Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2003

Home

122 Page 8 -- January 10, 2003 7,.8. Planning board documents demonstrated the city yeas engaged in an effort to decide upon the appropriate level of industrial 'and commercial activity tak- ing place near a residential area and planning for non-business space that would separate these incompatible zones. There was no evidence that the planning process was not genuine. Whether the working goup was or was not effective was not the issue. A municipality could impose reasonable time limitations on development, at least where those restrictions were temporary' and adopted to provide, controlled development while the municipality engaged in comprehensive planning studies. Citation: W.R. Grace & Co. v. Cambridge City Council, Appeals Court. of Massachusetts, No. 00-P-27 (2002). Freedom of Information Act-- City fails to completely respond to Freedom of Information request MICHIGAN (11/26/02) -- Thomas made a Freedom of Information Act re- quest to Bi/lock, the clerk of the city of New Baltimore, for certain public records related to a development project in the city. Thomas requested all ma- terials regarding the construction of Festival Park. Grajek, the city's mayor, responded to the request the same day by produc- i_ng three records and orally assuring Thomas these were all the public records within the scope of the request. When Tl~omas later at-tended a city council meeting that evening~ he dis- covered two undisclosed public records posted on a bulletin board outside coun- cil chambers. Thomas requested another search of the public records. Thomas later received a copy of the minutes of the city council's meeting. Thomas sued. The court ruled in-favor of the council,, f'mding Thomas had received all public records. Thomas appealed; requesting he be awarded costs and fees. DE CISION :' Reversed. Thomas was entitled to costs and fees. The Freedom of Information Act was a mechanism through which the pub- lic could examine' and review the workings of'gm/ernment and its executive officials. It was enacted to carry: out the state's strong public policy favoring access to government information, recognizing the need for citizens to be in- formed so:they could fully participate in. the democratic process and:hold pub- lic officials accountable for the manner in which' they discharge their duties. By its express terms, the Act is a prodisclosure statute. A public body must disclose all public records not specifically exempt .under the Act. Even if. Thomas had later received ali information; he should be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements to a prevailing party. Citation: Thomas v. CiO, of New Baltimore, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 236438 (2002). :'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i I I