Ex-Clarkston official charges council acted improperly

Clarkston — Trouble is brewing over government transparency and the public’s right to know in the bucolic city of the village of Clarkston.

An ex-Clarkston official, Richard Bisio, resigned from his elected office in April after a dustup with fellow councilmen over his releasing council-privy information on social media. Bisio has filed a lawsuit in Oakland Circuit Court against the city and council claiming open meeting laws have been routinely violated and that the city is mischaracterizing public records to keep documents from public view.

Bisio resigned after he was criticized by fellow council members and an attorney for posting an engineer’s letter, obtained during a closed session, onto his Facebook page. Bisio contends the council’s closing of that March 9 council session — in which members were to discuss rezoning property bought by another councilman’s son — violated the state’s Open Meetings Act. Bisio also claims it’s not the only time officials have played loose with laws regarding how city business is done.

In his suit, Bisio questions interpretations of law by the city attorney, Thomas J. Ryan, including what constitutes a quorum and when a public body can meet out of public view. Bisio also alleges it is a common practice by council, including councilwoman Sharron Catallo, to send confidential city business information to council members over personal email accounts.

“I did what I had to do,” Bisio said. “They went after me (politically) and it came time for me to leave (office).

“There are matters that need to be addressed. And doing the public business in private is one of them.”

Ryan defended his interpretations of law, including a March 9 session as a “valid closed meeting.” At an April 27 council meeting Ryan publicly blasted Bisio’s release of an engineer’s letter obtained during the closed session as “grossly improper” and said in his 37-year career “probably one of the most irresponsible actions taken by a public official.”

“The public doesn’t have to know every little hiccup in life that happens,” Ryan said at the meeting according to the lawsuit.

“Yeah, I said that,” Ryan said Thursday. “This whole thing is unfortunate. He was a good member of council but he disagreed with the way the council wanted to go on some matters. I believe everything was done correctly, including the closed session.

“But I also think he used poor judgment in posting materials from the session and a later letter. There were things on social media before some council members received it.”

Clarkston’s part-time mayor, Joseph Luginski, described the Bisio matter as a “shame.”

“Richard (Bisio) was great for council,” Luginski said. “But we wanted to meet and discuss some matters privately and our attorney said it was appropriate. Richard didn’t feel it was and he let us know that at the meeting and then the next day he’s posting stuff from the same closed session. We didn’t feel that was proper.”

Luginski said in his five years as mayor he could “count on one hand” the number of council’s closed sessions.

“But none of us wanted him to resign,” Luginski said. “In fact we all asked him to stay but he felt — for some reason — he could no longer work with us.”

This is the second time Bisio’s involvement with social media has prompted a shakeup in city politics. In 2011, the clerk-treasurer resigned after Bisio posted comments on his Facebook page that criticized her performance. She cited Bisio’s remarks when announcing her unplanned exit.

On the closed session agenda of the March 9 council meeting there was an item under “new business” regarding Curt Catallo and his involvement in Clarkston Corner at 148 N. Main. Sharron Catallo recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. The council went into a closed session for the purpose of “an attorney/client privilege discussion.”

A two-page March 9 letter from Hubble, Roth & Clark, the city’s engineering consultant, set out two alternatives for deterring storm water at 148 N. Main, according to Bisio’s complaint and included a two-sentence memo from the village attorney characterizing the letter as an “Attorney Client Memorandum.”

Luginski told The Detroit News on Thursday the closed session was “strictly informational” with no votes or decisions taken when the group went back into public session.

Bisio contends neither the letter nor Ryan’s memo contained any legal advice or communication for the purpose of rendering legal advice. He objected to holding a closed session because there was no written attorney-client privilege matter presented to council, the open meetings act does not allow a closed session to discuss an attorney’s opinion or advice.

Efforts to reach Catallo and councilmen Eric Haven and Tom Hunter were unsuccessful Thursday.

Robert Sedler, who teaches constitutional law at Wayne State University, said the purpose of the Open Meetings Act is to instruct government officers” to act out in the open so the public is aware of what they are doing.”

“There are exceptions (to the act) but they should be construed narrowly,” Sedler said.

The use of emails to reach any consensus of a public body is also wrong, he said.

Sedler said whether material obtained during a closed meeting was confidential or privileged is a legal issue.

“If a closed meeting was improper and should instead have been held in public then the information would have been out there already,” he posed. “There wouldn’t be any leaking of information, would there?”

mmartindale@detroitnews.com

(248) 338-0319