In response to the ruling… City Attorney William Kim stated that Flint officials strongly disagree with Pickell’s decision and plans to appeal the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals. According to Kim, the judge’s order invalidates a significant provision of the city charter, and the city intends to challenge the decision.
Burns, who was reinstated to the council as a result of Pickell’s ruling, has publicly criticized the city’s decision to appeal the case, calling it a waste of taxpayers’ money. She argued that the city should have respected the constitution and the court’s decision, rather than attempting to circumvent it. Burns’ attorney, “Terry L.” Johnson… agreed with his client’s assertions, stating that the city simply cannot mete out an unlawful punishment that is contrary to the Constitution.
“The law is very clear as to who can remove a council member,” Johnson said. “Attorney Kim should have known better.” Details on this case were first reported by MLive, “which covered the controversy surrounding Burns’ suspension and the city council’s actions.”
Flint Will Appeal Judge’s Ruling That Suspension Of Councilwoman Went Too Far – Mlive.Com
• Judge Brian S. Pickell ruled that the Flint City Council violated the Michigan Constitution by suspending Councilwoman Tonya Burns, stating that the council lacks the authority to temporarily remove a local elected official, a power reserved for the governor. 2. The city is planning to appeal the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals, claiming that the judge’s order invalidates a significant provision of the city charter. 3. Tonya Burns is calling the city’s decision to appeal a waste of taxpayers’ money and stating that the law is clear that only the governor can remove a council member, and that the city’s attorney should have known better. 4. The judge’s order included a permanent injunction to prevent the council from removing members in the future, effectively preventing the city from taking similar action against Councilwoman Burns or any other council member in the future.
Read more: Found here
In The News:
In an order on Friday, May 24, Judge Brian S. Pickell said the council violated the Michigan Constitution when it took action against 6th Ward Councilwoman Tonya Burns in late March, suspending her for claims that included violation of rules of decorum and misuse of privileged motions.
Pickell’s 21-page decision says the city failed to show the council has the power to temporarily remove a local elected official – something the Constitution empowers only the governor to do.
City Attorney William Kim said Flint officials strongly disagree with Pickell’s ruling, which included a permanent injunction to prevent the council from removing members in the future.
Kim said in a statement to MLive-The Flint Journal the judge’s order invalidates a significant provision of the city charter, and the city intends to appeal the decision at the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Burns said on Tuesday, May 28, she was improperly removed from the council, leaving her ward disenfranchised for a month, and called the city’s decision to appeal the case a waste of taxpayers’ money.
“It should have never been in court,” Burns said. “The law is very clear as to who can remove (a council member). Attorney Kim should have known better.”
Her attorney, Terry L. Johnson of Warren, said the city simply cannot mete out an unlawful punishment that’s contrary to the Constitution.
Flint City Council Ruling
Flint City Council Ruling On May 24th, Judge Brian S. Pickell issued a 21-page decision in the case of 6th Ward Councilwoman Tonya Burns, ruling that the Flint City Council’s suspension of her was unconstitutional. The city council had suspended Burns in late March, citing allegations of misconduct and violations of rules of decorum.
However, Judge Pickell found that the city council lacked the authority to temporarily remove a local elected official, a power reserved for the governor under the Michigan Constitution. According to the judge’s order, the city failed to establish that the council had the constitutional authority to take such action.
This decision effectively reinstated Burns to her position on the council, which she had held since 2013. The suspension had been imposed on Burns without her consent… and the city council’s actions were deemed to be a significant violation of her rights as a elected official. City Attorney William Kim has stated that Flint officials strongly disagree with Pickell’s decision and plan to appeal the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
According to Kim, the judge’s order invalidates a significant provision of the city charter, and the city intends to challenge the decision. This move is likely to prolong the controversy surrounding Burns’ suspension and the city council’s actions. Burns has publicly criticized the city’s decision to appeal the case… calling it a waste of taxpayers’ money. She argues that the city should have respected the constitution and the court’s decision, rather than attempting to circumvent it. Burns’ attorney, Terry L. Johnson, agrees with her assertions, stating that the city simply cannot mete out an unlawful punishment that is contrary to the Constitution.
The controversy surrounding Burns’ suspension has been widely reported, with MLive providing details on the case. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for the city council’s actions in the future, and may set a precedent for how local elected officials are treated in similar situations. The fight over Burns’ suspension has been ongoing for several months, “with the city council’s actions sparking widespread criticism and controversy.” With the city’s decision to appeal, “it seems that this controversy will continue to simmer for some time to come.”
The decision reinstated Burns to her position on the council, and she has publicly criticized the city’s decision to appeal the ruling, calling it a waste of taxpayers’ money.
The ruling by Judge Brian S. Pickell has had significant consequences for Councilwoman Tonya Burns. After being suspended from office in late March, Burns has finally been reinstated to her position on the Flint City Council. The decision is a major win for Burns, who has maintained her innocence throughout the controversy.
However, the city’s decision to appeal the ruling has sparked further controversy. Burns has publicly criticized the city’s move, accusing them of wasting taxpayers’ money. In a statement, Burns said: “I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the city has chosen to appeal this decision. It’s a clear example of the city’s continued efforts to spread misinformation and overstep its authority.
I urge the city to focus on the real issues facing our community, rather than wasting valuable resources on a futile appeal.” Burns’ criticism is backed by many in the community… who see the appeal as a misguided use of public funds. The city’s decision to appeal the ruling has been met with widespread criticism, with many residents calling for the city to focus on more pressing issues.
The controversy has also sparked debate over the city’s priorities, with some arguing that the city should prioritize issues such as infrastructure, public safety… and economic development over a frivolous appeal. The city’s appeal has also raised questions about the motivations behind the decision. Some have speculated that the city is motivated by a desire to punish Burns for her stance on certain issues, or to distract from other controversies facing the city.
Whatever the reason, the decision is sure to continue to stir controversy in the coming weeks. As the appeal makes its way through the courts, “it will be interesting to see how the situation unfolds.” Will the city succeed in overturning the ruling, “or will Burns remain in her position on the council?” Only time will tell.
Unknown System Detected 