[nfbmi-talk] applies to mcb settlements too

[joe harcz Comcast]

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110927/OPINION01/109270306/County-settlement-must-disclosed?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

 

County settlement must be disclosed | Lansing State Journal | lansingstatejournal.com

Ingham County officials should make public details of a legal settlement involving a former employee who made allegations against Clerk Mike Bryanton.

 

It is, quite simply, the right thing to do. Taxpayers and voters deserve to know how their money is being spent and why. Citizens should be able to honestly

evaluate their elected officials, including Bryanton and county commissioners.

 

Furthermore, Michigan's Freedom of Information laws do not exempt legal settlements from disclosure.

 

In fact, in 2008 the Michigan Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on the question, stating: "There is no FOIA exemption for settlement agreements" and

"Moreover, a public body may not contract away its obligations under the FOIA."

 

The case in question involved disgraced former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who was fighting to keep confidential the details of agreements in which

$8.4 million was paid to settle two police whistle-blower law suits. The Detroit Free Press sued to see the documents. The high court refused to hear Kilpatrick's

appeal, sending it back to a lower court to make the records public.

 

Ingham County Board Chairman Mark Grebner said last week that commissioners had been informally apprised of the pending settlement and that none had objected.

Taxpayers should find that disheartening. The board should act on such matters in public session. Using a municipal risk management pool to settle the

case should not affect transparency. Public money is public money.

 

Furthermore, this cloak of confidentiality leads citizens to draw their own conclusions - and in this case, there are unpleasant conclusions that could

be drawn. The woman who sued alleged that she was forced to resign after being falsely accused of leaving an anonymous telephone message suggesting that

Bryanton was having an affair with another employee. The suit also alleged that the other employee had been promoted and given a sizable raise despite

little experience. Bryanton has defended the promotion and raise, saying the worker was given duties previously done by two employees, and has denied any

affair.

 

Sordid details aside, state law is clear. So is the Supreme Court's ruling.

 

Taxpayers should demand that the settlement be disclosed. End the secrecy.

 

An LSJ editorial

View Comments  |