Note: links to the video recording and the council packet can be found at the bottom of this post. Please note any errors or omissions in the comments. Anything noted between brackets was inserted by Clarkston Sunshine.
Meeting:
City Manager Jonathan Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the rules for virtual meetings as they were presented on screen.
Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:01:25):
Haven welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:01:28):
Pledge said.
Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:01:47):
Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Casey, and Joe Luginski were present in Clarkston, Michigan. Jason Kniesc was present in Vancouver, Washington. Sue Wylie was present in Saugatuck, Michigan. Ed Bonser was absent.
Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:04:18):
Motion to approve the agenda by Wylie; second by Avery.
No discussion.
Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:04:59):
Chet Pardee comments:
Tonight is a special evening because council is approving a settlement in Bisio v Clarkston. This issue has been tarnishing the reputation of Clarkton for more than five years.
But just what is the settlement? No content is provided to the citizens of Clarkston. When will this information be provided to the citizens? Why is the public not being exposed to the entire settlement content for which the public is paying? Other citizens of Michigan must pay for the attorney costs for defending the city that surely are more than half a million dollars. Why are city officials keeping the public from understanding the proposed settlement?
Will the settlement content appear on a plaque in city hall? The driveway cost award was more than $50,000. Does $35,000, or the estimated citizen savings, not qualify for a plaque? The savings from the $350,000 estimate by Mr. Tamm and acknowledged by the city manager in June 2020 could be referenced.
Will anyone acknowledge that no copy of the MML errors and omissions insurance policy existed in Clarkston until the issue was raised? I’ve asked only partially in jest how many councilmembers would need to resign for the MML errors and omissions insurance to provide coverage.
Was it ironic or strategic that the city attorney who usually has an answer for most questions was unable to answer whether his professional liability insurance would cover his errors in judgment as determined by the Michigan Supreme Court?
Will the mayor finally explain on what principle the city’s unwillingness to provide the FOIA requested information based? Should citizens be concerned that this same principle will be applied in the future?
No one has explained why the 18 documents were withheld. Many have speculated based on who was driving the Waldon and Main issue and who was involved the development of 148 N. Main. These were the subjects of the 18 withheld documents. Perhaps these questions will be answered when the full settlement is disclosed.
No other public comments.
Agenda Item #6, Discussion: In-Person Meetings (Video time mark 0:07:50):
-
- City Manager Comments on Resuming In-Person Meetings, March 30, 2021 (page 3/7 of the council packet)
Haven said that Smith provided a summary of the current state of affairs which is contained in the packet. This agenda item is for discussion of that.
Luginski had a question about #5 and #6 where Smith said that there can only be 16 people in the room based on social distancing requirements and if one more person wanted to attend, the meeting would have to be terminated. If we went somewhere else that was larger and could hold up to the 25 people that social distancing allows, if a 26th person came into the room, we would have to terminate the meeting. Today, in the room where we would normally hold meetings, what is the capacity allowed in that room, assuming no restrictions and things were normal? What does the Fire Marshall code allow in that room? Smith said that 44 people would be allowed.
Luginski asked if times were normal and a 45th person showed up, and they weren’t allowed into the room under the Fire Marshall’s rules, would we have to terminate the meeting then as well? Smith said it’s a local requirement, not a state requirement, but we have had cases in the past where we violated the 20-22 person capacity. We are fortunate that the Fire Marshall didn’t come to shut us down. By rights, if a 45th person were to walk into the room, we should honor the Fire Marshall code and stop the meeting to respect the capacity limit. The Fire Marshall code is different than the MDHHS (Michigan Department of Health and Human Services) code.
Luginski asked Ryan if that was accurate because if we have to do that, then in theory we should be holding meetings at Ford Field just in case we have 45 people show up. Ryan said that Smith was correct, and maybe we breached the Fire Marshall’s code under the old building and configuration and probably shouldn’t have. This is a whole different animal with the 6 feet and the masking issue.
Luginski said he understood the logic and reasoning of #5 and #6 is that the room isn’t big enough, and if we have one more person than we can accommodate, we have to terminate the meeting. He wondered if that holds true for normal times with the normal amount of people, 44-45 or whatever the number is. Ryan said yes, it should hold going into the future as well, and that’s why we’ve used other venues such as the Fire Hall for some issues when we knew that we would have a big crowd. It’s true for normal and abnormal times. Whatever the limits are should be honored.
Luginski said that in #7, Smith referenced speakers and video equipment being complex and expensive. Luginski said that he’s mentioned a number of times that it doesn’t have to be. As a temporary solution, you can get either USB or Bluetooth speakers. USB speakers are cheaper. They plug into your laptop, and you can daisy chain three or four of them together. They each cost around $25, so for around $100, you could daisy chain those speakers to act as a microphone and a speaker so people could talk and hear at the same time on those units. You could plug those into a laptop and do the hybrid meeting with Go to Meeting on your laptop, and anyone who would be dialing or calling in could follow along just as they do today. Many people today choose to call in and aren’t on the video to see the presentation. It could be accomplished relatively inexpensively. This isn’t a permanent solution, but it could be accomplished relatively inexpensively and isn’t overly complicated.
Luginski thought he may be alone in this and everyone can have their own opinion, but he was not in favor of declaring a state of emergency just to avoid face-to-face meetings. Schools are open, restaurants are open, capacities are getting larger, our city offices are open, churches are open, and face-to-face businesses are open. Luginski had three face-to-face meetings in the last week, and two of them were lunch meetings. Luginski thinks that with the right precautions, the right equipment, and the proper guidelines, we should and could very well go back to face-to-face meetings. Other communities and counties are doing it, even though some aren’t, but we don’t have to do or not do it just because others are or aren’t doing it. There is a safe way to do it.
Wylie spoke in favor of continuing the state of emergency and having the city declare a state of emergency because she thinks we should not be going back to in-person meetings. As Luginski said, and as Smith has noted in the introduction to the resolution, there are a lot of communities that have already declared states of emergency. Wylie did a quick Google search before the meeting and saw that Wayne County and the City of Detroit have done so to continue virtual meetings. The virus numbers are going up, and many people, not just in council but in other groups, are very, very uncomfortable with that. We’re not children with less risk. Many of us are older, and Wylie asked everyone to vote with respect and compassion for those who would prefer not to meet in person.
Luginski said that to Wylie’s point, and perhaps Ryan knew the answer, no one is forcing anyone to come to a face-to-face meeting. If we were doing the hybrid scenario, if a council person didn’t feel comfortable, something he totally respects, would that person have the opportunity to dial in and be part of the meeting? Ryan said that under Public Act 254, after March 31st, a medical reason for not appearing is allowed, but there is a protocol about letting the presiding officer know and making sure that person can be contacted prior to the meeting relative to matters that may be voted on by that person.
No additional discussion.
Agenda Item #7, Resolution: Continuing of the Local State of Emergency – Resolution continuing a state of emergency to address the outbreak of COVID-19 virus in the City of the Village of Clarkston (Video time mark 0:17:16):
-
- Resolution Continuing a State of Emergency to Address the Outbreak of COVID-19 Virus in the City of the Village of Clarkston (page 4/7 of the council packet)
Haven didn’t want to belabor the “whereas” clauses, but he said he would read the resolution so that anyone present can understand what it is. This would be effective until June 30th or until the city council determines that the local state of emergency no longer exists and terminates the declaration.
Resolution was supported by Wylie; second by Casey.
Ryan said that we were hopeful that the state would enact SB 207 that would have extended PA 254 to June 30, 2021. The state legislature didn’t act. We discussed this at the last regular city council meeting. PA 254 left local units of government the option to deem a local emergency until 12/31/2021, so we have that option. Some communities are doing this because they don’t have the physical space to hold an in-person meeting, others are saying that, as the resolution notes, Michigan is unfortunately going in the wrong direction on cases. That’s a public record, and the variants are not good relative to the State of Michigan right now. It’s within the local unit’s discretion if you would like to continue with this idea. If you adopt this resolution and the circumstances change relative to the rollout of the vaccines, the variant issues, or the fact that the positivity rate is going down and is low, council can decide before June 30th to go back to normal.
Haven asked if it could be extended to the end of the year. Ryan said that under PA 254, the answer is yes. The ability to have no reason virtual meetings at local discretion would end on 12/31/2021. Hopefully, this will be the last resolution if you adopt it.
No additional discussion.
The resolution passed. Luginski voted no.
Agenda Item #8, Closed Session to Discuss Pending Litigation – To hold a closed session meeting as permitted by state statute MCL 15.268(e) to discuss the Bisio v City of Clarkston lawsuit (Oakland County Circuit Court case number 2015-150462-CZ pending before Honorable Leo Bowman) (Video time mark 0:23:09)
-
- Motion – Bisio Lawsuit Settlement Agreement (page 7/7 of the council packet) [No settlement agreement was attached]
This is a resolution to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation. Haven read from the resolution. The purpose is to discuss the Bisio v Clarkston lawsuit.
Resolution was supported by Avery; second by Wylie.
Ryan said that there needs to be a 2/3 vote to close the meeting.
Pardee asked what the council’s intention was with regard to reconvening and communicating with the public? Haven said that the council was required to do that. Smith said that he would explain after the vote before they adjourn the open session.
The resolution passed unanimously.
Smith said that they learned from the last session that if you are calling in from your computer, you will be bumped off when the meeting is closed. You can join immediately, and your space will be held until the meeting resumes and the council rejoins the group. If you are calling in from your phone, your call will be terminated after 10 minutes of waiting and you have to call in again. They are estimating that the closed session will take approximately one-half hour, so they can estimate that the public meeting will resume at 8:00 p.m. Smith said people could text or call him on his cell phone, but he would just tell everyone to call in a few minutes before 8:00 and they will be ready to go when the meeting resumes. They will not continue the public meeting before 8:00. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #1 below.]
Pardee said his question was answered.
Haven said that they would now temporarily adjourn the open meeting and start the closed meeting.
Item 8a – Call to Order
[This agenda item took place during the closed session.]
Item 8b – Roll Call
[This agenda item took place during the closed session.]
Item 8c – Discussion: Pending litigation with attorney Mark Peyser
[This agenda item took place during the closed session.]
Item 8d – Motion: End of closed session
[This agenda item took place during the closed session.]
Agenda Item #9, Resume open session (Video time mark N/A)
[The recording was not started when the session resumed and there is no record of a formal call to order or roll call.]
Agenda Item #10, Motion: Bisio Lawsuit Settlement Agreement (Video time mark N/A)
[The recording was not started when the session resumed and there is no record regarding who sponsored the motion, seconded the motion, or any discussion on the motion.]
Motion passed unanimously (Video time mark 0:26:47)
Agenda Item #11, Adjourn (Video time mark 0:27:16)
Haven made a motion to adjourn; second by Avery.
No discussion.
Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously.
Smith asked to make a comment. He had trouble getting the recording restarted after the council returned from closed session. He was able to capture the unanimous vote on the motion. He didn’t capture Pardee’s comments, so he wanted the recording to reflect that Pardee asked about the full agreement and why it wasn’t being shown. They responded that it’s not being shown because the full agreement hadn’t been fully accepted by the involved parties, though at some point it will be. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #2 below.] At this time, they don’t know the date when the full agreement will be released.
Pardee said that if the recording was still going, he wanted to note that he asked whether or not the full agreement was available to all council members in the closed session and was told that it was. Smith said that Pardee was correct.
Meeting adjourned.
Resources:
-
- Link to video recording – http://216.11.46.126/VOD/3411-ClarkstonCityCouncil-3-30-2021-v1/vod.mp4
- 20210330 – City Council packet