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

In an article titled “City Releases Bisio Emails from FOIA Case, ‘Many Citizens Have Lost Trust in City Government’” published in the October 21, 2020 edition of the Clarkston News, current mayor Eric Haven had the opportunity to demonstrate to Clarkston residents that he’d learned something from the last five years of litigation in my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, that he’d grown into a better leader, and that he would affirmatively support government transparency going forward. In other words, he could have told us that he intended to turn a black eye for the city into something positive.

But did he do that? Of course not. Frankly, Mr. Haven may be so entrenched in the belief that Clarkston government should be able to do things in the shadows that it’s impossible for him to change at this point in his life. And I have some things to say about that.

Mayor Haven, you chose a path of secrecy, even with regard to public court filings. You said that “the positions of both parties are ‘clearly a matter of record.’” Yes, they are – but only because I posted them online so that the public could see them since most people wouldn’t even know where to look for them.

You told the city council members who wanted to release the records in the interest of transparency that they should stop conjecturing, hypothesizing, agree, be thankful, and “cease and desist.” You didn’t think that any of them should be asking questions about the 18 hidden records that the city had paid for or challenging the notion that public records can be kept secret by hiding them in off-site files.

You betrayed your constituents, Mr. Haven. At some point throughout the years, you forgot that you work for us, and we are entitled to know what our government is doing – if you ever knew those truths to begin with.

“The city prevailed in two lower courts,” said Haven. “People should ask why. The majority and dissenting positions of the Supreme Court are written in detail for all to read. I encourage all interested to do so and form their own opinion.”

Mayor Haven, why should people ask “why”? Is the real issue your lack of education regarding how our court system works? I disagreed with the circuit court’s decision because I thought it was legally incorrect. I disagreed with the court of appeals decision for the same reason. While you are entitled to disagree with the decision from the Michigan Supreme Court in my case, even most grade school children know that the Michigan Supreme Court has the last word on state issues. You seem to suggest that the six Michigan Supreme Court Justices behaved improperly because they disagreed with you – is that what you intended? Alternatively, do you think that “forming your own opinion” about the decision means that it has any less effect? I can assure you that it does not.

You also said:

“Every decision handed down by a court has ramifications. I encourage every interested person to ask what the ramifications are of this decision. How and why does it matter, in Clarkston and beyond?”

I’ll be delighted to answer this one, Mr. Mayor. You were part of a process that will forever identify Clarkston as a city that fought for the ability to hide public records in off-site files. It matters a lot that you lost that argument. And people should remember that even after you lost, you supported a path that increased my legal fees by tens of thousands of dollars because we had to respond to your attacks not only on me, but on the Justices themselves – as you tried to get them to reverse their decision before the ink was even dry. You even told the Court that the city intended to ignore the decision if they wouldn’t reverse themselves! You really seemed to like the fact that (only) one Justice agreed with you, and you vociferously argued that the other six Justices lacked the ability to do their primary job – which is to interpret Michigan law. I’m shocked that they rejected your personal attacks on them with a one sentence denial of your motions. 🙄

As for what ramifications there might be as a result of the decision? Let me suggest that there won’t be many outside of Clarkston. As Justice Markman pointed out in the majority opinion, my case involved nothing more than reviewing and interpreting the FOIA statute. Most counties, cities, villages, and other public bodies don’t act the way that our municipal attorney did, Mr. Mayor. I’m a municipal attorney too, and I can assure you that no municipal attorney that I know thinks it’s OK for officials to hide public records in off-site files. The fact that Clarkston was able to convince the Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Townships Association to file opposition briefs in my case tells us more about them than about the Michigan Supreme Court. While those organizations publicly claim to support good government, it’s crystal clear that their position was always more “anti-transparency” than “pro-Clarkston.”

Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Mayor, that perhaps you just might have been on the wrong side of the argument when all of these organizations supported me and opposed you?

• • Michigan Press Association
  • Detroit Free Press
  • Michigan Association of Broadcasters
  • Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
  • Detroit Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists
  • The New York Times Company
  • The Detroit News
  • W. Scripps Company
  • New World Communications of Detroit, Inc. (on behalf of WJBK-FOX 2 Detroit)
  • Nexstar Media Group
  • Zillow Group, Inc.
  • Better Business Bureau of Eastern Michigan
  • Meredith Corporation, and
  • Michigan Coalition on Open Government

Apparently not.

Or maybe you could simply accept that you were wrong to permit an underling – the city attorney – to hide records from you, even though taxpayers paid for them. And maybe you could demand that the city council have the opportunity to be involved in any FOIA appeals in the future, rather than letting the city attorney review and affirm his own denial decisions – before someone else sues the city. And maybe you could acknowledge that it was wrong to engage in attacks based on my gender and marital status and to drag our family through the mud for having the audacity to demand accountability from you and the rest of Clarkston government, not just in my FOIA case but also in my husband’s Open Meetings Act case.

Maybe you could do all of these things. But you won’t.

Honestly, I was originally planning to stop at this point, and then I read Mayor Haven’s very offensive Letter to the Editor titled “Please endorse our City Council,” published in the October 28^th edition of the Clarkston News. And boy, do I have some things to say about that nasty trope.

I defy you to find any inclusive vision for the city’s future in Haven’s letter. You won’t – because it’s not there. This was nothing more than an attack on the two new people running for office while at the same time suggesting that someday, you too may want to serve on city council – at which point Haven will probably attack you too. Without naming them, Eric Haven tries to convince us to vote against Cory Johnston for mayor and against Steven McLean for city council, but we’re given no good reasons to vote for Haven or any of the five incumbent council members running for reelection. We’re simply told that the council has “thought a lot about . . . things,” “diligently ponder[s] issues,” and has “well formulated plans to protect our city.” From what exactly are they protecting us? We’re not told. Haven directs us to “honor [the] wisdom and service” of these elected officials. Bow low, prole. Lower.

I’ve referenced the “old guard” before. We all know who they are. They think they are our betters just because they have lived here longer. Most are in their 70s and 80s, but some of their poisonous beliefs have managed to seep into the Millennial and Gen Z generations too. They want you to pay your taxes and keep quiet about how they spend that money. No matter how much you object, they will find a way to take care of their friends and do what they want. They perceive the city as an “us versus them” schism. They would rather destroy you than reach across the aisle. There is no cooperation; everything is a zero-sum game to them. They don’t like you.

Eric Haven is a charter member of the old guard. He’s a master of secrets. He knows what’s best for you. And his letter to the editor eloquently proves my point. He is supposed to be mayor for everyone in the City of the Village of Clarkston, but he’s letting you know that he’s really only interested in representing people who are on his side.

Haven says:

Watching peoples’ behavior over time, I have learned to ask, “Why?” Motives are everything. When the why is clear, then you understand the “What.”

I am just a little smarter than I was back then. I didn’t understand there are people who want to steal our city treasures, our name, our property and our brand. They spin stories and tell half-truths (lies) for personal gain, perhaps money or prestige. They talk endlessly on social media.

Got it? If you question or oppose Haven and his friends, your motives are bad. Apparently, the two candidates who are running for mayor and city council (and anyone who supports them) also have bad motives and supposedly want to:

• • Steal the city’s “treasures.” Not exactly sure what those are or where they are kept, so perhaps Mayor Haven could explain that further. Because nothing belongs to the “the city” – everything belongs to us. Some of us thought that the wonder of Clarkston was the quaint, quiet, small town atmosphere. But Mayor Haven and his friends destroyed that by bending the rules to help the business ventures they like, resulting in noise, traffic jams, and parking problems, none of which were included in any coherent plan. I understand that they want to give away the end of Church Street for the sole use of a favored restaurateur – I’m not sure that Church Street is a treasure, but since we’re talking about taking things that don’t belong to us, isn’t giving part of a street away for the benefit of a private entity sort of like stealing from taxpayers, particularly since we get nothing for it in return?
  • Steal the city’s “name.” Um, not sure how anyone can do that. We have a name. No one can take it. Hyperbole, much?
  • Steal “our property.” Has someone taken things from city hall that Mayor Haven hasn’t told us about? If so, why is he keeping it a secret? Has the city filed a police report? Any police report should be added to the minutes and posted on line so that we can see it. Immediately.
  • Steal “our brand.” If we had a “brand,” Mayor Haven and his friends have certainly tarnished it. Has Haven forgotten the city council meeting that he personally, unlawfully voted to close so the city attorney and council could secretly discuss Curt Catallo’s plans to build a coffee shop? The case caption on the resulting lawsuit is “City of the Village of Clarkston” and the “City Council of the City of the Village of Clarkston.” How about the 18 records that the city kept from me for almost five years, records that Haven deliberately refused to even look at for himself before dragging the city (and me) through the mud? The case caption on that lawsuit is “City of the Village of Clarkston.” People will be able to read these cases a century from now. Great job, Mayor Haven. You’ve permanently “branded” Clarkston as anti-transparency, the place where keeping secrets is more important than serving citizens. You and your pals on city council did that – not the “others” that you falsely accuse of “stealing” some sort of ephemeral “branding.”

Haven also accuses these badly motivated people of doing other bad things:

• • • “They spin stories and tell half-truths (lies) for personal gain, perhaps money or prestige.” Dismissively accusing people of telling stories and lies with no proof to back it up is one of the hallmarks of the old guard. That’s why I post documents and links to recordings on which my opinions are based so that everyone can see and hear for themselves. That’s something that Mayor Haven and his friends on city council avoid doing wherever possible because it makes things go more smoothly if no one has enough information to raise an objection. As far as anyone gaining money and/or prestige, that would probably require family connections, and most of us don’t have that – but we know who does, don’t we Mayor Haven?
    • “They talk endlessly on social media.” Hate to break it to Mayor Haven, but he’s really showing his age here. Social media is the way that people interact, and it’s been “a thing” for quite awhile. If Mayor Haven was more interested in service and less in secrecy, he would welcome the exchange of ideas with the people he supposedly represents in all places where they may be found. Maybe Mr. Mayor should stop being such a backward Luddite and step out into the modern world.

Finally, Mayor Haven suggests you should blindly trust your city government because they know what’s best for you. Unlike the peons they represent (um, that would be me and you), Mayor Haven tells us that our city council – including the people who were appointed a few short months ago – has:

learned to sort out motivations, obvious or hidden agendas. They have learned the wisdom of asking, “Why,” especially in times of great controversy, disputes, lawsuits and the like.

Such hubris. And arrogance. And only a few of the many reasons why Mr. Haven should lose his bid to be re-elected as mayor on November 3^rd – and why Cory Johnston should win. We need a mayor who represents all of us, not just the people that he likes. Convicting himself with his own words, Eric Haven demonstrates once again that he’s simply not up to that task.