Please download the full resolution here:
Highland Lakes Corporate Resolution 09-03
We are certain more Homeowners Associations will weigh in. We believe HLCA represents about 1,500 registered voters alone.
http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20090521/NEWS12/905210468/1029
A Wayne County Circuit Court judge dismissed an Opening Meetings Act lawsuit filed against Northville Township trustees on May 13, saying the officials did not violate the law.
In the case of Citizens for Public Accountability and Responsible Development vs. Northville Township, Judge John Gillis ruled postings for special meetings about a consent judgment between developer REIS and Northville Township on a 414-acre parcel were done properly and legally under the requirements of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, according to Ernie Essad Jr., attorney for the township.
The consent judgment was concerning the former Northville Regional Psychiatric Hospital property, owned by REIS, a partnership between developers Real Estate Interests Group and Schostak Brothers & Company.
The citizens’ group, known by the acronym CPARD, alleged that township officials committed a criminal act by intentionally holding meetings without properly notifying the public.
The group wanted trustees to actually rehold the meetings.
Township trustees, however, would not rehold the meetings because they said proper postings of all meetings had taken place.
Mark Abbo, township supervisor, said, “I am very pleased with the judge’s ruling.”
CPARD REACTS
Steve Emsley, spokesperson for CPARD, who was in the courtroom Wednesday morning, said Gillis awarded the township their motion for summary judgment rather abruptly.
“It was very apparent that this judge had not read the briefs and filings in their entirety,” Emsley said, “simply saying that they (township trustees) complied with the Open Meetings Act.”
According to Emsley, the posting for the final meeting early on the morning on July 29, 2008, during which trustees passed a resolution on the consent judgment, was available for only about three hours for public viewing prior to the July 29, 2008, meeting. The posting was made about 1:30 p.m. on July 28 for the early morning meeting on July 29. The Open Meetings Acts says posting must occur 18 hours before a special or closed session.
“The judge said that (the three-hour posting) was fine,” Emsley said.
CPARD members plan to appeal the case.
“He (Gillis) treated a nine-month Open Meetings Act lawsuit concerning an $800-million-development as if it was a simple traffic ticket,” Emsley said.
Emsley said the ruling ignores the rights given to the citizens of Michigan under the Open Meetings Act. He also said the Michigan Attorney General has given an opinion that if access to such notices is denied to the public for any part of the 18 hours, the Open Meetings Act requirement has not been met.
“In essence, what the judge said today is that such notices can be thumb-tacked to a bulletin board while the building is locked for 18 hours, and the requirement would have been met. That flies in the face of the intent of the Michigan Open Meetings Act. We will be appealing this decision as quickly and as vigorously as possible.”
“In 30 years of practicing law, I’ve never seen such a miscarriage of justice,” said Roland Jersevic, attorney for CPARD.
“The problem with it (the ruling) is simply this: We knew what the board was trying to do. The board was trying to hide what they were going to do with the consent judgment on the former hospital property, and they got caught. It’s that simple. It was an emotionally charged issue. They were taking a federal case and trying to settle it. But, they have to follow the Open Meetings Act.”
Emsley said the judge’s ruling indicates that denying public access to meeting notices is acceptable under the Open Meetings Act.
Diane Carlsen, a member of CPARD, was also in the courtroom on Wednesday.
“What I witnessed in a court of law this morning was disturbing,” Carlsen said.
“It was a travesty of justice being played out right before my eyes. The judge asked the opposing counsel what the consequences of his ruling would be if he ruled in CPARD’s favor. They replied that the consent judgment between Northville Township and REIS would go back to federal court. The judge acted like it would be horrible if the letter of the law was followed.
“He made the ruling in minutes,” she said. “He didn’t even hear the entire merits of our case. We never even got to our third point.”
Just a quick update. The Circuit Court has had several unavoidable issues that have delayed the matter of CPARD v. Northville Township. That is OK. The wheels of justice have never been fast.
Over the past month the Township has put together a plan to ask the voters to pass a millage and purchase a large part of the property. We are happy that they are looking for alternatives and listening to the public. At this time however, some of us see it as a way of fixing the problems that they created with the consent agreement using our tax dollars. Is it possibly the best outcome given the circumstances? It could be.
When we have the full documentation I will post it for download on this site.
Given the vast amount of time between now and a millage vote, the desire to see fully disclosed details and pending litigation, CPARD, as a group, has no official position on the purchase of the property. The purchase of the property may lead us to one of our main goals, but it does not negate the actions of the Board that led to the suit being filed nor the validity of the complaint.
Hospital site sale weighed
Officials OK $23.5M deal for old psychiatric center land, contingent on passage of millage.
Steve Pardo / The Detroit News
NORTHVILLE TOWNSHIP — The township could become the owner of the majority of the 414-acre former psychiatric hospital site if voters approve an August millage to purchase the property.
Officials approved a letter of intent to buy about 330 acres of the land at Seven Mile and Haggerty from the development company REIS for $23.5 million.
“While the letter of intent does not now lock us into buying the property, it does allow us to meet with residents and decide if this is something that they believe we should pursue,” Township Supervisor Mark Abbo said Monday.
The deal would reduce the scope of the commercial development and would keep the mature trees on the site and preserve a green space, said Sue Hillebrand, township clerk. A brownfield development plan funded by the developable portion of the property would stay in place.
Any deal is contingent on voters approving a millage in order to raise the capital — an admitted tough burden to shoulder given these economic times, Abbo said.
“However, the board strongly felt that we needed to provide the voters the opportunity to let their voices be heard on this issue,” he said.
Steve Emsley, a member of the grass-roots group Citizens for Public Accountability and Responsible Development, says the issue has promise but more information is needed.
“On the surface this looks like it could be a very good deal for the township and the surrounding cities,” Emsley said. “One of our main goals is to see the property responsibly developed.”
But the group is in litigation against the township over an open meetings squabble related to the site. That issue would have to be cleared up before the organization throws any support to the proposal, Emsley said.
“We can’t support this initiative until our litigation is resolved,” he said.
After the hospital closed in 2003, the state struggled for two years to sell the property. In 2005, the site was sold for $31.5 million and REIS unveiled a $1 billion development plan designed to create an urban village of 1,000 homes and a commercial district with seven-story buildings.
The plan went against local ordinances in its scope and size and officials rejected the plan. The fallout led to a $100 million lawsuit being filed against the township by the developers. A development agreement was reached just days before the land was up for annexation to Livonia last August. Livonia residents voted down the issue, keeping the site on township soil.
You can reach Steve Pardo at (734) 462-2191.
We know you have probably seen the press release from the Township regarding the possible attempt to purchase a vast majority of the hospital property and limit the commercial development of the property that remains REIS owned.
There is very little detail available at this time other than the Township has signed a letter of intent to have the property appraised and the like.
CPARD will be meeting this weekend to see if we have enough detail to publish a meaningful response. If we do we will then schedule a public meeting on the topic.
If you are not on the mailing list please add your name by sending an email to: cpardinfo@gmail.com
- Steve
CPARD and the Township agreed today in Circuit Court to throw out their subpoena for my (Steve Emsley) email and other documents.
More details will follow after the groups meets.
The county has denied Director Werth’s request on our behalf to have deer crossing signs put up on Seven Mile. The county will not put up the signs until more deer are hit. There are currently two carcasses between Haggerty and Fry but we are not sure they count the “hits” unless they are reported.
Please report any accidents or carcasses you see to the Twp. police so that the signs can be put into place as soon as possible.
Our thanks to Director Werth.
No decisions from closed session on land purchase or litigation.
A meeting has been called for tonight where the Township Board will enter closed session to discuss the purchase of real property and discuss the CPARD litigation. As to the property purchase, if this is in reference to the two old growth lots on the REIS land they may want to investigate the actual condition of the lots as they are today. They are fairly decimated from the photos I have been shown.
As to the CPARD litigation, it is my belief that a trustee or multiple trustees want answers as to why a subpoena was sent to my employer (me being Steve Emsley) on their behalf and why extensive written questions were sent to me. I do not have an electronic copy of the subpoena to post at this time, however, there are several issues with this action. To us it amounts to nothing short of a fishing expedition designed to harass, intimidate, embarrass, annoy, oppress, silence and cause undue financial burden and stress on myself and my employer. My private and/or corporate communications cannot vindicate the Township in this matter. I am thankful for the full support of my employer in this matter.
At this time they have NOT requested cpardinfo@gmail.com nor any other address and I assure you those will be vigorously defended also. It is “interesting” they have only gone after my employer.
Motion for protective order is as follows. Several motions and objections were necessitated by these punitive actions by the Township Board.
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Protective Order and Order to Quash Subpoena
Plaintiffs say:
1) A motion for summary disposition has been scheduled for March 25, 2009. There has been no pretrial. There has been no scheduling order regarding discovery.
2) This case involves a simple issue of whether the defendant Northville Township violated the Open Meetings Act by twice failing to post notice of special meetings for the required 18 hours prior to the special meetings. The notices were posted inside the township hall in places that could not be viewed by the public when the hall closed between 4:30 pm and 8:00 am. Plaintiffs’ position is that of the Michigan Attorney General: the 18 hour requirement is not fulfilled if the public is denied access to the notice for any part of the 18 hours. This is the basis for summary disposition.
3) Northville Township issued a subpoena (Exhibit A) to the employer of one of the plaintiffs, Stephen Emsley. It commands the employer to allow an inspection by a Northville Township forensic expert of employers complete computer system. Northville Township also requests employer to produce over 8000 emails sent or received by plaintiff Emsley. This includes emails sent to his attorney subject to the attorney-client privilege. The subpoena also asks for all emails 1) to and from any of the other nine individual plaintiffs and 2) all emails relating to any of the plaintiffs, Northville Township, REIS, Citizens for Public Accountability and Responsible Development, and any past or present member of the Township Board.
4) Northville Township will not be prejudiced if its subpoena to produce documents (for February 6, 2009) is quashed until a hearing on this motion for a protective order. Employer filed an objection to inspection under MCR 2.305(B) temporarily suspending inspection without an order of the Court. (Exhibit B)
5) Plaintiffs move for a protective order under MCR 2.302(C) and for the Court to quash the subpoena until a hearing on the motion. Plaintiffs will schedule the motion to be heard immediately after the MSD on March 25, 2009.
6) MCR 2.302(C)(1) provides that on motion by a party or by person from whom discovery is sought and on reasonable notice and for good cause shown, court may issue any order that justice requires to protect party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including order that discovery not be had.
7) If plaintiffs’ MSD is granted the case will be over and no discovery will be needed. Discovery will be moot. The discovery will be a wasted expense.
8 ) The subpoenaed documents are neither relevant to the subject matter involved nor are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. It is designed to harass.
9) The discovery requests are designed by the government to annoy plaintiffs and retaliate against them for exercising their rights under the Open Meetings Act. This is an abuse of governmental authority and an abuse of power to harass citizens who disagree with the present government. Through their attorney, plaintiffs asked that defendant delay its request for production of documents until after the motion for summary disposition, but refused to do so in a letter dated January 29, 2009. (Exhibit C)
10) The request is unduly burdensome, is not relevant to any issue in the case, and is designed to annoy and embarrass the plaintiffs and is expensive to both the plaintiffs and plaintiff Emsley’s employer.
11) A delay in receiving any documents will not prejudice the Northville Township. Timing is not an issue. Defendant cannot demonstrate a need to have any requested document before the time set for MSD. The documents shall exist after March 25, 2009. There is no need to have any document at the present time.
12) None of the requested documents is relevant to an issue in the case or will lead to any admissible evidence. The requested material:
a) Is subject to the attorney client privilege,
b) Is subject to the right to privacy and HIPPA,
c) Is voluminous, burdensome and expensive,
d) Will create an annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden and expense,
e) Contains sensitive corporate and business information,
f) Contains trade secrets and business oriented information including personnel file information, personal financial, medical, and legal communications,
g) Is overly broad and conducive to Northville Township mischief if anyone is allowed to access employers computers.
Relief Requested
1. Plaintiffs request a protective order denying defendant’s requested documents in its subpoena.
2. Plaintiffs request an order quashing the subpoena until a hearing on the motion for a protective order.
Our friends on Seven Mile have alerted us to a danger we would like to pass along. It seems the tree cutting is scaring or displacing deer from the hospital property. In the last week these residents have actually stood out by Seven Mile on several occasions flagging motorists to warn them of the herd of deer crossing the road, standing in the road and trying to cross back.
We hope some simple steps will be taken to help with this issue such as putting up a deer crossing sign or thinning the herd if necessary. These would be responsible steps to take to ensure the saftey of the community and the humane treatment of these animals.
