News

County: Assault report will not be released

By LIZ SHEPARD Argus-Press Staff Writer

Friday, March 14, 2008 9:52 AM EDT

CORUNNA - County commissioners rejected an appeal of a Freedom of Information Act denial Thursday that would have released an attorney's report of Sheriff Jon Wilson's alleged assault against Lt. Mike Ash.

Bennington Township resident Kay Lauro filed the FOIA requesting all correspondences concerning the incident between Wilson and Ash last month. County Clerk Lauri Braid gave Lauro documents, including the complaint, but the report was denied because attorney/client privileged material is exempt under FOIA.

FOIA, or Freedom of Information Act, is a law giving citizens and the media the right to request certain documents from public entities. Officials have up to five business days to provide the information and can also request an extension.

Lauro said previously she made the appeal because she wanted all sides of the incident made public.

“Should you desire to release that report you betray nobody's trust. Should you desire to not release that report, you betray public trust,” Lauro said before the commissioners made their decision.

Commissioner Jack Johnson was the only dissenting vote, and said he obtained advice from two outside legal counsels who agreed Wilson shouldn't have gotten a copy of the report because he wasn't the client. Due to its highly publicized nature - with some sources telling Johnson it had become common knowledge around the County Courthouse, in blogs and Wilson's reference of it in a letter to the editor - he thought it should be released.

“I see no reason why (not releasing the information) serves the best interest of this county or the people in their right or need to know both sides of the story, not just the one side that was framed by Sheriff Wilson (in the press),” he said.

Commissioner Gerald Cole said the board shouldn't operate based on hearsay of anonymous sources stating the document is public knowledge.

Commissioner Jon Michael Fuja also spoke out in disagreement of Johnson, citing the need to protect the complainant's privacy, even if it had previously been released.

Johnson said who the letter discussed was no secret and Ash had requested a copy of it.

Sparkes cut Johnson off after the mention of Ash and said details of the document had to be discussed in closed session.

During Tuesday's Committee of the Whole meeting, the commissioners went into closed session for about two hours to discuss the client/privileged letter and collective bargaining agreement.

While he previously agreed with Johnson, Commissioner Dan Stewart said his “...change of heart came through remarks and justification that was obtained in a closed session and I cannot divulge that information.”

Johnson also questioned the process Lauro went through and why an inventory of what documents were being denied wasn't given to Lauro after her FOIA request last month, which county attorney Dave Stoker said should have been done.

“It just begs the question, if one document was left off the inventory, were their others?” Johnson said.

Stoker, who was present for the hearing, said according to the Sheriff's Department, there were no other documents.

Comment on this Story

Annette wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:18 AM:

" govtguru,
Implementing it in this fashion will only cause more for them to answer for. They have likely forced a full investigation into their actions now. If they had done things properly in the first place, they would have had no reason to sit on it. "

govtguru wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:25 AM:

" The State of Michigan law-Open Meetings Act of 1976 was passed to provide the public with access to all information that any governmental entity (local, state, federal, or public school)takes action on, or discusses during normal business operations or during any open meeting. However, there are EXCEPTIONS clearly stated in the law that are not public documents for disclosure. Attorney/client documents are one of the excepted documents that cannot be disclosed unless there is a court order requiring the document to be released. The Board of Commissioners are following the law. Read the Open Meetings Act of the State of Michigan. "

had it2here wrote on Mar 15, 2008 7:34 PM:

" exactly WHO are these people working for? Themselves? Attorneys?
Or maybe....just maybe....residents of SHIAWASSEE COUNTY?! "

really??? wrote on Mar 15, 2008 3:50 PM:

" attorney/client privilege...right...

This is the same letter than numerous people have seen, right?

Seems if it exonerated the sheriff then it would be published/shared/reported by said sheriff or others

Polly tickin' as usual, unfortunately.

"

Carl Stevens wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:51 PM:

" It seems if the commissioners paid for this investigation out of county funds(ie. taxes), wouldn't that make the citizens of the county the "client"?
I don't think any of them paid for it out of their own pocket.
The commissioners are supposed to be our representatives not our keepers. "

kaylor wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:12 PM:

" It has become fairly common practice to use attorneys to do this kind of an 'investigation' to that the end result may be denied to the public based on "attorney/client privleged" communications may be exempt under the current FOIA law.

At least 7 states have revoked this examption for government "bodies".

This is the kind of thing that may lead to this exemption being revoked in this state. Especially if a lot of people complain to their legislators about it. "

thisissad wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:52 PM:

" Isn't it sad what our county has come to? I highly doubt that they would be "hiding" evidence that would clear Wilson, they would want that song heard on the tops of the mountains! I believe that it is being held because it makes them and Wilson look bad. They are protecting themselves, not the residents of the county. "

CountyVoter wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:26 PM:

" Why are the commissioners able to make up their own rules as they go along? Shouldn't the public have important information about our local sheriff?
This is all very disheartening. "