Clarkston City Council’s closed session, March 9, remains a concern for resident Mark McCloy.
“Do all council members agree to the rationale of a closed meeting,? McCloy asked at the March 26 Clarkston City Council meeting. ‘I fail to understand why the council cannot say ‘we may have made a mistake’ and ‘we have learned’ and that talking behind closed doors about a environmental issue about a commercial property is not public business with a right to know.?
Mayor Joe Luginski, and council members Mike Sabol and Eric Haven said they stand behind their vote to enter closed session.
Councilman Tom Hunter, who also voted to enter closed session, said his understanding was the city attorney did not draw up a memo before the closed session, which would have guaranteed the session was legal. His vote was cast based on attorney advice.
Councilwoman Sharron Catallo recused herself before the March 9 meeting over conflict of interest and council member David Marsh was absent.
Council member Richard Bisio, who voted against closed session, said he still considers it an illegal act by the city.
He agreed preparing a memo would have made the meeting legit and not a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
If there were enough council member votes to enter the session was also questioned.
Bisio, an attorney, said closed session requires two-thirds of of the seven elected members to enter. He and Ryan disagreed whether that meant four or five.
Bisio said he plans to ask state officials about the number of votes required for a closed session.
‘I will perhaps ask our state representative to seek an opinion from the attorney general as to what that phrase in the Open Meetings Act means, and whether a council can reduce the number of votes required for a closed meeting by having one or more members recuse themselves,? Bisio said.
If minutes from the session will be made public is also a concern.
Clerk Sandy Miller said minutes from the March 9 session were not yet completed. Also, usually any minutes from closed sessions are put into a white envelope, sealed and placed in the city vault.
Luginski said he does not recall the city having many closed sessions or ever getting minutes from those sessions.
‘Minutes should be presented to council in a closed session,? said Bisio.
He insisted before the meeting occurred it was a violation of the Open Meetings Act, which is a law defining when the public can be shut out from meetings.
Bisio said OMA did not include holding a closed session for an oral discussion that did not contain legal advice from the attorney.
Luginski said four of five council members voted yes to enter the session, which was evoked by city attorney Tom Ryan at the March 9 meeting under attorney-client privilege.
Before the closed session, Bisio insisted it should not be held to discuss retention and detention storm-water issues over a downtown property.
Bisio later disclosed meeting details and said Ryan sought advice from council on how to proceed with talks with the 148 Main Street Developer.
Open Meetings Act permits public bodies to enter closed sessions on certain occasions such as discussing personnel matters, evaluating and disciplining an employee, collective bargaining, property purchase negotiation, and discussion of employment applications.
Closed sessions are permitted to with city legal council only if an open meeting would have a “detrimental financial effect” on the city’s position.
The council can go into closed session to discuss material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal law, but “a board is not permitted to go into closed session to discuss an attorney’s oral opinion, as opposed to a written legal memorandum.”
City officials breaking the law is a major concern for many residents.
‘So what good is a council that seems to not follow rules/laws that have been set in place. Am I missing something here,? asked Jesse Moyet of Independence Township on Facebook. ‘This is the kind of behavior that gives politicians a bad name, this right here.?
City officials said Ryan will be at the next meeting to discuss why he suggested the closed session.