Former Clarkston City Council member Richard Bisio’s lawsuit against the city is one last thing he says he can do to fight for government transparency.
“The city attorney almost invited a lawsuit by adamantly insisting that the closed session of the council was valid until a court says otherwise,” Bisio said. “But, in any event, given the city attorney’s statements about the closed session, what is a public record, and needing to ‘adjust’ the information coming out of city hall and the council majority’s acquiescence in this thinking, I think a court suit is the only way to change the city’s perception of its obligation to conduct business in public.”
The suit, filed June 2, calls for the Sixth Circuit Court to determine city council violated the state Open Meetings Act with a closed meeting on March 9 as well as an exchange of emails on April 18-19, and order an end to such practices.
“This action is brought to vindicate the rights of the citizens of the City of the Village of Clarkston and the public in general to open, transparent government,” Bisio said in the lawsuit.
The city has 21 days to respond to the suit, he said.
Mayor Joe Luginski said he learned of the lawsuit from the media.
“Need to better understand it before commenting,” Luginski said in an email, after a request for comment. “Yes, I believe the council is appropriately transparent ? the motion to go into a closed meeting was already on the table for a vote, so it was voted on and passed with only Richard Bisio voting against it.”
The suit requests an award of court costs for the plaintiff, but no money for punitive damages.
“I could have hired a separate lawyer, but that would have meant more fees. I don’t want to cost tax payers extra money,” Bisio said. “The city will incur a cost defending against the suit ? (but) I’m not looking to cause monetary damage.”
Residents are entitled to know how the city reaches decisions on how and why tax money is spent, he said.
“I want them to be more sensitive to requirements to conduct public business in the open,” he said.
According to the minutes of the March 9 City Council meeting, city attorney Tom Ryan requested the council go into closed session to discuss attorney/client privilege issue regarding rezoning of 148 N. Main Street ? “Bisio objected, citing Mr. Ryan did not provide his memo prior to the meeting. Bisio stated he did not believe the meeting should be closed based on the information he had. Ryan withdrew his request.”
Council member Sharron Catallo recused herself from the discussion, and Council member David Marsh was absent. Luginski and council members Thomas Hunter, Eric Haven, and Mike Sabol voted to go into closed session. Bisio voted “no.”
The Open Meetings Act requires a two-thirds vote to go into closed session. The four “yes” votes out of seven do not meet that threshold, Bisio said in the lawsuit.
The Open Meetings Act also requires a written legal memorandum from the city attorney to allow a closed session.
The memorandum submitted by Ryan at the meeting does not qualify, Bisio said.
Ryan’s March 9 document states, “Please see the attached Attorney-Client Privilege Memorandum that is attached from Thomas E. Biehl, Executive Vice President of Hubble, Roth and Clark, Inc., relative to the above matter. Please distribute to all Council Members, with the exception of Sharron Catallo, because of her conflict of interest in this matter.”
On March 11, Bisio posted information and comments on his Facebook page regarding 148 N. Main and the closed meeting.
The postings prompted a series of emails amongst five members of the city council, Luginski, Catallo, Haven, Hunter, and Sabol (see “Council members exchange emails”).
The Open Meetings Act requires all decisions be made at a meeting open to the public, Bisio said.

Council members exchange emails

These emails were exchanged by council members on April 18-19, and copied to council members David Marsh and Richard Bisio, and City Manager Carol Eberhardt.
Sharron Catallo, April 18, 9:25 p.m.: I am disappointed that a letter sent this week to the Council for consideration was placed on a social media site by a member of the City Council, long before the members of Council had made a decision to even discuss the option. I think that this over-sharing was nothing more then old-fashioned grandstanding and could have waited until after a council discussion. Maybe I’m wrong but I have always considered that the Council works as a unit, in voting the majority rules, we always stand behind those decisions no matter which side our individual vote was cast. Now all of a sudden, one of us, is prematurely releasing, what at this time is essentially private correspondence to a social media audience. I don’t think that fosters trust, to write a letter to the City Council and take the chance of becoming Facebook fodder, is not what a resident of the Village should expect and it isn’t what I expect of anyone serving on the City Council. Please note: This is not for publication, Thank You
Eric Haven, April 18, 10:46 p.m.: I emphatically agree, Sharon!
Joe Luginski, April 19, 12:12 p.m.: I agree and have already talked to Mr. Bisio about this. I will not speak for Mr. Bisio as I do not want to misrepresent his reasons for posting the letter on Facebook. I would suggest that if any of you want an explanation to contact Mr. Bisio directly or ask Carol to add this topic to the agenda at the next council meeting for discussion.
Tom Hunter, April 19, 12:57 p.m.: I also agree.
Mike Sabol, April 19, 1:07 p.m.: I agree with the discussion string here and the comments made but since I am no longer engaged with the vampiristic Facebook or its minions, I am completely unaware of the specific subject matter and I have no plans on engaging it to find out. Is there a letter in my mailbox at City Hall?
Eric Haven, April 19, 2:27 p.m.: Fellow council members, I recommend putting the issue Joe is identifying below on the agenda for our next council meeting for discussion. If Mr. Bisio would write his reasons for public postings of negotiations in progress, I would appreciate reading them. I also recommend Carol provide all the council members with a copy of our ethics policy for review prior to the meeting.