It’s Wednesday – So It Must Be Time For Mayor Haven To Beclown Himself (Again)

You know, every time I see Mayor Haven’s comments in the Clarkston News, I wonder if the people who regularly vote for him actually read the Clarkston News. 🤔 As usual, I have some things to say about his comments, which kind of remind me of what we used to call cow pies when I was a kid. I’ll discuss Haven’s ostensible deep thoughts about the election first and then move on to my FOIA lawsuit.

November 2020 Election:

I almost spit out my coffee when I read Haven’s suggestion that the results of the election indicated “overwhelming support . . . in [the] current city council.” Haven also claimed that the vote was indirect evidence of “confidence in the collective work of the city’s Planning Commission, Historic District Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Friends of Depot Park, and Historic District Study Committee over the past two years.”

For those who don’t know, the Historic District Study Committee is the group that is trying include even more homes than there are now within the historic district, which would subject these homeowners to the whims of the Historic District Commission – whether or not those homeowners bought their houses with the explicit understanding that the house was not part of the Historic District. (I know it’s hard to believe, but not everyone wants to be subject to the arbitrary whims of an unaccountable and questionably qualified public body.🙄) You should also know that the Friends of Depot Park is not part of Clarkston government, but since Mr. Haven volunteers time there, I guess he included them to give kudos to himself. I’ve always thought that patting yourself on the back was bad form, but I guess Haven doesn’t think so.

I really don’t think that the vote tallies mean what Haven thinks they mean. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?

Once again, Sue Wylie received more raw votes than Eric Haven – good for her! She’s obviously perceived positively by more people than Haven is, and it’s no surprise. Sue Wylie has been a staunch advocate of government transparency, and many people appreciate that. I know I do. (I’m sure that her continued success sticks in your craw a bit, eh, Mr. Mayor?) Ms. Wylie has never been in favor of hiding public records from the public, and she’s never tried to defend the city’s conduct in my FOIA lawsuit.

We had 77.6% turnout (provided that you believe our voter registration rolls are accurate and that there are actually 858 registered voters in Clarkston). Let’s take a look at the people who deliberately didn’t vote for council members and mayor, even though they turned in a ballot and voted on other things. Since we’re told that 666 people voted, please note the following:

• • Al Avery – 412 people decided not to vote for him (61.9%)
  • Ed Bonser – 410 people decided not to vote for him (61.6%)
  • Gary Casey – 388 people decided not to vote for him (58.3%)
  • Eric Haven – 308 people decided not to vote for him (46.2%)
  • Joe Luginski – 399 people decided not to vote for him (60.0%)
  • Sue Wylie – 305 people decided not to vote for her (45.8%)

Sorry, Mr. Haven. That really isn’t “overwhelming support.” Quite the opposite, actually.

Now let’s look at the write-ins. Cory Johnston received 83 votes for mayor (and 11 people wrote in someone else). Dr. Steven McLean received 86 votes for a two-year term on city council (and 11 people wrote in someone else). Thirteen people wrote in someone else in the one-year city council term section. Honestly, I wonder how many of those 13 votes were people who intended to write in Dr. McLean but wrote his name in the one-year section of the ballot rather than the two-year section of the ballot, which would have made those votes invalid.

Contrary to Haven’s assertion, I think this was a freaking fantastic showing for the write-in candidates. The deadline to register as a write-in was October 23, 2020. On that day, Cory Johnston filed his intention to run for mayor, and Steven McLean filed his intention to run for a two-year city council member term. They had one porch meeting, a handful of Facebook postings, and Dr. McLean put up a few signs. Despite having a minimal campaign that lasted only eleven days, Cory Johnston was able to capture almost a quarter (23.2%) of the votes that Eric Haven received, and Dr. McLean was able to capture almost a quarter of the votes (23.8%) of the highest vote-getter (Wylie) and 33.9% of the lowest vote-getter (Avery) of those who were also running for two-year city council terms.

I commend Cory and Steve for stepping up to the plate and giving us some choices. I don’t think Mr. Haven should be so dismissive of these candidates, because I suspect that if either of these gentlemen had waged a full-length campaign, they would have had an excellent chance of winning. I hope they will both consider running for office again in the future.

The FOIA lawsuit:

I was struck by the similarity in the language used by Haven in the Clarkston News and the anonymous letter received by (most) residents in Clarkston on election day. I wrote about that letter in my post titled “I See The Town Criers, Er, Liars Are At It Again.”

From the letter: “The City denied the request because of principle and not because of content; and once released, the documents proved inconsequential.”

From the Clarkston News: “Our trust was vindicated by the innocuous nature of these documents, no ‘smoking gun,’ actually pretty boring. They were retained on principle, not content.”

Interesting, that. The anonymous letter was signed by “your friends and neighbors promoting a positive Clarkston.” Perhaps next time Mayor Haven should just sign his name, or at least be careful to use different words in different contexts so as not to be so obvious.

Haven claims that Clarkston was merely standing on “principle” for the last five years in connection with my FOIA request and lawsuit. This principle apparently included attacking me on the basis of my gender and marital status.

What was this awesome principle Haven is touting? That Clarkston officials should be able to hide Clarkston records in off-site files and claim that they are not public records. And, since Haven has used his personal Gmail account for city business, rather than his Clarkston government email address, I don’t think he has learned a darned thing from the lawsuit. There are lots of FOIA lawsuits about government officials using personal email accounts as a way of keeping their communications off government servers so they won’t be found in a search for records and their existence can be denied if there’s a FOIA request. (I would note that this assumes that a judge won’t order the official to turn over his/her entire personal hard drive for examination if the FOIA requester provides proof that personal email is used for public business.) If Haven is truly committed to transparency, perhaps he could propose an ordinance that forbids the use of personal email to conduct any city business? I wouldn’t hold my breath that he will do that, and you shouldn’t either.

I also think that saying “oh well, there wasn’t anything interesting in the records anyway” makes Haven look even worse than he already does. Haven and his friends on city council were obligated to demand the opportunity to review these “boring” records and to order them released. But they didn’t do that. Nor did they even know that they were “boring” until the records were actually produced by the city attorney. For all Haven knew, there was evidence of misconduct in the emails, yet he still fully supported the city’s efforts to hide them.

Unfortunately for Haven, the test for whether something is a public record under FOIA has nothing to do with whether some obscure government bureaucrat believes that the content of the record is interesting (or boring). Most of the FOIA requests that I work on as part of my job aren’t very interesting to me, but they are interesting to the person asking for the records.

Continuing from the Clarkston News article:

‘There has been no attempt at concealing any so-called ‘secrets’ in Clarkston city government,’ Haven said. ‘Every council member and city official is committed to total transparency.  At no time were any documents concealed which were not lower-court authorized until the particular FOIA issue was heard before the Michigan Supreme Court.”

Sorry, but Mr. Haven is full of those cow pies I mentioned above.

Let me get this straight. Haven tells us that he’s committed to “total transparency,” but he also fully supported (and still defends) Clarkston’s role in a lawsuit that divided the community in support of his “principle” of hiding city records in secret, off-site files. Both of those things can’t be true. It’s also laughable to claim that Clarkston city council members and city officials are committed to transparency now, particularly in light of Haven’s recent comments about the lawsuit to the Clarkston News that I wrote about in my post titled “I Have Some Things to Say About Our Current Mayor’s Destructive Belief in Secret Government and His Desire to Represent Only the People Who Agree With Him.” The city attorney is a city official, and he hid Clarkston records in his private office with the full-throated support of Haven and his pals on city council – if that’s “total transparency,” I’d hate to see what Haven thinks “keeping secrets” means.

With the exception of Sue Wylie, every single council member fought to keep the records secret (and FYI, the mayor is merely a glorified city council member under the Clarkston Charter). Suggesting that hiding public records was “lower-court authorized” misses the point. There weren’t any courts involved from the time I made my request in June 2015 until I filed a lawsuit in December 2015 because the intransigent Clarkston city council and city attorney refused to produce the records. I would also note that the circuit court didn’t issue its order in favor of the city until October 2016. This means that Haven’s purported “lower-court authorization” didn’t even exist for the first 16 months.

The city council also hasn’t told anyone if the insurer has changed its position regarding paying legal fees – as late as a few months ago, the answer was “no.” If they don’t pay them, then Haven and the rest of city council will likely want to pass the costs on to every one of you. But hey, you should be happy because Haven thinks it was well worth it to fight for five years for the important “principle” of being able to hide Clarkston’s public records in off-site files.

The bottom line is this. No Clarkston taxpayer should ever be forced to go to the Michigan Supreme Court to get records to which they are entitled. The fact that Haven continues to defend his and (most of) city council’s actions on the basis of some sort of “principle,” and dismissing that conduct under a claim that Haven personally found the records to be “boring” anyway, negates any claim that he, the city council, and city officials are committed to “total transparency.”

Haven also claims that he will be “negotiating legal fees with Susan Bisio, and our insurer, Michigan Municipal League.” FYI, Mr. Haven, the Michigan Municipal League is not your insurer – the League’s Liability and Property Pool is.

As for negotiating a settlement, we offered Haven and the city the opportunity to do that in July shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision against the city, as you found out when the city manager disclosed a privileged memo from the city’s attorney during a public meeting. The city responded to that olive branch by filing multiple motions and briefs in the Michigan Supreme Court in a vain attempt to get the Court to reverse it’s newly minted decision and to argue over $1,146 dollars in taxable costs. This resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in more attorneys’ fees – on both sides.

Since the city did not want to discuss the matter, we filed a motion to ask the circuit court to review our request for FOIA costs and fees, and that motion is pending right now. As the Clarkston News notes, my legal fees and costs are almost $300,000 at the moment, thanks to Haven and his pals. The city has given us no indication whatsoever that we won’t have to argue in court over fees and costs – and the city will have to pay every dime of that fight as well. You know, I don’t think that “negotiating” means what Haven thinks it means.

Clarkston absolutely does keep secrets, and that’s why I started – and intend to continue – this website. It’s my sincere hope that Haven stops giving me things to write about, but I suspect that’s not going to be the case. If Haven really believes Clarkston is a “jewel,” he should stop his continued quest to tarnish it.