed session lacking the minimum five votes needed to do so
b) Enjoin the CITY and its officials from considering that the 11-25-19 closed session had any validity under the OMA by ordering them to publish the 'closed minutes'.
c) Declare that the CITY violated the OMA on 12-9-19 by going into closed session lacking any pending trial or settlement strategy to deliberate on, and lacking any other explicit reason to do so.
d) Enjoin the CITY and its officials from considering that the 11-25-19 closed session had any validity under the OMA by ordering them to publish the 'closed minutes'.
e) Enjoin the CITY and its officials from future violations of the OMA by going into closed sessions without any statutory reason to do so.
f) Find the TRIO with scienter violated the OMA on 12-9-19 and are personally liable for their intentional misdeeds conducted contrarily to their public duties for $500 each to the plaintiff.
g) Find the TRIO with scienter violated the OMA on 12-9-19 and are personally liable for their intentional misdeeds conducted contrarily to their public duties for $1000 each as a fine to the court.
h) Direct the CITY to immediately fulfill the FOIA request of the plaintiff in this complaint.
i) Award all court costs and disbursements to plaintiff as provided by the OMA and the FOIA for the prevailing party.
j) Grant any and all other relief that the court deems just and proper.

[Du Wright]

Very good point, XLFD. Only you out of two or three attorneys and the entire city staff knew the law regarding going into closed session, it seems. But, it seems to me that the city FOIA coordinator makes a point written in law that a court must order closed session minutes to be "opened" and this at the insistence of the city clerk.
I hope a fair judge sorts it out and rules quickly. The city council needs to be accountable to the people they serve. If the city had been open in the first place, None of this would be dragging on. Their sins will eventually find them out. Meanwhile the city suffers again. Hopefully our new legal counsel is more wise and knowledgeable about the OMA.

[XLFD]

The problem with the FOIAC's and city clerk's line of reasoning is that they ascribe a lot of power to that section of law (7(2) of the OMA, which currently applies) without looking at how it's dependent on the prior section 7(1) and with the idea of whether there was actually a lawfully-held closed session in order to keep the minutes sealed.

It does not take a court's order to recognize that the two sessions held last year were not permissible uses of the OMA's closed session statutes.  They were not closed sessions recognized by the law.  Unfortunately, your elected councilors cannot officially admit they made two dumbass mistakes in a row out of ineptness, incompetence, ignorance or other 'I' word. 

Once they officially admit that, they shouldn't have to order the clerk to provide the minutes previously sealed to the public, because it then becomes unlawful for her to not provide them since section 7(2) does not apply any more and FOIA holds sway.

[Freedom Seeker]

Yeah, like the TRIO of three blind mice, or "hear no, speak no, and see no evil?" It's hard to determine if it is intent by the three unwise councilors or just plain hard-headed stupidity. You gave them plenty of opportunity to settle this out of court. Now this cost is on their heads, like the first was as well for breaking OMA law. If they want to keep screwing the people of public decisions, and breaking OMA law and acting like an elite group of Mercedes-mentalities blowing taxpayer money, then THEY should pay the price for their intentional violation. Their arrogance is disgusting, and, imo, a carry-over of a previous administration set to do what they want and to crush anyone who speaks up about it. At least the new city manager and new city attorney suggested to settle this out of court. But some in city council disregarded the advice. This will be real interesting.

[XLFD]

Mitch Foster is doing more than his part to bring in transparency and accountability to Ludington government; until this FOIA over the closed sessions, he has did his best to bring forth all public records asked for (in my experience over the last year).  Even so, he had worked hard with me to mitigate this FOIA issue to avoid litigation and do what's right, provide minutes of a section of a meeting that should have been open.  

The record shows I was willing to forego any OMA litigation if the minutes were made available to the public.  The city council was the obstacle, buoyed by the old city attorney, who likely lost his job by consistently advising the city poorly over the last year.  

[Freedom Seeker]

Even those not so legally-inclined could see his legalese ramblings didn't often make sense.

[Willy]

Thanks for your diligence in making sure the City follows the law. I tried to read the whole post but halfway thru it all backed up and the words ended up piled in a corner of my brain  like a ball of spaghetti. I do have some questions tho on what I was able to get thru. Why were only 3 of the 4 councilors named in the complaint? I'm assuming that a closed meeting needs a quorum in order for it to take place so the closed meeting was violating the OMA and if that's so then any action taken at that meeting would not have been legal. Correct? A Councilor claimed that they received the wrong information regarding the OMA so in order to make it "legal" it was re-enacted. Is this part of the reason Ludington has new legal representation now?  I know you wanted to be nice but it would have been a good idea to have the Council served during the meeting. That would have made an impression on viewers of the proceedings. Next time have a uniformed police officers serve papers.

[XLFD]

Thanks for reading as far as you did, once you get down into the lawsuit it can easily get hard to follow for those who don't work in the law field to keep up with.  It's there for the purists and for others around Michigan who may find their local townhall, courthouse or school system doing things wrong, and want to correct it.

The questions you ask are very good and ones that should cross the mind of many others who have been following this.  Your first question about my subset of councilors probably was a little further down than you read (it's in the Count 3 section), and here's a brief overview.  Public officials can only be legally pursued for OMA violations if they do so intentionally.  I do not believe nor could I likely show that the first violation was made with intent, it was more of a technicality since some closed sessions can be entered into with a simple majority vote of those present.

The second closed session had three of the four people present from the first meeting (the ones named in the lawsuit).  In open session they voted to settle the prior lawsuit at the prior meeting.  This ended the need for any additional trial or settlement strategy.  At the second meeting, those three (along with 3 others who were effectively misinformed over the reason why they were going into closed session) voted to go into closed session using the guise that it was for trial or settlement strategy of a lawsuit that was already set and settled.  The three knew the suit was settled, financial terms were set, and still they voted for closure when no reason existed.  As for the other three who are not named in the suit, there is nothing in the record I can find that says they were briefed on what went wrong with the previous meeting, so ignorance of those facts would be a tough hill to climb to show intentional violations rather than just being poorly advised by Attorney Wilson.

No decisions can be made in closed session, only deliberations, and reenactment is a mechanism used so that nobody like me can invalidate a decision made in violation of the OMA.  Reenacting an improper closed session with a more audaciously improper closed session is not a cure, it's a bigger problem.

[Willy]

On Rush Limbaugh's radio show 3-3-20 he mentions the deep State and how every State, City and town has it's own. He is absolutely correct and this is the big problem in Ludington. These deep state people want control not only of the politics, but also the media and especially access to taxpayer dollars to prop up their pet projects and for their own personal gain. I think Brandy is doing her daddy's and his cronies bidding and that was apparent when she suddenly cut off her active participation with the voters after she was chastised by the Council for communicating with the public on the internet about City business. That deep state exists in Ludington and has been manipulating politics and the media for a very long time. X has thrown a legal wrench into their misadventures . Thanks to X he has stopped Ludington from falling off the map as an elected representative city.  Start at 1:02 to hear Limbaugh's explanation. 

[Freedom Seeker]

My thoughts, too. Willy, about who is really running Ludington's Deep State. And it is dangerous to have such a young-mind with that much sway over so many because a lack of wisdom and experience to understand so much. And her daddy was such a young man really when he grabbed the reigns that he didn't have the ability to see the big picture of the needs of the city as a whole. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of stuff that went on under the table that maybe someday will surface about that.

[XLFD]

The 'Deep City' has been basically institutionalized in Ludington.  Brandy Miller isn't the only city councilor with a lot of other conflicted interests interfering with their sworn duties as a representative of the people and the Constitutions of the state and USA, but county & township supervisors & city managers are all tapped to be in those quasi-public agencies like the Convention/Visitor's Bureau, Mason County Growth Alliance, DDA Boards where the focus is on what Mitch Foster would call "sexy projects" rather than the maintenance or improvement of what position you currently have and of the infrastructure.

These are also the agencies, along with the chamber of commerce, local civic and enviro-clubs and community foundations, who do their work under the aegis of secrecy, because if the community could squarely look at the trade-offs they sometimes do, many at the expense of the taxpayer, they would be shocked and would want it stopped.