Roosevelt-Park-FOIA-Jan-11-2011

Eric C. Grimm1330 West Summit AvenueRoosevelt Park, MI 49441

January 11, 2011

Ms. Tammera HarmsenFreedom of Information Act CoordinatorCity of Roosevelt Park900 Oak Ridge RoadRoosevelt Park, MI 49441

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Relating To Weapon Purchase By City.

Dear Ms. Harmsen:

This is a written request, under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, Act 442 of 1976,as amended, MCL 15.231 - 15.246 (FOIA).

Attached, you will find a document that relates to the purchase of a firearm, using taxpayerdollars, by the City of Roosevelt Park. What does this document have to do with the Citys currentbusiness? Everything. Because I will not be surprised if this turns out to be only the tip of theiceberg, and emblematic of a much larger problem with the way things used to be, that purportedlyis on the way back, in terms of how taxpayer dollars are being spent.

I have heard this firearm described by different people using various terms, includingmachine gun. I dont want to overstate my case, so for purposes of this letter, Ill use morerestrained language firearm, weapon, or fully automatic weapon.

1. The first part of this FOIA request is for the City to produce, for inspectionand copying, any and all documents that are or ever have been in the Cityspossession, custody, or control, related to this weapon, and the circumstancesin which it was acquired.

As you no doubt are aware, Roosevelt Park has cooperative relationships with othergovernment entities, including the Michigan State Police, and the local Emergency Response Team,in the event that resources must be brought to bear on a situation in Roosevelt Park that exceeds theoperational capacity of the Roosevelt Park Police Department. Fortunately, the need for suchescalation in the Park, historically speaking, appears to have been practically nonexistent.

You also are undoubtedly aware that the only Roosevelt Park personnel to participate in theMuskegon County Emergency Response Team (ERT), or any of its training activities, was ChiefRegan when he undertook training to act as a negotiator. Prior to that, Roosevelt Park could alwayscall on the ERT, or the State Police, or both, if a situation required escalation, but Roosevelt Parkand its police personnel did not actually, themselves, play any operational role in the ERT, ever.

Ms. Tammera HarmsenFreedom of Information Act CoordinatorCity of Roosevelt Park January 11, 2011Page 2

The ERT was formed in 2004, and I am not aware of it becoming operational prior to 2006. The ERT does not have any fully automatic weapons, and has never had any operational need forthem. Operations that the ERT are trained to conduct, involve the precision application of force, ifand only if it becomes necessary to apply force, and not the indiscriminate automatic-fire emptyingof the entire magazine of any firearm.

Although a fully automatic firearm seems likely to scratch a particular personal hobbyist,collector, or enthusiast itch, I am not presently aware of any operational need for Roosevelt Parkever to have obtained or possessed any such weapon.

All such a weapon would represent is a huge source of risk and potential liability, for theCity. Does the City have any idea whether the ownership of this weapon was ever disclosed to anyof the Citys liability insurance carriers, and do we have any information about what impact that had(or would have had, if properly disclosed), on insurance rates?

2. Under FOIA, please provide for inspection and copying, all communicationswith any liability insurance carrier, or other insurer, for the City of RooseveltPark, disclosing in any way that the City ever possessed such a weapon, andreflecting the impact on insurance rates, if any.

3. Under FOIA, please provide all documents relating to disclosure to the CityCouncil, if any, of the contemplated purchase, or the purchase, of thisfirearm, and any documents showing whether the City Council ever approvedthis expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

4. Under FOIA, please provide all documents that include or reflect anycommunications between anybody in the Roosevelt Park Police Department(including, without limitation, then-Police Chief Tom Hasper), and the CityManager, that relate in any way to this firearm, or to a grant to the City forthe purchase of a digital camera.

Interestingly, the fully-automatic firearm purchased by Roosevelt Park, had too long a barrel,and was also incompatible with ERT equipment. The ERT cannot trade magazines with this H&Kfully automatic weapon, and the ERT have no operational use for it. I am not presently aware of anyeffort on the part of Roosevelt Park, or its police department, to coordinate with any of themunicipalities that actually have participated in the ERT, to ensure that Roosevelt Park in acquiringany weapon, would actually be advancing any legitimate ERT-related objective.


5. Please provide all documents that discuss or reflect, any effort whatsoever onthe part of Roosevelt Park, to coordinate with any municipality actuallyparticipating with ERT, so as to ensure that any money spent by RooseveltPark purportedly on meeting an ERT operational need, actually met someERT need.

Perhaps the apparent lack of coordination on the part of the Roosevelt Park PoliceDepartment is not surprising, because it would be highly unusual (to say the least), for the event ofthe formation of the ERT in 2004, to travel backward in time to 2000 or prior to 2000, to serve asa justification or rationale for a purchase of equipment that pre-dates by many years the existenceof any local SWAT team. The story previously told to the City Council, by Member Hasper,appears to be profoundly implausible on its face precisely because of this time-travel component,that would appear to defy everything we know today about the physical sciences. Even informationcannot travel backward in time, let alone matter or energy.

Accordingly, the possibility of a pretext purchase, which might actually have been done inpursuit of a personal hobbyist or enthusiast agenda, to the detriment of the taxpayers, appears at leastinitially to be a much more plausible hypothesis. Further investigation, of course, is necessary toget the full facts about what was going on. Despite repeated efforts to get the full facts from Mr.Hasper, he has not been fully forthcoming with all the facts, or with providing truly accurateinformation about what actually happened, and why taxpayer dollars were spent this way.

Key to this investigation of the facts, will be an assessment of the actual operational need,if any, that was as actually disclosed to the City Council (if any such disclosure was made), at thetime of the firearm purchase.

6. Provide all City documents and records, that show any operational need orjustification for Roosevelt Park to purchase and own a fully-automaticfirearm, including contemporaneous communications with City Council, orthe City Manager on the subject of operational need or justification.

7. Provide all documentation showing any operational use, for any lawenforcement purpose whatsoever, of the automatic firearm, at any timebetween the acquisition of the firearm by the City, and its subsequentdisposition.

8. Provide all documentation showing the training of any City personnel in the


proper and safe use of the H&K fully automatic firearm, and the timing andnature of such training, if any such training ever occurred.

This question about training is particularly salient because, under its most recent PoliceChief, the City instead of purchasing a fully-automatic firearm, elected to invest in non-lethaltechnology (namely, TASER weapons). The former Chief secured outside funding to make thishappen, and spearheaded the development of a proper training program, to ensure that personnelwere given proper training, before the TASER weapons were deployed operationally. The contrast,in my opinion, is rather stark, and I suppose it might be understandable if former Police ChiefHasper perhaps felt a tinge of envy, while seeing praise heaped on former Chief Reagan by CityCouncil, for Reagans initiative in finding outside sources of funding, and ensuring that appropriateequipment and training needs were being met.

As you already are aware, the individual personally responsible for this automatic weapontransaction, not only appears to be unapologetic about it (indeed, righteously indignant about theCitys later prudent decision to transfer the weapon and the related risk of liability associated withits ownership, elsewhere), but that individual also presumes to exercise current decision-makingauthority over City spending.

If a City Council member repeatedly has given fellow City Council members less the all thefacts, and on multiple occasions has mis-stated various factual matters, in a way that creates amisleading or deceptive impression in the listener, while that member remains unapologetic aboutpast adventures using taxpayer dollars while occupying a position of trust in the City, then exactlyhow can we expect any better on a going-forward basis?

This is not a trivial consideration. For instance, at a time when the City faces unprecedentedfiscal challenges (many of which arise from factors over which the City Council has no control, suchas decisions made in Lansing), this Council member, in particular, is likely to have a profoundimpact on how much the Citys taxpayers spend on overtime. Decisions in which this memberpersonally is involved will likely have a profound impact on how much the Citys taxpayers pay inbenefits, including retiree benefits not to mention tradeoffs that the City has been discussing formonths between the delivery of comparable healthcare benefits to workers at lower cost (when theCity already has unusually generous benefits), versus harm to taxpayers in the form of deferredmaintenance to roads and delayed equipment purchases.

Decisions in which this member of City Council will participate in the imminent future,directly relate to whether the City will fairly consider all options, and put the interests of taxpayers


first, when it comes to the manner in which services are delivered to taxpayers, and whether prudentsavings and efficiencies can be achieved through cooperation with neighboring communities.

For instance, is the City better off with its current agreement for fire services, or should theCity have seriously considered forming its own fire department and hiring its own fire andemergency workforce to manage? When was the last time that the City ever had to spend anymoney on a legal dispute involving any fire services contract, or any grievance filed by anyRoosevelt Park Fire Department worker? When was the last time that the Roosevelt Park FireDepartment or any of its workers, falsely alleged a hostile work environment, therefore triggeringa needless (but legally required, once the magic words are used), and expensive internalinvestigation?

I think that the above-requested documents (or the conspicuous lack thereof), will providea helpful start, as we get the facts out, and in front of the voting public.

Precisely because this is being done in the interest of the public and of the taxpayers, Irespectfully request a waiver of all FOIA fees, as authorized under the FOIA statute.

If any part of the requested public records is withheld by the City, on the basis of one ormore exemptions under FOIA, or for any other reason, then a log or index must be prepared,detailing the nature of the records that have been withheld, and the asserted basis for withholdingthem. See Evening News Assn v. City of Troy, 417 Mich. 481, 339 N.W.2d 421, 516 (1983);Vaughn v. Rosen, 157 U.S. App. D.C. 340, 344-45, 484 F.2d 820 (1973).

Thank you for your prompt and thorough attention to the above matters.

Very truly yours,

Eric C. Grimmcc: Mr. Brian McVicar

Documents

Roosevelt-Park-FOIA-Jan-11-2011