I think the city manager and city council have been wading in some dangerous waters regarding some of their public comments about the FOIA. In a nutshell, they loathe the FOIA, and they aren’t happy with people who make requests – especially me. Forgetting the taxpayers they work for, they perceive the FOIA as something that diverts city employee time from doing other very important things – like making proposals to buy iPads for the entire city council at the same time the finance committee is meeting to decide how much they’re going to tax us – or how little infrastructure gets done – so they can pay city employees more just because the city manager wants to meet the high salary demands of our contract clerk so he can hire her full time. Or the proposal to pay city employees double time for working on one of the city’s fourteen designated holidays, which is hidden in the 17-page Policies and Procedure manual buried on page 51 of the 75-page January 13, 2025, meeting packet. (We already pay time-and-a-half after 8 hours, which exceeds the city’s legal obligations to pay overtime after 40 hours.)
Or how about the resolution of the $171,800 in negligent city employee overpayments to Independence Township over a fourteen-year period for police and fire services? We only received $96,220 of that back and if my husband – a mere resident – hadn’t caught it, our employees would still be merrily paying the bills every month without asking for the details behind them. We don’t know where the city wants to spend what it undoubtedly perceives as a $96,220 “windfall,” but based on the materials provided in the January 13, 2025, council packet, it apparently won’t be used to offset the $121,000 unexpected and unbudgeted sanitary sewer repairs incurred late last year. You might recall that several years ago, the city raided the existing taxpayer-funded water and sewer repair reserves to pay for rebuilding and expanding city hall (rather than repairing it for ~12% of the cost), so we no longer have money to offset necessary water and sewer repair. Nope, they’re proposing to keep the $96,220 and increase your sewer bills – again. And FYI, the $171,800 overpayment my husband discovered began with one of my pesky FOIA requests (you’re welcome).
Getting back to the FOIAs – and my FOIA requests in particular – I’m thinking about starting a regular sidebar feature listing my FOIA requests (and the city’s frequently deficient responses) in honor of Cara Catallo who seems to have an almost prurient interest in them and wants a report at every city council meeting providing all the details of any request that’s been received since the last city council meeting. I thought I’d help with her latest obsession by providing an update, but in exchange, I plan to start a sidebar with video clips of Cara Catallo’s conduct at city council meetings. For those of you who don’t know Cara Catallo, she makes a habit of attending every city council meeting as well as many other city meetings. She acts as an 8th council member and often makes comments that are inappropriate and filled with invective. Her family used to be influential – her mother is a former city council member and mayor, and her brother owns five businesses on Main Street. (Cara Catallo is easily recognizable at meetings – just look for the matron with blue or green hair wearing a slouch beanie and sporting the ever so cool sunglasses she often wears indoors.)
City manager Jonathan Smith seems thrilled with Cara Catallo’s proposal. As you’ll see in the materials below, Smith apparently doesn’t have time to properly respond to requests, but he does have time to prepare charts and reports about the FOIA requests 😂. I think he believes it will show how much time the city “wastes” on those pesky FOIA requests. But I’ll give you something Smith will never provide – an explanation of the city’s repeated FOIA violations that continue to occur even though Smith is getting advice from the city attorney and an outside “FOIA expert” attorney for all requests. On each occasion that I note the city’s response was illegal, deficient, or late (which is all of them), I could have filed a lawsuit but chose not to. Had I done so, the city would have been forced to pay for my attorneys’ fees and costs as well the city’s own fees and costs because the lawsuits will not be covered by the city’s insurance policy.
Glad to play the game, Mr. Smith.
Our previous clerk published a list containing a few of my requests, broke them apart, and then falsely represented that I’d made 22 individual FOIA requests, a claim that was repeated by city council. While that makes for jolly good theatre, the FOIA statute doesn’t limit the number of FOIA requests anyone can send, the claim wasn’t factual, and if I were to sue the city, the court would consider each FOIA request as one FOIA request. The former clerk’s chart went through July, so I’ll provide information about the requests that followed. You’ll note that all requests were sent in response to some action the city had taken that suggested information was being hidden in some way or the action appeared improper on its face.
September 14, 2024
This request asked for records from the Historic District Commission (HDC) and Nancy Moon in her capacity as the chair of the Historic District Study Committee, which meant that no one at city hall was required to search for records. The city took an extension of time to respond on September 19, 2024, making its final response due no later than October 6, 2024.
The request asked for communications between the HDC commissioners or Nancy Moon and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding a statement contained within the August 13, 2024, HDC minutes, falsely representing the contents of the HDC charter proposal that was on the November 2024 election ballot. Moon presented the incorrect information from SHPO at an HDC meeting, it was dutifully inserted into the minutes by her husband who is an HDC commissioner and the HDC’s secretary, and the HDC commissioners voted to approve the minutes as a permanent commission record. (A portion of that same false statement was parroted on the website Cara Catallo established on behalf of the well-funded group opposing the HDC charter proposal, a website that was riddled with false claims and character attacks – gosh, I wonder why Cara Catallo is so interested in my FOIA requests?)
The city responded on October 3, 2024, with only twelve pages of records provided by Moon to Smith. Four of those pages consisted of a copy of the HDC charter proposal itself, and most of the remaining eight pages contained illegal redactions. Smith said he wouldn’t be able to follow up with Moon to ensure the response was complete until the week of October 9, 2024, because Moon had left the country on vacation (since she was apparently completely unavailable by email or phone). Smith didn’t attempt to explain the illegal redactions or provide the required response for a partial denial (because when the city blacks out information from public records, it’s a partial denial).
I sent a follow up email to Smith on October 9, 2024, asking about the redactions, the obviously incomplete records, a confirmation that no record existed (if they didn’t), and I asked how much more time he thought he might need to respond. Smith ignored the email.
I emailed Smith again on October 17, 2024, about this FOIA and the September 16, 2024, FOIA (discussed below) because I was aware Moon was back from vacation at least as of October 13, 2024, since she gave a presentation at the Clarkston Independence District Library that day on the Historic District Study Committee’s work. I asked again about the illegal redactions and incomplete response and voluntarily agreed to give the city additional time to respond until October 23. Twelve minutes later, Smith replied by email, thanking me for my understanding and saying he would forward my follow-up questions to Moon about the incomplete September 14, 2024, response.
Smith ignored the October 23 deadline. On October 29, 2024, I emailed Smith again asking him to produce the missing correspondence, certify that records didn’t exist (if they didn’t), and give me records with the illegal redactions removed. I gave him until October 31 to respond or I would file a lawsuit, and Smith finally, and appropriately, responded on that date.
In his October 31 response, Smith said Moon advised him that a key email between Moon and SHPO concerning Moon’s efforts to obtain “Promotional Material to Stop the Petition” (her subject line, not mine) had irretrievably disappeared from her computer. (Poof! Riiiight. 🙄). FYI, when public records mysteriously “disappear” from personal computers, someone filing a lawsuit can demand that the personal hard drive be turned over for examination to see if the document can be forensically recovered – a cost that would be paid by the city. I believe the HDC’s and Moon’s actions violate Michigan’s campaign finance act because the HDC and Moon improperly used city resources to oppose a ballot initiative. The law provides that the city must remain neutral on ballot proposals, not use taxpayer-paid resources to campaign against them. The Michigan Secretary of State Election Division has served my husband’s campaign finance violation complaint against the city and is awaiting its response. The complaint included Moon’s communications with SHPO, provided in response to this FOIA request, as evidence the city used government resources to unlawfully advocate against the HDC charter ballot proposal.
So, look at all that transpired in response to a rather simple request for written communications. I could have simply sued after the first inadequate response. But I tried to work with the city to get the requested records. That prolonged the process for weeks. If the city wants to complain about how onerous and expensive it is to respond to FOIA requests, the blame lies with the city itself, which is apparently incapable of promptly and accurately responding to a simple request.
September 16, 2024
This request asked for records from the Historic District Commission (HDC) and Nancy Moon in her capacity as the chair of the Historic District Study Committee, which meant that no one at city hall was required to search for records. The city took an extension of time to respond on September 19, 2024, making its final response due no later than October 7, 2024.
The request asked for communications regarding a twice-scheduled presentation at the Clarkston Independence District Library. I sent the request because Smith used government resources (his email list and city manager report) to falsely make a claim to potential voters that the library presentation would explain how the HDC charter proposal would change the historic district. The city attorney forced Smith to issue a correction, but his correction incorrectly claimed the library presentation would discuss how the historic district commission would change under the charter proposal. Neither of Smith’s claims about the presentation were true.
Almost three weeks later, on October 3, 2024, Smith claimed he couldn’t respond at all to this request because Moon had left the country. My October 9, 2024, email (referenced above) asked how much more time he thought he needed. Smith ignored the email.
I sent an email on October 17, 2024, regarding this FOIA and the September 14, 2024, FOIA discussed above and voluntarily agreed to give the city additional time to respond until October 23. Twelve minutes later, Smith thanked me for my understanding and attached records Moon had dropped off at city hall containing additional illegal redactions and the records themselves suggested there were potential missing records. Smith didn’t attempt to explain the illegal redactions or provide the required response for a partial denial. Smith also ignored the October 23 deadline.
On October 29, 2024, I emailed Smith again asking him to properly respond to the request – to produce missing correspondence, certify that records didn’t exist (if they didn’t), and provide records with the illegal redactions removed. I gave him until October 31 to respond or I would file a lawsuit, and Smith finally responded on October 31.
As was made clear by the documents, and contrary to Smith’s claims in his emails and in his city manager’s report, the library director and all participants were fully aware they could not discuss the charter proposal during the presentation. In addition, library director Julie Meredith made it explicitly clear at the beginning of the live presentation that not only would the HDC charter proposal not be discussed, but they would also not entertain questions on it. This was a wise course of action by Meredith to avoid a campaign finance violation for using government resources to advocate for or against a ballot proposal.
Once again, a simple request took several follow-ups to get an answer, follow-ups that I made in lieu of just suing the city for its failure to properly respond.
October 29, 2024
This request asked for records regarding the city’s demand that former HDC chair Charlotte Cooper resign over a residency issue to compare that to the way the city was handling then-current HDC member Melissa Luginski’s residency issue after the city refused to act on Luginski’s continued ability to serve. A Clarkston News article reported that Cooper was registered to vote in Florida but lived in Clarkston 11 months of the year. Luginski owned a home in Independence Township, claimed that home as her principal residence for tax purposes, received US mail at that home, was registered to vote in Independence Township at that address, and temporarily rented a home on Main Street after her principal residence was sold but while she was having work done on her Independence Township home.
The city’s response was due on November 5, 2024. That date came and went with no response from the city. Failing to timely respond to a FOIA request is a legal denial and lawsuits can be filed the next day. Instead, I sent a follow up request on November 19, 2024.
Smith responded to my email on November 20, 2024. He claimed there was a “procedural mixup” because no one was reading emails addressed to clerk@villageofclarkston.org, even though Smith had personally advised me this was the correct address to use, I’d sent previous FOIA requests to that address, Smith is the acting clerk, we are paying $40/hour for a contract clerk, and we promoted administrative assistant Evelyn Bihl to deputy clerk at $21/hour to also do clerk work. Apparently three clerks aren’t enough to check the clerk’s email address for emails. (I wonder what other time-sensitive correspondence they also ignored.)
The records the city provided came only from the city attorney, not city hall. They contained an email from Cooper advising she had a Florida driver’s license (as Luginski likely did because voter registration records need to match driver’s licenses and she was registered to vote in Independence Township), she voted in Florida (as Luginski did in Independence Township), and she “homesteaded” in Florida (as Luginski did in Independence Township because she declared Independence Township to be her principal residence to obtain a tax benefit). Cooper was asked to resign because she didn’t “reside” in Clarkston as required by the city charter. Luginski was not asked to resign, even though the city was fully aware of Luginski’s residency issues.
Sound fair and equitable to you?
Feel free to reach your own conclusions about the city’s favoritism, but I’ve always believed Luginski was treated differently because her husband was a former city council member and mayor and because of her close ties to Smith and his wife in connection with the Clarkston Community Historical Society (Smith is president and treasurer of the Society).
Luginski resigned in November before Smith responded to my FOIA request making any action to remove Luginski from her position moot.
November 3, 2024
This request asked for a copy of the preliminary report from the Historic District Study Committee that Moon had publicly stated was complete along with communications with SHPO about the report. These records would have been in the possession of Nancy Moon, which meant that no one at city hall needed to search for records. The city’s response was due on November 12 due to the Veterans Day holiday. That date came and went with no response from the city.
I gave the city an additional week to respond before sending a follow up on November 19, 2024, asking when the city planned to respond to the request. On November 20, 2024, Smith made the same “procedural mixup” claim for this FOIA request that he had for the October 29, 2024, request – that none of our three clerks were reading emails addressed to clerk@villageofclarkston.org. In what was clearly a deficient response (since the final report is apparently 1,500 pages long), Smith provided me with a few pages of the report along with communications with SHPO and claimed the response was closed.
On November 21, 2024, I asked Smith to please follow up and provide the balance of the report. On November 25, Smith responded by sending 31 more pages provided to him by the Historic District Study Committee. I advised Smith by email that the response was still incomplete on December 5, 2024. On December 17, 2024, Smith told me that Moon had delivered approximately 1,500 pages of unscanned material to city hall and invited me in to review it, pay for copying, or wait until a link to uploaded materials was provided by the Clarkston Independence District Library. As I was unaware the report would be so lengthy, I excused the city from spending time doing the copying and advised I would wait until the link was provided.
Once again, I could have immediately sued when the city ignored my initial request. But I instead followed up in an attempt to actually get the requested records. The city’s failure to properly respond and the attendant time and expense of dealing with the matter is the city’s fault, not mine.
November 19, 2024
This request asked for temporary clerk Angela Guillen’s resume and communications regarding her contract with the city, given Smith’s claim the city “has to have her,” the council approved thousands of dollars to conduct a salary survey to justify Guillen’s apparently high salary demands, and the finance committee is considering whether to increase our property taxes or forego infrastructure work to pay for her salary and also because Smith anticipates we will be giving everyone a raise as a result of the salary survey, including himself. I was interested in learning more about Guillen’s background following a search of public records regarding her relatively brief employment with the City of Howell since Smith had mentioned Guillen had once worked there.
The city took an extension of time to respond on November 25, 2024, making its final response due no later than December 16, taking the Thanksgiving holidays into consideration.
As you may know, the city council (and Cara Catallo) are obsessed with charging for FOIA responses with zero understanding about when charging would be appropriate or what an appropriate charge is. For example, Laura Rodgers wants the city to charge for staples (which is an unlawful charge). Smith has also falsely told the council that I haven’t been charged for FOIA requests; I emailed the council to correct this and other false assertions that I like to refer to as “Smith myths.”
After much back and forth, the city council asked Smith to start charging FOIA fees as of January 1. But wait – the November 19 FOIA came from me. Therefore, a different standard must apply, and Smith told the council he would start the January 1 policy change on this particular FOIA. (And yes, I’m keeping track of council and city manager comments attacking my husband and me for future lawsuit exhibits should I need to prove intentional conduct arising out of animus expressed by city officials.) I suspect Smith’s approach to this FOIA was driven by dislike for me personally, because the request involved the contract clerk Smith wants to move heaven and earth to hire at significant expense to taxpayers, and because charging fees might have potentially delayed the response until Smith could put forth a hiring proposal to the city council.
Despite the city’s desire to charge for everything possible, the city waived the fee for this request. Following an additional inquiry from Cara Catallo at the December 9 city council meeting, Smith explained he was “excited” to submit an invoice for $52.50 for the “FOIA expert” attorney to review and was disappointed that the attorney recommended not charging for such a small request. 🙄
Smith responded to the request on December 9 with records containing improper redactions (Guillen’s signature and the address she provided for communications regarding her contract with the city) and missing attachments. I sent a follow up on December 11 asking for specific attachments and asking that Smith advise his “FOIA expert” and the city attorney that it’s improper to redact signatures or contractor addresses. I provided a citation to a published Michigan Court of Appeals case from 1988 regarding contractor addresses that they should both have been aware of. FYI, if you’d like to see Guillen’s super-secret signature, you can find an example here (scroll to the bottom). Smith provided the missing attachments on December 17, 2024.
For what it’s worth, I have sent a number of requests about the contract clerk’s many previous public jobs due to her as-of-yet undisclosed salary and benefits demands on the city, because I suspect the city manager has done zero reference checking, the fact that we are spending up to $4,000 for a salary study to justify these salary and benefits demands that will likely result in increased salaries for all city employees (because of course we have to raise everyone else’s salary if we pay the clerk so much more), and because the finance committee is being asked to discuss how to pay for this, whether through delays in repairing roads and sidewalks or a tax increase. I received most of what I asked for, and Smith has been made aware of what I found. Even though the records I have are public records, I haven’t posted them and am being deliberately cryptic because I think the contract clerk should be given an opportunity to explain some of the things I found if she can. I know she’s aware of my requests to her employers, because she thought it would be clever to make an identical FOIA request to my most recent employer. Since I know she reads this website, tell me Ms. Guillen – did you find what you were looking for, and were you surprised my record looks nothing like yours?
But I digress.
To summarize, I’ve filed five FOIAs since the end of July 2024. Despite the city paying for three clerks and two lawyers, I could have filed a lawsuit over the city’s deficient responses to all five of them – and won. I chose to work with the city instead.
Stay tuned for my Cara Catallo sidebar – I think I’ll call it “Crazy Comments, by Cara Catallo.” Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?