Robert Davis FOIA suit re: Regents meeting.
Somebody asked about this, so here you go; a Free Press link yadda yadda etc.:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100218/SPORTS06/100218052/1319/U-M-regen…
The Freep's Jim Schaefer identifies "Robert Davis" as the President of the Highland Park School Board, who seems to be involved in a whole string of lawsuits regarding official business in that city. They say he is 30, and U-M grad.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:14 PM ^
our ol' buddy, EMU Regent Jim Stapleton; they are both Granholm political appointees.
Davis:
http://mi.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-23442_21974-58633--,00.html
Stapleton:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/01/gov_granholm_reap…
Sometime last year, members of the Highland Park School Board, who have been battling Davis in and out of court (and who the heck would ever know who was right in a Highland Park lawsuit?) for some time, asked Governor Granholm to remove Davis. I don't know what became of that request. Maybe somebody who is familiar with Highland Park and the school board can fill us in on how many meetings Davis has gone to, and how many he's missed.
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Highland_Park_Schools_ask_governor_…
February 18th, 2010 at 9:18 PM ^
Why do we or should we care about Highland Park School Board meetings? We're going to witch hunt this guy because he filed a lawsuit?
February 18th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^
No. I think we're going to start a witch hunt because there is just slightly under a month until the spring game and 200 odd days until football properly starts again. To wit, what else are we going to do to pass the time?
February 18th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^
Main Entry: witch hunt
Function: noun
Date: 1885
1 : a searching out for persecution of persons accused of witchcraft
2 : the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views
Bando Calrissian, I'd like to introduce you to Michael Rosenberg...
Main Entry: ven·det·ta
Pronunciation: \ven-ˈde-tə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian, literally, revenge, from Latin vindicta — more at vindictive
Date: 1855
1 : blood feud
2 : an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts
February 18th, 2010 at 9:26 PM ^
This is a non-issue, and I doubt it will get past summary judgement. The most ridiculous part is that this is front page news to the Freep. They know the suit isn't going anywhere.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^
Indeed, I suppose the Free Press might have filed its own Open Meetings Act claim, if they thought there was a good case.
[btw: It is "Summary Disposition" under the Michigan Court Rules. "Summary Judgment" is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure counterpart.]
I'll take a flier here, without having seen the Washtenaw County Circuit Court Complaint, and guess that the Regents' position might be that clearly some meetings are exempted from public meetings scrutiny by virtue of their dealing with in-house counsel advice, etc. Just like people have a right to get private counsel from their lawyers, so do municiplaities, univerisities, and other public institutions. Hell, even the Highland Park School Board has private meetings with their counsel, not subject to the Open Meetings Act. Anybody wanna bet that THAT's ever happened?
But of course, if somebody wanted to push buttons and seek vaguely embarassing or merely curious headlines, wouldn't the perfect thing to do, would be to file a lawsuit and then, before the University has even been served with the Summons and Complaint, call up Jim Schaefer at the Free Press and fill him in on the details?
I was actually at the Court Services Office on the ground floor of the Washtenaw County Courthouse today; I didn't happen to see Jim Schaefer parked there, staking out the scene so that, uh, if anybody happened to file a lawsuit that he might be interested in, he'd be there like Johnny on the spot.
No, I think it is a safe bet that "Robert Davis" has an agenda, and he was all too happy to get the Freep in on it. And oh yes; the Freep was happy to oblige.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:32 AM ^
It says in the article that meetings which discuss personnel issues, student academic reports, and legal council are exempt. I have heard the entire meeting was held to discuss certain aspects of personnel.
Judging by the Freep's history, they will make this front page material for a week. Thats what pisses me off about it.
Edit: I meant to say "Summary Disposition" above, but had a temporary brainfart.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^
...Why did you put Robert Davis in quotes? Does he not exist? Is he Dolphin Puncher's alter ego? Just trying to gauge your paranoia level.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
I was making it clear that the Freep reported "Robert Davis," and that I was in turn referring to the Freep's reporting. I haven't seen the suit papers.
There's more than one Robert Davis. And some Robert Davises might not want to be confused with lawsuit-Robert. Hence, "Robert Davis"..."as reported by the Free Press."
My "paranoia level" is such that I prefer to write only things I know about for a fact, or for which I have links, for attribution.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:11 PM ^
The guy is currently running for reelection, and the Freep has already written an article about him.
http://www.freep.com/article/20100208/NEWS02/2080324/1322/Divisive-High…
February 18th, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^
Robert Davis is using the Freep for publicity, the Freep is using Bob because his actions fit within their agenda.
The only possible issue here is whether he is paying the Freep for the publicity. Because the Freep is broke, all signs point to yes.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
Federal only:
Actually, under FRCP, isn't the proper nomenclature "Judgment as a Matter of Law," or JMOL, technically? As in, under, I believe, FRCP 50, the standard is the same for "summary judgment" (no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party), "directed verdict" (same standard at the close of evidence) or "vacated jury verdict" (same standard, except no reasonable jury could've reached that conclusion/goes against the great weight of the evidence)? Or are you referring to a FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim/facial defect on the pleading, which would then not be the Rule 50 JMOL stuff. . .
(Please note that I am halfway kidding about this- in practice, in federal court, where I work, we call them "summary judgment," "directed verdict," etc; I just remember from law school that we were supposed to use "JMOL" for all three because the federal rules want the standard to be the same since they amended them sometime in the last 15 years or so.)
/law nerd'd
// I maybe should've checked the FRCP before writing this
February 19th, 2010 at 1:46 AM ^
I'm not so sure the subject matter would be privileged. The permissible purposes for a closed meeting are listed under MCL 15.268, and the only one that looks potentially relevant is subsection (h), which is "[t]o consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute." Michigan's FOIA contains an exemption permitting public bodies to withhold records of "[c]ommunications and notes within a public body ... of an advisory nature to the extent that they cover other than purely factual materials and are preliminary to a final agency determination of policy or action [if] in the particular instance the public interest in encouraging frank communication between officials and employees of public bodies clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure." See MCL 15.243(m).
While I agree the motives behind the suit are questionable (seems this matter could have been handled with a letter reminding the regents of their duties under the Open Meetings Act rather than a lawsuit, but I don't know the backstory), it looks to me like there is a good argument that the meeting should have been open to the public.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:44 AM ^
I see your point. But without any actual knowledge of what took place in the meeting, it is unclear whether subsection (h) would require the meeting to be open. If the information I heard about the meeting is correct, it would very likely be exempt under subsection (h).
February 18th, 2010 at 10:09 PM ^
{see above}
February 18th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
Better yet, how happy are Highland Park residents that this guy is trying to subpoena records about a meeting that will have its contents come to light in just a few weeks. He's got too much time or too much money on his hands and isn't proficient at wasting time on pointless internet searches.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:51 AM ^
I case you don't want to click through to the Freep, here's a link to the Michigan Daily's write up on the same subject:
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/regents-face-lawsuit-over-closed-d…
The University is claiming it wasn't a "closed meeting" as defined by the law (i.e., “the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy.”), but rather an "informal meeting".
I guess this guy Davis is going to be on David Brandon's list ...
Does anbody else think the University is just waiting until the NCAA report on USC comes out, so they can roll out whatever our findings are in a favorable context?
February 19th, 2010 at 8:52 AM ^
it matters if michigan waits until NCAA report on USC comes out... no matter what happens to USC the freep will just take something from the wire and put in the paper... but they will have their entire sports department working on the michigan story... USC doesn't matter to the average sports fan in the state of michgian...
February 19th, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^
very true. and sad.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^
I entitled this with the term "FOIA suit." In fact, a lawsuit over the Open Meetings Act is different from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
I apologize for the error and any confusion.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^
I was wondering if someone else was going to post here, or if Section 1 was just going to have a nice little MGoConversation all by himself.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:35 PM ^
print link.
Article doesn't mention how the paper finds this stuff out. Did Davis announce what he is doing, or did the paper know about it before it happened, or what? This sounds to me like the paper flogging this story, or maybe (speculation) actively creating stories to write about.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^
Using speculation to create additional spin-off stories is pretty much how the Freep operates nowadays.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:36 PM ^
I'm waiting for the Freep to subpoena Rich Rodriguez's bathroom scale, so that they can find out whether he weighs more than a duck.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:54 PM ^
Rosenberg: "Burn him, burn him."
AD Brandon: "How do you know he's a witch?"
Rosenberg: "He turned me into a newt."
AD Brandon: "A newt?!"
Rosenberg: "I got better."
February 18th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^
here is a novel idea..... Don't read the mother fucking freep you idiots.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^
Is it your goal every day to get negged as much as possible? I don't know how else you could reach nearly -100k
February 19th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
You should actually get +100000 for this post, it really says it all.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
I wandered over to the comments section to see what was going on......what a horrible idea. I probably should have just junkpunched myself and saved myself the time. My IQ literally went down 30 points just browsing the posts. It was like reading comments from Beavis and Butthead over and over again.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^
A brief glance at the Freep comments section is enough to negate any positive outlook a person may have had about the future of society.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^
Apologies to dahblue. I tried to leave the note that I was consolidating threads up for a few minutes before I deleted the first one.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^
My fault for not noticing the other thread. Thanks for the note.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^
No one is asking the hard questions, such as:
Does Highland Park allow grinding at their dances?
I think this whole lawsuit could be settled with a dance-off.