I have no doubt that the nanosecond Eric Haven resigned as mayor, the self-serving jockeying for political position and favor began for his replacement. Frankly, given Haven’s track record of secret campaigning, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s also actively yet quietly working to select his replacement. All of this happens out of the public eye, of course. You’re just supposed to think the whole process is honest and organic.
The city manager announced Haven’s resignation on October 16th. (He apparently resigned by email which was kind of tacky.) The city posted a copy of the resignation in the city council meeting packet, but they have yet to remove references to him from the website. I really wish they would. As you know, I really wasn’t a fan.
So, what’s next? The Clarkston Charter tells us. Remember, the charter is our city’s constitution. The voters approved it, and the city government is required to follow it. Unfortunately, many of our officials, employees, and appointees regularly ignore the charter, considering it to be merely a suggestion. One of these days, someone will sue to get an order forcing the city to do what it is supposed to do without having to file a lawsuit – and that is to follow the effing charter.
So, what does the charter say about vacancies? Section 4.20 states that a vacancy doesn’t occur until the resignation is filed with the city clerk. I’m not surprised the former mayor emailed his resignation to the city manager rather than the clerk. It’s a scofflaw-like thing to do, but since you can’t force someone who resigned in a snit to take any additional action, I suppose the next best date to use to establish a vacancy would be the date the city manager forwarded the email to the clerk for her records and inclusion in the next city council packet. I assume he did that immediately, so let’s use October 16th as the vacancy date.
Oh wait, not so fast. The city attorney doesn’t follow the charter either. He has always advised the council a vacancy doesn’t exist until they vote to “accept” the resignation. Where exactly is the “acceptance” requirement in the charter? Um, that would be located exactly nowhere in the charter. The city attorney has never offered an opinion regarding what happens if the council doesn’t accept a resignation – can someone be forced to serve against his/her will, or can the position be held open until the council gets around to “accepting” it? So far, the council has always “accepted” a resignation so we don’t know how it would play out if they refused to do so.
Section 4.22 of the charter states that a vacancy can’t be filled sooner than 14 days nor later than 30 days after the vacancy occurs, which is why the date they use for a vacancy is important. The net effect of requiring the council to take the additional step of accepting a resignation is that it artificially (and unlawfully) extends the charter’s time requirements for when the vacancy must be filled. Fourteen days from Haven’s resignation date would be October 30th. Thirty days after the resignation date would be November 15th. While it will likely work out OK in this case, it hasn’t in the past. I’m assuming the city council plans to fill Haven’s spot at the November 13th meeting, so they’ll just barely be within the charter’s time requirements (while congratulating themselves on being early 🙄). We’ll know for certain once they publish the agenda for Monday’s meeting.
Sue Wylie has expressed an interest in being appointed to fill the remainder of Haven’s term, which ends in November 2024. Ms. Wylie is the longest-serving city council member. Her fellow council members have annually voted to appoint her as the mayor pro tem for years and years. These votes stand for the proposition that her fellow council members believe she is perfectly capable of filling the mayor’s role when necessary. She’s never lost an election for city council. And, as I recall, she’s always received the most votes for city council every time she’s been on the ballot. That tells you Clarkston voters like and support her. A lot. And if the council acts in an even-handed and above-board manner, Ms. Wylie should be a shoo-in for the appointment to replace Haven.
Ah, but not so fast. Just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, you can always rely on Clarkston’s “old guard” to relentlessly vie for influence at every opportunity. You don’t have to watch these Clarkston political players for very long to discern that their first loyalty is always to their own benefit, with the interests of everyone else in the city coming in a distant second place. This is especially so when it comes to the friends and family of one particular business owner in Clarkston. (Hint – you can’t walk down Main Street without running into one of his restaurants.)
Does the old guard like Ms. Wylie? Not so much. She tries to treat everyone fairly. The old guard doesn’t care about fairness because it often conflicts with their self-interests.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one or more old guard supported external candidates for mayor pop up this coming Monday to compete with Ms. Wylie for the mayor appointment. I’ll be the first one to admit if I’m wrong and this isn’t what happens, but since I’ve lived here for 23 years and have seen this backroom BS happen over and over and over, it wouldn’t be wise to bet against my prediction. I also wouldn’t be surprised if a little digging on that person (or persons) reveals ties to the old guard and/or the family of one certain businessperson. For example, you can learn a lot about a candidate’s connections by taking a look at his/her nominating petitions to see who signed them, when they signed them, and who collected the signatures for the candidate.
You can also learn a lot by making FOIA requests for communications, as I have done. Though I doubt I will have any information by the November 13th city council meeting when Haven’s replacement will likely be selected, I just sent FOIA requests seeking communications regarding efforts to fill the mayor’s position as well as the Historic District Commission chair opening that also recently became available. (Note to city officials, appointees, and employees – you’d better include all responsive personal emails and text messages relating to city business in your response, because if I must sue to get them, you really aren’t going to enjoy giving my attorney and me access to your personal computer’s hard drive, your cell phone, and your cloud storage so we can find the responsive records you refused to turn over, including the communications you think you’ve deleted.)
I don’t know Ms. Wylie personally. She doesn’t know I’m writing this, nor would I ask for her permission to write about whatever I choose. I don’t think I’ve ever been in the same room with Ms. Wylie more than two or three times, and only then because we happened to be at the same function. I have emailed her along with other council members about city issues.
I haven’t been shy about expressing support for Ms. Wylie from a distance, and this has resulted in members of the old guard publicly accusing her of being my friend (which I guess is a bad thing? 🤷♀️). Some of them went so far as to demand Ms. Wylie’s recusal from votes during my five-year FOIA lawsuit because they apparently didn’t accept that Ms. Wylie could independently conclude that hiding public records in the city’s attorney’s offsite files in a deliberate effort to keep them out of the hands of the public was a bad thing. Oddly, these same people didn’t think the multi-restaurant owner’s mommy should have recused herself from voting on parking issues that clearly benefited her son even while she sat on a corporate board of one of his companies. For the most part, these aren’t principled people. But for the record, Ms. Wylie and I aren’t even Facebook friends. 😂
I may not always agree with Ms. Wylie, and I haven’t been afraid to say so. Notwithstanding, I’ve always felt that her heart is in the right place. I don’t like some of the positions she’s taken on spending issues, and I think she favors business owners over taxpayers sometimes when she shouldn’t (but it’s not even close to the extent that other council members have). I know Ms. Wylie listens to constituents, because she often mentions their concerns at city council meetings. She will always give you an honest opinion, even when it means admitting a mistake. That’s something I’ve never seen any other mayor or council member do.
Still, I admire Ms. Wylie the most for her staunch support for government transparency. This goes far beyond her public statements.
As you know, I regularly send FOIA requests to the city. The responses I’ve received have included emails the senders probably wish would never see the light of day. For example, I have emails from a former city manager making fun of Clarkston residents. I’ve posted an email from our current city manager to one of the city’s outside attorneys suggesting he might want to sue me over truthful statements I’ve made on this blog in connection with the five-year FOIA lawsuit the city forced me into filing. I’ve posted emails from Haven, copying council member Rodgers, where he reached out to our charter-appointed, taxpayer-funded city attorney because Rodgers was upset that I’d posted her publicly available candidate filing documents. Haven wanted to know if there was any legal action available to quash my first amendment activity. I’ve posted emails showing that previous council members deliberated by email in a clear violation of the Open Meetings Act, something that ironically took place even while they were being sued over a separate violation of the Open Meetings Act. I’ve also published emails that prove our city employees have way too much time on their hands when it comes to going after a business they don’t like. You might recall our former clerk’s “investigation” of the Millpond Inn Bed & Breakfast that I wrote about. Yes indeedy, there’s a lot to be gleaned from reading emails.
As I said, Ms. Wylie is the longest-serving council member. This has provided her with ample opportunity to talk about constituents behind their backs, violate the Open Meetings Act through secret email deliberations, and engage in other distasteful activities. And yet, I’ve never seen an email involving Ms. Wylie doing any of these things, proving once again that integrity means doing the right thing, even when you think no one is watching.
I honestly don’t know for certain what will happen on Monday. You won’t either until it happens, but by then it will be too late because the selection will have been set in stone for a year. So, if you support Ms. Wylie as Haven’s replacement, please take a moment to email your city council members and let them know that. If Ms. Wylie ends up having no competition for the spot, the worst that will happen is the city council will know they’ve made a decision that is consistent with the desires of Clarkston voters. If there are additional external candidates who show up out of the blue, it will help the other council members resist external pressure from outside influencers and their self-serving agenda. Constituent input really matters!
Here are the email addresses of the city council members who will be making the decision on Haven’s replacement:
Gary Casey CaseyG@VillageofClarkston.org
Amanda Forte ForteA@VillageofClarkston.org
Mark Lamphier Lamphierm@VillageofClarkston.org
Laura Rodgers RodgersL@VillageofClarkston.org
Ted Quisenberry QuisenberryT@VillageofClarkston.org
Please note Ms. Wylie’s email address is WylieS@VillageofClarkston.org, but she can’t vote on this issue because she has a direct interest in the result. Nonetheless, she might appreciate being copied on your emails to know that you support her.