Dear editor:
(In response to ‘These violations must cease,? The Citizen, May 31, page 6)
Dear Ms. Arnold:
As legal counsel for the Atlas Township Planning Commission, I must respond to your open letter to the planning commissioners, not because of your complete misstatement of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, (MCL 15.261 et. seq.) and its 32 years of developing case law and attorney general opinions, or the utterly untrue allegation of ‘secret subcommittee? meetings of the planning commission, but rather the leveling of criminal charges against the commissioners themselves. Consequently, I have advised them to seek counsel regarding your libelous allegations and recommend they seek retractions pursuant to MCL 600.2911 (2)(b).
In consideration of the fact that I have attended nearly every planning commission meeting since approximately 1998, I can assure you no violations of the Open Meetings Act have occurred.
The authority granted the commission through state law and township ordinance has remained with them, and has not been delegated to any subcommittee. They alone deliberate and decide the decisions of public policy within their limited jurisdictional authority, as they are largely a recommending body to the township board.
That said, there are many instances where they will volunteer for fact finding duties, such as counting cars on township roads for hours at a time to avoid expensive traffic studies, literally driving and cataloging every mile of road in the township, counting houses to attempt to determine vehicle trips, etc. Fact finding or administrative recommendations are not subject to the notice requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
The commission members deliberate and make policy decisions at their properly noticed monthly meetings typically attended by only one or two citizens. To serve diligently on behalf of the community and be accused of a crime by a newly declared township board candidate is unconscionable.
David L. Lattie
Attorney at Law