Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

Z.B. March 25, 1998 -- Page 3 the 19th century,. Justice Thomas said other courts had extended immunity to local government officials for their legislative activities.. ,Thomas also noted that the Supreme Court itself had extended legislative immunity .to federal, state, and regional legislators, and there was .no reason .to distinguish local government legislators from these other types of lawmakers.- -... Thomas explained'there were many reasons.:for giving legislators immu- nity for their legislative acts. Court interference and the .fear of personal liabil- ity could affect a legislator's exercise of discretion. Also, the time and effort it took to defend against lawsuits could seriously impede the local legislative process because local legislators often worked part time..Furthermore, the threat of enormous liability -- compared to the often minuscule pay offered to.local legislators -- could deter many from participating in local government. ~ Thomas went on to say the-argument for legislative immunity could be even greater at the local level. Unlike states and the federal government, which often had sovereign immunity, local governments could be held liable for constitutional violations. In addition,: local.legislators who used their legisla- tive power to commit constitutional abuses were more likely than their federal and state counterparts to feel the effects of those abuses because their constitu- ents had greater influence... With regard to Bogan's and Roderick's actions, .Thomas said the appeals court had erred in deciding the immunity issue by looking first at Bogan and Roderick's intent -- whether they passed this ordinance with Scott-Harris in mind -- ..vhen it should have first determined whether Bogan'.s and Roderick's actions were legislative. " .. Thomas said Bogan's and Roderick's actions were clearly legislative so they deserved immunity. Even though Bogan, as mayor, was an' executive, his budget proposal and his signing the ordinance into law "were legislative be- cause they were integral steps in the legislative process." .. . X,¥hile the Court found .the passage of the ordinance to be legislative, in' form, it also found pa'ssage to be legislative in substance as well.' According to Thomas,."The ordinance reflected a discretionary, policymaking decision implicating the budgetary priorities of the city and the services the city provides its constituents." Also important was the fact the ordinance eliminated a position, and not simply Scott-Harris herself. Therefore, the ordinance's effects extended beyond Scott-Harris. Recreational Use -- Township sues to stop 'railbanking' effort Township of Bingham v. RLTD Railroad Corporation, Court of AppeaIs of Michigan, No. 1964J8 (1998) RLTD Railroad Corporation owned a railroad corridor that crossed the town- ship of Bingham, Mich. The corridor was about 100 feet wide and 15 miles long. In the State Transportation Preservation Act of 1976, the state Legislature provided that the preservation of abandoned railroad rights of way for future rail use and their interim use as public trails was a "public purpose." The state