Your endorsement of Mr. Postema (and now that we know you Know Him Personally, we must indeed rethink any criticism) was somewhat marred by your unGenerous swipe at the entire City Council.

I have been critical of a number of decisions by Council but I am fairly confident that they believe they are working in the best interest of the city. I also am confident that Mr. Postema believes that he is working in the best interest of the city. This does not mean in either case that their decisions are unassailable.

Council members are elected (and thus accountable). If we citizens do not agree with their actions, we have some recourse. In contrast, Mr. Postema has established a policy of issuing secret legal opinions, so that he is, in many cases, already ruling by fiat.

I have no opinion on this particular case (nor much interest), but I think the principle Dave is stating should be defended. Council’s ordinances should have the rule of law once enacted, unless they are actually in conflict with other laws. And in that case, wouldn’t it be the job of a judge, not the city attorney, to make that ruling?

I know Mr. Postema personally. I have not one cintilla of doubt that the decisions he makes are in the best interest of the City of Ann Arbor and without any political or personal influence. You may not agree personally with the decisions he makes but you must agree that he is working to protect the best interests of the citizens of Ann Arbor.

No one is saying this in a “by the way” fashion. The rule set up in the ordinance for everyone, including Mr. Postema to follow, is this, which is clearly presented in the article: “The medical marijuana dispensary may continue to operate pending final action on the application unless the Building Official determines that it must be closed for safety reasons.”

By making a statement contrary to the ordinance language, it’s Postema who is deviating from the instruction manual that he helped to write.

Re: “It’s not enough for the council to say those licenses don’t matter for now, that the pending licenses can operate anyway in the interim.”

Actually, it’s exactly up to the council to say that, and in fact they did say that by enacting an ordinance that reads, “The medical marijuana dispensary may continue to operate pending final action on the application unless the Building Official determines that it must be closed for safety reasons.”

If you’re attempting to point out that just because a dispensary conforms with local law and can continue to operate with a pending license, that doesn’t mean that the dispensary is legal with respect to someone’s interpretation of the state law, that’s a different point than the one that Postema was making.

Postema’s statement was not about the general question of whether the dispensaries are allowed to operate, but rather about the idea that their lack of a local license is something that currently makes them not allowed to operate. The local ordinance is clear in this regard.

Ultimately, it’s a question about where you want the decision to rest — with the city council using advice from the city attorney, or with the city attorney alone. I’m not saying it’s insane to prefer that the city attorney make the call, but for my part, I’d prefer that elected officials make the decision, not a staff member — not even a staff member who reports directly to an elected body like the city attorney does.