Judge says he will rule on WSP agreement by Friday – pharostribune.com

Conversation is a two-way street.

An alleged lack of a back-and-forth discussion was the basis of the latest court case involving parties associated with Waelz Sustainable Products (WSP).

Judge Christopher Lee of Fulton County Circuit Court recently heard arguments based upon Indianas Open Door Law that focused on whether the public has, in fact, received proper notice of hearings and if the public has had ample opportunity to have questions answered. After nearly three hours of testimony, the judge said he wanted time to equally and rationally evaluate all evidence.

According to a complaint filed by Bryon Stephens against the Board of Commissioners (James Sailors, Ryan Browning, and Ralph Anderson) and the Cass County Redevelopment Commission (David Arnold, Grover Bishop, Brian Reed, Duane Sailors, James Sailors and Ryan Zeck), the Economic Development Agreement signed on March 2 should be null and void. The complaint states that the boards violated Indianas Open Door Law.

Testifying on behalf of the plaintiff, Laura Redweik of Twelve Mile, said meetings on Feb. 19 and 25 as well as March 2 were held without proper time for public comments and questions. In fact, she said, the Feb. 25 meeting did not include enough information on the agenda, causing many people including herself not to attend because they didnt know WSP was a topic.

Plus, even when the public could ask questions we dont get answers, she said. We were not informed. The Economic Development Agreement [EDA] was signed before anyone could ask questions.

The EDA is a contract between the Board of Commissioners, Cass County Redevelopment Commission and WSP, whereby there is an exchange of property for money, whether via Tax Increment Financing or Conduit Bonds, as well as employment expectations.

According to the plaintiffs complaint, the EDA was reached after a series of secret meetings of which notice was not given in accordance with the Open Door Law.

Indianas Open Door Law, in part, states that public notice of the date, time, and place of any meetings, executive sessions, or of any rescheduled or reconvened meeting, shall be given at least 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before the meeting.

Redweik testified that without the correct posting of the meeting, she as part of the public did not know about the meetings in which she would have attended. She testified that had she been at the meetings, she could have posed inquiries regarding the WSP issue.

Michael Wukmer, attorney for the Commissioners and Redevelopment Commission, argued that the Open Door Law does not apply because the agreement was reached during an Economic Development meeting, which was not a public event. Because the Economic Development Commission and Redevelopment Commission had the ability to make decisions, the law supports their ability to decide without the Open Door Law and without [County] Council approval.

Mike Stajduhar, president of the Cass County Council, disagreed. He testified that the council was not a part of any agreement. The board knew of an agreement, but did not see it until after March 2, the date upon which it had been signed by the other parties.

In response to the line of questioning by the plaintiffs attorney, Jim Brugh, Stajduhar said the council should have been informed of the EDA contract and presented with an opportunity to question it before the document was entered into by the above-named entities.

The Open Door Law is to ensure people can be informed, said Brugh. The county was in a hurry. This was done in a backroom behind closed doors. Secret meetings had to occur if an agreement can be reached and a 10-page EDA exists. No one made disclosures to the public before they were ready to reach a decision. The public is looking for the government to function properly and to be informed. No reasonable person can discern what the [Redevelopment Commision] is doing with this EDA when there are no details and the EDA has not been explained at a public event.

Wukmer argued that a violation of the Open Door Law never occurred and decisions reached were those by individuals vested with the power to make choices that benefit the community. Further, he said, since the court has decided this case is a public case, then a bond must be set.

A bond, paid for by the plaintiff in a public lawsuit, is a way to guarantee the defendants would incur no harm. Or, if they would, the bond would pay for any damages.

According to the defendants brief in support of a bond, [i]t is clear that the lawsuit at issue is a public lawsuit within the ambit and scope of the Public Lawsuit Statute, [so] plaintiff must either demonstrate that he is entitled to temporary injunction or he must post bond.

Defense is seeking $6 million in bond payment by the plaintiff.

The judge is taking everything under advisement and will rule by Friday.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View post:
Judge says he will rule on WSP agreement by Friday - pharostribune.com

Reviewed and Recommended by Erik Baquero