Better than Vicodin

Yesterday it was Monica Conyers giving me a good laugh.  Today it is Judge Rudy Nichols making me smile.  His decision in Ureste vs Township of West Bloomfield is better than vicodin.  I feel so good my back pain is inconsequential.

The Oakland County Judge previously ruled against plaintiffs Ureste and Kaplan regarding the appointment of a police chief, administrative tasks of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, and authority to terminate employees without Board approval.  The issue of trustee compensation was to be decided in the future.

Well, the future is today.  Judge Nichols ruled that, as stated in MCL 42.6, A trustee may receive ... a sum per meeting of the board actually attended by him, as established by the township board to be paid upon authorization of the township board.

In the ruling:  The Court finds this statute discretionary, meaning that a Trustee may accept, or may decline, a sum per meeting at the Trustee's prerogative.  That is, it is the Trustee's decision, by a plain reading of the statute, to accept or reject the sums referenced in MCL 42.6. 

Hooray for Larry Brown.  Is the Court's decision clear enough?  Can Ureste and Kaplan understand this without twisting it around?  Will the public be subject to another of their 'guest opinions' explaining how they are really correct and the Judge is wrong?

I have seen a lot of decisions in my twenty some years in office.  A judge once told our attorney that we needed to come to an agreement with the plaintiff in a case because we might not like what the judge decided.  We found common ground.

The last paragraph of today's decision is quite interesting:

At this point, any issues that remain appear to be political in nature, not legal.  That is, the litigants (Ureste and Kaplan) have to resolve their differences by majority rule or seek redress by or from the State Legislature.  They can, of course, take an appeal, but in all likelihood this Court expects that it would be a waste of time and money.

I do not think I have ever seen anything like that admonishment in a case before, though I will admit my memory is not what it used to be.  I do know this:  I can still recognize politicians who are more interested in furthering and promoting themselves than doing what is in the best interests of the citizens.  We citizens and taxpayers had to pay the bill to fight these lawsuits, just because the egos of these two are so big they can't stand to be on the losing end of any decision.  (Who do you think is behind the recall effort stemming from the garbage contract?)

I suggest they start the next Board meeting with an apology to the taxpayers.  Then, if these two do not like being in the minority, I have a solution:  RESIGN!  Either that or be thrown out of office in 2012.