Traverse City, MI — In a legal twist that underscores ongoing tensions over public transparency, a fresh lawsuit has been filed against the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners, alleging multiple violations of the Michigan Open Meetings Act (OMA). This litigation follows a controversial decision by the county to transfer ownership of Twin Lakes County Park to Long Lake Township, which has sparked not only public outcry but subsequent legal challenges.
Attorney Brace Kern, representing Long Lake Township resident Kay Ingraham, claims that the county board has repeatedly failed to adhere to state laws designed to ensure public engagement and transparency in governmental decisions. According to Kern, these supposed infringements are linked to how the board handled discussions and decisions about the park transfer noted in a lawsuit from last year.
Central to this dispute is the transfer of Twin Lakes County Park, a transaction finalized in September after a 4-2 vote by the county commissioners in March 2022 in favor of Long Lake Township taking over the property. This decision came despite the Grand Traverse County Parks and Recreation Commissioners’ initial rejection of the township’s proposal in fall 2021.
The park, originally a 25-acre tract donated to the county in 1941 by county judge Parm Gibert, came with explicit instructions to maintain the land for public recreation. Over decades, similar donations expanded the park, all with stipulations that the land remain a public recreation area. Plaintiffs in the initial lawsuit argue that these conditions act as deed restrictions, thereby legally preventing the county from altering the park’s governance.
Kern, ignited by what he considers a disregard for these deed restrictions and the park’s historical significance, had offered to dismiss his initial lawsuit if the county and township voided the transfer agreement. However, after both parties rebuffed his proposal, Kern has pursued the matter further through legal channels.
As legal battles endure, Kern underscores that key discussions about the park’s fate occurred behind closed doors, purportedly in violation of the OMA, which mandates that such deliberations be accessible to the public unless specific conditions are met. The law permits private meetings with attorneys if public discussions could harm the government’s position in ongoing litigation. However, Kern insists that the county exceeded these bounds, engaging in decision-making out of public view.
Commissioners Lauren Flynn and Ashlea Walter, who voted against entering a closed session, have voiced concerns about the necessity and transparency of the discussions regarding the park transfer.
In defense, Matthew Cross, an attorney for the county, asserts that the actions taken by the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners complied fully with OMA requirements. Cross has indicated plans to contest the merits of the new lawsuit vigorously, even suggesting that the county will seek sanctions against Kern for what they consider a groundless claim.
The ongoing controversy highlights significant issues surrounding public land management, government transparency, and community involvement in local governance, indicating that the resolution of this case could set important precedents for similar cases in Michigan. Meanwhile, the community awaits a judicial review, which is expected to bring new developments by year’s end.