Democrats FOIA county GOP brass over redistricting

An article by Kirk Pinho    1 Comment

In the ongoing saga over whose Board of Commissioners district lines — Democrats’ or Republicans’ — are used for the next 10 years in Oakland County, Democrats have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents related to internal discussions at the county level on the process.

In the meantime, Republicans have put forth the guidelines by which the district boundaries are expected to be redrawn in light of a new state law that hands control of that process to the county board.

Fresh off of filing a lawsuit in Ingham County Circuit Court challenging the legality of Public Act (PA) 280 of 2011, which gives redistricting power to the Republican-controlled Oakland County Board of Commissioners, a series of FOIA requests have been filed for paper and electronic communications between top county GOP officials, among others.

The requests, filed by Royal Oak attorney David L. Richards, target communications containing the words “redistricting” or “redistrict” between Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, his staff and office; Oakland County Clerk/Register of Deeds Bill Bullard Jr., as well as his staff and office; Board of Commissioners Chairman Mike Gingell (R-Lake Orion); Oakland County Republican Party Chairman Jim Thienel; State Rep. Bradford Jacobsen (R-Lake Orion), the sponsor of House Bill (HB) 5187, which eventually became PA 280; any Republican county commissioners; and any lobbyist for Oakland County.

Bullard said his office received the FOIA requests on Friday, Jan. 20, and they have been forwarded to the office of Oakland County Corporation Counsel Judy Cunningham.

Thienel last week said he was unaware of the FOIA requests, which are the latest in the political dust-up between Democrats and Republicans over PA 280, which Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law in December.

When HB 5187 was shepherded through the state Legislature last month, Democrats — who controlled the county board redistricting process via a 3-2 majority on the Oakland County Reapportionment Commission — contended that the legislation was a back-handed attempt by Republicans to wrench back control over the county board’s district lines after Prosecutor Jessica Cooper and Treasurer Andy Meisner, both Democrats, won their campaigns in 2008, giving them seats on the five-member redistricting panel that approved new district lines in May.

Conversely, Republicans argued that the bill saves the county roughly $250,000 annually — $2.5 million over 10 years — by reducing the size of the county board from 25 to no more than 21 commissioners and puts the redistricting process in the hands of people who are more accountable to the county’s voters: the Oakland County Board of Commissioners.

In addition, Gingell has put forward a resolution outlining the new redistricting process that is expected to take place in Oakland County.

To comply with the timeframe of PA 280, work must begin before the law’s effective date of March 28, the resolution states. Gingell will serve as the chairman of the Apportionment Commission while Bullard will serve as the clerk of the panel, which will be comprised of the Board of Commissioners Oversight Committee.

Under the resolution, the panel will adopt Rules of Procedure, create a 21-district draft plan, and provide opportunities for public input and review. The resolution calls for a draft apportionment plan be completed by Feb. 29.

Houston said Wednesday, Feb. 8 oral arguments are set on the lawsuit in Ingham County Circuit Court before Judge William E. Collette and that, regardless of which side comes out on top in the redistricting controversy, an appeal is expected at the state Court of Appeals.

Under the FOIA, if a record request is denied, a written notice of the denial must be provided to the person(s) requesting the information within five business days, or within 15 business days if an extension is implemented, according to the Michigan Attorney General’s Office. Failure to respond constitutes a denial. A full explanation of the denial must be provided.

Appeals of a denial must be filed with the head of a public body, which then has 10 days to respond to the appeal. Unusual circumstances can prompt an additional 10-day window to respond to the appeal.