|
HOLLY TOWNSHIP, Michigan – Holly Township residents Timm and Maria Smith had another bone to pick with Holly Township officials Wednesday night as the couple used the public comment segment of the meeting to accuse three members of violating the Open Meetings Act, and Clerk Karin Winchester of allegedly directing a rude hand gesture their way during normal business hours at the Holly Township Offices.
Timm Smith said the alleged Open Meetings Act violation occurred during the afternoon of Tuesday, Jan. 8 when he and his wife paid a visit to the township offices in order to obtain a copy of the December Holly Township Board of Trustees meeting minutes.
Upon entering the office, Timm said Winchester was not seated at her desk.
“When I walked to the back, I saw (Treasurer) Mark Freeman, you (Supervisor) Dale Smith, and Karin Winchester all in the back part of the room,” Timm said. “Karin Winchester was half in and half out of (Dale Smith’s) office, and I waited politely to get the minutes.”
Winchester informed Timm that the meeting minutes were not yet available before the conversation then turned to the lawsuit in which the Smiths and the township are currently engaged.
“That was neither here nor there because we’ve had many discussions like that,” Timm said. “But Ms. Winchester went around behind her desk and as I left, I asked her if the ballot proposal for the seven trustees had passed,” he added. “She looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘No it hasn’t Mr. Smith,’ and I said ‘Great, then that was an Open Meetings Act violation – that was a quorum I saw back there.’”
Timm said the conversation among Smith, Winchester and Freeman had stopped abruptly upon the officials realizing he was standing in the hallway.
“The other thing that was obvious to me is that something was going on because as soon as I walked in there, the conversation stopped,” he said.
Following her husband’s comments, Maria Smith added another detail about the discussion that day.
“Basically when we were wrapping up our discussion with Karin (Winchester), she gave us the bird – she flipped us the finger,” Maria said.
“No I didn’t,” Winchester said from her seat.
“Yes you did, clearly you did,” Maria said. “And because of that, I want you to step down – I’m also asking for an apology because I believe that you’re taking your position in office to an emotional extreme.”
Calling Winchester’s alleged gesture a violation of her Oath of Office, Maria told Winchester that she is supposed to show respect to all citizens, regardless of whether or not she agrees with them.
“I’ve never called you a name, and I’ve never spoken out of turn,” Maria said. “I expect the same in return every time I have any dealings with you.”
Turning to Dale Smith, Maria continued.
“You weren’t a witness to it because you were in the back office, Mr. Smith, but she gave me the bird,” Maria said. “She flipped my husband and I off, essentially saying, ‘F-you.’ Is this what our re-elected official is supposed to be representing to Holly?”
Maria inquired as to whom she should file a formal complaint both about the alleged Open Meetings Act violation, as well as Winchester’s alleged obscene gesture.
Speaking as a township resident, Holly Councilwoman Jackie Campbell reminded board members that they are to respect and uphold the rights of all citizens. “I have gone to Ms. Winchester on more than one occasion and said, ‘OMA, OMA, five-alarm OMA,’ because there were three (board) members on more than one occasion that were in a quorum at the time,” Campbell said. “And it wasn’t a joke between Ms. Winchester and I – it was a friendly FYI to be careful of what you’re doing.”
Township resident Hollie Spear said he was stunned by the Smiths’ accusations. “If Ms. Winchester really did give the finger, I am totally stunned,” Spear said. “I’m just so taken aback by it – and if you really did do that, you should really do some soul searching and possibly resign.”
Oakland Street resident Tiffany Golden said accusations of OMA violations usually boil down to a “board versus the people who witness it” issue.
“Would it be possible to have recording equipment of some kind in place in the offices that any time there is more than one board member in the office, you just click it on?” she asked. “If nothing else, could you have an audio recording of what’s going on?”
On Thursday, Winchester vehemently denied the allegations, saying the Smiths’ accusations were the result of the desperation they feel over the pending litigation that is currently lodged in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
“The lawsuit should be coming to an end soon,” Winchester said. “It’s just too bad they are resorting to false allegations and personal attacks.”
Dale Smith asked the Smiths to put their complaints in writing for his review. “I’m the board supervisor – not the supervisor of all board members, but I will discuss it with (Winchester) and she can give you a written response,” he said. “If you feel it’s something you need to take to the prosecutor’s office, I’ll give you the phone number or whatever you need, and if there is something I need to do, I’ll do that as well.”
|
The Boomerang
Community Champions
‘Leadership Day’ spotlights su...
‘Leadership Day’ spotlights su...
HAS reports no significant bud...
HAS reports no significant bud...
HAS reports no significant bud...
Comments
It is important to keep in mind that the OMA applies to governmental bodies, those “empowered by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution or rule to exercise…governmental authority.” It does not apply to corporations, non-profits, churches or the like.
The law guarantees several rights of citizens. The public has a right to record meetings, within the bounds of reasonable rules which the public body may write to minimize disruption of the meetings. The public, likewise, has a right to address the public body, also within the bounds of rules written to facilitate orderly meetings and protecting everyone’s right to address the board. An individual can only be removed from a meeting for a breach of the peace committed at that meeting.
Social or chance gatherings, or conferences which are not intended to avoid the OMA, are exempt. These types of gatherings often are treated with suspicion by the press and the public. It is important for public bodies to be careful not to discuss government business during these gatherings. This can be accomplished by paying careful attention to what the OMA says about deliberations and decisions.
Were the three staff members discussing and/or moving toward deciding on public policy when the Smiths arrived at the office? My guess is no...
You may remember that there was a proposal on the ballot in November asking the Holly Township voters if they would like to increase the board from 5 to 7 members. Personally, I voted for this change. I think having a 7-member board is a good idea. But unfortunately, not enough people in the Township agreed to add the extra members and the proposal failed due to lack of support.
At this time, it is a moot point. There's no need to rehash the issue if the Township residents voted and decided NOT to add additional board members. To continue bringing up this issue just doesn't make sense.
This whole situation is crazy.
From MI.gov:
15.263 (10) This act does not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance gathering or conference not designed to avoid this act.
15.268
A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:
(d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained.
Esperance v Chesterfield Township, 89 Mich App 456 (1979)
Those seeking to have decision of public body invalidated under the Open Meetings Act must allege not only that the public body failed to comply with the Act, but also that such failure impaired rights of the public.
Moore v Fennville Public Schools Board of Education, 223 Mich App 196 (1997)
A public body may arrive at a conclusion as to negotiating strategy at a closed meeting. That conclusion is not a “decision” that the Open Meetings Act requires to be made at an open meeting.
Freeman and Karin Winchester. They are always extremely polite and friendly. They take the time to answer any questions or concerns that I have.
bgiving, I agree with all of your comments. The township is getting a lot of flack over the Smith property. The trouble lies between the Smiths and their mortgage company.
So to clarify.. What I said above was not an attack (or defense) of any of the current board members. It was regarding the failed proposal to add two more members to IN MY OPINION better represent the members of the community. I am not going to get involved in a he said, she said thing here. In my brief contacts with Karin and Mark to be pleasant, polite and professional. Others may have different circumstances and experiences. Since I wasn't there for this alledged violation or the "bird sighting" I cannot and will not comment on it. I spoke publicly about the rumor mongering that goes on which I fell into some months ago. I can't stop others from doing it but I will do nothing to encourage it or engage in it. The facts will sort themselves out and until then, I'm willing to wait.
So I hope this clears up my position on this. I hope all residents have managed to stay safe during this cold we have been experiencing.
Wake up to what happened next. The township took away my rights as a private citizen to acquire this property, by pressuring PHH mortgage (Roger Walsh told them in a letter that the township would begin fining PHH for ordinance violations, which caused the "gift" of the parcel). As a citizen of this nation, I have the right to private property, as does other citizens. By taking ownership (still to be determined whether it was legal ownership) of the property, the township stopped any foreclosure sale that we the citizens could have availed ourselves. Remember that each of our elected officials swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, to me that means upholding the rights guaranteed within the Constitution.
I just read the Smith's Appellate Court brief at the link in Maria Smith's letter, and apparently the title to the property is not even in the township's name. This was affirmed by Mr. Freeman in a recent township meeting where they were going to "split the property for tax reasons". So they have no title to the property, but have forced the eviction of the very citizens that they were elected to represent.
Lets see what the Appellate Court rules. Everything is riding on that decision, and it could get expensive if the township loses. Apparently that is a risk they were willing to take.
Settle it.
RSS feed for comments to this post