From: <hmacdonald67@comcast.net>

To: lorlosr@aol.com 

DSAM (7/30/10)

Good Morning:

Yesterday at 4:00 p.m., a hearing was held in front of Ingham County Circuit Court Judge James Giddings in regards to a motion DSAM filed. As you are aware, in May 2010, DSAM filed a lawsuit alleging that the Sheriffs' Coordinating and Training Council (SCTC), which is dominated by Sheriffs who are appointed by the Michigan Sheriffs' Association Educational Services, were involved in inappropriately funding private entities to conduct training programs, which have yet to be identified. DSAM specifically alleged that at its January 28, 2010 meeting of the SCTC, that the Council, based upon a recommendation of its' Executive Secretary, Mr. James Reed, appropriate $40,000.00 to be divided up among (5-6) different entities, for the purpose of developing some unspecified training programs for Local Corrections Officers.

DSAM also filed a complaint requesting a Writ of Mandamus which would require the SCTC to comply with the applicable provisions of the Local Corrections Officer Training Act (P.A. 125 of 2003). DSAM specifically alleged that the SCTC was usurping the prerogatives and statutory duties vested in the Local Corrections Officers Advisory Board; which, pursuant to P.A. 125 of 2003, had the responsibility of recommending standards and training programs, along with all facilities that the Board approves for providing training to Local Corrections Officers under the Act, to the SCTC. The Council, in its' attempt to award $40,000.00 in contracts for unspecified services to (5-6) different organizations, had completely bypassed the Advisory Board, and was developing contracts for training which were in violation of the Local Corrections Officers Training Act.

The motion filed by DSAM, which was heard yesterday, requested enforcement of a previous injunction entered by the Court and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals; The previous court orders prevented the SCTC from appropriating funds for training purposes to Counties that did not qualify for training funds from the Council.

The Court also heard DSAM's request for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel the SCTC to comply with the applicable provisions of P.A. 125 of 2003; that the Council cease its practise of ignoring the Advisory Board. The Board is not controlled by Sheriffs appointed by the Michigan Sheriffs' Association Education Services.

Oral arguments and consideration by the Court lasted approximately one and a half hours. Judge Giddings then issued his rulings:

1. The Court would not find that the SCTC was guilty of contempt and did not order any fines.

2. The Court issued an Order enjoining the SCTC for om awarding the $40,000.00 worth of contracts which were voted on at its meeting of January 28, 2010; thereby prohibiting the Council once again from violating the provisions of P.A. 125 of 2003 and the previous injunction issued by the Court and affirmed by the Michigan

Court Appeals. The Attorney General's Office argued that the SCTC did not violate the previous court injunction because this money was not grants to counties. The Court rejected that argument stating just because the Council does not call them grants doesn't mean that they can appropriate money to train Local Corrections Officers from counties that do not quality for funds in the first place. The Attorney General then argued that Section 14 of P.A. 125 of 2003 allows the

Council to enter into agreements with other public or private agencies or organizations to implement the intent of this act. Therefore, it was permissable to appropriate the $40,000.00 to enter into contracts with unspecified agencies or organizations. The Court rejected that argument stating that Section 14 is a general provision and that there are specific statutory provisions in P.A. 125 that take precedence over general provisions that the Council must follow.

3, The Court granted the Writ of Mandamus requested by DSAM. A Writ of Mandamus will now have to be drafted spelling out the Orders of t he Court, which in part will require the SCTC to cease and desist its practise of ignoring and otherwise bypassing the Local Corrections Officers Advisory Board from performing its

statutory duties and responsibilities. During oral argument, the Attorney General's Office argued that the SCTC could bypass the Advisory Board and fashion their own training programs and standards. The Court rejected that argument.

The Court said that clearly its intended to be a

co-operative enterprise. The Council is to use the role of the Advisory Board.

The lawsuit is ongoing as there are more allegations DSAM has made against the SCTC for violating the Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act, a civil conspiracy allegation against the SCTC and the Michigan Sheriffs' Association Education Services regarding hiring standards, and a breech of fiduciary responsibility allegation against SCTC Executive Secretary, Mr. James Reed.

You will be kept appraised.

From: "hmacdonald67@comcast.net"

The new motto is, "Who's got your back in Lansing?" 

The answer is, "DSAM has you covered!"

                       DSAM LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

1. The DSAM/GCSI Team will push for passage of 

 Bills to insure that all of the funds generated by the landmark 

Local correction Officer’s Training Act of 2004 will be used 

for actual training programs in accordance with the 

Legislature’s intent.

2. The lobby team continues to work on the creation of the 

Recreational Vehicle Law Enforcement Improvement Act 

to enhance funding to county sheriff’s departments 

squash this quiet effort by the MDNR to divert 

snowmobile enforcement monies away from the

Sheriffs Departments across the State of Michigan.

3. Maintain support for Secondary Road Patrol 

and full cost recovery requirements 

when the State Police attempt to compete with Sheriff’s 

departments on local contracts. 

These annual Appropriation fights with the MSP are 

forever a part of the DSAM heritage.

4. Public Act 312 (Binding Arbitration) has provided 

a fair playing field for law enforcement officers 

during the collective bargaining process for many years.

The team continues to answer the call from local 

correction officer members who seek similar provisions 

for themselves. Careful steps are being taken to avoid 

any weakening of current 312 provisions while focusing 

legislative attention on the corrections officer’s needs.