It's Final!: OLC Secures Judgment for Activist Against City's Secret Email Meeting

[XLFD]

 

Ludington, Michigan - Outside Legal Counsel PLC, a litigation firm based in Saginaw, Michigan, has secured a judgment against the City of Ludington on behalf of Thomas Rotta, a citizen activist and community blogger, regarding the use of email-based city council meeting and voting practices.

In the stipulated judgment approved by the City and Rotta, the City of Ludington admitted its decision to enter into a contract for sewer repair on Brother Street in July 2011 should have been deliberated and decided by an affirmative vote of the Ludington City Council at a meeting open to the public; and therefore, was done in violation of MCL 15.263(2) and MCL 15.263(3).

The Michigan Open Meetings Act requires that all decisions and most deliberations of a public body to take place at a meeting open to the public.

The lawsuit, filed in November, involved the use of emails by the Ludington City Manager and members of the Ludington City Council to discuss, deliberate, and ultimately vote on the expenditure of taxpayer funds. Instead of holding a public meeting, the Ludington City Council approved via email the city manager’s request to execute a non-emergency sewer repair contract involving nearly $100,000 from the street and sewer fund.

Despite official statements made by the City to the contrary, the sewer repair was not completed on an emergency basis. More than two weeks passed from identification of the Brother Street issue until the contract was signed by City Manager John Shay. Michigan's Open Meetings Act specifically provides an expedited decision-making procedure for emergency issues, which the City never utilized.

"By the judgment, the City rightly acknowledged its legal obligations and admitted its use of group emails between city officials in place of a public meeting violated the Open Meetings Act," states Philip L. Ellison, attorney for the community activist who brought suit. "While modern technology makes secret communications possible, some things still need to be completed publicly to allow everyone, from councilpersons to community activists, the right to participate in the political process."

The judgment also required the payment of attorney fees and court costs associated with the lawsuit.

“Governments need to be transparent with their decision to spend public dollars,” notes Ellison. “It’s not the bureaucrats’ money, it belongs to the taxpayers.”

http://www.olcplc.com/public/media?1360349747

A copy of the final judgment may be downloaded at OLC's online library.

Read the original press release here:  Ludington City Council Spent ≈$100K in Secret Email Meeting, Lawsui...

[XLFD]

Or wait... if you notice the date, I have to wait until April 2, 2013.  I hate these post-dated stipulated judgments.

[masonco]

I did notice...BTW did you see the MCP corrected the coldnews report on the Scottville plans?

[XLFD]

Masonco, I did notice that in the MCP, but Rob Alway has his inside connections in Scottville gov't as head of the Planning Commission.  If Rob keeps his enterprise going at the same level, he's going to have plenty of more times to correct them too.  As has been regularly seen here, what the COLDNews reports usually falls short of being purely factual. 

I will be having some news breaking next week that shows the COLDNews erred once again and the MCP managed to be the only one around to get it right.  But... the Torch will be the only one that ultimately will have delved deeper into the cavern of knowledge to show how and why it matters.

[masonco]

XFLD

MCP was advertising for additional journalism help...on a very part time basis. Namely to attend meetings and report news as it happens. Maybe you should talk to him!

Of course you could create an alternative pen name like Luke Dukes

[XLFD]

Basic rule of journalism is that the reporter is supposed to relate the story, not become part of the story.  My objectivity would come into question if I were to take up Rob's calling at the Ludington City Council meetings, detracting from the straight reportage of events. 

I believe I could probably do a more objective story of what happens at a meeting than the COLDNews, but I also don't deny some degree of editorializing on these web pages after presenting the facts of the matter.

I did remark on Facebook a willingness to help Rob at the LCC meetings, but said so in a tongue-in-cheek way.  He's always free to borrow our material here anyway. 

[Willy]

Congratulations X.  It seems to me that the date on the legal notice is misleading. Nothing on the notice says what the date actual represents.  Shouldn't the notice stipulate when the judge decided the issue and the date he signed the order?  Shouldn't the statement above the date explain what " It is so ordered means" as in explain that the date is when the order will take effect and not the day the Judge made the ruling or signed the order. Neither your attorney or the judge dated their signatures. Is this a common practice when dealing with court documents? I may be way off base here but I've never seen a court document without the dates I have mentioned.

[XLFD]

Thanks Willy, I think the misdated signature of the judge is a mere technicality when you note the 'true copy' stamp.  Perhaps it's Judge Cooper's way of rebelling against the person who cheated him out of signing a judgment for his son's law firm by disqualifying him in our FOIA suit.  The judgment, according to my attorney, has legal weight, and will factor in to any further violations of the OMA by the people who did act outside the law this time. 

[Jane]

It was FEB 4(2-4-2013) by the true copy stamp, and judge dated (4-2-2013)  looks like a bit of old age  kicking in.

[Willy]

If the judge signed last then it could be possible for him to have confused the dates as Jane suggests but It would seem unlikely that the Clerk would accept a post dated document, unless the judge intended for the document to take effect on 4-2-13. If that were the case shouldn't the document clearly state that? The Clerk received the document and stamped it as "received" on 2-4-13. The City's attorney signed on 1-28-13 so the judge had to have issued the form prior to that. My question is, why isn't the document dated as to when the case took place, when the judge ruled on the case and when the judge signed the document? If someone unfamiliar with this case were to look at this document that person would not be able to determine when this litigation and the results thereof  took place. Did this legal action take place in 2011, 2012 or 2013. Who can tell?

[Jane]

I was thinking  the judge signed it on feb 4th, same day as the clerk stamped it, and transposed the 2/4 and 4/2 in the date but if it was done in hanuary then that don't make any sense. the April date makes no sense in the context of the document.

This document does prove one ting though, the city is throwing away a lot of money on there lawyers just to be able to try to get away with breaking the law, until that guy from a few years back who won the200K+ lawsuit and now Tom pointing things out it seems the city was doing quite well at not following proper procedures without anyone noticing.

Now that people are catching them in their games they are sure getting angry about it. Fact is they need to start following the rules set by the charter  of the city or they will be lining the Manistee lawyers pockets with taxpayer money for some time to come.

[XLFD]

Legal fees of any special project that comes up gives Ludington's stable of Manistee lawyers $185/hour more than the $52,000 budgeted for them the next three years.  Extra bonus:  they can rationalize that they and the City Manager do not have to take the Constitutionally-mandated Oath of Office for their Ludington public office used for all public officials in Michigan because they are above the need to do so.  This means they are not legally sworn to look out for the Ludington citizens' best interest in their action, just for their own selfish interests, which could include earning extra money for their families and passing laws that impinge on the property and rights of our families.

[XLFD]

As Jane said, the seasoned jurist of our 51st Circuit Court had a senior moment and reversed the date, as is clear by the context.  Remember, this is the same judge that allowed his own son to be part of the City of Ludington's legal team for over four months in our FOIA case without acknowledging to the plaintiffs about the appearance of impropriety. 

But in this stipulated judgment case, the judge's signature would come after the defense attorney's signature, as the agreement happened between the parties before it ever came to trial before the judge.  His signature effectively completes the process of acknowledging a settlement made outside of the purview of the court.