To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Below is an opinion piece by Curt Peterson regarding the 2021 Joint Defense Agreement between Peninsula Township and Protect the Peninsula. Township Supervisor Maura Sanders covered many of Curt’s questions in her Weekly Note last week, which you can read here. For more info, feel free to contact Maura, [email protected]. Read on for Curt’s note. -jb)
On Oct. 27, 2021, Protect the Peninsula (PTP) signed a Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) contractually with Peninsula Township. (View the JDA here. -jb). This secret (at the time) arrangement was not put into the public record until approximately 1.5 years later as part of the WOMP lawsuit record.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
What do we know, and what do we not know? At the time, PTP and the Peninsula Township Board signed the JDA via their respective attorneys, TJ Andrews and Greg Meihn. It states: “This Joint Defense Agreement is entered into by and among the undersigned counsel, acting for and on behalf of their respective clients, each of which are named defendants, or an interested party … The parties agree as follows: 1…”
Next, there are 17 paragraphs of redacted (perhaps by PTP) conditions of agreement. So basically, we citizens know next to nothing. We do know, though, per our supervisor, that it is still in effect.
Late last year, PTP called for transparency in the winery negotiations. Is keeping this important information secret what anyone would call transparency? This matter brings up numerous questions:
- What does this agreement cover? What are the 17 conditions?
- What is the severability clause that allows our Township Board to discharge the agreement with or without penalty?
- What communications and correspondence occurred between PTP and Township officials, either before or as this agreement was being discussed?
- What legal precedent or State of Michigan Statute allowed our then board to enter into such an agreement without a public meeting or public notification? (Read Maura’s notes on this here. -jb)
- Why were we citizens not allowed to voice our opinions either for or against the agreement?
- Why would our then board make such an agreement with a private organization knowing that they would not be held liable for any potential damages?
- Amendment 201 was enacted as a winery lawsuit defensive strategy, over the objection of 40 OMP farmers, which further restricted agricultural activity. Did PTP or their legal representatives have input with our board on authoring/supporting this amendment?
- Is this JDA the reason that late last year a board member said PTP has to be part of the settlement process, even though there is no judgement against PTP, and there is a ground swell of citizens who oppose their involvement?
- Did the agreement allow for regular communication between PTP and our Township government without us citizens being able to critique or participate in these communications, circumventing public scrutiny?
- During numerous closed session portions of our Township Board meetings during the past four years, did PTP participate “virtually” with our own township attorneys and Board members?
- Is the JDA a contributing reason that the February special board meeting agenda packet contained a QR code for contributions to the PTP defense fund, even though it is clear that a large number of citizens desire to have PTP excluded from the settlement negotiations?
- Is this JDA the trump card that PTP’s Mike Dettmer referenced during their latest library meeting?
– Curt Peterson, Old Mission Peninsula Resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Curt
I think your questions are all valid ones. But don’t hold your breath that anyone will answer them.
The township will have lots of reasons why they can not make this agreement public including what about isms….
The township owes us as a public body truthful answers to your questions but maybe they need to ask permission from PTP first. So much for PTP doesn’t tell them what to do , if that is true. Maybe whoever drew this up for the town should have had a clause in the agreement that the town could disclose the contents when it wanted.
Bottom line is PTP does not share the same financial burden as Township, so a JDA is not amacial.
Gosh, nothing like the whole crew supporting each other on total drivel. LOL All that is known is because WOMP hasn’t judicially put a lid on it. Of course, you all know the answer to the questions. You’re just trying to make controversy where there is none. Find a new hobby. Or, is this a full time job?