[nfbmi-talk] clear as mud on court of claims bill

[joe harcz Comcast]

This will effect us but I'm not certain how. I don't think others including those who wrote tis can explain it either....

Joe

GOP-backed bill would shift how lawsuits handled in Michigan Court of Claims By Paul Egan Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau A controversial bill speeding

through the Legislature would send a much larger volume and wider array of cases to a revamped Michigan Court of Claims, says the former chief judge of

the Ingham County Circuit Court. Under Senate Bill 652, lawsuits involving the State of Michigan now heard by circuit judges around the state would instead

be heard by one of four specially assigned Michigan Court of Appeals judges, Ingham Judge William Collette said Friday. The bill, which was introduced

Oct. 24 and passed the full Senate on Wednesday, has been seen as a way to sidestep the Ingham County Circuit Court, where the Court of Claims is now housed,

because many GOP lawmakers view the Ingham County court as too friendly to Democrats. Only about 100 cases a year involving alleged torts by the state

or its agencies are filed in the Court of Claims. There's disagreement over whether the bill would have the effect Collette identified. But it's clear

the bill adds language that expands the types of cases the Court of Claims will hear. It says the revamped Court of Claims would have exclusive jurisdiction

over any state action involving a "demand for monetary, equitable or declaratory relief, or any demand for an extraordinary writ. And it says the revamped

court would have that jurisdiction notwithstanding any other state law that says otherwise. Collette, who served as chief judge in Ingham County in 2002-11

and is now one of five Ingham County judges who hear Court of Claims cases, said that wording would result in state civil rights, environmental, Open Meetings

Act and Freedom of Information Act cases - as well as many other cases now handled locally - being sent to one of four specially assigned Court of Appeals

judges. Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, the bill's sponsor, denied Friday that his bill expands the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. But he also said:

"I think that if you're going to sue the State of Michigan in any fashion, it ought to go the Court of Claims. Jones' bill is to be taken up Tuesday by

the House Government Operations Committee, where the chairman, Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, said he hopes to send it to the full House the same day.

The four judges who would hear the Court of Claims cases would be selected by the Michigan Supreme Court, where Republican-nominated justices have a 5-2

majority. Democrats have denounced the bill as a partisan attack on the independence of the judiciary by the GOP-controlled Legislature. Republicans such

as Lund, who supports the bill, said it makes no sense to have cases affecting the entire state decided by judges in one county elected by a tiny percentage

of the state's population. "I think it's important for the people of the state of Michigan that everybody gets equal say on something like this," Lund

said. "It's about representation. Collette has handled emergency manager and Open Meetings Act cases brought against the state by Highland Park union activist

Robert Davis. Some of Collette's rulings in those cases were appealed by the state and overturned by the Court of Appeals. But none of those cases was

filed in the Court of Claims. Davis filed them in Ingham County Circuit Court. Bob LaBrant, senior counsel to the political consulting firm the Sterling

Corp. who spoke in favor of the bill Tuesday at the Senate Judiciary Committee, said suits like those filed by Davis would continue to be heard by circuit

courts - not the Court of Claims - if SB 652 becomes law. Despite the added wording related to jurisdiction, only tort cases will go to the Court of Claims,

LaBrant said. Unless Davis is claiming damages for an alleged tort, those suits will continue to be heard by circuit courts, LaBrant said. But Art Przybylowicz,

general counsel to the Michigan Education Association, said it's clear the bill "greatly expands the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. If passed, the

bill would shift to one of the four designated Court of Appeals judges an Open Meetings Act case that is now before Collette over the closing of the Capitol

during the right-to-work debate in December, Przybylowicz said. Shifting cases already under way to hand-picked judges will not inspire public confidence

in the impartiality of the courts, he said. "It's just terrible public policy. Collette noted he was appointed by former Republican Gov. William Milliken

and said he has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans. He said he rules based on state law and the constitution and denied a partisan leaning.

The appellate practice section of the State Bar of Michigan opposes the bill, said Brian Shannon, an appellate attorney in Southfield. Shannon said he's

concerned the Court of Appeals, which is not a trial court, will be asked to carry out a trial court function. He also doesn't like that appeals from the

revamped Court of Claims will go from one Court of Appeals judge to other Court of Appeals judges. And he said he's concerned that diverting four Court

of Appeals judges to Court of Claims cases will slow the handling of regular appeals. The change is supposed to enhance convenience by allowing Court of

Claims cases to be filed at appeals court locations around the state, rather than just in Lansing. But since one of the four Appeals Court judges will

be selected for each case through a blind draw, a plaintiff in Detroit could end up with his Court of Claims case being heard in Grand Rapids. That scenario

will be less convenient for many litigants than having the cases heard in Lansing, which is centrally located, said Jane Briggs-Bunting, a media attorney

who is president of the Michigan Coalition for Open Government.