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.”
