I would like to say a few words about Mr. William Basinger. For those who aren’t familiar with him, he sometimes tries to make legal points when it benefits the group that is frequently referred to as “the old guard” around town.
Mr. Basinger holds himself out as an expert on all Clarkston legal matters. He frequently pens memoranda discussing legal points and highlighting his legal background, often including former government job titles to try to add some heft to whatever it is he’s saying at the moment.
While Mr. Basinger has attacked my husband and me in city council meetings over our insistence that the city operate in an open and transparent manner, he seems to have saved his deepest level of anger for me in particular. Last year, he went so far as to send a letter to Clarkston residents within which he denigrated me because I filed an appeal in my Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (which was my right), and because I made a small financial contribution to a candidate Mr. Basinger didn’t support (but someone who appealed to me because he was running on a platform of good and honest government).
I’ve had the opportunity to review a draft of a letter attributed to Mr. Basinger that was written in response to my own letter to voters highlighting why I believe that certain candidates simply do not support government transparency. As is typical, that letter was filled with angry invective.
Let me gently suggest that Mr. Basinger’s hostile rhetoric in these letters and at council meetings is entirely disproportionate to the issues I have raised about the lack of transparency in Clarkston government. I am left with the distinct impression that he wants me to simply sit down and shut up. I’m not sure if this approach has been successful in silencing other women, but I will do neither. I’ve posted documents that support what I said in my letter so you can reach your own conclusions about these candidates.
I’ve also done some research on Mr. Basinger’s background that I would like to share with you. Perhaps after reading this, you may be persuaded to take the things he says with a huge grain of salt.
Here goes:
Mr. Basinger is a retired attorney. His information can be found on the Michigan State Bar’s website. If you click on his name, it will bring you to a page that notes he has “emeritus” status.
What does it mean to have emeritus status? The Michigan State Bar tells us:
“Emeritus membership: An active or inactive member who is age 70 years or older or has been a member of the State Bar of Michigan for at least 30 years, and who is not subject to pending disciplinary action in this state or any jurisdiction, may elect emeritus status. YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE TO PRACTICE LAW IN MICHIGAN. An eligible member who elects emeritus status is exempt from paying dues. Emeritus members are still eligible for section membership. In addition, at this time, professional ethics do not allow Michigan lawyers to provide referral fees to an emeritus lawyer. Emeritus members receive other member benefits, including section membership. To be readmitted as an active member, an emeritus member may be required to reapply for admission, undergo character and fitness, pass the bar exam (unless Rule 5 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners applies), and pay applicable fees and dues….” (emphasis mine).
I wondered what was in Mr. Basinger’s background that would provide him with purported experience on legal issues of interest to the old guard in Clarkston. But alas, my little bit of research has led me to conclude that it’s likely just puffery.
Using publicly available information, I learned that Mr. Basinger once was a litigator (from 1975-1985) working for the State of Michigan. Doing the math, the last of that experience was gained over 32 years ago.
All of the cases I found involved only one department – the Michigan Department of Social Services. Mr. Basinger worked on the following types of issues:
-
- Zoning (specifically relating to adult group homes, foster homes, etc.)
-
Government benefits issues (payments, reimbursements, etc.)
-
Government immunity
-
Parental rights
-
Miscellaneous cases, including one each involving juvenile court placement; attorneys’ fees; child support assignments and bankruptcy; workers’ compensation; and, an employment issue
Almost always, Mr. Basinger was paired with a more senior attorney in his department on these cases. (You can usually tell which attorney is more senior by comparing their license numbers, and if s/he is still licensed, you can look up his/her date of admission on the Michigan State Bar website.)
After 1985, I understand that Mr. Basinger moved into an administrative position with a long title that might appear impressive – but only to people unfamiliar with government titles. I found no publications or other references concerning him after that time.
What’s missing from the experience that I did find? For starters, there is nothing involving election law, the Open Meetings Act (OMA), or the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Yet, at one city council meeting, Mr. Basinger waived around the circuit court opinion in my FOIA case and claimed he knew a little bit about FOIA. He misstated the holding in the opinion and then repeated the unfounded allegation that this was my husband’s lawsuit, not mine, suggesting that this was only about my husband seeking “a pound of flesh” (an allegation that is quite frankly sexist, since I am the plaintiff, not my husband). Mr. Basinger also opined that certain exemptions could apply in my FOIA case, apparently without the benefit of actually reading case documents or understanding how Michigan case law has shaped the way those exemptions are to be applied.
So, the next time you see a letter from Mr. Basinger, or hear him give an ostensible “learned” opinion about a legal issue, just remember that Mr. Basinger:
-
-
Is not eligible to practice law in Michigan, so he speaks with no more authority than any other person in the city; and,
- He probably doesn’t know any more than anyone else about whatever subject he’s prattling on about at the moment.
-