Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 Board of Ethics Meeting Minutes - ALL MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS DRAFT REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1992 - 5:00 P.M. TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL The meeting was called to order at 5:10 P.M. in the City Council Conference Room, loth Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairperson Don Cook, Vice-Chairperson Jane Rhodes, Public Member Al Knot, City Attorney Marilynn Slade, City Clerk BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None A QUORUM WAS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: Deborah Miner, [Recording Secretary] Ellen Beal, Ward 1 Councilmember Charles Ford, Ward 4 Councilmember Richard Lilly, Councilmember at Large Suzanne Wood, Lansing State Journal Harold Leeman, Lloyd Teets, Howard Jones Leon Hilton Thomas Downs, Richard Collins Gary Andrews Kenneth Vaughan Steve Hudson Bernie Meissner Lynne Metzmaker Debbie Heefner Paul M. Scott Clyde Smith G. Garner Paget Maynard Shawn Withers APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was amended to remove the Leeman Request for Investigation and reschedule it for the February 23, 1993 meeting under Old Business. The amended agenda was approved by all members of the Board SECRETARY'S REPORT Approval of Minutes: Motion by Al Knot to amend the minutes of the December 22, 1992 Ethics Board meeting to reflect that Member Rhodes's motion was to recess the meeting not to adjourn it. Carried 5-0. Motion by Al Knot to amend the minutes of the December 23, 1992 Ethics Board meeting to reflect that the motion by Member Rhodes, requesting a written opinion from City Attorney Knot, passed by a 4-0 margin, not by a 5-0 margin. Carried 5-0. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AND SENT SINCE LAST MEETING: 1. Letter from Robert Foltz of 1701 Mary Ave. regarding Early Retirement Plan 2. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Francis Brokaw of 2309 Tulane Dr. regarding Early Retirement Plan 3. Letter from William Nakfoor of 3400 Tecumseh River Rd. regarding the Early Retirement Plan 4. Letter from Pete Nelson of P.O. Box 16333 regarding Early Retirement Plan 5. Letter from Gary Andrews of 560 Brookland Blvd. requesting investigation of Councilmember Brockwell 6. Letter from Bernie Meissner of 635 LaSalle Blvd., requesting removal of Al Knot from Ethics Board and investigation by the Board DISCLOSURES OF FINANCIAL CONFLICTS FILED SINCE LAST MEETING: None NEXT MEETING DATE: February 23, 1993, 5:00 P.M. INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE LAST MEETING: None CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: Chairman Mertz reported asking Fran Knot to put the Wilcox Request for Investigation on the agenda. He later spoke to all Board members regarding the procedure for handling this and wrote a letter to Mayor Crawford recommending that Jim Blair be replaced. However, they did not meet on this issue until after Mr. Blair retired and Marilynn Slade became the Acting City Clerk. She has since been appointed to the City Clerk's position. On December 15, 1992 he requested that Jim Blair supply each member of the Board of Ethics with a Copy of the Code of Ordinances of the City. Jim Blair referred his request to the City Attorney for his opinion. Al Knot stated that he supports the Chair's recommendation that each member be supplied with a copy of the code of ordinances. He has agreed to supply the Code books out of his budget. As soon as he gets the money in his budget for them they will be distributed. Chairman Mertz reported that he requested an opinion from the City Attorney on the procedure used to recess the December 22, 1992 meeting. Mr. Knot recommended that the Board take action to ratify the actions taken at the December 22, and December 23, 1992 meeting. He is asking that they ratify these actions tonight. The Board has not been supplied with the minutes of Executive Sessions of City Council in which the Early Retirement Plan was discussed. They are not available in the City Clerk's Office. Council Staff has possession of these minutes. The Board will request that they be supplied with copies for the next meeting. Al Knot will direct that these minutes be kept on file in the City Clerk's office in compliance with the City Charter. Council meetings are on video, Committee meetings are on audio tapes. These should all be available for the next meeting. He has been supplied with a list of employees eligible to participate in the plan. Chairman Mertz opened discussion on the issue of Independent Special Counsel for the Board. He was called on by City Council to answer questions. He became concerned, because a quorum was not available, that he could not answer without the opinion of the Board, and he requested special counsel to represent him. Subsequently, City Council passed a resolution requesting that Judge Stell rule on who can and cannot sit on the Board. Mr. Downs agreed to represent him with City Council. He deemed Council's questioning of him to be interference. At that time, Al Knot was named in the lawsuit, and he did not want to put him in a position of fence sitting regarding his opinions. He has asked Council for clarification of the meaning of their resolution. Council has told him that if the Board follows the procedures in the City Charter then they will be favorable to the type of a request he is asking the Board to make. Al Knot said that it was his understanding that the City Council refused to review Mr. Mertz's request until the Board as a whole made the request. Mr. Mertz then took this question to Judge Stell to intervene on his behalf. This was an attempt to get the Judge to rule on this matter. There has been no response from Judge Stell as yet. February 18, 1993 is the motion to dismiss any issues raised by John in the original pleadings. Can Mr. Downs confirm this? Mr. Downs stated that he went to Court this morning to get a file of these pleadings. The Court's file only goes through January 21. The first hearing is set for February 18, for summary disposition to eliminate ethics allegations. From the viewpoint of the Ethics Board he thinks they should be represented at this meeting. On January 11, 1993 City Council passed a resolution asking Judge Stell to resolve the matter of who on the board should function. It would be good to have a decision by the Court. Pleadings have been filed. The Court has not acted. There should be some kind of motion filed to join this case. The Board should be represented at that meeting by independent Counsel. It is important to keep the Board of Ethics functions separate from the functions of the Council. Chairman Mertz requested that the Board pass a resolution retaining Mr. Downs to represent them, and that they send this resolution to City Council. Jane Rhodes said that she needs to know why the Board needs to pass this resolution. Why do they need this Counsel? If they are appointed by City Council, couldn't Council just fire them, rather than sue them? Chairman Mertz said that the provision for removing a member from the Board requires due process, written charges, notice of the public hearing, and the holding of a Public Hearing. These provisions are the same as the provisions for passage of an ordinance. Council thought this matter would be handled more quickly through Circuit Court. They thought that taking a letter and resolution and sending them to Judge Stell would put this matter in front of her. The Board will be in a bad position if Judge Stell files that she will be ruling on this matter. They would be without representation. The Board as a whole should be represented. Mr. Downs said that the Board is a separate entity from the Council. The provisions for removing a member of the Board are separate. As an entity they must keep these functions separate. They both wanted to have legal parties to represent them. If these matters are before the Court then the Board as a separate entity should be represented by separate attorneys that represent only the whole board, not by someone in a position as representatives to both Council and the Board. Al Knot said that Council did not want to remove anyone, just to recuse them. Councilmember Ford said that none of the three members present tonight voted for this resolution. Council wanted the Board to continue to do their job until a decision came from Judge Stell. Chairman Mertz assured him that the Board would continue to do their job. If Judge Stell makes a ruling on the 18th, issues relating to that may require representation for the Board separate from the representation for the City Council. Councilmember Ford asked Chairman Mertz if the Council's action in adopting the resolution sued the Ethics Board. Mr. Mertz responded that it did not sue them. It requests Special Counsel to take legal action with the lawsuit, authorizing them to join the Board with that action. He believes Council has told it's Counsel to sue them. Al Knot said this is not at all what they did. Chairman Mertz said that actions in a Court of Law require lawyers. City Council's Special Counsel cannot represent the Ethics Board. The only way to ensure that their interests are represented is to have their own attorney. Al Knot said the resolution is ambiguous. It directs Special Counsel to get this issue in front of the Judge. He tries to stay out of these issues to allow outside counsel to have objectivity. They may name just Knot and Mertz in front of the Board. This would negate the responsibility of the Board. He and Mertz would have to retain their own legal Counsel. This is just to direct them to name the Board as consisting of the majority of the members of the Board. The worst case scenario is for Knot, Mertz, and the Board to all have separate attorneys. There could be a situation where Knot's and Mertz's interests were not consistent with the Boards interests. The only way to ensure objectivity is to have Judge Stell make a decision on this matter. All they have to do now is to wait for the outside legal counsel to declare their strategy. The Board can gather information and wait for the facts. Chairman Mertz said he does not think there are any interests in this matter that are any different from the interests of the Board. He is an unpaid volunteer and it took him 2 1/2 weeks to find someone to represent him that would not charge him an arm and a leg. He is fortunate to have Mr. Downs. He has expertise in this area. The Board cannot do any better than to retain him. He does not want to wait for some other attorney to decide what action this Board is going to take. The Board has no control over what the outside attorneys are going to do. They may decide on a strategy that is contrary to what the Board of Ethics is trying to accomplish. A lawsuit against a Board member on this would be a worse situation. He has no conflict on his part because of his wife's involvement with the UAW. Conflict allegations were made about Al Knot too. He will not support taking Knot off this Board because of a complaint. This is a case of recognizing when a complaint is existing. They need to keep doing what they are doing. That is why they need to take this step to hire Counsel. Any attorney hired would have to do a lot of work in a short period of time. He does not believe that Knot's interests are different than the interests of the Board. If that happened, Knot would recuse himself. If they adopt his report, it includes adopting his recommendation that they retain Downs as Counsel in this matter. He will make the motion to this effect. Mr. Downs works at reduced rates for Public Bodies. Marilynn Slade asked if they are ratifying the entire report or only these 4 points. Chairman Mertz answered that he is asking them to ratify pages one through six. He has done nothing that is against the wishes of the Board. Al Knot clarified; what he is asking is that no one recuse themselves at this time and that Mr. Downs represent the Board as an entity. Mr. Downs replied that he would represent the Board as an entity. If a member of the Board had a conflict with the Board, he would not represent the member and the Board at the same time. He would represent the entity. Al Knot said that as of right now he is not aware that the possibility of a member having a conflict with the Board exists. At this point, does Downs see a conflict with representing the Board consisting of the five members that it consists of at this point in time? Mr. Downs said he would represent the Board of Ethics. If a conflict arose between a member of the Board and the Board, He would advise the Board member. Al Knot asked what happens in the event that an individual is found to have a conflict? Mr. Downs said that in his opinion there is no conflict between the Board and Members of the Board. The Board is the Board. No one on the Board is in conflict. They are the Board and have a right to conduct an investigation. He has filed pleadings with the Court. The Court has information that he is obligated to give it. He will go along with what the Court says. Al Knot asked Mr. Downs "will it be your position that you represent the Board of Ethics not individual members?" Mr. Downs answered "yes". He will be representing and defending the Board for the City. Outside legal counsel has said that someone has a conflict and should recuse themselves. It is up to the Court to make the decision as to whether there is a conflict. Chairman Mertz said it is his understanding that the Board is the focus of the investigation. No one else should be raising questions. Their position is that the Board is an entity and all members of the Board should be allowed to sit. If these facts change, then they would have to have another meeting. The Board will decide whether, or not, one of it's members should sit. If the Board found him in conflict, he would not want to sit. He cannot second guess positions that could be taken in other cases. Accusing someone of having a conflict does not cost much. This does not mean there is a conflict. It is important that the Board not allow any Councilmember to determine who sits on this Board and who does not. It is especially important when they are deciding on whether Councilmembers are in conflict because this is a City Board. They must maintain an absolute appearance of impartiality. As members of the board, they must fight for the principles of the Board, that it not be picked over and chosen by Councilmembers to investigate themselves. The principle is that no one be removed from the Board just because of a complaint. No member should be asked to step down because a letter was sent. They are trying to defend themselves as a Board because no one should pick and choose who sits on this Board. It has been the position of the Board in the past that they decide when one of their members is in conflict. A bad precedent is set when they have to go to Court to determine this issue. There is not time to say that one of their members can not sit when they have not even investigated the conflict of City Councilmembers. Board members can recuse themselves. The Board can make decisions about whether it's members can sit or not. They are under an extreme amount of pressure. The only way to get this resolved is for this matter to go to Court, get this matter determined by next month, and they can proceed. Motion by Al Knot to accept the report of the Chair. Carried 5-0 Motion by Al Knot to ratify actions taken by the Board on December 22, and December 23, 1992. Carried 5-0 Motion by Al Knot that the resolution be amended to state "that the Board of Ethics be authorized to retain Mr. Downs as their representative, subject to the approval of City Council." Carried 4-1; Member Rhodes opposed. Motion by Al Knot that the resolution be adopted as amended. Carried 4-1; Member Rhodes opposed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: No Disclosures of Nonfinancial Conflict Filed No Current Legal Developments of Interest OLD BUSINESS (Open Session): Revised Ethics Ordinance Deferred until the February 23, 1993 meeting. Revised Rules of Procedure Deferred until the February 23, 1993 meeting. Leeman Request for Investigation Deferred until the February 23, 1993 meeting. Knechtel Disclosure He is affiliated with various companies that propose to do business with the City of Lansing. However, he does not identify specifics. Chairman Mertz will correspond with Mr. Knechtel explaining that he needs to file the specifics of his disclosures and the interests he has in these contracts. Don Cook reminded the Board that Opinion #13 was written on Mr. Knechtel. What was his disclosure at that time. Chairman Mertz recalled that in Opinion 13 the Board found that he could only be involved in the bidding process. Motion by Don Cook that Chairman Mertz write to Mr. Knechtel and advise him that the Board must have more details on his disclosure, and he must inform them of whether he is involved in specific contracts. Carried 5-0. Wilcox Request for Investi ag tion Chairman Mertz indicated that the Board has just received the information on this request. He suggests that we defer this request until the February 23 meeting, in order to review this matter. Motion by Al Knot to postpone the Wilcox Request for Investigation until the next meeting on February 23, 1993 in order to review all the information. Carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS: Meissner Request for Investigatio Chairman Mertz recommended that they defer their recommendation on this matter for further review. Al Knot requested that he be recused from voting on this matter. Marilynn Slade said that a complaint is not grounds for a member to be recused from sitting on the board, there should be fact finding before voting on this. Jane Rhodes agreed with Marilynn Slade. Don Cook stated his agreement with Marilynn Slade. Motion by Jane Rhodes to defer the Meissner Request for Investigation until next month's meeting. Carried 4-1, Al Knot abstaining. Andrews Request for Investigation Chairman Mertz opened discussion. There are video tapes of the Council meetings, and possibly, audio tapes of the Committee Meeting that the Board should have access to. He recommends that this matter be deferred until the February 23, 1993 meeting and that they correspond with Mr. Andrews indicating a response time to him. Gary Andrews of 560 Brookland Blvd. said that the January 7, 1993 minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting do not reflect the experience that he was subjected to. He asked that they request copies of the tapes so that they can understand the nature of his complaint. Chairman Mertz said we must write Council and request copies of these materials before they can conduct an investigation. Motion by Don Cook to request a copy of these tapes, extracted down to just these exchanges, for review on February 23, 1993. Carried 5-0. Non-Union, Exempt Employees Tie Bar with Teamsters Al. Knot asked the Board to consider this issue, in order to be able to give guidance to City Council and the Mayor on who can participate in discussions on the issue of the Tie Bar. The Board should give guidance to the Mayor and Council as to who they can ask advice from, both inside and outside. They should give an opinion on who can participate in discussions or decisions on whether to retain or eliminate the tie bar. He will write a letter requesting that the Board consider taking this issue up. He will recuse himself from this issue. Councilmember Beal said this is true only if they were talking about getting rid of the tie bar for present employees. They can get rid of the tie bar for future employees. Council can just eliminate the tie bar without asking anyone's advice. She does not need anyone's advice on this. Chairman Mertz said that the problem is that Mr. Knot has a personal interest because he now benefits from the tie bar. The Board should be asked about this issue. You can not ask Mr. Knot for his opinion on it. You can not ask an employee, nor can you lobby, if you have an interest in the outcome. Al Knot asked for the record to show that this is not an attempt, on his part, to slow the rule down, or, avoid it in any way. They have had questions raised even about who can type the rule. Any City Employee would be violating ethics rules if they participated in this in any form. The Council does not need the Board's advice for future employees, but, if they intend to do it with respect to any current employees, then those employees can not be asked for assistance in any way. He will take the responsibility of filing this letter. Howard Jones asked "to what extent is the Board committed to expediting the matters that impinge on the investigation of the Early Retirement? Do they see any future schedule of completion of the investigation, and when their decision may be rendered?" Chairman Mertz answered that in the past these types of investigations have taken months. The last one took at least 6 months and 3 or 4 opinions that took weeks to develop the language. First they must identify who appears to have had a conflict of interest. This may have to be done in closed session. When they find this, they will be able to move a little quicker. They need an opportunity to see all the past opinions. There is a lot of activity going on. They will move as fast as they can. Right now the process looks slow, but, when they have all of the information they need the process goes much more quickly. This could involve 1 or 2 people or it could involve 20 or 30 people. If a higher number of people is involved they would have no idea of how long it will take. They have spent 4-5 days in review before being able to determine how to use information they have gathered. In that case it would be right to call a special meeting. They all have too many commitments. They will not have a special meeting schedule until they find out how many employees are involved. There are a limited number of nights available to them. They have taken on work individually among themselves and are trying very hard to get this stuff done. If the process appears to be slow, he is sorry for that, but, that is the way it happens. Harold Leeman asked if the Board of Ethics had requested the minutes of the executive session on the Early Retirement Plan, and if they did not ask for them, will they? Chairman Mertz responded that the City Clerk's Office does not have these minutes as of now. He has to make this request to the Council Staff. Al Knot said that his recommendation is that the minutes be released publicly. Jane Rhodes said that at the December 23 meeting they passed a motion to authorize Chairman Mertz to speak to the media and to represent the Board to the media. They ratified this today and it will stay in effect. Al Knot requested that Mr. Downs provide the Board with a copy of the amended pleadings. This will require that the pleadings be amended, and he would like a copy of them. PUBLIC COMMENT Lloyd Teets said that at the December 23, 1992 Ethics Board meeting, he is the person that first suggested a conflict of interest on the part of Al Knot in the retirement issue and serving on the Ethics Board. The newspapers and television news stations have credited John Mertz with these concerns. He hoped that by coming forward he could help clear the record. He asked that it be made a matter of record that the potential conflict of City Attorney Knot was an issue that he initiated. BOARD ROUNDTABLE/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT: None Meeting Adjourned at 6:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, DEBORAH MINER, Recording Secretary Date Approved: MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992 - 5:00 P.M. TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairperson Don Cook, Vice-Chairperson Al Knot, City Attorney - Arrived at 5:32 p.m. James Blair, City Clerk ABSENT/EXCUSED: Vince Green, Public Member A QUORUM WAS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: Francesca Doneth, Senior Legislative Assistant to City Council (Recording Secretary) Harold Leeman, Member of the Public Lloyd Teets, Member of the Public APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Resignation letter from Mr. Vince Green was received and added to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Amendment to December 17, 1991minutes: That per 5-102.1 of the City Charter the Board of Water and Light, as an administrative board of the City of Lansing, are required to adhere to the Board of Ethics Rules/ordinance of the City of Lansing. 2 MOTION MADE BY MEMBER KNOT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION WAS SUPPORTED BY MEMBER COOK. CARRIED 4-0. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AND SENT SINCE LAST MEETING: None. DISCLOSURES OF FINANCIAL CONFLICTS FILED SINCE LAST MEETING: None. INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE LAST MEETING: None. CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT: None. No disclosures of Non-financial conflicts since last meeting. No current legal developments of interest. OLD BUSINESS (Closed Session): The Following are pending opinions from Member Knot: • Draft Opinion on Hilliard Disclosure • Draft Opinion on Morris Disclosure • Draft Opinion on D. Joppie Disclosure • Draft Opinion on D. Knechtel Disclosure OLD BUSINESS (Open Session): • Draft Opinion on December 17, 1991 letter from Mr Leeman: Videotape of December 16, Council meeting was played for the Board regarding the appointment of Mr. Reyes to the Cable Advisory Board. Mr. Leeman requested during the Council meeting that the Council not act on the appointment but, rather, it be referred back to Committee. City Council approved the appointment on the floor that night. 3 Mr. Leeman felt that Councilmember Benavides was possibly in conflict of interest by moving to confirm the appointment of Mr. Reyes, because Mr. Reyes serves on the Cristo Rey Board of Directors, of which Mr. Benavides is the Executive Director. Chairman Mertz will investigate this situation by speaking with Mr. Benavides and Mrs. Porn (Chairperson of the Cable Advisory Board) and provide the Board with a report. • Letter from Mr. Teets rej�ardind the Board of Water and Light: MEMBER BLAIR MOVED THAT A LETTER BE SENT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT REMINDING THE BOARD THAT PER 5-102.1 OF THE CITY CHARTER; AND THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS RULES/ORDINANCE. MOTION WAS SUPPORTED AND CARRIED 4-0. Chair requested that Member Blair prepare a draft for the Board's approval. NEW BUSINESS: None. BOARD ROUNDTABLE/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, FRANCESCA DONETH Recording Secretary Date Approved:_______ ���� AGENDA CITY OF LANSING BOARD OF ETHICS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992 - 5:00 P.M. TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call: John F. Mertz, Chair ✓ Donald Cook, Vice-Chair James D. Blair, Member ✓ R. Vincent Green, Member Alvan P. Knot, Member .7 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted. With Changes Noted Minutes of June 24, 1991 Minutes of Dec. 17, 1991 4. SECRETARY'S REPORT: n.,A) Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting 11,10 Disclosures of Financial Conflicts Filed Since Last Meeting Inquiries & Complaints Received Since Last Meeting Next Meeting Date M-arch 5. CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT: Disclosures of Non Financial Conflicts Filed Since Last Meeting Current Legal Developments of Interest 6. OLD BUSINESS (CLOSED SESSION): Draft Opinion on Hilliard Disclosure (Knot/July) Draft Opinion on Morris Disclosure (Knot/July) Draft Opinion on D. Joppie Disclosure (Knot/July) 7. OLD BUSINESS(OPEN SESSION): Draft Opinion on December 17, 1991 Letter from Mr. Harold Leeman cont./over... R VINCEN'T GREEN 2032 Sunyside Avenue, A4 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001 6161373-1566 January 29, 1992 Mr. John Mertz Attorney at Law 518 Hollister Bldg. i 06 W. Allegan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933-1706 Dear Mr. ertz: For personal and professional reasons, I regret that as of February 1, 1992 1 must resign as a member of the City of Lansing Board of Ethics Committee. Although my membership has been brief, I enjoyed the challenge of sitting on the committee board. I hope this year is successful for both you and the committee. Sincerely, R. Vincent Green RVG/yr LI L,ct James Blair '92 JRN 7 TO: Fl- T J JIi.' 3Lri+—. -nCAL:) 0: '771: IOS Sy�.Iri� ,�:::,29 N. Francis Lansing, RE: 3oard of ETHIOS secretary recieve from charnel 28 a Video copy or _,he Dece!n:,er scar I. As Secretary/member of the Ethics Board I reauest from you the following: 1. That your office recieve and keep a Video copy of the December 16, ' 1991 city council meeting so it would be shown to the Ethics Board whem they take up the issue that I presented tLO o them on December 17, 1991. 2. That a transcript be produced under your leadership so that the Ethics Board understands by reading the transcript and watching the Video . The transcr;Tt should deal wit':i 4-'15 of the Vayors le-'teT it was brous-ht up in front of council, rI:^ Shen the co'^_"]e::ts `.' = all ra_rties during the pub? is comment period, : and counc-'!members ;,a;ked about .,y cor-snts/-ssue 0 3. That all expenses to provide the transcript/video tape be paid out of councils budget and not the city clerks or city attorney budget. THANKS FOR Tn=G THE r T I&E- RE MUM TO THE CO MIITEE ON dMMA.L SE MCCESS' 7 HAROL7 M M 1.4 T Jr REPORT OF COMMITTEE THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL SERVICES, to whom was referred the letter to the City Clerk from Harold Leeman regarding a matter previously referred to the Board of Ethics, REPORTS AS FOLLOWS: Mr. Leeman requested that the Clerk, as a member of the Board of Ethics, obtain a copy of the videotape from the Council meeting of December 16, 1991, for review by the Board. Mr. Leeman further requested that a transcript of the same meeting be produced. The Committee has instructed the Channel 28 Staff to prepare a copy of the meeting videotape for the Board. Whether or not a transcript needs to be made from the videotape is a matter for the Board of Ethics to decide . This report is for information only, and no further Council action is necessary. BY COUNCILMEMBER FORD : That the report of the Committee be received. MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1992 - 5:00 P.M. TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairperson Don Cook, Vice-Chairperson James Blair, Member Alvan Knot, Member Jane Rhodes, Member A QUORUM WAS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: Francesca Knot, Senior Legislative Assistant to City Council (Recording Secretary) Harold Leeman, Member of the Public Lloyd Teets, Member of the Public APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Correction: The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 28, 1992. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION MADE BY MEMBER COOK TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 4, 1992, MINUTES. MOTION WAS SUPPORTED BY MEMBER KNOT. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AND SENT SINCE LAST MEETING: None. 2 DISCLOSURES OF FINANCIAL CONFLICTS FILED SINCE LAST MEETING: None. INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE LAST MEETING: Correspondence received and sent since last meeting: None. Disclosures of Financial Conflicts filed since last meeting: None. Inquiries and Complaints received since last meeting: Mrs. Knot received a request from Councilmember Canady for copies of the Board of Ethics documents regarding former C",uncilmember Sidney Worthington. Copies were provided to Mr. Canady. Member Blair received an inquiry from Mr. Richard Baker relative to documents pertaining to former Councilmember Lindemann's case. The appropriate documents were provided to him. Next meeting date: July 28, 1992. CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT: Disclosures of Non Financial Conflicts Filed since Last Meeting: None. Current Legal Developments of Interest. None. OLD BUSINESS (Closed Session): • Draft Opinion on Hilliard Disclosure: Resolved. Mr. Hilliard is no longer employed with the City of Lansing as he worked on the City's helicopter for a number of years and the helicopter has been sold. • Draft Opinion on Morris Disclosure: Resolved. Mr. Morris no longer serves on the Historic District Commission. • Draft Opinion on D. Joppie Disclosure: Resolved. 3 OLD BUSINESS (Open Session): • Report on December 17, 1991 letter from Mr. Harold Leeman. A letter was sent to Mr. Benavides' requesting information as to his involvement in the Cable Advisory Board appointment process. A response was requested from Mr. Benavides' by the July 28, 1992, meeting. • Letter in response to the December 11, 1991 letter from Mr. Lloyd Teets. A Letter was sent by the Chair in response to Mr. Teets' inquiry. Chair requested that Member Blair send a copy of this letter to Mr. Pandy, General Manager of the Board of Water and Light. • Draft Revised Ethics Ordinance: Member Knot will provide Lhe Board «7ith an outline at the August Board meeting. NEW BUSINESS: None. BOARD ROUNDTABLE/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Leeman spoke to the Board regarding his inquiry relative to Councilmember Benavides' involvement in the appointment of Mr. Rudy Reyes to the Cable Advisory Board. Mr. Teets spoke to the Board regarding the need for a newly revised Ethics Ordinance. Meeting adjourned at 5:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, FRANCESCA KNOT Recording Secretary Date Approved:------------------------ tt r AGENDA CITY OF LANSING BOARD OF ETHICS TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1992 - 5:00 P.M. TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call: John F. Mertz, Chair Donald Cook, Vice-Chair James D. Blair, Member Alvan P. Knot, Member Jane Rhodes, Member 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted. With Changes Noted Minutes of July 7, 1992 (Not available) 4. SECRETARY'S REPORT: Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting Disclosures of Financial Conflicts Filed Since Last Meeting Inquiries & Complaints Received Since Last Meeting Next Meeting Date August 25, 1992 5. CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT: Disclosures of Non Financial Conflicts Filed Since Last Meeting Current Legal Developments of Interest 6. OLD BUSINESS (CLOSED SESSION): 7. OLD BUSINESS(OPEN SESSION): Report on December 17, 1991 Letter from Mr. Harold Leeman, Jr. Draft Revised Ordinance (Knot) cont./over... MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1992 - 5:00 P.M. TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, Tenth Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairperson Don Cook, Vice-Chairperson Alvan Knot, Member Absent/Excused: James Blair, Member Jane Rhodes, Member A (QUORUM WAS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: Francesca Knot, Senior Legislative Assistant to City Council (Recording Secretary) APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AND SENT SINCE LAST MEETING: An affidavit of disclosure and response to the letter from the Chair regarding the appointment of Mr. Rudy Reyes to the Cable Advisory Board was received from Councilmember Benavides for the Board to review. This matter will be placed on the August 25, meeting agenda. 2 DISCLOSURES OF FINANCIAL CONFLICTS FILED SEVCE LAST MEETING: None. INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE LAST MEETING: None. NEXT MEETING DATE: Next meeting date: August 25, 1992. CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT: Disclosures of Non Financial Conflicts Filed since Last Meeting: None, Current Legal Developments of Interest. None. OLD BUSINESS (Closed Session): None. OLD BUSINESS (Open Session): • Report on December 17, 1991 letter from Mr. Harold Leeman. Response from Councilmember Benavides will be discussed at the August 25, meeting. A copy of the documents submitted by Mr. Benavides are to be sent to Member Rhodes. • Draft Revised Ethics Ordinance: Member Knot will provide the Board with an outline at the August Board meeting. • Revised Rules of Procedure: Chairperson Mertz will provide the Committee with a draft version after receipt of draft ordinance outline. NEW BUSINESS (Open Session); None. 3 BOARD ROUNDTABLE/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Member Knot entered a motion to a adjourn. The Motion was supported by Member Cook. Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, FRANCESCA KNOT Recording Secretary Date Approved:________________________ STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM Lloyd R. Teets Plaintiff, Hon. William E. Collette v File No. 91-69480-CZ Lansing Board of Water and Light, a Municipal Utility, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Defendant. SUMMARY DISPOSITION Lloyd R. Teets, Pro Per 116 E. Elm Street, Apt. B Lansing, Michigan 48910 (517) 371-5963 Lawrence H. Wilhite (P38649) Attorney for Defendant Lansing Board of Water and Light 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan .48933 (517) 371-6720 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION The Board of Water and Light, by and through its attorney, Lawrence H. Wilhite, respectfully moves this Honorable Court pursuant to MCR 2. 116(C) (10) for an order granting the relief requested in its motion on the grounds that the there is no genuine issue of material fact. The reasons in support of this motion are more fully set forth in the attached Brief which is 'made. a part of this motion. Respectfully Submitted, DATE: ,� BY: Lawrence H. Wilhite (P38649) Attorney for Defendant Board of Water and Light 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan 48933 (517) 371-6720 STnTE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM Llovd R. Teets an Individual, Plaintiff, Hon. William E. Collette v File No. 91-69480-CZ Lansing Board of Water and Light, a Municipal Utility, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR Defendant. SUMMARY DISPOSITION Lloyd R. Teets, Pro Per 116 E. Elm Street, Apt. B Lansing, Michigan 48910 (517) 371-5963 Lawrence H. Wilhite (P38649) Attorney for Defendant Lansing Board of Water and Light 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan 48933 (517) 371-6720 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMKARY DISPOSITION Plaintiff has alleged four different causes of action: three actions in slander against the Board of Water and Light's (BWL) General Manager, Joseph Pandy, Jr. and one action accusing the BWL's Board of Commissioners of gross negligence and malfeasance of office. Defendant moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety in, accordance MCR 2 . 116 (C) (10) since except as to damages there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the Defendant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. The alleged defamatory words were unambiguous and devoid of any defamatory content whatsoever. Assuming arguendo that the words in question were defamatory, Defendant's employee enjoyed a qualified privilege to publish them since he was involved in carrying out his duties as a public official. Similarly, the allegations of negligence and maleficence [sic] are defective in that Plaintiff has admitted that the utility bill in question was not in dispute. The basis of these allegations is the Defendant's handling of a utility bill (in the amount of $519. 26) owed by Plaintiff for service rendered to 116 E. Elm Street, Lansing, Michigan. Plaintiff's alleges in the Complaint that Defendant's Board of Commissioners acted negligently, inter alia, by removing the bill from an administrative dispute process. Yet, Plaintiff has admitted several times (these admissions were the basis for an earlier judgement against Plaintiff) that the utility bill was not in dispute. It follows then from Plaintiff's admissions that the bill should not have been part of the administrative dispute process. Plaintiff is, therefore, precluded from denying the reasonableness of Defendant's action in removing the bill from the dispute process. I. Slander Plaintiff alleges three separate incidents in his Complaint which, in his .opinion, amount to causes of action for slander. 1) In paragraph 10: Defendants, The 'Board of Water and Light through their employee, Joseph Pandy Jr. , did on the 2 twenty seventh day of November 1990 at a public meeting state that the Staff of the Board of Water and Light had responded to all of Plaintiff's requests for specific information requested from the Staff of The Board of Water and Light. 2) In paragraph 15: Defendants, The Board of Water and Light through their employee, Joseph Pandy Jr. , did on the twenty seventh day of November 1990, at a public meeting, did verbally state that the disputes between Mr. Teets, the plaintiff in this action, has culminated into a ninety-two (92) page packet of correspondence and background information. 3) In paragraph 19 : Defendants, The Board of Water and Light, through their employee, Joseph Pandy Jr. , did on the twenty-seventh day of November, 1990, at a public meeting, did verbally state that Mr. Teets first appeared before the Board on January 23, 1990.. To properly plead a cause of action for defamation, Plaintiff must show (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the Plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publishers, and (4) either the actionability of the statement irrespective of the special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by the publication (defamation per quod) . Morganroth v Whitall, 161 Mich App 785, 789; 411 NW2d 859 (1987) , quoting Sawabini v Desenberct, 143 Mich App 373, 379; 372 NW2d 559 (1985) . Plaintiff cannot show that the statement was defamatory. "A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from association or dealing with 3 him. " Nu en v. Slater, 372 Mich, 372 Mich 654, 662 , fn; 127 NW2d 369 (1964) . Defendant submits that none of the statements made, in any way, harm the reputation of Plaintiff, lower him in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating with him. In determining whether words are defamatory, Michigan courts tend to apply basic rules of construction. If the words are unambiguous they are construed in their ordinary sense, in light of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Simons v. Burnham 102 Mich 189, 60 NW 477(1894) ; Ayres v. Toulmen, 74 Mich 44, 41 NW 855 (1889) . In addition, the words are taken in their plain and natural meaning and considered from the standpoint of those to whom publication was made. Moore v. Booth Pub. Co. , 216 Mich 65 3, 185 NW 780 (1921) ; . Hvsko v. Polonia 239 Mich 676, 215 NW 3 (1927) . Lastly, the meaning of a statement is that meaning which, under the circumstances, a reasonable person who sees or hears the statement reasonably understands to be the meaning intended. Fisher v. Detroit Free Press Inc. , 158, Mich App 409, 404 NW2d 765 (1987) . Even when the defamation allegations are viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, a case of slander cannot be supported. (It is even questionable as to whether the statements in question were made about Plaintiff) . Quite simply, it is not slanderous for anyone to make statements alleged by Plaintiff. The words complained of are unambiguous, , and the plain meaning is that: (1) the Defendant's staff had responded to certain requests by Plaintiff for information; and (2) the disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant resulted in a large packet of information; and (3) the Plaintiff appeared before Defendant's Board. A reasonable person hearing or reading these statements could not view them other than as an attempt to report facts. "In assessing whether language is defamatory, the circumstances should be considered. " Ledsin er v Burmeister, 114 Mich App 12, 21; 318 NW2d 558 (1982) . The circumstance surrounding the so-called slanderous statements make it even more clear that Plaintiff cannot prove a case of slander. Plaintiff was, in fact, involved in a dispute over failure to pay a utility bill. Defendant General Manager, in his official capacity, merely responded to questions raised by Defendant Board of Commissioners concerning this dispute at the monthly board meeting. As the General Manager for the Board of Water and Light (an administrative agency of the City of Lansing) Defendant is entitled to immunity based on qualified privilege. Michigan courts have held that a qualified privilege exists where 'the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, to a person having a corresponding interest or duty. "' Bactcts v Eacrle-Picher Industries, Inc, 750 F Supp 264 (WD Mich, 1990) . Moreover, an executive, such as the General Manager of the Board of Water and Light, involved in carrying out his or her official duty has a qualified privilege. occo v. Piersante, 69 Mich App 616, 245 NW2d 356 (1936) . Thus, if Defendant honestly believed the information to. be true and published it in good faith through the performance of official duties, the privilege applies. Raymond v Croll, 233 Mich 268 (1925) . Obviously, the Board of Water and Light's General Manager has a duty, as well as an interest, to communicate matters of concern to 'the BWL's Board of Commissioners. Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to a qualified privilege in publishing the .alleged defamatory words. For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant moves this Court to dismiss the action against it in accordance with MCR 2.116 (C) (10) . No genuine issue exists as to any material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Gross Negligence and Malfeasance Plaintiff, in paragraphs 26 and 27 of -the Complaint, alleges the following: 1) In Paragraph 26: Defendant's, the Board of Commissioners did or caused to be done on the twenty seventh day of November, 1990 an act of gross negligence and maleficence [sic] of office by their act of removing from the appeal process Plaintiff's appeal of the Board's claim that the Plaintiff owed the Board of Water and Light the sum of $519.26 for electric services rendered to Plaintiff's 116 E. Elm Street residential Apartment account in violation of the Charter of the City of Lansing pursuant to section 5-206.3 2) In Paragraph 27: The proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries as set out below was Defendant's, The Board of Commissioner's of the Board of Water and Light's gross negligence and maleficence [sic] of office by their deliberate and malicious act of violating Section 5-206.3 of the Lansing City Charter by their removing from the appeal process, their allegations that the Plaintiff owed the Board the sum of $519.26 for electric services rendered to Plaintiff's 116 E. Elm Street residential apartment account, as set out above. Plaintiff, in essence, complains that his electric bill in the amount of $519.26, should have been left in Defendant's administrative dispute process. The Defendant will assume, for purposes of this motion, that the bill was removed from the dispute process. Section 5-206.3 of the Lansing City Charter requires Defendant Board of Water and Light to establish a procedure for resolution of customer billing or policy disputes. (See attached Exhibit I) . There is no question that Plaintiff's delinquent utility bill for service rendered to 116 E. Elm Street in the amount of $519.26 was. at some point, a part of Plaintiff's billing dispute. (See fn 1. ) Plaintiff takes no issue with the inclusion of this amount in the dispute process but complains that Defendant Board of Commissioners committed gross negligence and maleficence (sic) by removing it from the dispute process. This removal, if it occurred at all, was only after an Independent Hearing Officer and Defendants Board of Commissioners determined that the amount was owed. 1. Plaintiff's initial complaint against the Board of Water and Light involved a dispute of $19.94 for utility services rendered at property owned by Plaintiff at 4501 Ingham Street, Lansing, Michigan. Since the house at this address had been demolished by the City of Lansing, . the $19.94 still due and owing was transferred into Plaintiff's billing account for his residence located at 116 E. Elm Street., Lansing, Michigan. Plaintiff discontinued paying on his bill for utility services rendered at 116 E. Elm, in protest over the $19.94 billing transfer. In order to properly consider the dispute concerning the billing transfer, the Board of Commissioners removed the $519.26 due and owing on Plaintiff's 116 E. Elm address from the dispute process by admission of Plaintiff that he did not dispute owing monies for electrical services rendered at this Elm address. 7 This matter was presented again to Honorable Claude R. Thomas in the 54-A District Court (Board of Water and Light v Lloyd R. Teets, File No. 91-1150-GC) , and final judgment was rendered against Plaintiff (then Defendant) in the amount of $521.91. (See attached True Copy of Order, Exhibit II) . It is significant that Judge Thomas rendered judgment based on the .Board of Water and Light's motion for summary disposition. Defendant's (then Plaintiff's) motion was based on several admissions by Plaintiff. The essence of these admissions was that Plaintiff never disputed the amount owed the Board of Water and Light for services rendered at 116 E.. Elm Street, Lansing, Michigan. (See attached motion and affidavit, Exhibit III) . Plaintiff has maintained from the start of the so-called dispute that he owed the amount in question. Plaintiff has contended all throughout the administrative dispute process and the District Court case before Judge Thomas that the amount in question was not in dispute. He cannot now argue that Defendants Board of Commissioners committed gross negligence and malfeasance by removing this "undisputed" amount from the dispute process. WHEREFORE, The Board of Water and Light prays unto this honorable court to dismiss this cause of action under MCR 2. 116 (C) (10) , since there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further, Defendant- Board of Water and Light prays unto this Court that all costs attendant to this lawsuit be assessed against Plaintiff, Lloyd Teets. u _! f L5 ' it Respectfully Submitted, DATE: 1 S� eawren—c—eH—. ­W­I-1hite (P38649) Attorney for Defendant Board of Water and Light 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan 48933 (517) 371-6720 q .1y F I" 1."S }.1?C L ..hr.1L._ 4 % 5-206 Coiiection s.nd hearing procedure. ,I Upon the request of the Board, the City Council snail provide by ordinance for the collection of unpaid charges for public utility services furnished by the Board of Water and Light and for the imposition and enforcement of liens upon property served by the Board of Water and g-frit. T i .2 When any person fails or refuses to pay any sums due on utility bills, the service upon which the delinquency exists may be discontinued and suit may be brought for the collection of the money owed. .� The Board shall establish a procedure for the resolution of dis- putes between the Board of Water and Light and any of its customers con- cerning services or billing for services furnished in accordance with filed rates, rules and regulations, and established Board policies and pro- cedures. The procedure shall incorporate the designation of an independent hearing officer. The hearing officer shall report to the Board and the Mayor the results of each hearing conducted and shall make recommenda- tions to the Board on any hearing which has not been resolved. The Mayor may make recommendations to the Board on each unresolved hearing. The Board shah report its final action on any unresolved dispute, together with the hearing officer's report and recommendations to the Mayor and the City Council. -207 Sale or exchange of facilities. The Board shall not, unless approved by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the electors voting thereon at a regular or special City elec- tion, sell, exchange, lease, or in any way dispose of any property, ease- ment, equipment, privilege, or asset needed to continue the operation of the Board of Water and Light. The restrictions of this section shall not aoeiv to the sale or exchange of articles of machinery or equipment of the board of 'dater and Light which are no longer useful or which are replaced by new machinery for the operation of the Board of Water and Light, or to the exchange of property or easements for other needed property or easements. CHAPTER 3. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS 5-301 Duties. .1 The Board of Police Commissioners, hereinafter known as the Board, is established pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 1, of this Charter and shall have all the powers, duties and responsibilities of advisory boards in addition to the following duties. EXHIBIT I ?1 GE l OF 1 �;rTL OF :IiIC IGnt; _-;• =4-=: DISTRICT COURT .5. C:'!".D 'Ji Y'INlEIR F%11D LIGHT, a ?"iu^_ '1 Ut 11_'-y ?'_ain-t f File No. 91-1150-GCS v L7,OYD, TEETS, ORDER Defendant. Lawrence H. Wilhite (P--8649) _ AttoTrnev for Plaintiff 123 IY. Ottawa Street /l ,✓�f��'LI^ l � //�i/��L" �, .. Lansing, Michigan 4 5 9 01-3 0 07 vJ //-�/ w L(�^'` „• (517) 371-6720 Lloyd R. Te=is _ 116 E. Elm Street Lansinc, Imic:.icar: (517) 371-=963 .s .> i s, ORDE1? At a session of said Court, held in the 54-A District Court, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan on to 22nd day of July, 1991. PRL:E:`4.L Hon. Claude R. Thomas EXIHIBIT Ii '-�� of 2 This matter having come for hearing an Plaintiff/Counter- Defendants motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2 . 116 (C) (10) , and the Court having considered the parties' briefs and oral arguments and having issued its opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff, Lansing Board of Water and Light's motion for summary disposition is granted. 2. Judgment is entered against Defendant, Lloyd R. Teets, in the amount of $521. 91. DATE: Hon. Claude aude R. Thomas District Co r r Judae ryHIBIT II t.T �ZE ��-A =II L uzS sc r�oT�r_:T 30rF...-+ tii i`lFiT , M L-'ii'.. a 1-11-1-i L Final 'U'Cilit on. James J. � Wood p1 nt_ri, File No. 91-1150-'�C v an Individual, PLAINTIFF'S T40TION FOR STTHY-A cY DISPOSITION Defendant. Lawrance H. Wi.yhite (P3864_p) Attorney for Plaintiff 12: W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan 4 8 S 01-3 0 07 (517) 371-6720 Lloyd. R. Teets, Pro Per 116 E. Elm Street, Apt. B Lansing, Michigan 48510 (517) 371-5963 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SU",Im_L7= DISPOSITION The Board of Water and Light, by and through its attorney, La�-rrence H. Wilhite, respectfully moves this Honorable Court pursuant to MCR 2.116 (+C; (10) for an order granting the relief requested in i�s comp'l in t. on the c7r o1 nds that, excent as to damages, there is no genuine _--sue as to any material fact. The reasons in supDort of this motion are more fully ret forth in the attached Brief which is made a part" of this motion. Respectfully Submitted, D A '-Lawrence H. Wilhite (P'3S649) Attornev for Plaintiff" Board •of Water and Light 123 W. Ottawa Steer Lansin,, Mi chicran 48933 , 517) .71-67i0 EXHIBIT III IN 6=1CIlL DISTRICT COURT THE BOARD OF :CATER JAIM LIGr', a Municipal Ut il' i ty Hon. James J. Wood Plaintiff, File No. 91-1150-GC v LLOYD R. TEETS, an Individual, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUie-U RY DISPOSITION Defendant. Lawrence H. Wilhite (P38649) Attorney for Plaintiff 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan 48901-3007 (517) 371-6720 Lloyd R. Teets, Pro Per 116 E. Elm Street, Apt. B Lansing, Michigan 48910 (517) 371-5963 BRIEF 1N SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S' MOTION FOR SQ41 .CRY DISPOSITION On Marc 18th, 1991, an action was commenced by the Board of Water and Light, Plaintiff herein, against Lloyd R. Teets, Defendant. The complaint was filed in the Small Claims Division of the 54-A Judicial District, Case No. 91-0504-SC, and a hearing date set for April 16th, 1991. The gravamen of the small claims complaint was that the Defendant _ailed t-o L av acr ut'_lit� serr,icas rendered in the amount of 8580.40. EXHIBIT III Pare 2 or 6 1i I _" mac` the laaa _n , �Jaf—er:t1ant L1oi'd R lee_s D 4C1t.Lonad 2or removal of the small claims complaint to this District Court. The petition was granted and the Def endant was instructed to respond to the complain In answer to Plain::Z d 's complaint, Defendant stated as follows: Defendant, Lloyd Teets, denies the accuracy of Plaintiffs, The Board of water and Lights' Claim, that Defendant, Lloyd Teets, owes Plaintiff the sum of Five Hundred Eighty Dollars and Forty Cents ($580.40) . Signi'`icaniz v, t-he Defendant did not specifically deny the allegation that he owed the Plaintiff for services rendered. However, the reason for his ambiguously worded denial was later made clear. On April 30th, 19�1 the Defendant attended the Board of Water and Light's monthly meeting of the Board of Commissioners. During the "public comment" portion of the meeting, the Defendant chose to discuss the action sub ludice. Defendant admitted, among other things, that he owed Plaintiff $560.46 for electric service rendered. Defendant also stated that out of Plaintiff's total prayer for relief he only disputed the amount of $19 . 94 . In light of Defendants admission, the only issue remaining with respect to the complaint is whether the Defendant owes $560. 46 or $580.40. Plaintiff submits that this amount 1s not material and, at most, cons-itutes a question only as to the extent of damages. Summary disposition should be granted when, except as to the amo"i-it of damages, * theme is no genuine issue as to any Material lac_-. See -,osk-t v S is -e Board o` Dent i stryr 79 Mich �,pp 1277 , 133; 261 N777d. 236 (1977) . Fur"Cher, Defendant's awn admission of Page 3 of 6 the W."-Jim i:v a as LI:v .:IS aI-IsWe to :ne— ccm lalir. St Y'-„ �b 'Sdi'�'La 76 2•11c;h Apr. 662 ; 22-57 1%792d 206 (1977) . in su=-r;cr-,. of ._yr. Mo'�_-cn :'�u1ilt�f has at�c�.ched the off 1C� 1 record of the minu-as of the meeting held at =:3 0 p.m. on =pr i_ 30th, 199i, at the Boars cf and 1.1—ght. in addition, Plaintif� auIDMits the affida,rit of Fc y; E. Sova, Ccrpora to Secretary, which evidences the oYfaCs al nat of :? minutes as well as ti.e appearance and assertions made by the Defandant at the public meeting. For all the foregoing sasons, Plaintiff reguests that this Court grant its motion for summary disposition pursuant to MC 2. 116 (C) (10) and enter judo eTit against Defendant Lloyd R. Teets in th.e amount of $580.40, or grunt such other relief this court deems proper. Respectfully Submitted, L,Laa-Law H. Wilhite (P38649) A t-orney for Plaintiff Board of eater and Light 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, siichicar_ 48901 (517) 371-6720 STATE OF iITC;:IGAN 54-A DISTRICT COURT T1... 401--RD OF ;dAT=-, AIM L-GHT, a :•Unicipal T'itilitl.', Hon. James J. Wood Plaintiff, File No. 91-1150-GC AFFIDAVIT OF MARY E. SOVA =CYD R. TEETS, an -Individual, Defendant. La•wrenca H. Wilhite (P38649) Attcrnev for Plaintiff 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Mi 48901 -3007 (517) 371-6720 Llovd R. Teets, Pro Per 116 E. E1= Street, Ant. B Lansin u, :Iich;gan 48910 (E17) 37-~963 AFFIDAVIT OF MA= E. SOVA Si' .T= OF sIC:IIGis:) s� COITNTY OF I3TGc��.M j 1.2—Y E. SOVA, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: -I make tl'.is ?:ff_davit on personal 'knowledge. If called uuon c t.L�n -ac:t3 :et f or"� h in this Af f=daVlt I am CrJIII _patent zo do so. EXHIBIT III Pp2e 5 of 6 2. I am. employed spy the Lansing Board of Water and Light, an adminis tr a ive agency of the City of Lansing which provides elec:-z 1 c, water and steam services to the greater Lansing area. My title is Corporate Secretary. My duties include taking and transcribing minutes of the Board of Water and Light's Board of Commissioners public meetings. 3. On April 30th, 1991, I was discharging my duties as Corporate Secretars,T for the Board of Commissioners of the Board of Water and Light at its monthly public meeting. 4. Ins. Lloyd meets attended that meeting and discussed the Board of Water and Light's complaint against him during the Public Comments section of the aoerda. M. rir. Teets stated at the public meeting that he owed the Board of Water and Light $560. 46 for electric services and that he is only disputing the amount of $19.94. 6. I have prepared the attached minutes of the Board of Water and Light's meeting of the Board of Commissioners of April 30th, 1991 . I can cert_fy that they are a correct accounting of the proceedings of the public meeting held that day at 5:30 p.m. at 123 W. Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan, and that they were filed with the City Clerk in the City of Lansing on May 3rd, 199i. Further affiant sayeth naught. LA_m/ en mart' kZ. '..ova,/ Corporate Secretar: Boarc: lc Water and Licht Subscribed and sworn to before me day of May, 1991. Notary PPublic County, 1iichican EXHIBIT III FaQe 6 of 15 STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM, Lloyd R. Teets Plaintiff, Han. William E. Collette Y File No. 91-69480-CZ Lansing Bo&rd of Water and Light, a municipal Utility Company. PLAINTIFF' S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR Defendant SUMMARY DISPOSITION Lloyd R. Teets, Pro Per 116 E. Elm Street, Apt. B. Lansing, Michigan, 48910 ( 1-51?t 3?1-5963) Lawrence H. Wilhite IP38649) Attorney for Defendant Lansin , Michigan 48933 ( 1-51?� 3?1-6?20 PLAINTIFF' S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT 'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION. Lloyd R. Teets, appearing Pro-Per in the above entitled matter, respectfully requests this Honarable Court to deny Defendant' s 1fotion For Summary Disposition. The reasons for the requested denial are more fully set forth in the attached Brief, Affidavit, and exhibits which is made a part of this answer to Defend.ant ' r Motion for Summary Disposition. Respectfully Submitted 7 �f DATE I ` BY: P4 LloytA R. Teeth Proper 116 E. Elm Street, Apt. B. Lansing, Michigan, 46910 STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM Lloyd R. Teets an Individual, without power Plaintiff Honorable William E. Collette Vs File No. 91-69480-CZ Lansing Board of Water and Light, a Municipal Utility Defendant. OPPOSITION BRIEF TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 7 Lloyd R. Teets, Pro Per 116 E. Elm Street Apt. B. Lansing, Michigan, 48910 (1-517� 371-5963 Lawrence H. Wilhite QP38649) Attorney for Defendant Lansing Board of Water and Light 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan, 48933 ( 1-517) 371-6720 BRIEF WHICH ANSWERS DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION. This few-suit was initiated by the Plaintiff Lloyd R. Teets vi, service of the SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT on the twenty seventh day of August, 1991. The Plaintiff, anxiously awaited the arrival of the Defendant' s "Responsive Pleadings", pursuant to MCR 2.110 (B) 11) and MCR 2.111 (0 ) (L) (2) and (3) . No such responsive pleadings of this law-suit, pursuant to MCR 2.110 (B) (1) and MCR 0.111 (C) (1) (2) and (3) has to the best of Plaintiffs knowledge ever been served upon (1) the Plaintiff, or with the Court. Lacking such responsive pleadings, the Plaintiff must therefore rely on MCR 2.111 (E) (1) for the purposes of peffecting an ANSWER TO DEFENDANT 'S LOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION. It would be counter productive for the Plaintiff to argue that the Defendant has agreed to each and every allegation contained in the law-suit which required a responsive pleading. These lawsuit paragraphs are Paragraphs 1 through 11 of said lawsuit ; Paragraphs 14 through 17 of said lawsuit ; Paragraphs 18 through 20 of said law-suit; and paragraphs 22 through 26i of said law-suit. What we have here by Defendant' s admissions pursuant to MCR 2.111 (E) (1) is all the elements of a contract or a stipulation to the facts. Said defacto contract or stipulation to the facts are further enhanced pursuant to a portion of the Defendant' s use of MCR 2.116 (C) (10) , which again reaffirms a defacto stipulation to the facts with the words "Except as to the amount of Damages, THERE Is NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT. In aw much as the Defendant has failed to file a cross- claim or counter claim, upon which the court could award an amount of damages, to the Defendant, and Defendant' s Brief does not support a claim for damages against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny the Defendant' s MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C) (10). (2) The Defendant' s Brief in support of their motion for summary disposition, relative to a defacto stipulation of the facts, and lacking a request for an award for damages against the Plaintiff, is, illogical, irrelevant and redundant. THIS LEAVES THE COURT WITH ONE REMAINING ISSUE1. WHAT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES DID THE PLAINTIFF SUFFER? The Defendant, Joseph Pandy Jr. ' s act of slandering the Plaintiff during the course of a meeting of the Board of Commissioner' s meeting on November 27,1990, by making false and untrue statements were particularly damaging to the Plaintiff, for said slander was made during a portion of an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW HEARING, pursuant to Section 5-206.3 . (See attached Exhibit I. Yellow highlighted area. ) Had the Defendant, Joseph Pandy Jr' s untrue statements been uttered in a court proceedings instead of the Hoard of Commissioner' s ADMINISTRATIVE LAW HEARING process, Defendant Joseph Pandy Jr1s statements would have been an act of Perjury punishable by up to five years in Jail. For the Defendant' s Attorney to claim that the Defendant can lie ( Slander) Plaintiff with immunity and impunity during a portion of an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW HEARING, defies not only one of God' s ten commandments of "Thou shall not bear false witness" but is contrary to every rule of common law and ie contrary to the best interests of the general public and each and every cup st omer of the Board of Water and Light. ( 3) For the Court to dismiss this Law-suit, it would send the wVcng signal to persons or parties in high places, positions or status, that lieing, is an acceptable code of conduc;, and would be contrary to the best interests of the general public. Plaihtiff' s two year nightmare with the Befendant, The Board of Water and Light and an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW hearing process, was, finally resolved in the Plaintiff' s favor before the Honorable Claude Thomas, in District Court Case File No. 91-1150 CGB on July 25, 1991. Plaintiff' s two year nightmare could have easily been avoided if Defendant had complied with the Charter of the City of Lansing, 5-200 .2 (See yellow highlight area Exhibit II. ) Plaintiff, on October 9, and October 10, 1990, in letters to Defendant' s Staff member Hector Valdez express Plaintiff' s concerns about the fairness of the so called ADMINISTRATIVE LAW hearing process, and expressed his desire that the matter be settled in a COURT OF LAW. (See exhibits III Oct 9, 1990 letter and Exhibit IV letter of October 10, 1990. ) Defendant' s actions to proceed with their administrative law hearing instead of complying with the Charter of the City of Lansing, 5-206 .2 See Exhibit II and the Plaintiff' s repeated expressed desires to have the matter heard in a court of law, over the telephone and in his October 10, 1990 letter to Defendant' s employee Hector Valdez, did, by Defendents (4) exercise of their "Freedom of Choice" place themselves in harms way and opened the door to possible ligation should they choose not to act in a responsible way. The dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant was initiated by the Defendant by their act of ommission. to notify the Plaintiff that they were going to terminiate electric service to Plaintiff' s property located at 4501 Ingham Street, in the City of Lansing, on April 18, 1989. Due to the Damages Plaintiff suffered due to the non- notification of terminiation of electric service, the Plaintiff refused to pay the final bill in the amount of $19.44 if paid by due date orjl$58 if paid after due date, due to Befendant' s negligence in breaking an implied contract for electric service without any notification what-so-ever. ( See Exhibit V Final Bill for electric Service 4501 Ingham St) On August 17, 1989, Defendant' s without any contact with the Plaintiff what-so-ever for any explainktion as to why Plaintiff refused to pay the final bill, due to the breaking of the implied contract for electric services, the Defendant without any notification what-so-ever transferred, NOT the final bill amount of $1US to Plaintiff' s 116 E. Elm Street account but the SUM of $19.94, and sent the Plaintiff a shut off notice. - - The Plaintiff desiring essential electrical service and being unaware that a part of the sum demanded was a final bill balance Bor 4501 Ingham Street, as an "Add in" amount was fot $19.94 and was not designated as an "Add in" (5) amount from another account, and the $19.94 undesignated Madd in" amount was not in the amount of $19.58, the final bill for 4501 Ingham Street, the Plaintiff had no knowledge that said $19.94 represented a balance from another account. The Plaintiff, desiring continued esseneial electrical service to his apartment at 116 E. Elm Street, did, on the 13th day of September via his personal Check #297 pay the Board of Water and Light the sum of Sixty dollars and fifty cents. (See Exhibit Six (VI) both Sides. ) On December 17th, 1990, the Plaintiff, delivered a seven page packet of materials for the Board of Commissioner' s use in Plaintiff' s appeal of the Board of Water and Light ' s Hearing Officer' s decision. ( See Exhibit VII ) On December 18, 1990, the Board of Commissioner' s upheld the decision of the hearing official with BLATANT AND TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE PERPONDEROUNCE of PLAINTIFF' S ALLEAL DOUCMENTS. The Plaintiff refused to abide by the Board of Commissionerts decision, and the Board of Water and Light took Hlaintiff to small claims court, on Me-%rch 18, 1991, requesting $580.40. Nineteen Dollars and ninety four cents ( $19.94) of said $580.40 was for the alleged final bill for Plaintiff' s 4601 Ingham Street property which Plaintiff had paid on September 13, 1989 ( See Exhibits V -- VI -- VII ) . The Plaintiff was forced to request or demand the case be heard in District Court, after Befendant refused to provide the necessary witnesses for the Plaintiff to receive a fair trial in small claims court. (See Exhibits (S) In -- X -- XI. ) Finally, Defendant' s claim for $580.40 was held before the Honorable Judge Claude' Thomas on July 22, 1991. After reviewing the records of the Defendant enclosed in Plaintiff' s Exhibit VI & VII which took approximately two minutes, Judge Claude Thomas OVERTURNED, the decision of the Board of dater and Light' s Hearing Official' s Decision, that fir. Teets, had NEVER paid an outstanding Balance of $19.94, the final bill for Plaintiff' s 4501 Ingham Steet account and further OVERTURNED, the DECISION of the Board of Commissioner' s of December 18, 1990 which affirmed the decision of the Board of Water and Light' s Hearing Official' s Decision of November 7, 1990. (See Exhibit XII) Not only in Reaching his decision did the Honorable Judge Claude Thomas reduce Defendant' s claim by the alleged $19.94, the final bill amount for Plaintiff' s 4501 Ingham St Property, but further reduced Defendant' s Claim for $580.4.0 by the amount of all late charges accured for non-payment by Blaintiff to his account at 116 E. Elgin Street, reducing Defendant' s claim from $580.40 to an amount of $521.91. ( see Ex-hibit' s VI1*I Tile orginal amount of Claim and Exhibit XIII, The Honorable Judge Thomas' s Decision & Order. ) The Plaintiff, had never disputed any bills for services rendered to his account at 116 E. Elm St, and only with-held payment due to damages he suffered when Defendant, broke an implied contract for electric service to Plaintiff' s 4501 Ingham Street Property without any notification What-so-ever to the Plaintiff that service was to be term Ini atedo Defendant' s then AS THEIR FIRST AND ONLY ACT TO COLLECT THE FINAL BILL FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE THEY TER.MINIATED WITHOUT PLAINTIFF'S KNOWLEDGE WAS TO COMBINE PLAINTIFF'S TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CONTRACTS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICEA WITHOUT PLAINTIFF'S KNOWLEDGE AND SEND PLAINTIFF A SHUT OFF NOTICE ON THE COMBINED CONTRACTS AND COLLECT THE FINAL BILL FOR PLAINTIFF'S 6501 INGHAM STREET PROPERTY BY MEANS OF CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD. Plaintiff, unknowingly paid the Final Bill for electric services rendered, tb Plaintiff' s 4501 Ingham St. Property on the 13th day of September, 1959 via his personal check #297. (See Exhibits VII) When Plaintiff discovered he had PAID, the Final Bell, PLAINTIFF ONLY O,UESTIONED Defendant' s method of collection. After consultation with legal representation, Plaintiff, with-held payment on his 116 E. Elm St Account, pending the outcome of a dispute concerning the METHOD of COLLECTING Plaintiff' s final bill for 4501 Ingham Street, used by the Defendant. As the METHOD OF COLLECTION used to collected Plaintiff' s final bill for 4501 Ingham Street, WAS a MICHIGAN case of "first impression" law, Plaintiff repeatedly requested Defendant take Plaintiff to court to settle the ISSUE, which Befendant refused to do. No action was taken by the Defendant for nearly a year. Defendant ' s employee Neal Housler, then called Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff, that if Plaintiff did not pay his bill for electric services rendered to his 116 E. Elm Street apartment, the Board of Water and Light would terminiate service, and the only way to continue service was to .request a dispute hearing. In as much as the Defendant refused to take Plaintiff to court to resolve the METHOD OF COLLECTION dispute, and Plaintiff, desiring continued electric service, Plaintiff requested a dispute hearing (by Defendant' s act of coercion, threat and intimidation) to insure continued essential electric service. On October 2, 1990, Defendant, comt'i,ted an act of OUTRIGHT FRAUD, by making the fAlse ant:, )utlandish CLAIM that Plaintiff had never paid the final bill balance of $19.94 for electric services rendered to his 4501 Ingham Street property in spite of the evidence to the contrary of THEIR OWN RECORDS. Thus a disoute was created whene none had exliisted before. NO DISPUTE HERRING, should have EVER BEEN HELD, as Plaintiff was only questioning the method Defendant used to collect a bill for services rendered; and said method was "First Impression Law" in the State of Michigan. ( 9) An attempt tro legitimize Defendant' s Dispute Hearing Process was then made on October 2, 1990, by Defendant' s act of OUTRIGHT FRAUD of making a FALSE AND OUTLANDISH CLAIM, which THEIR OWN RECORDS WOULD NOT SUPPORT. (See Exhibit XIV, the first two pages of Defendant' s 58 page Hearing Report. See yellow highlighted area. } THE TRUTH IS; NO DISPUTE HEARING PROCEEDURE SHOULD EVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE, as it could not resolve the question of weather or not Defendant ' s method of collecting a final bill balance in the amount of $19.94 WAS LEGAL. For the Defendant to claim the Plaintiff suffered no damages enduring the dispute hearing process which never should have taken place defies all standards of reason and logic. For Defendant' s General Manager to make false and untrue statements in an appeal process of the Dispute Hearing Official' s Deciolon violates every standard of "fair play" and "Common decency" and should have such conduct taken place in a Court of Law, it would have been an act of PERJURY. Said false and untrue statements by Defendant' s general manager was a contributing factor, in the Board of Commission- ers reaching the wrong decision in the appeal process, and were extremely damaging to the Plaintiff. (10) PlaintiffIa claim that he had paid the final bill balance in the Amount of $19.94 for Electric Services .rendered to his 4501 Ingham Street Property, was upheld by the Honorable Judge Claude Thomas on the 22nd day of July, 1991, and Judge Thomas not only reduced defendants claim by the $19.94 but also reduced the claim by an additional amount which represented all the late charges for electric services rendered to Plaintiff' s 116 E. Elm Street Account. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Lloyd Teets prays unto this honorable court to deny Defendantls motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C) ( 10) and further prays this honorable court affirm the stipulation that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and set a trial date to determine the amount of damages Plaintiff suffered. Further, Plaintiff, Lloyd Teets prays unto this Court that all costs attendant to the hearing of Defendants motion for summary disposition be assessed against Defendant, The Board of Water and Light. Respectfully Submitted K(� DATE _ 1 By: �Q-- Lloyd R. Teets, Pro Per 116 Elm Street Apt B. Lansing, Michigan, 48910 (1-517� 371-5963 ( 11) i e n .3 The Board shall establish a procedure for .4 The Board in their rules shall establish a .7 The Board shall render an annual report the resolution of disputes between the procedure for receiving and resolving to the Mayor and City Council, which Board of Water and Light and any of its any complaint concerning the operation shall include a description and evaluation customers concerning services or billing of the department. of the department's activities during the for services furnished in accordance with previous year, including the handling of filed rates, rules and regulations, and .5 The Board shall review and approve the complaints, if any, and proposals for established Board policies and departmental budget before its sub- future plans. procedures. The procedure shall in- mission to the Mayor. corporate the designation of an in-6 The Board shall act as the final authority dependent hearing officer. The hearing of the City in imposing y Chapter 5. BOARD OF ETHICS officer shall report to the Board and the y posing or reviewing discipline of the department employees Mavor the results of each hearing con- consistent with the terms of State law 5-501 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT: ducted and shall make recommendations and applicable collective bargaining con- to the Board on any hearing which has not tracts. .1 The people of this City recognize that the been resolved. The Mayor may make continuation of the proper operation of recommendations to the Board on each .7The Board shall render an annual report the City requires that public officers and unresolved hearing. The Board shall to the Mayor and City Council, which employees be independent,impartial and report its final action on any unresolved shall include a description and evaluation responsible to the people; that decisions dispute, together with the hearing of- of the department's activities during the and policy be made in the proper chan- ficer's report and recommendations to Previous year, including the handling of nels of governmental structure; that crime and complaints, if any, and pro- the Mayor and the City Council. posals for future plans. members of the public have access to information upon which decisions af- fecting their City are made; that public 5-207 SALE OR EXCHANGE OF office and employment not be used for FACILITIES: The Board shall not, unless 5-302 INVESTIGATORY POWER: approved by the affirmative vote of three- Whenever necessary to carry out its Personal gain; that the integrity and operation of City government be subject fifths of the electors voting thereon at a assigned duties, the Board of Police Com- to scrutiny of the public; and that acts or regular or special City election, sell, ex- missioners shall have the same power to actions not compatible with the best = change,lease, or in any way dispose of any subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and interests of the City be defined and property, easement, equipment, privilege, require the production of evidence as the prohibited. or asset needed to continue the operation of City Council the Board of Water and Light. The .2 In order to provide an orderly procedure restrictions of this section shall not apply to Chapter 4. BOARD OF FIRE COM- for consideration and review of the issues the sale or exchange of articles of MISSIONERS which may arise concerning questions of machinery or equipment of the Board of standards of conduct for public officers Water and Light which are no longer useful 5-401 DUTIES and employees, a Board of Ethics is or which are replaced by new machinery for created. the operation of the Board of Water and •1The Board of Fire Commissioners,here- Light, or to the exchange of property or ed here- inafter known as the Board,is establish-of 5-502 BOARD OF ETHICS: this easements for other needed property or pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 1, easements. this Charter and shall have all the powers duties and responsibilities of advisory I The Board of Ethics shal I consist of the boards in addition to the following duties. City Clerk, the City Attorney and threepublic members appointed by the City 2 The board shall establish administrative Council. Chapter 3. BOARD OF POLICE COM- rules for the organization and overall MISSIONERS g -2 The City Council shall nominate the first administration of the Department, in three persons to the Board for terms of } 5-301 DUTIES: consultation with the Chief of the Fire one, two and three years. Thereafter all Department and the Mayor. These ad- terms shall be for three years. y 1 The Board of Police Commissioners, ministrative rules shall not be ef- fectuated in accordance with Section 5- .3 Members of the Board of Ethics a in- hereinafter known as the Board, is 105.8 of this Charter but shall become ted by the City Council shall be residents established pursuant to Article Chapter effective upon the filing with the City of the City and shall hold no public office 1 of this Charter and shall have all the Clerk. and no other City office or employment, powers, duties and responsibilities of advisory boards in addition to the .3The Board shall approve rules and re- following duties: gulations for the conduct of the members 4The Board shall select its own presiding of the Department, in consultation with officer from among the members ap- .2The Board shall establish administrative the Chief of the Fire Department and the Pointed by the City Council. 1 rules for the organization and overall Mayor. administration of the department includ- .4 The Board,in their rules,shall establish a 5 If any issue before the Board involves ing promotional and training procedures any member of the Board,the City Coun- i in consultation with the Chief of Police procedure for receiving and resolving cil shall appoint an additional member and Mayor. These administrative rules any complaint concerning the operation or members to sit for the purpose of shall not be effectuated in accordance of the department. that determination in place of the mem- I? with Section 5-105. 8 of this Charter but 5The Board shall review and approve the ber or members involved. shall become effective upon filing with departmental budget before its submis- the City Clerk. Sion to the Mayor. 5-503 DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF 3 The Board shall approve rules and 6The Board shall act as final authority of ETHICS: 3 regulations for the conduct of the the City in imposing reviewing die- members of the Department, in con- cipline of the department employees .1 The Board of Ethics may render an ad- consistent with the terms of the State visory opinion to any person with respect sultation with the Chief of Police and the law and applicable collective bargaining to the meaning and application of those Mayor. �d n- contracts. provisions of this Charter and other laws 5 Page 12 49 t7- f dinance or resolution,shall continue as if property not needed for the operation of City Treasury and shall be credited only created under ordinance with the status the Board of Water and Light, subject to to the funds and accounts of the Board of provided in this Charter. the approval of six City Council Members Water and Light.They shall not be with- and subject to the limitations on the sale drawn or used for any other purpose .2 The terms of all persons serving on boards of real property by the City contained in whatsoever. The Board shall have and on the effective date of this Charter shall this Charter. exercise full control over all of the funds continue in accordance with law. of the Board of Water and Light in the .4 The Board shall adopt policies and City Treasury. 5-108 LIMITATION ON POWERS OF procedures to assure fairness in BOARDS: procuring personal property and services •2 All warrants drawn for the payment of and disposing of personal property.These money under the authority of the Board .1 The Board of Water and Light shall policies and procedures of the Board shall shall be signed by the Secretary of the exercise administrative, executive and parallel the policies and procedures Board and countersigned by the City policy making authority over the adopted by the Council for the purchase Controller. operation of those City utility services and sale of personal property and ser- assigned to it in accordance with the vices unless the Board makes a specific .3 Whenever warrants are issued and there provisions of this Charter. finding that a City policy or procedure is is no money for the payment of the not consistent with the best practices for warrant, the City Treasurer shall, upon .2 No other board,commission or committee public utility operation. presentation of the•warrant, stamp the shall exercise any administrative, ap- date of presentation on the face of the pointive or policy making authority .5 The Board shall prepare and adopt its warrant, together with a statement that except as permitted by this Charter or annual budget by June 1 of each year, the warrant will bear interest thereafter required by State law. and implement it with whatever at the rate of 6 percent per year. The modifications the Board may adopt from interest shall cease after notice has been Chapter 2. BOARD OF WATER AND time to time. The budget and any given to the holder, in the manner LIGHT amendments shall be filed with the City determined by the Board, that there is Clerk within 10 days after adoption. sufficient money of the Board of Water 5-201 BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT: The and Light on hand to pay the warrant with Board of Water and Light, hereinafter .6 The Board shall submit to the Mayor, interest. Warrants of the Board of Water known as the Board, shall have the full prior to October 1 of each year, its and Light are not general obligations of and exclusive management of the water, capital improvements plan for the next the City. heat, steam and electric services and six years pursuant to Section 7-109. such additional utility services of the City .4 The Council may provide by ordinance of Lansing as may be agreed upon by the .7 In the best interest of the City, the Board procedures for the disbursement of Board and City Council. The board shall and other agencies of the City are en- monies of the Board of Water and Light be responsible to the Mayor and the City couraged to cooperate on projects by check issued by the Secretary of the Council for the provision of these services deemed to be beneficial and to utilize Board in accordance with the ordinance. in a manner consistent with the best each other's services. practices. 5-205 RATES: .8 The Board of Water and Light may utilize .1 The Board may fix just and reasonable 5-202 DIRECTOR, INTERNAL AUDITOR, the streets, alleys, bridges and other rates and other charges as it may deem SECRETARY: public places of the City for the furnishing advisable for services furnished by the of public utility services. In the exercise Board of Water and Light. .1 The Board shall appoint a Director who of this right,the Board of Water and Light shall be responsible to the Board for shall furnish timely .information about .2 The Board shall conduct a public hearing carrying out the duties assigned the proposed uses to the officials of the City at least 30 days prior to the effective date Board and shall serve at its pleasure. and to the agencies which will be most of any changes in rate structure. At least .2 The Board shall appoint an Internal Audi- directly affected by the use. 45 days before the public hearing, the for who shall report directly to the Board shall file with the City Clerk a Boa_d. The Internal Auditor shall serve .9 The Board may conduct whatever audits statement explaining the new rates and at the pleasure of the Board. of the activities it deems appropriate and charges together with a notice of the shall compensate the City for the cost of public hearing. Notice to the public shall .3 The Board shall appoint its own Secretary that portion of the annual audit of the City be given in the same manner as is who shall be responsible to the Board and which covers the Board of Water and required for proposed ordinances. shall serve at its pleasure. Light. .10 The Board may provide for the pen- 5-203 POWERS OF THE BOARD: sioning of any employee of the Board of 5-206 COLLECTION AND HEARING Water and Light or the surviving spouse PROCEDURE: .1 The Board shall make all contracts or dependent of any deceased employee. pertaining to the conduct of the Board of 1 Upon the request of the Board, the City Water and Light business and shall have ,I I The Board, except as otherwise pro- Council shall provide by ordinance for the the authority to settle litigation involving vided in this Charter, shall be respon- collection of unpaid charges for public the Board of Water and Light. sible for and have authority over the utility services furnished by the Board of compensation, benefits, bonding, condi- Water and Light and for the imposition .2 The Board shall have the power to acquire tions of employment, and labor inanage- and enforcement of liens upon property property, both re and per onal, and ment activities for all employees of the served by the Board of Water and Light. interests ' t Bo and Light. City for se ter .2 When any person fails or refuses to pay and LE (0 5-204 AWAL OF FUNDS: any sums due on utility bills, the service upon which the delinquency exists may .3 The Board shall have the power to sell .1 The funds and revenues of the Board of be discontinued and suit may be brought real property and interests in real Water and Light shall be deposited in the for the collection of the money owed. Page 11 _>�� :_. -: ax"-e"'3;''....�.7-�eC•_sF{_'�T�?'�.�'P�.�^1'.`_".`r".t....aiez r.?err-__�+ca __.r _� :�.. - _ - :October_9,-: 1990 Mr. Hector Valdez Account analyst Board of Water & Light P. =0. Box "13007 Lansing, :°Michigan 48901-3007 -Dear Mr. Valdez • This `letter is to inform you that I request the "hearing of our dispute to be Held on Xond4y Oct 15, _.1990 =-at 10.00 a.m. to be recorded per the Board of Water Light RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE: _ - VII Dispute and Hearing Procedure : 5. The Board and the Customer Shall' d.. .. Have the right to have the hearing re corded: � � °`x x y - I .believe 1that this hearing process rently unfair $xd (by "design and not the fault of :the hearing officerr and will explain my reasoning for this conclusion at the hearing and will . address the board at their next ; meeting concerning the same subject) , .,.-,proce ateAs I'do :not -.believe that the hearing�is fair ".I will =not be by the decision of the hearing officer nor by appearing at the hearing should the Board construe, that I am in agreement with any or all the RUNES AND REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE persuient to the Hearing Process. I am appearing at this hearing as the BOARD desires to terminate electrical service to me at 116 E. Elm Sty due to non-payment of the accounts and they enjoy a 7 7 - monolopy and I can not take my business elsewhere. The account is unpaid as the Board desired to combine and did combine two separate contracts and accounts without my knowledge and or permission. Now it appears that the Board desires to separate the two contracts and acco�uits _ -,by means of the Hearing Process. Had the Board not combined the two contracts -- accounts without my knowledge and permission there would be no reason to hold this hearing and the account for 116 E. Elm St. wolzld be paid, (more) _ ;: I �� 'Y Rf_ry;..�,�! .. '_' � ,)h;• - �,c z.,.�a. ...�'+ ��i- mzat?--h r (�fi..- £ t i .m- 9 'L..u,� -xNi"�. - s Page 2, -0ct 9 letter ,t_o tFiector _Vai dez Board of _rater F Light. s� :What he BOARD hath put together--Let -the Hearing Official -pull a sunder" h _ Should you have any questions concerning this matter please-do-not hesitate to _contact me . ly, - - Llo' R. Tee s as 17 x�-_ x ra7•� ua x� = 1 t ,',q ',�, K _ . ` r 1 t .c „s era.,`.,. _ _.` _r ��5`y� ,�,ti r c ''� u>. ,.s„• .,:tw ar s r c x __. •3. _ V ._ _. K _ _ n Y October 10, 39g0 Mr..:- Hector Valdez account ;;Analyst . ..Board 'of Water .and Ligat 123 W. Ottawa -Street P. O.`Hox 13007 Lansing; -Mi.chigan, '`48g01-3007 Dear Mr. Valdez This letter is to officially inform you that I 'desire _to..have an ad journment of the Hearing that has been scheduled .for 10 a.m, on the 15th day of October. :AUTHORITY � , F ,� find authority for :the above request 011 :page 52 of - -It _was our Attachment =X p.2.your HEARING .REPORT. ..was_ your _ B. Hearings (continued) �.. _Fa 4, ilure of the customer or Board to attend the hearing without due cause or - prior ,request for adjournment will constitute a waiver of that party to the hearing. .- When `you orginally spoke to me about a- hearing date ; you requested the hearing to be held on the 16th day of Oct._-'-I .explained that I was scheduled for Jury Duty on that date. - . We therefore agreed to the 15th day of October, This telephone conversation took place prior to my receiving your 58 page HEARING REPORT. : I received the report on Oct. 5. - I do not believe that I have to tell you how much work it was to prepare such a report; as I beleive it was your-.responsibility and that of your staff. I wish to inform you that I am only one person without benefit of a -staff. I orginally telephoned Neal Housler and requested a hearing on the ..16th of Oct. You called me on August 22, requesting the request for a hearing be in writing; which I agreed too. I placed my request in writing in a letter to you dated August 23, ;.You. and your staff had approximatly 29 working days to prepare the HERRING REPORT. I now find 10 working days including weekends an inadequate period of time in which to properly and throughly respond to your 58 page HEARING REPORT. (more ) IEMA F4 1T ! 4-�.'.^-v �3 .x r s �aeha fJz -'-' k'Page` two;-Metter to Hector Valdez, Board 'Of Water .& Light October 10, 1990. Myy. .Jury Duty is in lei= 54-A District Court. The Jury Duty .runs `for a twon week period beginning . Oct. 16th, 1990. �."My Juror number is 50000006 should you desire to confirm it wi th the court. - Please get back to me at your earliest possible ' convenience to set a mutually satisfactory date,. should my. request for an adjournment be met. As I expressed in my letter to you dated Oct., 9th which 'I hand .delivered on Oct 8; I beleive the hearing proceds to be (by design) inherently unfair. I, would perfer this dispute to be settled before a Judge and Jury, The Board feels .the hearing process is less expensive and time consuming to resolve"this unpaid balance dispute and I must deference to their reasoning; per the BWLts RULES AND REGULATIONS beleive st2�ongly in the GOLDEN RULE, "Do unto ' others�_.'as` you would have them do unto you. " I would life 'to :extend an invitation to the following members of :-the 'Staff of the .Board of Water and Light to attend the :hearing, Mr. Hector Valdez Mr. Neal Housler 11r. Larry Wilhite I-fr. Ken Turner Some of my remarks they may desire to take exception too. :- I. would not wish to have someone talk about me behind my :back; if it could be avoided. _ I have had contact and conversations with each of _ these persons. The Hearing Official may desire to ask them questions, and I do not. wish to have their answers expressed behind my back. In addition, I would 114e to know the names of those staff members who worked in prepar-ing the Hearing Report; and if possible their exact role in the preparation of the Hearing Report. -I request tais information in writing. Should you have any. questions., please contact me at 371-5963. COPY TO: Sincerely, Neal Housler Larry Wilhite � � � •�, . Ken Turner Lloy R. Teets i 4 BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT- #CA61-34D ! U z r rp ' o O O m 000 0- 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 03 . 0000 ® 00000 i 00 ® © ® 00000 aQ 1 0 0 0 0 ® O © O 0 0 ' 0 0 ® O ® O © 0 0 © Wcc Z ,OOo © ® o0000 o p ? 00 ® O ® 00000 %= QLC Lf, W r Z _ � J • O M ~ M M M Q p% ►.� ' M Z cot4 P" LL 'It. z � . 0 an to W � �W a T ~ � WA a o CieLLI � d Z ZM o.M .. Q o C7 C W ce O %0Z Jow m J ri J pr .. MaiMM aOOZ o r. 1N3WAVd HIM 8I11S SIM Nanas 1 V j 383H HDV130 j -- ------ N H In rd 00 %O v_r �t mow 3Z .�--------- dw c, P. N w �D W • r w r�i M 4 Z a M p` QV 0 W z 0� O W N 40 W J- N vi Z � JmC\j Ix �O �LL p In rl 0 M O o M o rd o cc 7. W O W w N W S O y x D Z ti W W Q In o .� .1 W ZIn ' ►� C 1 Co W r Q If1 wd V O D oC rq N z O - W Z W0 d 1 O 2 O p'. r. N ce �-+ I 4+ J J v co M t o j O o Z a r a = r+ o CT OD 0 CD - = ; H w m Q u) �,(� w �d' -> M Z to F m # Qom O w u~i pOZ v co 2� Hce a� i E lot SID S* rc Ir ' MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO .ri�,E i :C ,..CTR' BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT 'f"``; 123 W.OTTAWA LANSING.MICHIGAN 48933 TELEPHONE 371-6009 FINAL NOTICE - ACCOUNT NUMBER 'IF CUSTOMER DESIRES A HEARING.A REQUEST MUST BE MADE ON OR BEFORE THE SERVICE DISCONTINUATION DATE ABOVE.REQUEST • MAY BE IN WRITING TO THE MAIN OFFICE AT THE ADDRESS SHOWN 202000116900153 'ABOVE.BY PERSONAL VISIT TO THE MAIN OFFICE,OR BY TELEPHONE - METER NUMBER COMMUNICATION TO THE CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT (517)371-6D09 _ 0 _00 P T DUE AIAOUNT LLOYD R• TEETS 116 E ELM ST 41ST' FIL R LANSING: hI 48910 101a1d101L1I CITY CHARTER REQUIRES PROMPT PAYMENT. I IF SERVICE IS DISCONNECTED.YOU WILL BE CHARGED A RECONNECT FEE ACCORDING TO OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS. LIC. T-320-525-751-934 4501 INGHAM ST. PH. 394-6326 LANSING, MICH. 48910 19 V V 74-1157/724 PAY TO THE $ /o ORDER OF V .. Se OLLARS LBANK OF LANSING LANSING, MICHIGAN i MEMO 1:0 7 24 L 5 7 51: LO 211I 3 280 341112 7 ,1�00 00060 50"' oN December 17, 1990 Mary E. Sova Secretary, Board of Commissioner' s P.O. Box 13007 123 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, Michigan, 48901- Dear Mary E. Sova Ref: Lloyd Teets, appeal matter, December 18, 1990 I would like to take this opportunity for all your acts of kindness in answering all my questions over the telephone and for your fast and complete answer to my December loth, 1990 letter to you. I can only wish you were the party responsible for answering all the correspondence I have written to the Board of Water and Light. You are truly a jewel in the crown of the Board. Enclosed you will find the materials, I wish you to reproduce and furnish to the Board Members prior to the Appeal Hearing. I will not be in attendence during the Appeal Hearing, part of the Board Meeting. Standing in my place will be Attorney at Law, John R. Scholten. It is indeed a sad day, in the History of the Board of Water and Light, when one of its customers must hire an attorney, to insure the customer does not suffer one more act of indignities at the hands of anyone within the Board of Water and Light. As I stated during my meeting with Four of the Board' s Staff members on December 7, 1990, I would rather live without electricity, even though I consider it a necessity, than to endure any more indignities by Staff Members of the Board of Water and Light. If there had been another electric service provider in the City of Lansing, I would have switched to them on May 10, 1989, the day my house was demolished. I do not know at this time if I will address the Board. Sincerely, u�d Llo d R. Teets KEEP THE TORCH LiT m LRT 115E Elm St Apt B Lansing MI 48910 f s-� RENLI.ISER ME? I,117 name is Gossip. I have no respect for Justice I maim without killing, I break hearts .and ruin lives. I am cunning and malicious and gather strength with age. The more I am quoted, the more I am believed. I flourish at every level of society. My victims are helpless. They cannot protect themselves against me because, I have no name and no face. To track me down is impossible. The harder you try, the more elusive I become . I am nobody's friend. Once I tarnish a reputation, it is never quite the same. I^Y NAME IS GOSSIP (author unknoim) v Customer Appeals Form The Chair shall make the following inquiries of the appealing party: 1. Did you receive copies of the report relevant to the case? yes. 2. Do you question any of the facts presented? If so, what? Although Mr. Teets, questions many of the facts in the November 7, . 1990 Independent Hearing Officerts report, for purposes of this Appeal Hearing, Mr. Teets, this evening will dispute only the Hearing Official 's conclusion that Mr. Teets never paid the $19.94 Final Bill for his 4501 Ingham St. property. THAT is the ONLY ISSUE in the Appeal being heard this evening. The TRUTH is the whole dispute between Mr. Teets and the Board of Water and Light, was brought to the attention of the Board of Water and Light, on September 13, 1989s AFTER Mr, Teets PAID the 9p19.94, which was - included in the $60.50, Mr. Teets paid on September 13, 1989, and credited to his 116 E. Elm Street account on the 15th Day of September, 1989, On September '13, 1989, Mr6 Teets, PAID the 019.94 Final Bill for his 4501 Ingham St. property and after PAYING it, Mr. Teets ONLY questioned the method of collection used, ,- , . . .. AGAIN, Mr. Teets, ONLY questioned the METHOD of collection used. Mr. Teets, stated at that time to Mr. Ken Turner that Mr. Teets, DIDN'T want the $19.94 back, and there was NEVER any offer to return it. MR. TEETS 01,4ED IT T00 YOU AND HE PAID IT. �1 Customer Appeals Form 3. Are there any new facts or circumstances that you wish to tell the Board? YES __ APPEAL EXHIBIT A (NEW) Page 128 of Mr. Teetst 137 page answer to the Board's 58 page Hearing report (See exhibit A attached herewith) YES -- APPEAL EXHIBIT B (OLD) Page 57 of Mr. Teetst 137 page answer to the Board's 58 page Hearing Report. This exhibit was also Attachment XXIV or page 45 of the Board's 58 page Hearing Report. YES__ APPEAL EXHIBIT C (NEW) Copy of canceled check, and the Board of Water and Light statement, Mr. Teets presented to the cashier with his check, when making the payment on September 13, 1989. Mr. Teets regrets, that in attempting to settle this dispute, certain staff members jerked Mr. Teets every -which way but loose, and then the Hearing Official, and The Board of Commissioners jerked Mr. Teets loose. THE BOTTOM LINE IS __ TODAY, MR. TEETS WOULD RATHER LIVE WITHOUT ELECTRICITY, EVEN THOUGH HE CONSIDERS IT A NECESSITY, THAN TO SUFFER ANY MORE INDIGNITIES BY ACTS OF ADMISSIONS, OMISSIONS, THREATS AND BACK-STABBING, BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT. This dispute is a classic example of MURPHY'S LAW! Following the response of the appealing party, the Chair will call for a vote of the Board on the appeal. The decision of the Board is final. n 1 1 PAGE C. JS PAGES Lloyd Teets. answer -to Board of s"Z Water and Lightts Hearing Report. REVIEW OF Imo. TEETS' POSITION NUKBER EIGHT (answer to the Board of Water and Light 's'Hearing Report ) 8. On September 11 1981; : Mr. Teets, . in person, at the office of the Board of Water and Light, paid the s= of $60.50, for electric services rendered. I•ir. Teets, assumed, as he was not notifiecl or informed otherwise, that the $60.50 was for electric service for his 116 E. Elm St. apartment contract account. The $60.50 bill Mr. Teets received stated that if payment was not received by September 1L., 1989, the Board would terminate the electric service at Mr. Teets ' 116 E. Elm St. apartment. After Mr. Teets paid the $60.50, he questioned the cashier about the bill. The cashier informed Mr. Teets, that she had no knowledge about the $60.50 bill and told Mr. Teets, he could get an explaination of the $60,50 bill from one of the customer service representatives who operate the computer terminals. Mr. Teets, checked with a service representative. Mr. Teets learned that $19.94 of the $60.50 bill was the final bill for electric service for his 4501 Ingham St., contract account, THIS F.,XHIBITIIS PAGE 128eF MR TEETS" .I37 PAGE ANSWER TO THE BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT'S FL17.ARING REPORT, WHICH YOUR GR.OSFLY NEGLIGENT HEARING OFFICIAL FOUND NOT TO BE RELEVANT WITHOUT EVEN READING IT, EXCEPT FOR TIIE COVER PAGE. WHY DO YOU THINK MR. TEETS REQUESTED THE HEARING BE RECORDED. THIS WAS NO HEARING: THIS WAS A HANGINGI THIS WAS A RAPE: MR. TEETS HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF THE ABUSE OF POWER BY �1 BY PEOPLE IN RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS BEFORE; �1 ' Jor THIS . 111% JODT ' Ro ka O O CD �-' F� 1--` C) -.p; O C) C CDC C) C) �"'., C+7 F� t' ti l0 00 W J 01 Cll A, w N C C 7 F--' !--' F� •••3 O F-I N O F-� 1--� !�+- F-' I-+ F-+ F-` F� F- O '••7 m 0 V N co O N .J- O N N O F� 'W l0 C 1 7p rr M CL ml, \ \ \ \ \ \ N.: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r•S S ID ko co W W co co 00 00 0o W W W 00 7o r• H [*] O O t0 t0 l0 �o �0` l0 lD l0 l0 l0 to C 0 M M F (p y, g rr n cn Q x 0o co co W co W 0 � In IA ,P w N N F-•' rS O C l0 00 co J C) N 'y w 01 O In J F-•' Ol W w N W Q1 O IG Q1 C+7 rr C7 O H J+ cW J O ',� F-` CD ko J C) Oo:y' r-t (•7 � J L0 co O J W U7 I-+ J to �•+ ,P N �0:C7 HT Q T^h z N C O ti 4= C Ii trJ m rn to � o m w t"+• J 0o J to co J v� N ".Y O O N W co hi O J 07 F+ W W to J bA. W co J N W N GF Ls] o �G CO Fes• L2 co F- W w N IA W W W {•!' w ICE W W w w F-i .'"_. CT1 Q J C 01 N N N l0 - co W co N m l0 'C O 1 l0 J W 'co co J O W In W W [V to In w :T= O CD 'W I Jd - rn Ln Iq --• F- .b i c.n w F' !--' Cn w m O O IA J 7F 7F * 7F * >F * M 7♦' 7t 7F cot 00 to J W to F-•` W 10 'C O O dolft �.w C 10 O to W l.Tl 00 N I-F•� {J7 N W C+]Z. l0 In z 'U w ,p %D 00 to IA ;00 rn w N cn ko w PO J y C ct Q 1 :0 ftl m � I � 7 jai0 0 0 C) p . o 0 0 0 0 0 l0 1•4 W J C1 L71 ,A W C' ♦� y CD \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Gl, (D to ,L- J co ,P m 00 1 01 00 vF Ln ct, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O \ \ \ \ \ \ m = ;a+ N t.0 ko %n W W 00 0o O 0o W 00 W co W F-1 o 0 0 ko %.0 w p w W SD `3 r, ct cao 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 �= CA m O IL1 l0 W J to to Iti �] mum Ln tV W O o O w O O O O O - O W C) O C .-•, F� N N IA O F--` .P• F•+ F- w F� I••' N H CiJ CD O w to to ko W 00 00 F-1 co W W co W 00 O O O O \0 'J wto t0 l0 l0 l0 t0 F- Cz; P3 6 It C1 a p. l! O rn �o 0 9% o Im I `� o ' G V C) w o O F'h �+ O o O y O N O o 0 CDr W cn It CP r � 6 cry w N H -3 I �'�y co co o0 w � th Til to F- w N W W In C) l0 l0 J l0 C ry X .- C2] .. Q Ili u1 01 cn l0 Q1 O N cn cn O �7 N *w W n y - IA F� J co O Ln J r p,q _ ems• lE ri°R�w+.'.i•" •� I�r ""`i.' „ u 1 ��k� ..Jsa4 $i;/' -�l' %:- - 7 "t7.t`• !` �. a r 2 r AS,. ? �.'-.d LIC.'T-320.525-75 1-934-.. ,., 4501 INGHAM ST, PH_ 394-W26 ' 74-1157/724 O O TA PAY TO THE - ORDER OF $ _... -----D OLLARS BANK OF'LANSING LANSING, MICHIGAN- MEMO - - I:0 7 24 L L 5 7 5j: -10 2-11 3 280 3402 7 1,00 00060 50.1' I _ • - MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT 123 W.OTTAWA LANSING.MICHIGAN 48933 TELEPHONE 371-6009 FINAL NOTICE • � 1 1 I IF CUSTOMER DESIRES A HEARING.A REQUEST MUST BE MADE ON ACCOUNT NUMBER OR BEFORE THE SERVICE DISCONTINUATION DATE ABOVE.MADE ON ^ THE MAIN OFFICE AT ABOVE.By ERSONMAY BE IN WAIT N AL VVIISIT TO THE MAIN OFFICE.EOR BY TELEPHONE 2 ADDRESS SHOWN OO V 116a00153' COMMUNICATION TO THE CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT METER NUMBER (517)371-6OD9. I 00 P i DUE AMOUNT � - -LLOYD R• TEETS 116 E ELM`ST' 11ST' EL`R LLANSING MI . 48910 f CITY CHARTER REOUIRES PROMPT PAYMENT. 1�101�tI101L1 1 IF SERVICE IS DISCONNECTED.YOU WILL BE CHARGED A RECONNECT FEE ACCORDING TO OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS. � I I 1 1 i I 4 4116 17 C , lift 14% .. 10 Akso sEF T6A. tk smr Oouoleaay twos � �o -rcaiamaz�,vu 4�uuL _ ,� � � _ 1�- ��{`�` � ��,�:.". �a`-,s�r �� �^no*-�;�c :�zk�'..�t`.:'.e.` �y--t } �..,.-f;�"'.'�: -'�, �►l9inal—Court ��;, �2nd eopY Return:,• - Appro�ad, 3rd c V-Plaintiff-' STATE OF MICHIGAN AFFIDAVIT.14ND CLAIM CASE NO. 54-A JUDICIAL DISTRICT - _ all Claims -7—) .._C Court address - - Court telephone no. 124 W. Michigan Ave., 6th Floor, City Hall - Civil Dept., Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 483-4426 SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON BACK OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT COPIES 1 Boardo of Water and Light _ NOTICE OF HEARING -- Plaintiff name -123 W Ottawa ..:: FOR COURT USE ONLY Address 3. Plaintiff and defendant must be in court: ' Lansing Mi`' ,48933 - la,City,state,zip Day D :C .:Er.: �: ,c_ - /�. T c ate 2. Lloyd'Teets` 6{ �� M. Defendant name Ti 116 E Elm St 1st Fl The court address above Address Lansing '=Mi ,48910 ; ❑ _ City,state,zip Fee paid: $ The undersigned being duly sworn says: Process servers name 4 L-have knowledge or belief as to all.facts stated on this form and am: (check one) ` 1] the plaintiff. ❑ a partner., "' C3ca full time employee of the plaintiff. 5. Plaintiff is.. (check one) ❑ an individual ❑ a partnership _ ❑ a corporation ❑ a sole proprietor. doing business as: Municipally owned Utility Name of business Complete address . 6 Defendant is: (check o`ne) E] an individual ❑ a business: _ Name of business and complete address - 7. Date(s) claim arose: 01/07/91 8. Amount of money^ claimed: $ 580.40 9. Reasons for claim: Collection effort exhausted T 10: PLAINTIFF ACKNOWLEDGES: The claim is limited to $1,500.00 by law, and plaintiff gives up the rights to (a) recover more than this limit, (b) an attorney, (c) a jury trial, and (d).appeal the judge's decision. 11.;1 beljeve'rthat the defendant is n t in the military service, is not mentally incompetent and is 18 years or older. 42 laintiff/Agen signature % Dater--_ f Subscribed-and sworn to before me on ^ -�' }��'t �` County, Michigan. Date ,\ , ✓ /, �., / My commission expires: Signature_ T�='"�� ` -F - - �-�—/ Date Deph ty/q er k/Notar-� DCS 84k (4/87) AFFIDAVIT'AND CLAIM, SMALL CLAIMS" MCR 4.302, MCL 600.8401; MSA 27A.8401 et seq. April 1. 1991 Ij- 3 Mr. Larry Wilhite, Attorney The Board of Water and Light P:O. Box 13007 123 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, Michigan, 48910-3007 n Ref: Affidavit and Claim Small Claims Court ci Dear Mr. Wilhite : I am delighted that our disputes will finally be brought bQfore the court so that I may establish that I was damaged by the actions of the Board of Water and Light. � A It is indeed unfortunate that for nearly two _years, the Board has been unwilling to attempt to settle our now many disputes persuient to the Board's own Rules and Regulations Sheet 7.00 A. 5. I now refer you to your companies affidavit and claim (Instructions for small claims ) I refer to paragraph C. W "Parties MUST BRING to this hearing all witnesses, books, \ papers and otle r physical evidence needed to prove or J disprove this claim. I can assure you that I can provide everything the court requires except witnesses, as all the witnesses are staff members or corporate members of the Board of Water and .Light, In as much as Small claims has no subpoena provisions, and in as much as your company has filed suit, I am assuming v you will insure the witnesses I need from the Board of Water ate- nd Light, will make an appearance at my request. I therefore hereby request that you have at the N� small claims hearing the following personnel of the Board y of hater and Light. I� A, All members of the Board of Commission-rs. � B. Mr. Joseph Pandy Jr. , General Manager (i C. Mr. Larry Wilhite, Staff Attorney, Mr, Neal Housler, Mr. Terry Graham, Mr, Ken Turner, Ms Mary Sova, Mr. Hector Valdex and Ms Shelia Barnette, and Mr. Donald Lowell. I have had conversations and communications with all the above personal in my. efforts to come to an understanding tribh the Board cf Water and Light, and resolve our many disputes, all to no avail. Time is of the essence so please let me know your April 1st, 1991 Letter to Larry Wilhite Staff Attorneys intentions of complying with my request for witnesses at y1ur earliest possible convenience. If you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance in resolving our many disputes, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely eLlod R. Teet ENCLOSURES One tel: 371-5963 (copy of Affidavit and Claim--Small Claims Court) Copy To: 8 Members, Board of Commissioners Mr. Joseph Pandy Jr. General Manager Mr. Seal Housler, Mr. Terry Graham Mr. Ken Turner Mr. Hector Valdez Ms Shelia Barnett Mr. Donald Lowell. Ms. Mary Sova. KEEP THE TORCH LIT Lloyd R Teets 116 E Elm St Appt B Lansing M1 48910 WATER&LIGHT WOK. AG HARD TO SERVE YOU P.O. Box 13007 Lawrence H. Wilhite 123 W. Ottawa Street Staff Attorney Lansing, MI 48901-3007 517.371.6720 517.371.6000 April 5, 1991 3 Mr. Lloyd R. Teets 116 E. Elm St. Apt. B Lansing, Mi 48910 Dear Mr. Teets: As a licensed attorney, I am unable to represent a client in Small Claims court. Ms. Virginia Wiggins will represent the Board of Water and Light with respect to the complaint. Therefore, you should direct any future communications to her attention. On behalf of Ms. Wiggins I can respond to your inquiry as to whether the Board of Water Light will comply with your request to produce sixteen (16) witnesses. Incidentally, not all of the named witnesses are . staff or corporate members of the Board of Water and Light. Nevertheless, the Board of Water and Light will only voluntarily produce those witnesses necessary to prove its claim. I thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Lawrence H. Wilhite Staff Attorney LHW/ac cc: Terry Graham Virginia Wiggins Hector Valdez � 'r April 1f, 1991 ' 3 Lawrence H. Wilhite The Board of Water and Light P.O. Box 13007 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan, L0901-3007 Ref: Your correspondence to me dated April 5, 1991 Dear Mr. Wilhite : 'I wish to take this opportunity to Thank You for responding to my April 1st letter to you. Lately, it has been the position of. the BWL, not to answer my correspondence I understAnd your position in not fulfilling my request to enable me to comply with the courts demands. You have placedme in a position of giving me no alternative but to remove the matter from the small claims court and. move the case to the general civil division of the .court where there is subpoena provisions that will enable me to require BWL personnel, commissioners and agents to appear for me in my presentation of my side of the case. As usual, the BWL, believes if they make it expensive enough for me I will not persue justice in a court of low. NOTHING could be further from my intentions. I wish I could thank you for your cooperation. Unfortunately for all parties concerned, the BWL, has never cooperated in any manner with me, in an attempt to settle our many disputes. See you in the GpnPral Civil Division of the District Court. Sincerely, KEEP THE TORCH LIT 40 Lloyd R Teets 116 E Elm St 89 B Lansing MI 48410 `( Llo R. TAP s Ide list CO$IY TO Board of Commissioners, Joseph Panda Jr. Mr. Neal HouslP r, Mr. Terry Graham, Mr. Ken Turner, Mr. Hector Valdez, Ms Mary Sova, Ms Shelia Barnett, Mr. Donald LowPll, Md Virginai Wiggins. ��(� 1T November 7, 1990 BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT HEARING REPORT Re: Mr. Lloyd R. Teets 116 E. Elm Street, 1st Floor Lansing, MI 48910 A hearing on the disputed electric bills of the above captioned customer was held at 9:45 a.m. on November 2, 1990 in the third floor conference room of the Board of Water and Light Building. Present at the hearing in addition to the Hearing Officer were Mr. Teets and, from the Board of Water and Light, Krisan Nanasy and . Hector Valdez. This dispute resulted when the BWL removed electric service from Mr. Teets ' property at 4501 Ingham Street without notification to him. This disconnection was ordered by a demolition contractor hired by the City to demolish the building. Mr. Teets had previously been notified by certified mail from the City that this demolition would take place. ince this time (Apr' 89 th unpaid ba of $19.94 n service the demo s ea , was trans r. Teets a n r7m Street. Following several communications between Mr. Teets and the BWL this amount was transferred out of the Elm Street account. Mr. Teets has not made payment on the Elm Street account since September 1989 and the $19.94 balance remains unpaid. This hearing was requested when the BWL initiated "collection action" to collect the unpaid balance on both accounts. At the outset of the hearing, the Hearing Officer outlined the scope of the hearing stressing that this was not a Court of Law and that only testimony relating to the pending bills would be considered. Mr. Teets presented his answer to the BWL in the form of a 137 page written report which was not received as testimony pending oral testimony indicating the relevancy of the written report. The BWL had previously prepared and distributed their analysis of the dispute which included considerable correspondence relating to the condemnation and subsequent demolition of the structure at 4501 Ingham Street. Mr. Teets stated that when the BWL disconnected electric service to his property without notification to him they broke an implied contract for which reason he felt he was entitled to unspecified damages and further he felt that the present hearing was :meaningless and that he would therefore not be bound by any decision handed down at this hearing. Considerable discussion followed, some of it heated, regarding the disconnection of service previously alluded to despite further statements by the :searing Officer that demolition of the city condemned structure was outside the purview of this forum. s� �i% s r v After more discussion along the same line, the Hearing Officer stated that the matter of alleged damages resulting from a breached contract was not an appropriate subject for this hearing, which would address only the unpaid service bills. Mr. Teets stated that this matter was going to wind up in a Court of Law. It was the decision of the Hearing Officer that the bills rendered by (appeal he BWL should stand as submitted. Mr. Teets was advised of his right to this decision. Respectfully submitted, Donald H. Lowell Independent Hearing Officer DHL/pj M STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 54-A DISTRICT COURT ?O._RD OF WATER AND LIGHT, _�:aicipal Utility, Plaintiff, File No. 91-1150-GCB v LLOYD R. TEETS, ORDER Defendant. Lawrence H. Wilhite (P38649) Attorney for Plaintiff 123 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, Michigan 48901-3007 (517) 371-6720 �✓ �, n L1ovd R. Teets 116 E. Elm Street Lansing, Michigan (517) 371-5963 ORDER At a session of said Court, held in the 54-A District Court, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan on the 22nd day of July, 1991. PRESENT: Hon. Claude R. Thomas 3WE "ear This matter having come for hearing on Plaintiff/Counter- Defendants motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2. 116 (C) (10) , and the Court having considered the parties' briefs and oral arguments and having issued its opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff, Lansing Board of Water and Light's motion for summary disposition is granted. 2. Judgment is entered against Defendant, Lloyd R. Teets, in the amount of $521.91. �r DATE Hon. Claude R. Thomas District Court Judge 580 , jo Sc� Vill HEARING REPORT Hearing Request of: Lloyd R. Teets 116 E. Elm Street, 1st Floor Lansing, MI 48910 -Account 'Information 1. Account Name: Lloyd R. Teets 6. Account Balance: $448.69 2. Account No. 2020-00116-9-001-53 7. Account Open Date: 11/27/84 3. Service Address: 116 E. Elm Street, 1st 'Flr. 8. Other: No payment has been 4. Type of Service: Electric remitted to the account 5. Type of Structure: Residential since 09/15/89 Summary of Issues and Concerns ..........._.......__. .......... ...... ........................................._.. Mr. Lloyd Teets suspended payment for electric service at 116 E. Elm, 1st Floor, due to alleged "differences" with the BWL related to termination and disconnection of electric service to his property at 4501 ;Ingham, Lansing. Mr. Teets stated that he will not pay in order to "insure that the Board of Water and Light takes prompt action to resolve our differences." See Attachment IX. He requested a hearing after the BWL initiated collection procedures at 116 E. Elm due to non-payment. See Attachment 1. .Mr. Teets alleges he has s.uffered ..damages because the BWL terminated electric service and removed the electrical connections at 4501 Ingham, Lansing (without proper notice to him) . See Attachment VIII. Mr. Teets stated that, had the BWL notified him that the services were to be removed, he would have known that "the City of Lansing was serious about the demolition." See Attachment III. Mr. Teets also contends he suffered damages because the BWL transferred an unpaid balance ($19.94) from 4501 Ingham to his current address (116 E. Elm, 1st Floor) . See Attachment VIII. The BWL terminated electric service and removed the meter and electric lines at 4501 Ingham at the request of the City of Lansing. The order was communicated to the BWL by a contractor hired by the City of Lansing. See Attachments XIV, XIVa & XV. The City of Lansing ordered the electric service removed because the structure was condemned and was to be demolished. See Attachment XVII. Mr. Teets contends he suffered damages but has not been specific as to what remedy he seeks. See Attachment VI. Additional Information ............._....._...... ..............._..................._ ............... _.. In responding to Mr. Teet 's concerns, the BWL conducted an investigation which revealed the following: 1. Mr. Teet's property (4501 Ingham) was condemned by the City of Lansing as "unsafe and dangerous". See Attachments XVII-XXII. 2. Documentation examined by the BWL indicated that the City of Lansing held two hearings and that Mr. Teets was notified that his property would be demolished if structural problems were not corrected. See Attachments XVII and XX. 3. The City of Lansing contracted G.B. Wrecking Co. , to have Mr. Teet 's property demolished. See Attachments XV and XVI. -sx IF )114tit .ftr mill OPI �4e A AM 1N AM 4. Acting as the City's agent, G.B. Wrecking Co. contacted the BWL (on April 18, 1989) and ordered the electric service at 4501 Ingham "removed". See Attachments XIVa and XV. The order was communicated to the BWL by telephone. Normally, the City of Lansing issues a letter to the BWL requesting the removal of services. This did not occur in this case. 5. The BWL however, complied with the verbal order to remove the electric service on April 19, 1989. See Attachment XIV. The structure was vacant and Mr. Teets was not notified by the BWL that the services would be removed. The structure was demolished a few days later. 6. At the time service was terminated, a balance in the amount of $19.94 was pending on the account. The balance was an accumulation of unpaid bills dating back to January 16, 1989. A final bill was issued and the balance was transferred to Mr. Teets ' electric account at 116 E. Elm when payment was not received. After several communications between Mr. Teets and the BWL, the $19.94 amount was transferred out of Mr. Teets' account at 116 E. Elm. Mr. Teets was advised that the $19.94 balance would be transferred out pending review of his alleged concerns. Mr. Teets suspended payment for electric service at 116 E. Elm, 1st Floor, on September 15, 1989. In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Teets stated he would not remit payment "to insure that the BWL takes prompt action to resolve our differences." Position of the BWL The BWL denies that any action, or failure to act, of the BWL contributed to any actual or perceived damages asserted by Mr. Teets. The removal of electric service to Mr. Teets ' property was incidental to the demolition of the property. The act of removing BWL electric service from the property did not constitute assistance or endorsement to the City of Lansing in it's exercise of regulatory authority. The BWL is required, by it's properly promulgated Rules and Regulations, to comply with regulatory authority exercised by local government. Customers of the BWL, in accepting service from the BWL, agree to comply with the BWL's Rules and Regulations for Electric Service. See Attachment XXVI. Mr. Teets, in his correspondence, acknowledges that the BWL can provide uninterrupted service "excluding interruptions beyond your [the BWL's] control." See Attachment VIII. BWL Rules and Regulations, Sheet 1.00 states that "The Board shall not be liable for interruptions in the service. . . [due to] the exercise of authority or regulation by governmental or military authorities." Further, Mr. Teets ' contention that he suffered further damages due to not receiving notification of the $19.94 transfer to his 116 E. Elm Street account is unsubstantiated by the facts. The disputed amount was removed from the account after communications with Mr. Teets. Additionally, the BWL disagrees with the notion that alleged wrong doing by the BWL is justification to withhold payment for services rendered. Accordingly, it is the position of the BWL that the balances from 4501 Ingham ($19.941_and 116 E. Elm ($448.69) are due as rende Attachments Attachments I-XXX (See List of Attachments) Prepared by: BWL Account Review Staff Ph: 371-6157 Date: October 1, 1990 sub-dir Valdez2 H-Teets.doc STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM Lloyd R. Teets Plaintiff, Hon. William E. Collette Vs File No. 91-69480-CZ Lansing' s Board of Water and Light PROOF of SERVICE A Municipal Utility Company. AFFIDAVIT PROOF OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT The affiant, Lloyd R. Teets, appearing Pro Per in this action, first being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the nineth day of December, 1991, affiant personally went to the offices of the Board of Water and Light, at 123 W. Ottawa Street and delivered by personal service, the affiant' s answer to Defendant, The Board of Water and Light' s Motion for Summary Disposition. Said Answer being a Brief, with attadhed exhibits and affidavit. The affiant, delivered by personal service to the person maning the informatioh desk in the lobby of the Board of Water and Light Building at 123 W. Ottawa St. , and had said documents signed for on affiant' s copy. DATE: _ By: 410R. Teets, ffiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, THIS DA OF DECEMBER, 1991. CAROLYN M. HARTSUFF By: N ary Pu lie✓ Notary Public,Ingham County,MI My Comm. Expires Dec. 18, 1993 STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM Lloyd R. Teets Plaintiff, Hon. William E. Collettee VA File No. 92.®E9480-CZ Lansingls Board of Water and Light, AFFIDAVIT OF A Municipal Utility Company PLAINTIFF. / LLOYD R. TEETS AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF, LLOYD R. TEETS I Lloyd R. Teets, do hereby solemnly swear and and affirm that all statements in the affiant' s answer to Defendant ' s, The Board of Water and Light ' s motion for Summary Disposition are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 4lc6yvd By: . Teets, 11ro Per SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, THIS NINETH DAB OF DECEMBER. 1991. By; "62�2h CAROLYN M. HARTSUFF otary Public Notary Public, Ingham County,MI My Comm. Expires Dec. 18, 19-33 Respectfully Submitted DATE; _ — L BY; Lloyd) R. Teete„Pro Per 116 Elm Stre t, Apt B. Lansin , Michigan, 48910 (1-517T 371-5963 REFERRED TO THE"a 1 77 December 11, 1991 Mayor of the City of Lansing City Clerk, of the City of Lansing Kember' s of the Lansing City Council Lansing City Hall Lansing, Michigan, 48933 Dear Government Officials: This is to inform you that I wish to address the Ethics Board concerning a matter of Ethics of a Government Employee. Please advise me in writing when the Ethics Board will meet so I may present my complaints, A concerned CIti, n, sincerely, Lloyd loy4 eets 116 ELM Street , Apt B Lansin Michigan, 48910 ( 1-517� 371-5963 COPY TO: MAYOR McKane City Clerk City Attorney a members of the Lansing City Council. Monday, December 16, 1991 Attorney John Mertz Chairman, City of Lansing' s Board of Ethics: RE: The Ethics of the City of Lansing' s Board of Water and Light' s General Manager, Mr. Joseph Pandy Jr. Dear Mr. Mertz: On December 11, 1991s I wrote a letter to the Mayor, City Clerk and the Lansing City Council, informing them that I wished to address the Board of Ethics, concerning a matter of ethics of a government employee. I believe you call me on Friday, December 13, 1991 to inform me that the Board of Ethics would meet at 5 p.m. Tuesday December 17, 1991. You also wished to know the name of the person and the .nature a of the complaint. I will be the first to admit that I do not Know the proceedures of the Board of Ethics and that I am basically; by virture of my life' s experiences, cynical of the ole government statement of "I'm from the government and I'm here to HELP YOU; " I would like to take this opportunity Mr. Mertz to apologize to you for my cynicism. I have never before brought a matter before the Ethics Board, and I have no RIGHT or CAUSE to be cynical or prejudice of the Ethics Board, without giving the "Board" the opportunity to do their assigned task. Again Mr. Mertz, I apologize for the manner in which I conducted myself when you telephoned me last Friday. For me to even imply of a "White Wash'i of my complaint was ,.aTOTALLY AND COMPLETELY uncalled for and without any basis C-9 , -�'A HAT-SB-EVER. I regret that my frustrations, which I took out on :you, should have been and will be directed against The Honorable Judge William Collette. My frustratimn with t Honorable Judge does not lie with his decision of `%. t Mowing out my law-suit that lying does not constitute . slsnder (defamation of Character. ) ; but by his failure ( silence) to rebuke a defendant of my lawsuit, through his attorney, for his admitted lying, (The making of false statements) in the course of an appeal of an administrative law hearing decision. The appeal being a "due process of Law" proceedure. (1) PAGE 2. Dec. 16, 1991 Letter to Ethic Board Chairman Attorney John Mertz. Had the General Manager of the Board of Water and Light, Joseph Pandy Jr. , lied and made false statements about me, about facts relivant to the Administrative Law "Dispute Hearing" we were engaged in; on a witness stand, under oath, during a more formal judicial proceedings; He could have been found guilty of and would have been guilty of "PERJURY". The fact that my law-suit for slander against Joseph Pandy Jr. , did not receive a "Responsive Pleading"; but was answered with a motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116 (C) ( 10) , an admission on the part of the Defendant that each and every paragraph of my complaint was true, (No genuine issue as to ANY material fact) is an implied stipulation of the facts. The argument for dismissal was based on She theory that lying does not constitute SLANDER per se, and that the Plaintiff suffered no damages because his character was in no way defamed by the admitted act of defendant' s lying. The Honorable Judge William Collette, after hearing all the oral arguements and reviewing the briefs, ruled that lying did not constitute slander, and DENIED Defendant' s Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant to MCH 2.116 (C) (10) . The Honorable Judge William Collette, then informed She Defendant that the case should be dismissed pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C) (S) "The opposing party has failed to state a claim on which .relief can be granted. ", and that he (The Honorable Judge William Collette) would dismiss the lawsuit under the Judges cited rule and that the defendant should prepare the order. During the course of the hearing, the judge stated that he was sympathetic with my frustrations with the Administrative Law Hearing and its appeal process. I regret that the Honorable Judge William Collette would insult my intelligence. The hypocrisy of his sympathy lie with his tacit approval of Defendant Joseph Pandy Jr1s admitted lying during the course of an Administrative Law Hearing appeal proceedure and his tacit license for the defendant to continue such conduct in the future, by his failure to rebuke the defendant for his morale and ethic misbehavior. (2) Page 3. December 16, 1991 letter to Ethic' s Boafd Chairman Attorney John Mertz. While lying does not constitute SLANDER and or defamation of character (The Honorable Judge William Collette' s ruling) . I sumit; that lying is against the Law of God and violates one of God' s ten commandments; "Thou shall not bear false witness". Lying is against every rule of common law. Lying is against common sense and decency. Lying is MORALLY AND ETHICALLY wrong, repulsive, repugnant, reprehensible and SHOULD NDT be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. I did not receive JUSTICE OF ANY KIND, before the Honorable Judge William Collette and in fact, was done an injustice. I now seek some measure of JUSTICE before the City of Lansing' s Ethic' s Board. May God grant you the wisdom to do THE RIGHT THING. Please note. . . . . This complaint is against the Board of Water and Light ' s general manager Joseph Pandy Jr. Mr. Teets, may take the Honorable Judge William Collette to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, the proper agency to handle grievances against judges. COPY TO: Sincerely, Mayor McKane City Clerk, for the Record 8 members Lansing City Council The Honorable Judge, Llo d R. Teets William Collette 11 E. Elm Street, Apt B. The Lansing State Journal Lansing, Michigan 48910 WILX TV Station (517) 371-5963 WLAJ TV Station WINS TV Station WSYM TV Station 8 Members, Lansing' s Board of Water & Light Board of Commissiones Enclosures for City of Lansing' s Ethic' s Board Only Copy of Complete File--Lloyd Teets Vs Lansing' s Board of Water and Light File No. 91-69480-CZ I will also answer any questions or furnish any desired information to the Ethic' s Board to enable them to .reach a fair and equitable resoultion of this complaint. ( the end) 12 F . d STATE' OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM Lloyd R. Teets, - Plaintiff The Honorable Vs File No. 91- The City of Lansingts C O M P L A I N T Board of Water and Light, A Public Utility Company Defendant Lloyd R. Teets (Pro-per ) 116 E. Elm St. Apt B. Lansing, Michigan, 48910 (517) 371-5963 There is no other civil action betw$en these parties arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this court, nor has any such action bAen previously filed and dis- missed or transferred after having been assigned to a Judge . PLAINTIFF SAYS: ( COUNT I ) 1. Plaintiff is an adult and a resident of the City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. At certain of the times hereinafter mentioned, his name is Lloyd R. Teets. 2. Defendants, the City of Lansing' s Boaf'd of Water and Light, is a Public Utility Company, operating under the authority of the Charter of the City of Lansing. (1) 3. Defendants, the Board of Water and Light, is a Public Owned Utility Company, operating a monopoly business enterprise , which engages in providing exclusively, electrical, water and steam service to the residents of the City of Lansing, and other arear's, exclusively to residents living in their exclusive territory. 4. Plaintiff Lloyd Teets, is and was a person living within the Defendants exclusive territory within which Defendantfs were the sole provider of Electrical Service to residents. 5. Lloyd R. Teets, was a customer of Defendant's monopoly Business Enterprise on the .date of the allegations set forth in -this complaint. . 6. Joseph Pandy Jr. , is an employee of the Board of Water and Light and his position is that of Director and General Manager. 7. Defendants, The Board of Water and Light, through their Director and General Manager, Joseph Pandy Jr. , did, or caused to be done, in this State of Michigan, County of Ingham, an act of sl%nder, resulting--in an action of Torts. 8. Defendant' s employee, Joseph Pandy Jr., did on the twenty seventh day of November, 1990 duting a PUBLIC MEETING of the Board of Corrrdssioner's of the Board of Water and Light commit an act of negligence which resulted in the slandering of Plaintiff, Lloyd R. Teets, by making false and untrue verbal statements concerning disputes between Plaintiff and The Board of Water and Light. (2) 9. Plaintiff, Lloyd R. TPets, was not in attendance at the November 27, 1990 PUBLIC MEETING of the Board of Commissionertd monthly meeting to protect and defend himself from the onslaught of Defendants slander and was' therefore unable to defend. his good character and reputation, which was tarnished by Defendant 's. negligence, 10. Defendants, The Board of Water and Light through their employee, Joseph Pandy Jr. , did_ate+ ..the twenty seventh day of_ November 1990 at a public meeting state that the Staff of the of the Board of Water and Tight had responded to all of Plaintiff's requests for specific information requested from the Staff of The Board of Water and—Light. 11. Defendants remarks outlined in paragraph 10 above is false and an act of slander against the good character and reputation of the Plaintiff _ 12. ThP_ proximate cause of Plaintiff' s injuries as set out below was defendants negligence in Joseph Pandy Jr's failure to exercise reasonable care to ensure the statements he was making were in fact TRUE and not slanderous in nature_, unbeknownst to Plaintiff who was not present at the Public Meeting, as set out above. (3) 13. Plaintiff suffered compensatory and exemplary damages in the Following_particulars: a. ) Defendant 's act of negligence in slandering_the Plaintiff, resulted in Plaintiff's becomming upset, angry and outraged. b. ) Defendant's act of negligence in slandering__the Plaintiff resulted in Plaintiff suffering from mental and emotional trauma. c. ) Defendant's act of negligence in slandering thP_ Plaintiff, resulted in Plaintiff's beconming depressed and caused plaintiff to suffer from depression. d. ) Defendant's act of nPgligence_in slandering Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to suffer from loss of social status by his peers WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff prays Judgment against Defendants, The Board of water and Light, and in Plaintiff's favor in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars 0100,000.00) plus costs of suit- ( COUNT II ) PLAINTIFF SAYS: 14. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs one (1) through nine (9) . 15. Defendants, The Board of Water and Light through their employees Joseph Pandy Jr. , did on the twenty seventh-day of _ November 1990,_at a public meeting, did verbally state that the disputes between-Mr. Teets, the plaintiff in this action, and the Board of Water and Light, the defendant 's in this action, _ has culminated into a ninety two (92) page packet of correspondence and background information. 16. Defendants verbal remarks outlined in paragraph 15 above is false and an act of slander against the good character and reputation of the Plaintiff. 17. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs twelve (12. ) and thirteen (13. ) WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff prays Judgment .against Defendants, The Board of Water and Light, and in Plaintiff's favor in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) plus costs of suit. (. O'OUNT III) PLAINTIFF SAYS: 18. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs one (1. ) through nine (9. ) 19. Defendants, The Board of Water and Light, through their employee, Joseph Pandy Jr. , did on the twenty seventh day of November, 19909 at a public meetings did verbally state that Mr. Teets first appeared before the Board on January 239 1990. _ 20. Defendants verbal remarks outlined in paragraph 19 above is false and an act of- slander against the good character and reputation of the Plaintiff. (5) 21. Plaintiff rppeats paragraphs twplvp (12) and thirtApn (13). WHIVREFOIR, the Plaintiff prays Judgment against Hpfpndants, Thp Board of Water and Light, and in Plaintiff's favor in the amount of On- Htuidred Thousand Dollars 0100,000.,00) plus costs of suit. ( COUNT IV } PLAINTIFF SAYS: 22. Plaintiff rpppats Paragraphs one (1) through five (5). 23. Thp Board of Commissionpr's of the Board of Watpr and Light was Pstablishpd pursuant to the Lansing City Charter Article 5-102 .1 2L. Thp Board of Water and Light is an administrativp bo4r.d and has been dplPgatpd .xp.cutivp and Policy making responsibilities np cp ssary to the PROPER operation of the agency. 25. Thp Board of Commissioners did or caused to by done on th- twenty-sPvpnth day of Novpmbpr 1990, an act of gross nAgligpnc� and maleficence of office resulting in an action of Torts. 26. Dpfpndant 's, the Board of Corrmiissioners did or caused to bo done on th- twpnty spvpnth day of Novpmbpr, 1990 an act of gross n-gligpnce and malPficpncp of office by their act of removing from to appeal process Plaintiff's appeal of the Board's claim that the Plaintiff owed the Board of Water and Light the sum of 519.26 for o1- ctric sprvicAs rpndpred to Plaintiff's 116 Flrri StrPPt residpntial Apartmpnt account in violation of th- Charter of the City of Lansing pursuant to spction 5-206 .3 (6) 27. Thp proximate cause of Plaintiff ' s injuries as set out below was Defendant' s, The Board of Commissioner's of tha Board of Water and Light's gross negligence and maleficpnoe of office by their deliberatp and malicious act of violating Section 5-206 .3 of thc. Lansing City Charter by their removing from the appgal process, thait allegations that the Plaintiff owed the Board tha sum of $519.26 for electric servicas rpndprpd to Ph intiffIs 116 F. Elm Street residential apartment account, as set out above. �Bo The Plaintiff suffered compensatory and exemplary damages in the following particulars. a. ) Dpfendant 's a:ct of gross negligence and malpficencp of office resulted in Plaintiff's bpcomming upset, angry and outraged. . b. ) DPfpnd.ant 's act of gross negligence and maleficence, --of office resulted in Plaintiff's Auffn.riri& from mental and emotional trauma. d. ) Dafendant 's act of gross nagligpncp and maloficpnca of offices rpsulted in Plaintiff's bacomming depresspd and caused Plaintiff to suffer from dppression. P. . ) Defendant 's act of gross negligence and maleficence of office resultpd in denying Plaintiff due process in an administrativp law hearing process. WHRR7FORE, the Plaintiff prays Judgment against Defendants, Tha Board of Commis si ones r'.s of the Board of Water and Light and (7) • t. in Plaintiffs favor in th. amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) plus costs of suit. By Lloyd R TPPts 116 ''. StrP-t, Apt B. Lansing, Xi chi an 48910 (517) 371-g963 AFFIDAVIT: I Lloyd R. TPots do hprPby swoar and affirm that th- statAmPnts made in paragraphs 1-28 of this law-suit are true to tho bA st of my to dg f /s/ ' Lloyd R. TPAts. Sworn to and. subscribAd bPf oro mP this day of July, 1991. /sx MARILYNN SLADE Notary Public, trighem Couhty,MI My Comm. Expires Fete K igGd (8) MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS SPECIAL MEETING OF TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17 1991 The Meeting was called to order at 5 : 07 p.m. at the City Council Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz Donald Cook James Blair Alvan Knot MEMBER ABSENT: Vince Green OTHERS PRESENT: Lloyd Teets Harold Leeman Tammy Elsener, Recording Secretary SECRETARY' S REPORT: Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting: None Disclosures of Financial Conflicts Filed Since Last Meeting: None Inquiries & Complaints Received Since Last Meeting: None Next Meeting Date: January 28 , 1992 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Disclosures of Non Financial Conflicts Filed Since Last Meeting: None Current Legal Developments of Interest : None OLD BUSINESS: (Open Session) The following are pending opinions from Member Knot : Draft Opinion on HilliardCspiv- uv# r,u(j N, Draft Opinion on Morris Disclosure Draft Opinion on D. Joppie--T'Y;"C-16 Mf`e City Attorney will provide the Board with Opinions on Hilliard, Morris , Joppie and Knechtel disclosures some time in July. Draft Revised Ordinance (Knot ) - Pending Revised Rules of Procudure (Mertz ) - Pending. NEW BUSINESS : A. December 11 , 1991 Letter from Mr. Lloyd Teets : Mr. Teets appeared before the Board of Ethics to discuss a matter of ethics of a government employee who works for the Board of Water and Light (BWL) . Mr. Teets stated that Mr. Joseph Pandy, Jr. , of BWL, made several false accusations to Mr. Teets . He called these false accusations slander. Mr. Mertz asked Mr. Teets specifically what the false accusations were. Mr. Teets stated that there were three accusations that were made: 1 . Mr. Pandy stated at a public meeting on the November 27 , 1990 that the dispute between Mr. Teets and the Board of Water & Light has culminated into a 92 page packet of correspondence and background information; Mr. Teets stated that this document was, in fact, 102 pages . 2 . Mr. Pandy stated that Mr. Teets ' first appearance before the Board was in January, 1990; Mr. Teets said his first appearance was in November, 1990 , and 3 . Mr. Teets could not state the third one . Mr. Mertz and Mr. Blair discussed as to whether the Board of Ethic ' s had any jurisdiction over the employees of the Board of Water & Light . After reviewing the Lansing City Charter, it was discovered that we do have jurisdiction over the Board of Water & Light because they are a. governmental body. However, Mr. Mertz stated that he felt the misunderstandings and false accusations could not be considered slander and were not relevant . B . December 17 , 1991 Letter From Mr. Harold Leeman: Mr. Leeman presented a letter to the Ethics Board in regard to Tony Benavides . Mr. Leeman' s complaint is that Mr. Benavides used his power to suspend the rules instead of sending the letter and application of Mr. Rudy Reyes to the General Services Committee. Mr. Benavides requested that the issue become an "ACTION ITEM: , meaning that council would vote on the matter the same day they received the letter. Mr. Leeman feels that there is a direct conflict between Mr. Benavides and Mr. Rudy Reyes . Ms . Reyes is on the board of Cristo Rey Community Center and Mr. Benavides is the Executive Director. Mr. Leeman would like the Board of Ethics to investigate this matter and try to render an opinion by the next meeting to be held in January, 1992 . ADJOURNMENT: Approximately at 6 :07 p.m. Submitted by: Tammy L . Elsener Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE CITY OF LANSING BOARD OF ETHICS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 5 : 04 p.m. at the City Council Conference Room, loth Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Donald Cook Jane Rhodes BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: John Mertz James Blair Al Knot OTHERS PRESENT: Harold Leeman The vice-chairperson advised that he spoke with the chairperson who requested that because he was being held up in court and that a quorum was not present and that he wanted to be present for the meeting, that today' s meeting be adjourned and reconvene Wednesday, December 23, 1992 at 8 : 30 a.m. Motion was made by Jane Rhodes to adjourn the meeting until 8 : 30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 23, 1992; support by Donald Cook. ADJOURNMENT: 5 : 06 p.m. MINUTES OF THE CITY OF LANSING BOARD OF ETHICS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1992 This meeting reconvened and was called to order at 8 :50 a.m. at the City Council Conference Room, loth Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz Donald Cook Al Knot Jane Rhodes James Blair OTHERS PRESENT: Harold Leeman Jr. Lloyd Teets Kenneth Vaughan Sue Podleski, Recording Secretary Mr. Blair wanted it noted on the record his objection to this meeting being held in that there was no notice posted in the City Clerk' s office for this meeting and that it does not follow the 18 hour notice rule. Mr. Mertz stated that yesterday' s meeting was duly chaired and was duly called to order. Mr. Mertz acknowledged this objection. Mr. Knot indicated that this does not mean that legal requirements have been satisfied and would like to take a look into it. Mr. Mertz formally requested a written opinion from the City Attorney concerning the procedure of this meeting being held. Mr. Knot wanted it noted on the record that no official action be taken at this meeting. Mr. Cook inquired if James Blair should even be in attendance at this meeting as a member. Mr. Mertz responded that there are a number of issues that do not pertain to Mr. Blair that need to be addressed. - 1 - SECRETARY' S REPORT: Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting: None Disclosures of Financial Conflicts Filed Since Last Meeting: Donald P. Knechtel II (to be placed on next agenda) Inquiries and Complaints Received Since Last Meeting: Letter from Nicki Wilcox dated December 3, 1992 Next Meeting Date: January 25, 1993 at 5 : 00 p.m. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Disclosures of Non Financial Conflicts Filed Since Last Meeting: None Current Legal Developments of Interest: None OLD BUSINESS (CLOSED SESSION) : None OLD BUSINESS (OPEN SESSION) : Motion was made by Donald Cook to table old business until next month' s meeting; support by Al Knot; passed 4 - 0 . Following motion, Mr. Mertz indicated that he wanted the minutes from the last meeting to review what action was decided pertaining to all the information that was provided by a councilmember as a response to the Board of Ethic ' s inquiry of a possible conflict of interest. It was Mr. Mertz ' s understanding that the City was not involved and that there was no conflict. Harold Leeman addressed the members and refreshed their memories as to his December 17 , 1991 letter that pertained to the suspension of Council rules when an appointment of Mr. Reyes was made to the Cable Advisory Board. Mr. Mertz indicated that a copy of the packet from the councilmember responding to this issue would be provided by the City Clerk to Mr. Mertz and he could address the Board at the next meeting if he still felt there was a problem. - 2 - NEW BUSINESS (OPEN SESSION) : Early Retirement Resolution A discussion ensued as to whether this meeting was being properly held under the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mertz stated his belief to be that when a meeting is called and there is a lack of a quorum you could recess until a quorum could be obtained. Mr. Knot replied that if there is a lack of a quorum, the only legal motion that could be made is a motion of adjournment. Mr. Blair agreed with Mr. Knot and further indicated that he believes that the meeting is to be re-posted and new notice given. Mr. Mertz stated that he believes the meeting should continue on and if rules are found to the contrary, then this meeting can be ratified. Don Cook and Jane Rhodes supported that the meeting should go ahead. Mr. Knot supported that the meeting should go ahead but not to vote on anything. Mr. Teets inquired if it wasn't unethical for Mr. Blair and Mr. Knot to participate in this meeting. Mr. Mertz addressed Mr. Blair by stating that the charter clearly indicates that "If any issue before the Board involves any member of the Board, the City Council shall appoint an additional member or members to sit for the purpose of that determination in place of the member or members involved. " Mr. Mertz requested from Council President Crawford that someone be appointed to sit in for Mr. Blair. He further stated to Mr. Blair that it is important that Mr. Blair not participate in this portion of the meeting. Mr. Blair requested that this agenda item be split into two separate items . He feels that he should be able to participate in the complaint against the Mayor. Mr. Mertz stated that he disagreed. Motion was made by Mr. Knot to excuse the City Clerk from participating in this portion of the meeting' s agenda item concerning two elected officials taking the early retirement; support by Jane Rhodes; passed 4 - 0 (with James Blair abstaining) . Mr. Mertz stated that concerning the letters received from Charles Street Jr. and Nicki Wilcox concerning the two elected officials taking the early retirement, that he would request from the City Clerk' s office a copy of the minutes from the April 13, 1992 Council meeting, Resolution 201 and a videotape of the April 13, 1992 Council meeting. 3 - Mr. Knot asked that this matter be tabled because of the lawsuit pending before Judge Stell with a December 30, 1992 hearing at 3 : 30 p.m. on the very issues before this Board. Mr. Mertz stated that the court hearing does not involve this Board. Miss Rhodes indicated that regardless of whether the judge rules or not, we owe it to the citizens and the two officials that we need to know what really happened. She further stated that the Board needs . to provide and find out what is going on. Mr. Knot further asked that the members wait to address this matter until the new board member is appointed. Mr. Mertz replied that right now they just want to find out what procedures were followed, where did it come from, who was involved in the governmental process, and get a list of people who benefitted from this early retirement. Mr. Knot reminded Mr. Mertz that there were only the two elected officials involved in this issue and to stay on that track. Mr. Mertz and Miss Rhodes determined that they needed the following information: 1) Minutes from City Council meeting of April 13, 1992; 2 ) videotape of April 13, 1992 City Council meeting; 3) list of procedures followed; and, 4) list of individuals who took advantage of the early retirement. Mr. Leeman interjected and advised the members that there is an ad hoc committee of early retirement and that at the last committee meeting a "scorecard" was requested and that the members could probably get a copy of that. Mr. Knot stressed for the record that the members are to keep in mind only the two elected officials involved and that if the members want to go through a list and verify that the mayor and clerk are on it, then that' s okay. Mr. Mertz asked if there was a list of people who participated in the decision process, where this .list would come from, who drafted a resolution and how can the Board find this out . Mr. Knot replied that he believed this was done in closed session meetings . Mr. Mertz then indicated that he wanted a time stream/paper trail of these events . Mr. Knot stated that the two elected officials would not have participated in these closed session meetings and that Fran Knot keeps the minutes of closed meetings . Mr. Cook inquired as to what the early out plan is -- has internal audit ever looked at it. Mr. Mertz indicated that he wants someone to come in and explain the plan to the members and that he wanted Mr. Knot to find someone to be at the next meeting. Mr. Knot ' s reply to this request was that there would be no problem if a request was sent to him requiring him to act on behalf of the Board and not as an individual Board member. Mr. Knot further 4 - stated that he needs the authorization that the request is being made from the Board. Mr. Knot moved that requests for information and the like should come from the Board and that the chairperson should make these requests; support by Donald Cook; passed 4 - 0 (with Mr. Blair abstaining) . A further motion was made by Mr. Knot that the chairperson be authorized to act as spokesperson to the media on behalf of the Board; support by Donald Cook; passed 4 - 0 (with Mr. Blair abstaining) . A motion was made by Miss Rhodes that the City Attorney prepare a written opinion of the legality of the procedure that was followed for this meeting; support by Donald Cook; passed 5 - 0 . BOARD ROUNDTABLE/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT Mr. Knot moved that the chairperson be authorized to rule a public participant out of order if the chairperson feels that the public participant is getting out of order or time limit exceeds a reasonable time period; support by Jane Rhodes; passed 5 - 0 . Harold Leeman indicated that he would like a public sign in sheet. He further indicated that a tape of City Council meetings or audiotape of meetings should be made available and then wished everyone a happy new year. Lloyd Teets addressed the members concerning the March 24 , 1992 response he received from Mr. Mertz regarding his complaint against Joseph Pandy. He advised the members that he did not like the letter and felt that it was a poor job. He presented Mr. Mertz with an envelope and twenty-nine cent stamp. Kenneth Vaughan requested that each member of City Council be asked why they felt it proper to vote "yes" on Resolution 201 . Mr. Vaughan stated that he believes each Councilmember should be polled. Miss Rhodes moved for adjournment; support by Mr. Knot; passed 5 - 0 . The meeting was adjourned at 10 :25 a.m. - 5 - MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1992 - 5:00 P.M. TENTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL The meeting was called to order at 5:16 P.M. in the City Council Conference Room, loth Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairperson Don Cook, Vice-Chairperson BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jane Rhodes, Public Member Al Knot, City Attorney James Blair, City Clerk A QUORUM WAS NOT PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, Deputy City Clerk [Recording Secretary] Ellen Beal, Ward 1 Councilmember Harold Leeman, Member of the Public Bernie Mussim, Member of the Public Lloyd Teets, Member of the Public Russell F. Smith, Member of the Public Walter M. Jones, Member of the Public James P. Evans, Attorney Gregory McClelland, Attorney Howard L. Jones, representing Citizens for a Better Lansing Betty L. Kost, representing Citizens for a Better Lansing Margery Gilcrest-Hesse, Member of the Public Mary Margaret Woll, representing Eastside Neighborhood Assn. Leon A. Hilton, representing UAW Vivian Bloom, Member of the Public Others were present who did not sign in Chairperson Mertz announced that, after discussion with Mr. Cook, it was apparent that there was not a quorum of the board present. A motion was made by Don Cook that the meeting be adjourned due to the lack of a quorum and be rescheduled for January 5, 1993, at 5:00 P.M. CARRIED 2-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:17 P.M. Subsequent to this motion, a motion was made by Mr. Cook that the meeting reconvene for the sole purpose of taking comments from the public. CARRIED 2-0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Harold Leeman addressed the Board and asked if the Board would wait until 5:30 P.M. to see in Miss Rhodes might be present by then so the meeting could be reconvened. Leon Hilton requested that the Board ask City Council to place into escrow any bonus retirement monies due to Terry McKane, James Blair, Stephen Duarte and Jan Lazar until such time as pending litigation is completed. Howard Jones asked Chairperson Mertz to explain to members of the public present what powers the Board of Ethics possess. Lloyd Teets stated that he was not familiar with the two letters received by the Board on the issue of the early retirement plan so he is filing his own letter regarding this issue. Mr. Teets requested the Board to look into the retirement program and to look into whether the procedures used in implementing this program were proper. Greg McClelland stated that he was from the firm of Dickinson Wright Moon Vandusen & Freeman and that this firm has been retained, pending Council approval, to represent the City in the UAW v Lansing. He stated that he is anticipating that this suit and the suit filed by Ken Vaughn will be combined. He stated that the individuals who have sued the city [UAW; Ken Vaughn] are, in essence, asking for the Board to conduct litigation on behalf of them. In his mind this is a misuse of the powers of the Board. These people sued the city, let them use litigation and not the Board to pursue their cause. He stated that City Attorney Al Knot is required by City Charter to be a member of the Board of Ethics and cannot be removed by the Board. He stated that he felt Chairperson Mertz had a conflict of interest as his wife is employed by the UAW. He stated that Chairperson Mertz should disqualify himself. Margery Gilcrest-Hesse asked who the attorneys from the firm of Dickinson Wright are representing. Will taxpayers of Lansing be paying for these attorneys? The point is that these people are representing people who are leaving the city and they [attorneys] should not be here at all. Harold Leeman stated he felt the attorneys from Dickinson Wright were making a cheap shot by bringing up the comments about Chairperson Mertz having a conflict of interest due to his wife being employed by the UAW. Dorothy Jones stated that it is her taxes that are paying for these attorneys. Howard Jones stated that it seems to him that citizens have had to dig into their own pockets to get the City Attorney and the City Clerk to do what they are supposed to do and now they are having to pay to get the city to do what they should with respect to creating an early retirement plan. Meeting read]ourned at 5:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, MARILY 7SLADE Recording Secretary Date Approved: