FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: BROWN-WILLIAMSON NOT INDEMNIFIED

  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

EM SUBMISSION NO.: 2012 em 260
PRESENTED: 5/15/1012• ADOPTED:5/15/2012_______________
BY THE EMERGENCY MANAGER:
RESOLUTION CONCERNING CITIZENS SERVICE BUREAU LAWSIJITS: DENIAL
OF INDEMNIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF COLLECTION EFFORTS
WHEREAS, The City of Flint is a party to litigation arising from allegations of racial
discrimination and retaliation when former Mayor Donald J. Williamson created the Citizen’s
Service Bureau (CSB), those being the cases of David Porter, et at v City of Flint and Donald J.
Williamson, et al, being Case Number 07-14507, pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, and Mike Angus, et at v. Donald J. Williamson, Case
Numbers 09-92472-CL, 09-92480-CL, 09-92391-CL, 09-92481-CL, 09-92407-CL, pending in
the Circuit Court for the County of Genesee, State of Michigan; and
WITEREAS, the parties entered into an Arbitration Agreement on December 11, 2009,
which consolidated all pending CSB matters; and
WHEREAS, the arbitration occurred over ten (10) days in January, 2011 and resulted in
an arbitration award issued July 6, 2011 against Defendant City of Flint and Defendant Donald I.
Williamson for $3,825,435.70 plus judgment interest under MCL 600.6013; and
WHEREAS, the arbitrators specifically provided that the arbitration award was joint and
several, meaning the award could be collected from either or both of the defendants; and
WHEREAS, the arbitrators described Defendant Williamson’s conduct and decision
making as “ill-advised,” “rash,” “arrogant,” “impulsive,” and “misguided”; and
WHEREAS, the arbitrators concluded Defendant Williamson “failed to be open and
honest” in his testimony and were “deeply disturbed by his apparent reflisal to honor his oath”;
and
WHEREAS, the arbitrators concluded Defendant Williamson disregarded the advice of
his police chiet disregarding existing procedures that governed how promotions in the police
department were to be made, and made appointments to the CSB without consulting his police
chief; and
WHEREAS, the arbitrators concluded Defendant Williamson clearly violated the law
and made appointments to the CSB illegally based on race to promote his own political ihterests;
and
WHEREAS, the arbitrators concluded Defendant Williamson violated police officers’
first amendment rights by retaliating against them; and
1
WHEREAS, Defendant Williamson did not appeal the fmdings of the arbitrators; and
WHEREAS, based on the findings of the arbitrators, Defendant Williamson was not
acting in good faith or within the scope of his employment when he formed the CSB or retaliated
against police officers; and
WHEREAS, under the circumstances of the case, Defendant Williamson is not entitled
to indemnification under City Code §35-80 and, absent court order to do so, the City should not
indemnify Defendant Williamson; and
WHEREAS, the City of Flint has negotiated a payment agreement with the CSB
plaintiffs pursuant to which the arbitration award will be paid in installments of $1,000,000 in
September, 2011, $500,000 on or before June 1, 2012, $500,000 on or before September 1,
2012; and on or before January 15, 2013 the total remaining amount owed including judgment
interest.
WHEREAS, the CSB plaintiffs have assigned to the City of Flint their right to collect the
judgments from Defendant Williamson, meaning the City of Flint may collect from him the
judgments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Flint, through the Chief Legal Officer, is actively seeking to
collect the arbitration award/judgments from Defendant Williamson; and
WHEREAS, Defendant Williamson has requested the City of Flint indemnify him
pursuant to Flint City Code §35-80, but that request has been denied by the Chief Legal Officer.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Flint’s payment agreement with the
CSB plaintiffs, as set forth above, is approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Defendant Donald J. Williamson is not entitled to
indemnification under Flint City Code §35-80 and the City of Flint does not agree to indemnify
him.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Legal Officer should continue with
efforts to collect the arbitration award/judgments from Defendant Donald J. Williamson.
Post Thu May 17, 2012 7:54 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

ALSO: FORMER CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR GENESEE COUNTY WARD CHAPMAN IS NOW A SPECIAL ASSIST PROSECUTOR FOR FLINT,
Post Thu May 17, 2012 7:58 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Flint emergency manager reaffirms demand of $4.5 million from former Mayor Don Williamson in Citizens Service Bureau case

Published: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 2:01 PM Updated: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 3:03 PM

By Kristin Longley | klongley1@mlive.com


FLINT, MI -- Flint emergency manager Michael Brown has reinforced the city's demand that former Mayor Don Williamson pay a $4.5-million judgment in the Citizens Service Bureau lawsuit.

Brown signed a resolution Tuesday denying Williamson immunity for his actions related to the case and renewed a push for the city's legal department to pursue collection of the legal judgment.

The money was awarded in 2011 to 48 police officers who successfully sued the city for discrimination under Williamson's administration. A panel of arbitrators ruled that race was a factor when Williamson promoted four black men and one white woman to a special police unit called the Citizens Service Bureau in 2006.

The question is: Will the courts agree with the city's position that Williamson is personally responsible for his actions related to this case while he was mayor?


A local ordinance requires the city to indemnify, or hold harmless, its public officials for their actions “while acting within the scope of (their) authority."

Brown's resolution says that, based on the findings of the arbitrators assigned to the case, Williamson "was not acting in good faith or within the scope of his employment."

Williamson referred all questions to his attorney, George Peck, who could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

Williamson has said he will fight the demand.

In the meantime, the city and the police officers reached an agreement for payment of the judgment as the city pursues its collection attempt.


The city already made a first payment of $1 million out of an insurance policy the city has for legal judgments. The officers are supposed to get another $1 million this year and the rest of the award in 2013.
Post Thu May 17, 2012 10:36 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >