Bisio v Clarkston, Part 3

James Tamm, 10-23-17 Clarkston City Council meeting:

Mr. Tamm was asked to appear before the council as a follow up to Mr. Ryan’s appearance because it was believed that Mr. Tamm could answer the questions that Mr. Ryan couldn’t answer. The city council voted against going into closed session and decided to have an open discussion regarding the status of the FOIA lawsuit.

Mr. Tamm’s comments:

    • Mr. Tamm was retained through the Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool to represent the city in my lawsuit and one other lawsuit (2:16:09).
    • There are no damages requested in the case; just fees and expenses (2:25:39).
    • There is a “Chinese wall” between the insurance carrier that pays his bills, and Mr. Tamm’s duty is to the city (2:26:07).
    • My FOIA case started with a former city council member who initially objected to going into a closed meeting [this was a reference to my husband Richard Bisio’s open meetings act case, not my FOIA case; Richard was represented by a different law firm, and his lawsuit ended with the city admitting that it had violated the open meetings act and paying money damages to Richard, which was followed up with a letter from the Oakland County Prosecutor’s office warning the city not to violate the open meetings act again] (2:29:30).
    • After council member Susan Wylie pointed out that Richard’s case was separate from mine, Mr. Tamm insisted that it’s all “part and parcel” of the facts (2:29:53).
    • Mr. Tamm claimed that I made a FOIA request for all of Mr. Ryan’s bills near the time that Richard’s open meetings act lawsuit was filed [Mr. Ryan’s bills are posted on the city’s website for anyone to see and don’t require a FOIA request to review them] (2:29:59).
    • There was a very contentious issue regarding my husband Richard sharing information on Facebook and heated discussions on city council that resulted in Richard’s resignation from city council (2:30:15).
    • Mr. Tamm claimed that Richard made a request for documents that were identified in Mr. Ryan’s bills to Clarkston as well as making a FOIA request to every city that Mr. Ryan worked at as outside counsel [these FOIA requests were MINE, and in connection with one of them, Mr. Ryan billed CLARKSTON for having a discussion with Courtney Nicholls, city manager of DEXTER on 8/8/16 – and Clarkston inexplicably paid him for giving legal advice to another city] (2:30:27).
    • After prompting from council member Wylie, Mr. Tamm said that these requests belonged to me, so he should say “she,” but one of the city’s arguments was that Richard was just using me to make FOIA requests [this is despite the fact that Mr. Tamm was fully aware that Richard could have gotten whatever documents he wanted from the city – including the records I asked for – within 28 days of making a request simply by using the normal civil litigation discovery process in his open meetings act case; Richard sent other discovery requests Mr. Tamm in his open meetings act case] (2:30:47).
    • Mr. Tamm said that the claim that Richard was using me to make FOIA requests “wasn’t what we prevailed on” [No kidding. This was a sexist and misogynistic defense based solely on my sex and marital status, something for which the Clarkston city council should be deeply ashamed. Mr. Tamm and his firm denigrated me in court filings by referring to me with masculine pronouns or as my husband, and this conduct is contrary to the rules of professional conduct governing attorneys that require lawyers to take particular care to avoid treating a person discourteously or disrespectfully because of protected personal characteristics. It’s also hard for me to believe that Mr. Tamm raised this defense in any good faith because Michigan law has been quite clear for over ten years now that ONLY the people who are suing a public body are prohibited from making FOIA requests for materials related to their lawsuit, and I wasn’t suing the city for violating the open meetings act, Richard was. Richard could have gotten these records in 28 days; I’ve been waiting for more than four years.] (2:31:19).
    • Mr. Ryan received documents in his private office; he didn’t provide them to the city; the city didn’t use them to make a decision; the city didn’t possess them; and, therefore, they were not public documents because the project never went forward (2:32:25).
    • Mr. Tamm said his understanding was that there was never a vote one way or another to not defend the lawsuit [a double negative – stated differently, he appears to be telling us that he’s not aware that there was a vote taken TO defend the lawsuit] (2:38:39).
    • No one ever said that the case shouldn’t be defended [but did anyone say it SHOULD be defended?] (2:39:27).
    • Mr. Ryan said that the 18 documents weren’t public records (2:42:18); (2:43:14).
    • There was some type of decision-making process regarding what should be produced and what should not be produced, but Mr. Tamm wasn’t part of the decision (2:42:57).
    • Mr. Tamm agreed that the city paid Mr. Ryan, but he understands that no one ever asked Mr. Ryan to see the letters (2:44:36).
    • Someone reviewed and participated in the decision not to produce the records, but Mr. Tamm is not saying that they were seen or maintained at city hall; Mr. Ryan made the decision (2:47:16).
    • Mr. Tamm imagines that my claim for attorney’s fees is going to be very large and suggested that it was my fault for pursuing discovery [actually, it was Mr. Tamm who demanded discovery, and he and multiple other attorneys at his firm have been able to bill the Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool on a monthly basis for almost four years now; I asked the court to decide the case right away on the legal issues alone with zero discovery, which meant the case would have been handled much more quickly and less expensively at the trial court level – because, as Mr. Ryan said, the case is about “legal principles,” so discovery was an unnecessary waste of time] (2:48:50).
    • As part of the discussion regarding releasing the records at this point in time, Mr. Tamm said that if the city had to pay the fees, that will probably go into the decision for city’s insurance renewal or any other insurance the city would get in the future (2:48:00); (2:49:23).
    • There are things that are provided to lawyers on condition that they not be disclosed until they reach a final agreement (2:55:17).
    • Lawyers don’t give copies of every version they create; the property was never developed; and, this is true even though Mr. Ryan is a charter officer for the City of Clarkston (3:02:11).

Some other interesting comments:

Though council member Marsh didn’t recall a vote regarding to not release the 18 records, and council member Catallo couldn’t find anything either, Mr. Tamm said he understood that that there was some discussion regarding why the documents were being withheld (3:03:06).

Former Mayor Percival said that the documents never should have been withheld from the public (2:57:11). Sooner or later, we will know what the documents say and we will direct Mr. Ryan to provide the records because we paid for them (2:58:01). And then the city council can make an intelligent decision regarding why we are in this lawsuit (2:58:21). Not because Mr. Ryan decided they weren’t something he wanted to share – we paid for them, so why don’t we have the documents? (2:58:29).

Council member David Marsh wondered if it was in the city’s best interest not to release the documents – but he didn’t know (3:06:03).

Council member Eric Haven was upset that the city council didn’t vote to close the meeting to the public’s ears because there was some speculation that there is a conspiracy going on; these kinds of witch hunts are troubling (3:08:16).

Former Mayor Percival indicated that he’d had a discussion with Mr. Haven the previous day, and Mr. Haven apparently believed that the 18 documents that I requested were Mr. Ryan’s “private documents.” Mr. Haven was unaware that the city had paid for them, that Mr. Ryan was acting as the city’s attorney at the time the records were created or received, and that these were not private documents, so perhaps Mr. Haven wasn’t aware what was going on when the lawsuit started (3:12:27)

Audience member Cory Johnston noted that he had asked for communications regarding the bridge project that Mr. Ryan had reviewed and was told that the records weren’t in the city’s office and his request was therefore refused. The city is using the “Bisio premise” that if it’s not in the office, they don’t have to release it (3:14:17).

Council member Susan Wylie said that she doesn’t want to see things withheld from the public simply because they are being kept in a private office in the future (3:17:17).

The discussion begins around time marker 2:13:58 at the following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/54bhdxezb7w1pty/20171023%20-%20Clarkston%20City%20Council%20-%20Tamm.mp4?dl=0

To be continued . . .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discover more from Clarkston Secrets

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading