Taylor City Attorney Gus Andreasen (left) with Mayor Rick Sollars.
By SUE SUCHYTA
Sunday Times Newspapers
TAYLOR – The City Council Sept. 1 passed a resolution, initiated by Chairman Tim Woolley, asking Mayor Rick Sollars to remove Corporate Council Gus Andreasen, which the mayor vetoed.
Woolley’s motion, supported by Councilman Butch Ramik, was brought up during open business. Wooley, Ramik, Angela Croft, Caroline Patts, Angie Winton and Dan Bzura voted in favor of the motion, with Charley Johnson voting against the resolution.
Andreasen, a partner with the law firm Howard & Howard of Royal Oak, was originally appointed several years ago by Sollars, with the city council approving the appointment.
While Andreasen serves in a general legal capacity, the city often uses other attorneys for specific needs, such as for labor issues and prosecutions.
During open business, Woolley said when the council attempted to obtain information and documents from the mayor’s administration during council’s investigation of Andreasen’s firm, with which Andreasen is a partner, Woolley said Howard & Howard defended the mayor in response to the council’s investigation and “did everything in its power to fight the city council’s investigation.”
“Howard & Howard served 49 pages of objections and excuses for not producing documents requested by the city council,” Woolley said. “This was a direct violation of section 2.5 of the city charter, which states all books, papers, records and accounts of any officer, elected or appointed of any office or department of the city shall at all times be subject to audit, examination or inspection by any member of council, or by any person employed or designated by the city council.”
He said Howard & Howard should have been assisting the city council in its investigation, and instead, did everything possible to prevent and hinder the council’s investigation, which was in violation of the corporate counsel’s duties as outlined in the city charter.
Woolley said his second reason is pursuant to section 5.11 of the city council, which states that the corporate council has a legal duty to act as legal advisor to the mayor and the city council, and must give legal opinions concerning affairs of the city to the council and the mayor, and must represent both.
“When the city council reported to the Michigan Attorney Commission that Howard & Howard had a conflict of interest when it defended and obstructed the city council’s investigation of the mayor, Howard and Howard responded by lying to the Attorney Grievance Commission, stating that there is no conflict of interest, because Howard & Howard has never represented the city council on any matters,” Woolley said.
Woolley said Howard & Howard further lied to the commission by stating the city council has never been a client of Howard & Howard, saying it had never given the city council advice on any matter, which is what the Taylor City Charter requires them to do.
Woolley said, thirdly, that Howard & Howard entered into an agreement with a vendor without council approval.
“I think there are some times, when you do business for a while, changes need to be made, and I do believe this is one, which is why I made this motion,” Woolley said. “I want to point out that I have nothing against Gus Andreasen. I like Gus Andreasen, and I would call him a friend, but in my opinion, I think it is time for someone else to be the corporate counsel for the city council and mayor.”
Ramik said he agreed with Woolley, and said he has been a victim several times when asking for information, and said the city charter has been violated.
“Therefore, we do need someone to step up and support this council,” Ramik said. “This council will make decisions, and this council, basically, runs this city. The only problem is, we have yet to put our foot down to show that we do, and court documents prove that we do.”
Woolley said the mayor would have to propose a new corporate counsel candidate, whom the council could then vote to accept.
Sollars said Sept. 4 that he issued his right to veto the resolution for several reasons.
“The council’s action is not only unsupported and irresponsible, but it is unlawful, and conflicts with the separate administrative and legislative functions described in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of the City Charter,” Sollars said in a Sept. 4 letter addressed to City Clerk Cynthia Bower.
He said the city council does not have the authority to remove the corporate council, so the council’s resolution is null and void.
Sollars said Woolley’s motion was also procedurally flawed, since he brought up the motion without passing the gavel to another council member, since, in keeping with city council rules, as well as Robert’s Rules of Order, he cannot make a motion nor enter into debate without passing the gavel to another, until the motion is resolved.