Even though a judge has formally ordered the dissolution of the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission, it appears the court battles between the village and township will continue to rage on a while longer.
‘It is hereby ordered that OPFEC shall be dissolved,? wrote Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Wendy Potts in her Feb. 23 order. ‘Any further disputes between the parties, including the distribution of assets, shall be determined by binding arbitration.?
‘Once a party withdraws, leaving only one remaining party, no authority can exist,? wrote Judge Potts. ‘After the proper withdrawal by the (township), the assets of OPFEC must be distributed.?
The Feb. 23 order is the culmination of a lawsuit the township filed in July 2003 seeking a declaration from the circuit court as to whether its withdrawal from OPFEC would cause the dissolution of the safety authority which oversees the Oxford Fire Department.
The OPFEC board consists of all five village council memebers and all seven township board members.
However, the ink was barely dry on the dissolution order, when the village filed a motion Feb. 24 for contempt/violation of court order against the township.
The village asserts the township violated Potts Feb. 7 court order with regard to the placement of Fire/ALS millage requests on the May 3 ballot.
In her Feb. 7 order ? which both the township board and village council voted on and agreed to ? Judge Potts stated, ‘If OPFEC does not timely authorize a millage for ALS/Operating millage by (Feb. 16, 2005) , then it is ordered that the township may place a ballot question(s) for an ALS/Operating millage across the incorporated and unincorporated (village) portions of the township to be voted on in the May 2005 election.?
At its Feb. 16 meeting, OPFEC was unable to reach an agreement for the placement of any fire or ALS millages on the May ballot.
But the village asserts this is because of the township’s ‘unilateral contemptuous behavior? at its Feb. 9 meeting when it made decisions regarding the ballot language for two millage requests and two bond proposals concerning the fire department.
At the Feb. 9 meeting, the township board voted 4-3 to ‘go with? separate ballot proposals for a fire/EMS operating millage and an ALS millage request.
Officials then voted 4-3 to direct the clerk or treasurer to ‘come up with? separate bond proposals for a new fire engine and the addition of living quarters to Fire Station #1 on N. Washington St.
At a special township board meeting on Feb. 17 ? the day after the Feb. 16 OPFEC meeting ? officials voted to finalize approval of the ballot language and authorized its placement on the May 3 ballot.
However, the village considers the township’s Feb. 9 votes regarding the ballot proposals to be in violation of Potts? Feb. 7 court order.
‘The township’s preemptive action on February 9, 2005 creates irreparable harm because it foreclosed any meaningful deliberation, discussion and thoughtful consideration by OPFEC members on the millage issue given the ‘predecision? by the township. This is exactly why the February 7, 2005 Order was entered to protect against,? stated the village in its motion.
In a Feb. 16 letter to OPFEC and included with the village’s Feb. 24 motion, Councilman Steve Allen stated the township’s actions ‘took away the village’s right to lobby and discuss the millage issue? and ‘telegraphed (the township’s) inclinations of the required OPFEC vote on the millage, prior to our (Feb. 16) meeting.?
As for the Feb. 17 township meeting when final approval was given to the proposals? language and placement on the ballot, the village stated in its motion for contempt/violation of court order, ‘The township then scampered to cover the contemptuous and deliberate behavior once a formal request by the village was made for the tape of the township’s February 9, 2005 meeting and the township tried desperately to say it was not a final decision and then quickly set another meeting to further cover this behavior.?
Township attorney Gary Rentrop said the township’s action on Feb. 9 was proper in that officials reached a ‘consensus? as to the separation of millage proposals and which versions of various draft ballot language to use. He said this was done given the deadline to file language with the county for the May election was 4 p.m. Feb. 22.
He said the township was not in violation of the court order because it did not ‘place? the proposals on the ballot at the Feb. 9 meeting. The township’s final approval of the ballot language and the direction to place it on the ballot did not come until the Feb. 17 meeting ? the day after the Feb. 16 OPFEC meeting. The actual ballot language was not filed with Oakland County until Feb. 22.
In its Feb. 24 motion, the village has requested, among other things, that Judge Potts declare the township violated the Feb. 7 court order and find it in contempt; render the township’s Feb. 9 votes on the ballot issues ‘null and void?; and dismiss the township’s suit seeking the dissolution of OPFEC because it has ‘unclean hands.?
Judge Potts will hear the village’s motion for contempt/violation of court order against the township on Wednesday, March 9.
Although the village and township both agreed in the Feb. 7 court order ‘to waive any appeal? of the judge’s ruling concerning OPFEC’s dissolution, the village’s Feb. 24 motion, even if denied by Potts, will give it a basis for appeal.
‘I would also like to thank you for giving us the right to appeal by violating the Court Order,? wrote Councilman Allen in his Feb. 16 letter to OPFEC that was included with the village’s motion.