Salem Township settles free speech suit with ACLU
Editor's note: This story has been updated to correct Fred Roperti's statement about rules for public comment in Salem Township.
Salem Township agreed to pay $27,500 and adopt a resolution promising to respect free speech rights to settle a lawsuit filed after two residents were ejected from a board meeting last year.
The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the township after police escorted two citizens from a public meeting in January 2008.
The ACLU sued on behalf of residents Robert Uherek and O’Neill Muirhead in U.S. District Court in March 2008. The residents said their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated during the incident. Salem Township and Supervisor Fred Roperti were named as defendants.
Attorneys also said the incident violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Last May, the court denied a motion to dismiss the case, which led to this weeks' resolution before trial.
Terms of the settlement specify the township will pay $27,500 to the ACLU and its clients. It also required the township to adopt a resolution, passed by the board Tuesday evening, pledging to “respect the First Amendment rights of its citizens” and to tolerate critical remarks.
“If the First Amendment means anything, it means citizens have the right to criticize the actions of public officials,” said Michael Steinberg, ACLU of Michigan legal director. “Now that Roperti is gone and there’s a new board, we hope this will be the end of the controversy.”
Bob Heyl was elected township supervisor last November.
The settlement also stipulates that Roperti hand over documents he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and refrain from obtaining the documents again. But Roperti said he will not sign the settlement and has every right to keep the documents.
“There’s information in there that the plaintiffs and the ACLU do not want to go out,” he said. “There’s no question all that stuff will go up on a Web site.”
The documents include depositions made by Uherek, Muirhead and police officials, according to Roperti, who served as township supervisor from 2000 to 2008. He said the settlement also stipulates that the township not release the documents.
Roperti said Uherek and Muirhead have a long history of abusing township board members, and many have been intimidated.
“They know I’m not, and that’s why they hated me and wanted to get me out of there,” he said.
Roperti ordered Uherek from the board meeting after the 40-year township resident criticized the supervisor’s lack of “openness and transparency.” After police led Uherek from the room, Muirhead challenged the order and found himself also being led out.
An earlier revision to the township’s policy on public comments had already been made in 2007 following a complaint by the ACLU.
Roperti said the remarks by Uherek and Muirhead came at the beginning of the meeting when public comments are allowed only on items pertaining to the agenda. Public comments on other matters must come at the end of the meeting, he said.
The suit noted that between 2003 and 2007, there was “intense public criticism” over such matters as the awarding of contracts, construction of a new township hall and “conflicts of interest and nepotism in the hiring of township office and fire department personnel.”
Muirhead, who has lived in Salem Township since 1956, recalled that when officers led him from the meeting in January 2008, he thought, “Another day in the world of politics.” He said he participated in the suit because the township board was out of control.
“It was a lawsuit that should have never happened if the rest of the board would have taken more control,” Muirhead said.
He said he believes the board should have immediately censured Roperti and issued an apology.
Uherek expressed satisfaction with the favorable decision, saying, “You must encourage people to participate, not drive them away.”
Ronald Ahrens is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
gotigers2007
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 9:12 p.m.
It is odd that the ACLU made it part of the settlement that Mr.Roperti must turn in documents he aquired via FOIA yet the new board shall pass a resolution to "respect the First Amendment rights of its citizens". So basically the ACLU wants the government to suppress Freedom of Information Requested documents that make it look bad? Huh?
BenWoodruff
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 11:48 a.m.
Henny Penny,Thanks for clearing that up. I agree that the problem with local government, and Ypsi Township is a prime example, is the rush to litigate. In a year, Ypsi Township spends over one million dollars in legal fees, most to McLain and Winters. The attorney sits at the board table during meetings and has been appointed to the Aerotropolis Committee. It appears that there is a dearth of common sense and fear of litigation that drive our local politicians to rely on attorneys too much.
HennyPenny
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 1:27 p.m.
Blackties - if ONLY they did believe in anything, other than their dedicated belief that you have a right to agree with them! Apparently you have not been surrounded at a township meeting, harrassed, and bad-mouthed by these two (and their other confused friends), for voicing an opinion that differed from their own. I have. Perhaps you shouldn't be offering advice to the rest of us on how we should think, if you believe in voicing opinions.
blackties
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 12:18 p.m.
To all of you who are bad mouthing Muirhead and Uherek get over yourselfs. What has happened to people being able to stand up for what they believe in? We ALL still have the right of freedom of speech! Have a great day!!
HennyPenny
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 11:59 a.m.
Ben - Mr Winters is not the attorney of record for Salem Township in this matter. Your question about costs points out my point....how much is a township (or individual, or corporation) willing to spend to do the right thing? At some point, the war of escalating costs is just not worth it, despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that you've done nothing wrong.
BenWoodruff
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 11:52 a.m.
Isn't the Attorney of record for Salem Township William Douglas Winters? How much did that litigation cost?
HennyPenny
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 11:50 a.m.
I couldn't agree more with Active Partcipant - the bullies rule and have harmed us all. And with that in mind, Enya, when the ACLU backs the bullies under the guise of defending free speech, when we all know about this is about defending free commerce, and then has the nerve to issue a press release stating that Roperti was the problem, and everything should be fine now that they've conspired with the bullies to remove him, well then, the ACLU has just decided whom they deem is appropiate to hold office. By that logic, I suppose that removing Supervisor Geary in 1988 would have solved the bullies problems, but it didn't. I suppose that forcing Nancy Gieger to quit as Supervisor would have solved the problem, it didn't. Then getting rid of Riddering, that worked, right? Nope. How 'bout removing Penn - surely that would work. Wrong again. Now get rid of Roperti, but this time it took the help of false accusations and assistance from a legal system that has created a "cheaper to settle bogus claims now than to do the right thing and pay more" metrics. Are we clear that neither the township or Roperti has admitted any wrongdoing, that this was settled solely and only to cut litigation costs? Are we clear that there was no decision, no judgement, and no basis for this payment except a simple cost vs benefit analysis. There is no lofty purpose to be found in the Plaintiff's, their lawyers or their claims.
ActiveParticipant
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 10:18 a.m.
Dear Reader, I attented this meeting and I was appalled at how people acted. They taunted the Supervisor so much. They have done this for years. Yes, we have first amendment rights. But what the ACLU has done is run good people out of office and kept other good people from running for office. Some people treat board meeting night is their night out on the town, their own personal night (like bingo night) and a time of entertainment. There have been bullies at Township fuctions for years. Now the ACLU has given the bullies a greater opportunity to be mean and disruptive. I'm angry, mostly because I'm in the audience and I have to listen and wait through all their nonsense before the meeting can continue and the people's business be conducted. Not only are they taking the board's time but they are wasting my time as well.
enyasings
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 10:10 a.m.
HenPen--Explain your logic behind your quote regarding Michael Steinberg, thinking the ACLU dictates who is and is not elected to office. Sounds like a lot of sour grapes there.
eagleman
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 7:42 p.m.
diwe, are you serious? Have you seen the scare tactics re: global warming? How about health care? The fact is both democrats and republicans use such methods to advance their agenda.
HennyPenny
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 7:07 p.m.
Oh, did I mention that Robert Uherek's son bought the last election by spending $20,000 on the campaign - most candidates spend less than $1,000. Oh, and did I forget that this son voted on the settlement? Hmmmm. All on the up and up, of course.
HennyPenny
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 7:05 p.m.
So it's back to two people running the township - Uherek and Muirhead, who's mottos are "free speech for everyone as long as you agree with me and do what I say." WHAT A SAD JOKE THE LEGAL SYSTEM HAS BECOME. Interesting that the ACLU with this quote by Michael Steinberg openly admit that they alone have the final word on who should hold office, not the residents. Since when does the ACLU let themselves be used to further political motives? Freedom of speech? I think not, gentlemen. Freedom of Commerce? OH YEAH, praise the Lord and pass the dough. Too bad no one realizes that the Law has been replaced by the Legal Racket (oh, I mean "Legal System"). Here's an idea, why not request the documents that the ACLU and O'Neill Muirhead doens't want you to see?
diwe
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 6:31 p.m.
Salem township should be aware that the current federal administration does not adhere to the former administrations scare tatics and denying the rights of citizens. That means any and all citizens of the United States and that includes Salem Michigan.