Letter to the Editor: City attorney issue

Why does Clarkston continue to employ a city attorney who insists on conducting city business in secret?
At the January 9, 2023, council meeting, he insisted that the council not publicly discuss the potential disputes regarding the Mill Pond Bed & Breakfast property, although the council discussed the matter at length at other meetings. He suggested having a subcommittee meeting (not subject to the Open Meetings Act) or that the city should “meet with these folks privately or something”—with the purpose of preventing you from knowing what was going on.
Shouldn’t the taxpayers know what the city is doing if it is contemplating harassing a long-standing business or plunging the city into yet another lawsuit?
Shouldn’t there be some public discussion of why the city picks out certain people for the heavy hand of enforcement while letting others ignore city ordinances?
Nonetheless, without discussion, the council unanimously approved taking the discussion off the agenda.
When the bed and breakfast representative was able to make a public comment, the mayor was quick to tell him that “we won’t have a dialogue at this juncture” and “questions or comments for discussion” would be “reserved” for “another time.”
So, there’s something going on behind the scenes that the city attorney and the council don’t want you to know about.
You’ll hear about it after the fact, when it’s too late to avoid the additional cost to taxpayers of another city-attorney-led lawsuit.
Why is the city still employing this guy?
Why does the council blindly follow his advice?
Richard Bisio

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.