CRONYISM, BREACH OF TRUST, AND ABUSE OF OFFICE: Betrayal, Thy Name Is Bill Lewis!
1. Everyone is now aware that Bill Lewis has attempted for a year to reduce or eliminate the code enforcement contempt debt of Anthony Murat Bates which consists of court fines that are believed to total over $15,000. Lewis has kept the amount secret.
Lewis contends that the debt is owed to the Village. The contempt order does not award the fines to the Village. The Village was owed no money by Bates nor had the Village suffered damages that would permit an award of money to the Village. The money is owed to Kalamazoo County.
In spite of this, Lewis has maintained that the money is owed to the Village. This allows Lewis to maintain control of the debt so that he can reduce or eliminate it. Lewis didn’t do this for the code enforcement debt (~$15,000) owed by the owner of 329 W. Maple St. or the code enforcement debt (~$2,700) owed by the owners of 115 Watson St.
Lewis has said that he doesn’t care how the Bates debt is resolved so as to suggest that he is not personally motivated to screw the people of the Village. There is no interest of the Village that he is promoting or protecting. He has spent thousands of dollars on attorney’s fees to pursue this. He has hidden from the public his efforts to do so even taking them out of public view by turning over what he calls “negotiations” to the Village attorney.
“Negotiations” ended three years ago when the Court found Mr. Bates in contempt and Mr. Bates did not appeal. Yet here we are with Mr. Lewis spending our money for purely personal reasons.
And, why has the Village attorney permitted this? Neither of them, Lewis nor Craig Rolfe, Esq., will disclose the communications between them in response to a Freedom Of Information Act request claiming instead that those communications are shielded from public view by the “attorney-client privilege. Get that? They claim that their communications about this matter are private and none of our business. Somebody is unaware how narrow the attorney-client privilege is or the grounds on which is surrendered. Wow!
If the money is owed to the County, what’s the big deal if Lewis reduces or eliminates the debt? If the Court gets wind of this and decides to set a status conference, it could find that its order has been subverted and any money that did not wind up in the County Treasury has been misappropriated. Any settlements that went around the Court would be voidable.
Aside from the Village having to pay the debt over to the Court in that event, each Council member that participated would have some explaining to do. And the Court is not as stupid as Lewis believes the people of the Village to be. The consequences could be harsh.
And since intentional wrongdoing is not the kind of behavior covered by liability insurance policies, the taxpayers would be on the hook for all of the financial consequences including paying a competent outside attorney to represent it.
2. Lewis discussed with the Village attorney further depriving the public of information regarding Lewis’ efforts to reduce or eliminate the code enforcement related contempt debt discussed above. Lewis considered having the Council meet in “closed session” so that the public could not watch and observe what he and the Village attorney are doing with regard to the debt. He has no legal authority to do this. It is forbidden. Not sure that that bothers Lewis on a risk and reward basis.
In Michigan, the Open Meetings Act 267 of 1976 at MCL 15.261 et. seq., at Section 8, has limited exceptions permitting “closed sessions” of public bodies. None of them apply here. There is no consideration of personnel matters; no collective bargaining agreements to be negotiated; no purchase or lease of real property; no trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation; no consideration of an employment application; and nothing else under consideration that is exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal law.
The Anthony Murat Bates code enforcement related contempt order and Lewis’ effort to “negotiate” its reduction or elimination falls under none of these exceptions. It is not pending litigation. There is an order that was not appealed three years ago. That order is final. Mr. Bates could not now appeal that order and the only thing left to do is for him to tell the Court when he purged himself of contempt. It is not for Lewis to determine, negotiate, or otherwise diddle with.
The Michigan Open Meetings Act also requires a vote of two-thirds of the members of the governmental body to go into closed session. If all seven of the Council members are present five would have to vote to go into closed session.
Intentional violations of the Michigan Open Meetings Act are misdemeanors carrying a fine of not more than $1,000 for a first offense and not more $2,000 for a second offense.
3. With the January bill of Craig A. Rolfe, Esq., Bill Lewis has spent $32,376.48 of taxpayer money on attorney’s fees. The taxpayers of the Village have gotten precious little of value for that waste and abuse. Lewis has demonstrated in his year as Village President that he is not up to the office. Not only does he lack the basic skills for the office, he has demonstrated that the trust given him to carry out the duties of that office is misplaced.
END
