You make an excellent point, as always.

The City Council is the governing body for the City of Ann Arbor and there should be some ordinance that delineates the powers to settle legal claims filed against it. I do not believe there is any authority anywhere that bestows upon the City Attorney the general power to defend a federal suit without City Council approval – especially where there exists the possibility of prohibitive monetary exposure as is the case here where Tom Wieder was successful in persuading Judge Zatkoff to award attorney fees under 42 USC 1988.

You make reference to “selective outrage” toward the City Attorney by some commenters, however the current round of court proceedings could have been avoided entirely – as referenced in the July 7, 2014 Ann Arbor Chronicle article on the issue – if the City Attorney had simply given assurances to Tom Wieder that no incorrect absentee ballots received by the City Clerk would not be counted. Because the City Attorney did not convey such assurances to Mr. Dascola’s counsel, it necessitated the motion to bring that matter to the attention of Judge Zatkoff – and Zatkoff took the initiative to issue an order to show cause why the City of Ann Arbor should not be held in civil contempt of court. A contempt finding may result in an imposition of further costs and attorney fees to be assessed against the City of Ann Arbor in conjunction with its failure to abide by the May 20th order. I fully expect the judge to seriously consider such relief in the event he finds contemptuous conduct occurred.

I salute Judge Zatkoff for his proactive approach in initiating civil contempt proceedings against the City of Ann Arbor and await the response the city will be filing to explain its position.

The last time I can recall a major Michigan city held in contempt of court was when Wayne County Circuit Court Judge James Rashid placed the Detroit City Attorney in jail for four days in 1988 for civil contempt for failure to turn over documents under a FOIA request.

Jackie Beaudry is the individually named defendant in this case – and one of the nicest and most helpful persons who work at City Hall. I have never had a problem with her or her staff. I have suspected that she was not the impetus behind the denial of Mr. Dascola’s initial attempts to get on the ballot – that it emanated from others at City Hall for political motives.

What I have found as interesting is that Judge Zatkoff appears to have issued the show cause order “sua sponte” – meaning that he did so without being requested by Mr. Dascola’s counsel. The judge felt strongly enough that the conduct should be addressed by civil contempt proceedings that he issued the order on his own.

The City of Ann Arbor likely has a significant exposure to further costs and attorney fees incurred by Mr. Dascola as a result of the city’s failure to adhere to the spirit and letter of the May 20th order. Judge Zatkoff will no doubt address that.

But let’s remember another set of victims of “Postema’s follies”: the employees of the City Clerk’s office. These people are doing hard and exacting work. They are not only charged with making mistakes, but now have to show, essentially, that they are not evil.

If I were one of these employees, I would be asking myself “Am I going to get fired? Did I do something wrong? Will I have to testify in court? What is contempt?”

And all of this is Postema’s personal fault.

@9 That would be you. :)