to the editor. We'll have to wait another day to see whether
or not they'll print it.
=========================
Michigan’s Rules for Professional Conduct as they apply to
lawyers, part of rule 1.2(a) states, “A lawyer shall seek the
lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available
means permitted by law and these rules.” This statement
qualifies the opposite to be illegal. Why is it, then, that no
one has been complaining to the Attorney Disciplinary
Board when a lawyer, working for and paid by his client,
writes clearly illegal revisions like the two ordinance
amendments published recently for the City of Gaastra?
They have to do with noxious weeds and unsafe buildings.
See the October 30 edition of this newspaper. State law
specifically prohibits self-rule cities from creating
misdemeanors, and jail time, unless the state has already
permitted it. See MCL 117.3(k). As anyone who has lived
in Iron County for a while knows, the local municipalities all
copy from one another. What Gaastra has done will be
coming to your city soon unless they are stopped. After
WW2 Pastor Neimoeller presented his famous “First they
came…” statement on what happened during the war, with
the essence contained in the last line that went, “Then they
came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
The law is created by us for all of us. There are no privileged
few who are above the law in the United States. It harms all
of us whenever someone is permitted to flout the law at our
expense. This can only continue so long as we, the public,
permit it to happen through our inaction. This problem isn't
limited to Gaastra by any means, but prevails throughout the
region.
=====================================
MCL 113.3(k) follows. I have made the pertinent requirement
stand out in bold print.
*******************************************
(k) Adopting, continuing,
amending, and repealing the city
ordinances and for the publication of
each ordinance before it
becomes operative. Whether or not provided in
its charter,
instead of publishing a true copy of an ordinance before it
becomes operative, the city may publish a summary of the
ordinance. If
the city publishes a summary of the ordinance,
the city shall include in
the publication the designation of a
location in the city where a true
copy of the ordinance can be
inspected or obtained.
A charter provision
to the contrary notwithstanding, a
city may adopt an ordinance
punishable by imprisonment
for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than
$500.00, or both, if the violation substantially corresponds
to a violation of state law that is a misdemeanor for which
the maximum
period of imprisonment is 93 days.
Whether or not provided in its
charter, a city may adopt a
provision of a state statute for which the
maximum period of
imprisonment is 93 days or the Michigan vehicle code,
1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923. Except as otherwise
provided under
the Stille-DeRossett-Hale single state
construction code act, 1972 PA
230, MCL 125.1501 to
125.1531, a city may adopt a law, code, or rule
that has
been promulgated and adopted by an authorized agency of
this
state pertaining to fire, fire hazards, fire prevention, or
fire waste,
and a fire prevention code, plumbing code,
heating code, electrical
code, building code, refrigeration
machinery code, piping code, boiler
code, boiler operation
code, elevator machinery code, an international
property
maintenance code, or a code pertaining to flammable liquids
and
gases or hazardous chemicals, that has been
promulgated or adopted by
this state, by a department,
board, or other agency of this state, or by
an organization
or association that is organized and conducted for the
purpose of developing the code, by reference to the law,
code, or rule
in an adopting ordinance and without
publishing the law, code, or rule
in full. The law, code,
or rule shall be clearly identified in the
ordinance and its
purpose shall be published with the adopting
ordinance.
Printed copies of the law, code, or rule shall be kept in
the
office of the city clerk, available for inspection by,
and distribution
to, the public at all times. The
publication shall contain a notice
stating that a complete
copy of the law, code, or rule is made available
to the
public at the office of the city clerk in compliance with
state
law requiring that records of public bodies be made
available to the
general public. Except as otherwise
provided in this subdivision, a city
shall not enforce a
provision adopted by reference for which the
maximum
period of imprisonment is greater than 93 days. A city
may adopt
section 625(1)(c) of the Michigan vehicle
code, 1949 PA 300, MCL
257.625, by reference in an
adopting ordinance and shall provide that a
violation of
that ordinance is punishable by 1 or more of the following:
********************************************
There are no exceptions to the bold print section. Where noxious
weeds are concerned, MCL 247.64(3) tells us what is permitted
in the first sentence:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(3) An owner who refuses to destroy noxious
weeds as
provided in this section is subject to a fine of not more
than $100.00. When collected, the fine shall become a part
of the "noxious
weed control fund" of the township, village,
or city. By ordinance, the
township, city, or village may
designate the refusal to destroy noxious
weeds as provided
in this section as a municipal civil infraction, in
which case the
fine shall be a civil fine. If the city establishes an
administrative
hearings bureau pursuant to statute to adjudicate and
impose
sanctions for blight violations, the city by ordinance may
designate the refusal to destroy noxious weeds as provided
in this section as a blight violation and any fine imposed shall
be a civil fine.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is clear that the City of Gaastra's lawyer is prohibited from
advising his client to enact the illegal ordinance revisions, and
further, enabled the city commission to violate state law as
they could not have done without his assistance.
Bill Vajk
No comments:
Post a Comment