James Tamm, 7-23-18 Clarkston City Council meeting:
This discussion was prompted by council member Wylie’s motion to release the 18 documents that I’d requested under the FOIA to the city council.
Mr. Tamm’s comments:
-
- City attorney Tom Ryan determined that 18 records that I requested were not covered by the FOIA or “more appropriately,” were within an exemption to the FOIA; Mr. Tamm’s understanding is that records I asked for were preliminary communications with others outside the city and weren’t shared, used, or received by the city [this is not a correct statement – Mr. Ryan has never claimed that any of the 18 records fell “within an exemption to the FOIA”] (00:40:24).
- The way in which the records came to light was that Richard Bisio [my husband and Kemp Klein attorney] made a request for bills from Clarkston and every single community that city attorney Mr. Ryan represents, and the records requested in my FOIA were items that were listed on Mr. Ryan’s bill that he had reviewed at some point in time [this is not true – Richard didn’t make any of these FOIA requests – I did] (00:40:06).
- Richard Bisio appealed the decision of the trial court; the Michigan court of appeals upheld the trial court’s decision that it was an appropriate legal determination that the documents didn’t fall within the purview of the FOIA; and, an appeal can be taken to the Michigan Supreme Court [this is my lawsuit, and Richard appealed the decision of the trial court and court of appeals at my request because he is my attorney] (00:41:39).
- Mr. Tamm had no idea why discussions relating to the lawsuit were taking up such an enormous amount of time at city council meetings (00:42:12).
- Mr. Tamm was retained by the Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool to represent the interests of the city and releasing the records could compromise the city’s insurance coverage if the documents were released before the lawsuit was concluded (00:42:32).
- It’s not an issue of right or wrong, or open government versus non-open government; the Legislature determined that there were certain exceptions, these documents fell within the exceptions, the determination was made that they ought to be excluded and they were (00:44:19).
- Mr. Ryan sent the records to Mr. Tamm and he thinks he still has them [but this wasn’t a direct answer to former Mayor Percival’s question regarding who OWNS the 18 records] (00:44:57).
- Mr. Tamm claimed that the lawsuit is about “a very personal issue between the Bisios and Mr. Ryan”; Richard Bisio took exception to comments made at a meeting and that’s what led to the multiple FOIAs; Mr. Tamm doesn’t know anything further about the requests to other communities; and, he didn’t think that there were other lawsuits relating to the other requests, but he really didn’t know because he didn’t participate in any way with regard to what documents should be released [Mr. Tamm is simply making up a story here; the lawsuit is about Mr. Ryan holding records relating to Clarkston business at an off-site location and claiming that the city didn’t need to provide them to me in response to my FOIA request, something that he’s done to other FOIA requesters both before and after my request to the city – see Cory Johnston’s comments from the 10-23-17 meeting where he referred to the “Bisio premise,” for example] (00:47:18).
- Mr. Tamm didn’t know if the city would have to pay the insurer back for Mr. Tamm’s legal fees if the documents were released, but my attorney [Richard] indicated that he would request attorney’s fees on my behalf; Mr. Tamm also told the council that he understood that my legal fees were in excess of $200,000 and the city may have to pay those fees [Mr. Tamm has no information regarding the amount of my legal fees, in July 2018 or now, but I’ll save my thoughts regarding why I think he said this to the city council for the future] (00:48:13).
- Mr. Tamm’s duty is to do everything that he can to protect the city and make sure that he doesn’t do anything to compromise the city’s coverage (00:50:18).
- Mr. Tamm was not there to defend Mr. Ryan or anything that he did (00:51:36).
- Mr. Tamm thought that Mr. Ryan didn’t want to trouble the city with the details of his job (00:52:30).
- Mr. Tamm was curious why the city wants to know about the records after the court has said the city didn’t have to disclose them (00:54:10).
- Mr. Ryan made the sole decision not to provide the records (1:00:22).
- Mr. Tamm filed a motion to require me to reimburse the insurance company for legal fees and costs (1:01:49).
- Mr. Tamm didn’t know if he still had the records, but he would look for them (1:03:18).
- Clarkston would not have to sue Mr. Tamm or Mr. Ryan to get the records if the city wanted them (1:16:45)
Some other interesting comments:
Current Mayor Haven [who was speaking from the audience because he had resigned his council seat to run for mayor] said we shouldn’t put our credibility in jeopardy with the Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Townships Association (1:09:34). This is the reason that we have experts (1:10:46). The city council should stop conjecturing and hypothesizing (1:10:49). The council should agree, be thankful, and “cease and desist” (1:11:07).
Former Mayor Luginski said that the city didn’t make the decision because the city never had these 18 documents – it was Mr. Ryan’s decision to withhold the records. These were Mr. Ryan’s documents, not the city’s documents (1:15:38).
Audience member Don Frayer didn’t think that one council should judge another council. The city council shouldn’t ever look at the documents because it’s over; otherwise, they are judging another council and shouldn’t do that (1:17:40).
Mr. Tamm’s comments begin around time marker 00:39:25 at the following link: