barnett deposition redacted

1

STATE OF MICHIGAN1

28TH CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WEXFORD2

3

WILLIAM S. BARNETT, in his capacity as

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CADILLAC,4

Petitioner,5

v File No. 11-23578-CZ6

HON. WILLIAM M. FAGERMAN7

JIM BLACKBURN,

8

Respondent.

9

/

10

DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM S. BARNETT11

Taken by the Respondent on the 17th day of April, 2012, at12

120 West Harris Street, Cadillac, Michigan, at 10:00 a.m.13

14

APPEARANCES:

15

For the Petitioner: MR. MICHAEL D. HOMIER (P60318)

Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C.16

1700 East Beltline NE, Suite 200

Grand Rapids, Michigan 4952517

(616) 726-2200

18

For the Respondent: MR. ROGER WOTILA (P22561)

McCurdy Wotila & Porteous, P.C.19

120 West Harris Street

Cadillac, Michigan 4960120

(231) 775-1391

21

Also Present: Jim Blackburn

22

RECORDED BY: Ann N. Holmes, CER 2629

Certified Electronic Recorder23

Network Reporting Corporation

Firm Registration Number 815124

1-800-632-2720

25

26

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS1

PAGE2

3

Examination by Mr. Wotila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4

5

EXHIBIT INDEX6

PAGE

7

Deposition Exhibit 1 marked . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

("Cadillac News" article)


(Notice of Removal)


(MCL Sec 38.504)


(MCL Sec 38.503)


(Letter, 10-28-11)


(Letter, 10-30-11)


(Verified petition)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Cadillac, Michigan1

April 17, 2012 - 10:50 a.m.2

REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that3

the testimony you’re about to give will be the whole truth?4

MR. BARNETT: Yes.5

WILLIAM S. BARNETT6

having been called by the Defendant and sworn:7

EXAMINATION8

BY MR. WOTILA:9

Q You are William S. Barnett?10

A Yes.11

Q And your present age? How old are you, Bill?12

A 52.13

Q You're currently the -- serving as the mayor of the City of14

Cadillac; is that right?15

A Yes.16

Q Have you been deposed before? Ever had a deposition taken?17

A I don't recall. I don't believe so.18

Q Okay. I think you are a practicing attorney; is that right?19

A Yes.20

Q So I'll go over only briefly a couple of thoughts because21

I'm sure you've been in depositions before, or attended22

them?23

A Yes.24

Q Okay. I'm going to ask you a series of questions. If you25

26

4

don't understand something, please let me know. If it's not1

clear, let me know. If at any time you'd like to take a2

break, talk to your counsel, that's fine. I don't operate a3

deposition in a way to keep people here if they have some4

question they'd like to raise with their attorney. So just5

let me know. Again, your answers are going to have to be6

verbal because this is being recorded and so a nod of the7

head or something, if you fall into that I might remind you8

so that we get a verbal response for the record. Fair9

enough?10

A Yes.11

Q Now, you received a subpoena. And pursuant to that12

subpoena, you brought some materials here; is that right?13

A Yes.14

Q And to the best of your knowledge -- well, let me back up.15

We set the deposition for 10:00; it's now about -- 10:0016

o'clock a.m.; it's now 10:50 or 10:52. And for the record,17

the materials you delivered to us we've briefly gone over18

before beginning this deposition; is that right?19

A Yes.20

Q As to the materials you brought, this would be any and all21

correspondence that you had relating to -- in your22

possession -- the City of Cadillac mayoral campaign?23

A Yes.24

Q Let me back up. Do you have a practice or procedure with25

26

5

your e-mails where you might, as of a certain date, destroy1

or --2

A No. I've destroyed no e-mails that I can recall in the last3

10 years for anything.4

Q Really?5

A Uh-huh (affirmative).6

Q That's --7

MR. HOMIER: Can we just -- just for the record, I8

want to make sure that we have produced the documents9

pursuant to the request, but we are not waiving any10

objection with respect to any of the documents produced.11

But I just wanted to make sure that was clear.12

MR. WOTILA: I will acknowledge that any and all13

objections to privilege or any objections that might pertain14

to any of the Michigan Rules of Evidence are acknowledged.15

A Let me -- I don't recall. I've probably have deleted16

e-mails in my life or sometime but not since this occurred.17

And there's -- anything that you have is what I have. To18

the best of my knowledge nothing was deleted.19

Q Okay. I'm simply asking what your procedure is. My20

understanding is some people would on their personal e-mails21

go back at a certain number of time and delete things; other22

people don't. So it's generally your practice not to23

delete?24

A I don't delete. That's correct. I have not deleted any of25

26

6

the stuff related to what you've subpoenaed.1

Q All right. And I'll get to some of those materials you've2

delivered to us. Briefly regarding your educational3

background, you attended Michigan State University; is that4

right?5

A Yes.6

Q Received a -- what? -- a BA degree or BS degree?7

A One of them; probably a BS.8

Q And you attended law school and have an LLB or a JD?9

A JD.10

Q And you are presently licensed to practice law; is that11

right?12

A Yes.13

Q I'd like to go over with you -- let me jump ahead a bit.14

And I have a copy from your counsel, a witness list you15

produced.16

A Okay.17

MR. WOTILA: I have another copy here, Counsel, if18

you want to have that, but I'll kind of walk through that.19

Q Jumping ahead, we are here in relation to the litigation20

that's ongoing in Wexford Circuit Court, William S. Barnett21

as Mayor of the City versus Jim Blackburn. And in the22

process of this litigation, you and/or your counsel have23

caused to be produced a witness list; is that right?24

A Yes.25

26

7

Q I've put a copy of that in front of you. Let me walk1

through this. You have named as a potential witness, number2

4, Michael Filkins; is that right?3

A Yes.4

Q Do you know Mike?5

A Absolutely.6

Q How long have you known Michael?7

A I couldn't tell you. I've known him very well for a number8

of years; maybe 10, 15.9

Q What information do you anticipate Michael Filkins has that10

he might testify to at trial in this case?11

A Just observations with regard to the campaign; management of12

the campaign and/or members of the committee.13

Q All right. So you've known Michael Filkins for a number of14

years; correct?15

A Yes.16

Q You've known Carla Filkins for a number of years; is that17

right?18

A Much longer.19

Q Would you have considered yourself -- and I want to go20

before September of 2011 -- to be social friends with them?21

A Yes. Very close friends, actually, with Mike Jr. and Mike22

Sr. and not as much with Carla, but close to that.23

Q Would you have in your relationship with them formed --24

let's start with Michael Sr. -- any opinion as to his25

26

8

credibility or believability?1

A I don't know for sure. I -- I guess I don't know what2

you're asking for. I've helped him on some legal matters3

that I'm not at liberty to discuss here at this point.4

Q All right. Let me be a bit more specific. Do you have any5

reason to believe that Michael Filkins would not be a honest6

person in any situation where he's asked to testify?7

A I have no idea.8

Q In your personal life -- I'm not talking about your9

professional life -- have you had occasion to believe that10

Michael Filkins was not an honest person?11

A I don't have any specifics; no.12

Q Same question as to Carla Filkins.13

A Well, yeah; her campaign literature was not accurate. She14

said she grew up in the Cadillac area, which I believe to be15

false. And someone wrote me a letter from Tustin indicating16

that she was -- they've known her forever; I knew that's17

where she was from and that was not honest.18

Q I didn't understand that, so I might be a little more clear,19

you mentioned some campaign literature that Carla had.20

You're referring to when she ran for the Mayor of the City21

of Cadillac last fall; is that right?22

A Yeah. I'd say some of the facts in her campaign literature23

were not truthful. Or --24

Q Let me be specific about what you've just brought up. You25

26

9

said that she's -- some of her literature said she grew up1

in --2

A The Cadillac area.3

Q -- the Cadillac area; is that right?4

A Yeah; yup.5

Q And you obtained some information from someone that she6

lived -- what? -- outside the state?7

A No; no.8

Q Outside of --9

A She's lived in Tustin.10

Q -- the County?11

A She's an Osceola County -- raised in the Osceola County12

area, and also attended school in Marion. To me, that's not13

somebody being born and raised in Cadillac.14

Q Did she say she was -- let me back up. You just said two15

things. Did she say in the literature she was, quote, "born16

and raised in Cadillac"?17

A That was the implication being stated; yes.18

Q No; let me restate this, sir. Did she say, in the19

literature she was "born and raised in Cadillac"?20

A No. I've said -- I'm sorry for misspeaking slightly.21

Q Thank you. What is it she said that you took issue with,22

then? What was her phrase?23

A I'm not going to say I took issue with it, I don't see it as24

a truthful statement, or accurate.25

26

10

Q What is it that you feel was not a truthful statement?1

A I told you. She claimed to have been born and raised in the2

Cadillac area.3

Q All right. And you -- the phrase "Cadillac area," you take4

that to mean the city limits -- you personally -- of5

Cadillac?6

A No. I would say at least Wexford County.7

Q All right. So you would take it to mean that being born and8

raised or living her life in the Cadillac area would be9

false if she lived at some point outside of the county?10

A She lived in Manton and Tustin that I know of.11

Q All right. Let me be clear.12

A Probably the Marion side of Tustin; I don't know for sure.13

But it's not the end of the world, but I believe that was14

stretching the truth and not being honest. That's how I15

feel about that.16

Q All right. Let me just try to get a clear definition17

because I've been asking you a question about her18

credibility. And so to summarize, you feel she was not19

truthful or lying because she had literature that said she20

was raised in the Cadillac area and you would not consider21

Manton to be the Cadillac area; is that right, from what you22

just said?23

A Yeah. I would say I was born and raised in Manton, attended24

Manton High School, and be accurate with people. That was25

26

11

misleading. I wouldn't say it's a lie, but it's misleading1

and stretching the truth.2

Q Okay. You named -- when I asked you what Michael Filkins3

might testify to -- or why -- let me rephrase that -- why4

you named him as a witness, you said something to the effect5

that he would have information regarding her campaign and6

her committee, et cetera. Something to that effect; is that7

right?8

A He was very active in her campaign; appeared to be present9

anytime she was. So I don't have any personal knowledge10

about Michael Filkins other than he wrote me an e-mail the11

year before, or some kind of FaceBook note just indicating12

that he was upset about my statements to the sheriff,13

regarding the sheriff's work ethics and that's the end of14

it.15

Q Well, he had been a personal friend of yours, as you stated,16

and you mentioned there was an e-mail.17

A Well, I don't know about if it was an e-mail; it was a18

FaceBook message.19

Q All right. It was a message via computer, via FaceBook, and20

he was upset about something you had said or done about the21

sheriff -- being the Wexford County Sheriff?22

A Yeah. I called the Sheriff lazy and he didn't like that.23

Q Did you have any discussion or follow-up with him about24

that?25

26

12

A No. I had a couple back and forths. He was -- I don't know1

if he was leaning toward an apology or something, but that2

was basically the last I heard from either one of these3

folks or Mike in particular.4

Q Maybe I misunderstood. So he sent you some sort of FaceBook5

message concerning the sheriff of Wexford County, I take it?6

A Yeah.7

Q And I asked if you had a follow-up and you said "no," but8

then you said there was some back and forths. So let me be9

clear, after that initial message, what do you mean by "back10

and forths"?11

A Well, there was just a couple back and forths on that12

message. There was no contact after that. That was the13

last I heard from him. Obviously he was upset that I'd14

criticized his friend.15

Q Do you remember exactly or paraphrase in any more detail16

what it was he said to you about that?17

A Kind of like, "Why did you say the sheriff was lazy?"; that18

he disagreed with that and stated basically that he works19

hard. I didn't really get into it with him, other than I20

just let it go at some point and stopped responding to him.21

It disappeared and that was the end of it.22

Q I take it the phrase you're referring was the time when you23

were speaking to a Cadillac city police officer and were --24

A Yes.25

26

13

Q -- recorded; is that right?1

A Yup. Oh, yeah.2

Q Now, did Carla Filkins address you about that issue or any3

similar issue in that time period or going into 2011?4

A I don't know. My understanding is Mike speaks for Carla on5

occasion, so I suspected that that was from both of them.6

Q Let me be clear on that. What do you mean, "Mike speaks for7

Carla"?8

A Just -- one of my friends and one of the council members9

works on a committee with him. He's just indicated that10

he's always dealing with Mike and Carla's sitting next to11

him in the car and he's just speaking for her. So I don't12

know.13

Q You really did lose me on that and we may be a bit far14

afield. I'm just curious -- I don't quite understand. A15

friend of yours that sits -- what? -- on city council?16

A Yeah. It's Art Stevens. He's worked with them on a17

committee forever and just, you know, fills me in from time18

to time on his comings and goings and just notices that it19

appears that Mike speaks for Carla sometimes and I wondered,20

but I don't know. So I don't know if she had any part21

whatsoever. It could have been from Mike. Carla's best22

friends with Gayla Finstrom, and I'm sure she was23

disappointed in my statements as well. If I were someone's24

friend and were loyal to them, I would be disappointed, too.25

26

14

Q Okay. So you've named Mike Filkins as a potential witness1

because you feel he may have information concerning Carla2

Filkins' campaign, to start; is that right?3

A Uh-huh (affirmative); yes.4

Q Concerning any committee she may have had; is that right?5

A Committee, volunteers, people working with the committee;6

yes.7

Q And any management of the campaign who may have information?8

A Yeah.9

Q Have you spoken with Michael Filkins regarding any of those10

topics since September of 2011?11

A What topics?12

Q Carla Filkins' campaign, --13

A No.14

Q -- and how it was run?15

A I would probably believe we're not on speaking terms, based16

on the -- the FaceBook message and the fact that she ran for17

mayor. I'm sure that's caused hard feelings. So I've not18

spoken to him, and I didn't need to speak to him after my19

observations of what occurred in the week of October 17th.20

Q All right. Now, has anyone else given you information as to21

what Michael Filkins would say regarding who was on Carla's22

campaign committee?23

A I don't recall.24

Q Someone may have talked to you about that?25

26

15

A Art may have. They had a meeting at some point, Mike and1

Art did. I don't remember what was said. But you could2

find that out from Mr. Stevens.3

Q So Art -- you're referring to Arthur Stevens?4

A Yeah.5

Q And he make have had a conversation with Mike Filkins6

regarding the campaign at some point; is that right?7

A Yeah. I don't recall if it was before or after the filing.8

Q Can you remember anything about any conversation you had9

with Art Stevens as to any statements Michael Filkins made10

about the members of Carla Filkins' campaign committee?11

A I don't believe so.12

Q Can you recall anything Arthur Stevens told you that Michael13

Filkins would have said or represented regarding the14

management of Carla Filkins' campaign?15

A I don't believe so. It's not that I don't remember; I don't16

believe things like that were discussed.17

Q Okay. The same question regarding Carla Filkins. Anything18

that you may recall that Arthur Stevens said to you that19

conveyed information about Carla Filkins' campaign20

committee?21

A Basically Art Stevens had seen cars -- like, Jim Blackburn's22

car over there, Doug Mellema, saw his car over there during23

the summer, what looked to be on Thursday. They would call24

me, I'd go to softball games, drive by. I don't know --25

26

16

didn't know at the time what Jim's car was. It appears to1

be a small, gray convertible with a black top but I didn't2

know that at that time. I wasn't watching them or spying on3

them or even seeing who was there. But there were a number4

of cars there on Thursday nights, which his car was one of5

them.6

Q So this is --7

A According to them. So --8

Q All right. "Them" being Arthur Stevens and Doug Mellema?9

A They each at different occasions had told me that. It was10

not a factor whatsoever in this filing.11

Q I haven't asked that yet. I'm just trying to find out -- I12

was referring to Arthur Stevens, but you mentioned Doug --13

Douglas Mellema, that at some point -- and you mentioned14

this summer -- reported to you cars that would be at Carla15

Filkins' house on Thursday nights?16

A I just played softball on Thursday nights. I recall at17

least one occasion as I was driving to The Pines that I18

received a call that said there was a meeting at Carla's19

house tonight.20

Q Let me be a little more clear, because I know it's hard to21

pin down, but I'm just trying to sort it through. You22

recall one occasion, a Thursday night, when you played23

softball when you received such a call; is that right?24

A Right. That's the way I go there anyway. On other25

26

17

occasions I saw what looked to be other meetings or several1

cars there.2

Q All right.3

A Which could have been anything.4

Q All right. There was a Thursday when you played softball.5

On that Thursday you recalled when you played softball, who6

phoned you?7

A Council member Art Stevens did, but not as a council member;8

just as a friend.9

Q All right. And you also mentioned -- was there another time10

that either Mr. Stevens or Mr. Mellema phoned you regarding11

cars at the house?12

A Mr. Mellema's never told me this. Art passed it on that he13

said he saw that at some point. And I passed the house on14

other occasions on Thursday nights and saw groups of people15

there. Who knows what's going on; who cares.16

Q I'm just trying to be clear. So we have one occasion where17

Mr. Stevens phoned you?18

A That's it.19

Q And that was a Thursday night; is that right?20

A Yeah.21

Q Mr. Mellema never phoned you?22

A No; not that I recall.23

Q All right. And so that's one occasion. Now, you've24

mentioned other occasions when there were cars there. Was25

26

18

that information you got from Mr. Stevens or Mr. Mellema?1

A I think Mr. Stevens said there was another time he spotted2

Mr. Blackburn's car there, so there were three spottings.3

But --4

Q Okay. So I've counted two --5

A -- I wasn't counting at the time.6

Q I'm just trying to be clear. I've counted two, now; one7

when you received a call from Mr. Stevens. You just8

mentioned there was another time Mr. Stevens mentioned it,9

that's two. What is the third time, just so I'm clear?10

A Just through what I believe to be "Doug saw it, too" was11

told to me by Art. That's my recollection.12

Q So Art Stevens told you that Doug told him that they saw Jim13

Blackburn's car at the Filkins residence?14

A That's correct.15

Q Okay. Do you know if that was the same time that Art saw it16

or a different time? Any idea?17

A The impression I got was that it was at a different time.18

(Off the record interruption)19

Q Can you place a time period on this?20

A No. You know, I can't really. I believe my schedule starts21

in May as far as softball, or June; and somewhere between22

June and August.23

Q So roughly --24

A Inclusive.25

26

19

Q -- you're aware of three times between June and August where1

Mr. Blackburn's car may have been at the Filkins residence?2

A Right. This has played no part whatsoever into my filing.3

Q I haven't asked that question. I'm simply trying to sort4

through --5

A I'm trying to save you some time.6

Q I appreciate that. So about three times between May and7

August that his car may have been at her house; is that8

right?9

A That's what I've heard.10

Q All right. Now, do you know how long Carla Filkins and Mike11

Filkins have known Jim Blackburn?12

A I've heard 25 years or so, or 15; I don't recall what --13

Q Do you know if --14

A -- it was.15

Q Oh, I'm sorry. I cut you off. Do you know if they're16

social friends still?17

A I would assume so.18

Q Do you know how far Mr. Blackburn lives from Mr. Filkins and19

her house?20

A As crows fly, fairly close. I'm not always sure which house21

is Jim Blackburn's but I probably could pick it out within22

three.23

Q Okay. SO he lives on Holly Road?24

A Yeah.25

26

20

Q Would it be fair to say that's not a three-minute drive from1

his house to Filkins' house?2

A Yeah; right. Going around.3

Q Do you have any -- let me back up. So as to Carla Filkins4

and Michael Filkins, you have named them as potential5

witnesses regarding any information they might have6

regarding Carla's campaign, how it was managed, and7

information regarding the committee, essentially; is that8

right?9

A Yeah.10

Q Can you tell me, if you know, what information you have from11

Carla Filkins -- from Carla specifically, that would state12

that Jim Blackburn was on her campaign committee?13

A Just their appearance at the city council meeting and14

coordinated effort in concert in sitting next to her. I15

don't know if they arrived or not -- I think people had told16

me they did but -- together but it was obviously a planned17

event. And, you know, he's sitting there with his hand on18

her leg, and -- she's moving it away; I don't know. They19

appeared to have a pretty strong relationship; at least20

that's what I've been told by a person seated behind them.21

Q Could you -- you've stated on the record here under oath22

that Jim had his hand on Carla's leg?23

A Yes. I believe trying to calm her and being supportive.24

Q Well, let's be clear.25

26

21

A That's what I heard from a person seated behind her. I1

didn't see it. It didn't matter to me. I didn't know it at2

the time I filed this.3

Q Well, you brought it up, so I just want to be clear what it4

is you're saying. And I appreciate your clarification.5

One, you didn't see this, what you've just testified to?6

A No. It was reported to me through Gordon Maxwell, who was7

seated right behind them.8

Q All right. So Mr. Maxwell made a statement to you, --9

A I don't know if it was to me or someone else, but it got10

back to me that --11

Q Well, sir, I'm trying to be clear, please. I'm not trying12

to be difficult. But you started out with a broad13

statement, --14

A Yeah.15

Q -- about a form of touching.16

A It was not bad touching, it was supportive touching and, you17

know, support. That's what people do. It's not a big deal,18

and, again, did not fit into my position. I don't recall if19

I was told this before or after filing. It appears could be20

being a nice person in hindsight. I don't have a problem21

with that, I'm just pointing out they were seated together22

and spoke out in -- basically in unison with a one-two23

combination. To me, that appeared to be an active part in24

the management of her campaign. This was her campaign.25

26

22

This splash was her whole campaign at that point. They had1

some signs, some letters and pretty quiet race up until2

then.3

Q All right. Let me clear as to the issue that I prefaced4

this with, was information you had personally that would5

come from Carla Filkins if she testified regarding Jim being6

on her committee. And you responded to an appearance, I7

believe this would have been October 17th, before the city8

council; is that right?9

A Yes. I've already told you I've had no contact with Carla10

so there would be no way for her to tell me anything about11

it. So the question is a dead-end.12

Q Well, it may be. Now, you've mentioned, then, that there13

was -- you didn't see Jim touch Carla, but someone else14

apparently did. I'm trying to walk through this.15

A It's not touching; he placed his hand on her knee to calm16

her, she would remove his hand, he kept putting it back to17

calm her, and that's it. I didn't see it. That's what was18

reported to me.19

Q You can understand my asking the question because it could20

be interpreted several ways from your initial statement.21

A I told you --22

Q Could that be fair?23

A -- it wasn't a bad touching; it was a human thing,24

supportive thing, from what I could tell. And --25

26

23

Q All right. From what you could tell --1

A -- irrelevant.2

Q Now, that's the next point. Well, I'm trying to find out3

what -- you've indicated that the information you had came4

from this one event at the city council meeting. Now, then5

you said you thought Mr. Maxwell reported it to you.6

A I --7

Q Did Mr. Maxwell report that to you?8

A I believe he did at some point. He didn't report it, but he9

had commented that he thought it was interesting that that10

occurred.11

Q Where were you when Mr. Maxwell told you that?12

A I don't recall if he stopped over at my home or if he told13

me this over the phone.14

Q All right. So it would have either been him stopping at15

your house or over the phone?16

A Yeah.17

Q Are you friends with Mr. Maxwell?18

A I don't have any acquaintance with him. He's a supporter.19

He likes good government, low taxes, and efficient20

government.21

Q That's commendable. So he is a supporter of yours?22

A He has been, although he also supports Heron Township and,23

you know, he works for them. He's a township guy at heart,24

as far as I can tell. But -- so he does support me, but he25

26

24

also is very interested in townships, not only Heron, he1

attends Clam Lake meetings, presumably others. He just is2

interested in government and is not afraid to speak out and3

help others that he believes are doing the right things in4

government, that are honest and are doing what they're5

supposed to do.6

Q Now, you've mentioned -- and I'll refer to this October 17th7

council meeting, which is a meeting where Ms. Filkins8

addressed council and Mr. Blackburn addressed council. So9

that's the time we're talking about; correct?10

A Yeah.11

Q And I asked you -- I'm sorry -- I didn't ask you; I'll12

rephrase that. You had just said you concluded from that,13

that Jim Blackburn was a member of her committee.14

A I didn't say that. I said that he was coordinating efforts15

with her, in concert, obviously; they both appeared together16

and sat together and got up one after another, both out of17

line in the wrong part of the meeting, --18

Q All right.19

A -- and, in my opinion, made fools of themselves.20

Q Well, in the process of making fools of themselves in21

addressing council, did either one address or say they had22

come together? Did they state that?23

A No. I believe somebody has told me that --24

MR. HOMIER: Are you talking about before or after25

26

25

the meeting?1

MR. WOTILA: I'm talking at the meeting. I'm2

still -- I'll restrict this to --3

MR. HOMIER: Okay.4

MR. WOTILA: -- during the actual council meeting.5

Q Was there any statement by either one that they had come6

together?7

A Yes. And I don't recall who, or how it got to me. I know8

Mike has said that it was reported to him. Mike, my lawyer.9

Q All right. Let me back up.10

A Someone -- I don't know who -- saw that. I don't know that11

I saw them coming or going. In fact, I know they left,12

actually, before the meeting was over. So I didn't --13

Q Do you have any information, sitting here now, that they14

came to the --15

A No.16

Q -- meeting together?17

A No. Other than what I've heard and, again, that's not a18

factor, really. What was a factor was their --19

MR. HOMIER: Wait a minute. When you talk about20

"coming together," are you talking about appearing together,21

riding in the same car together, walking in together?22

MR. WOTILA: Fair question. I would agree,23

Counsel. Let me clarify that.24

Q Do you have any personal information that they drove to the25

26

26

council meeting together?1

A No.2

Q Do you have any personal information that they walked into3

the council building together?4

A I don't recall.5

Q Do you have any personal information that they walked into6

chambers together?7

A I don't recall.8

Q Do you have any personal information that they, before9

coming to council, planned their presentations together?10

A It appeared as such.11

Q Appeared from what you observed at the meeting?12

A Yeah.13

Q Do you have -- other than what you saw there, the conclusion14

you drew, do you have any information from any source that15

they planned this presentation together?16

A Just the coordinated nature of the two statements.17

Q Well, that's -- okay. That's -- in other words, you think18

the statements -- what do you mean by "coordinated nature"?19

A They were all consistent with one another.20

Q Could that be consistent with -- what do you mean,21

"consistent"? Let me stop. I didn't phrase that well.22

That was unclear. What do you mean they were "consistent"?23

A They were both on the same topic, and obviously an attempt24

to sway an election.25

26

27

Q They were both on the topic of you having appeared in a1

radio show out of Traverse City; is that right?2

A Right. They both misrepresented the radio show and what was3

said, --4

Q Now, --5

A -- consistently.6

Q All right. So you've talked about and testified to what you7

observed at that meeting. Up until October 17, 2011, at the8

city council meeting, before that date, did you have any9

information that Jim Blackburn served on the campaign10

committee of Carla Filkins?11

A Just the fact that I had been called over the summer, it was12

either -- it was from Art and I heard through Doug, but I13

didn't even think of that at that point. That was not on my14

mind.15

Q So when you're referring to being called over the summer,16

there was information that Jim's car had, on -- and I think17

we've estimated somewhere between two and three occasions,18

had been seen at Carla's house. That's what you're19

referring to?20

A During what looked to be a large gathering of people.21

Q Okay. So now you've identified Jim's -- some information22

you received of Mr. Blackburn's car at her house, and the23

October 17th meeting. Up until the close of that meeting,24

October 17th, before that date, all of 2011, what other25

26

28

information did you have that Jim Blackburn served on her1

committee?2

A I don't -- I wasn't collecting that or looking for it, so I3

had none. This was the -- not a concern even -- it wasn't a4

concern until Friday of that week when I received a phone5

call that there was notice to the City that there's an issue6

here.7

Q All right. We'll get to that in a moment. Let's go to the8

next witness. Mike Bengelink you've named on the witness9

list. What information do you anticipate Mike Bengelink10

would testify to regarding this case?11

A He's -- looked like the treasurer of Carla's campaign.12

Q All right. Anything else?13

A Just his involvement with his approach to Art Stevens after14

the failed sheriff senate campaign where he met with him and15

basically warned him, which probably Art felt was a threat,16

to get away from me; threatened him with a private17

investigator and indicated they were going to bring18

basically both Art and myself down. There were investors,19

some of them were attorneys, and Mr. Bengelink indicated --20

Q Let me back up, because I'm lost of where you're talking21

about. First of all, were you present during any of these22

discussions? Or is this information Art related to you?23

A He related to me after he followed Mr. Bengelink down to the24

City police post.25

26

29

Q When was this? What are we talking about?1

A Probably September of that year.2

Q You mean 2011?3

A Yeah. After the primary sometime. It might have even been4

in August still.5

Q What was this? Mr. Bengelink and Mr. Stevens talked; is6

that right?7

A Yeah.8

Q And you weren't present but Art has told you about this; is9

that right?10

A Yeah.11

Q And what is it that you're saying Bengelink said to Mr.12

Stevens?13

A He threatened or warned him that a group of people in this14

community that had money were going to hire private15

investigators to destroy him and me, and this was his last16

chance to flip his position on the road patrol issue.17

Q So this was about --18

A And stand back from me, call me out at meetings; he was19

being told to do those things, according to what Art's told20

me.21

Q That Mike Ben- --22

A Mr. Bengelink was being nice about it, "I'm your friend,23

Art," that kind of stuff. But on the other hand, basically24

my understanding from what he told me is it was a threat to25

26

30

get away from me. And Mr. Stevens reported it to the City1

Manager and to the police. And that's where it went.2

Q You mentioned some investors or something. Were these3

people ever named by Art?4

A No. That's why if -- I assume those same people are working5

in conjunction or working with whatever efforts there are in6

this community to remove me from whatever group is proactive7

in that area.8

Q Who are we talking -- I'm serious. Mike Bengelink talks to9

Art Stevens.10

A Yeah.11

Q And you said Mike made some reference to investors --12

A Yeah; some of which are attorneys.13

Q All right. Did he say who the attorneys were?14

A Art did not ask, that I know of. I think you should take15

that up with Art Stevens.16

Q I will. I'm just asking if he --17

MR. HOMIER: Can I -- can I just interrupt? I18

suppose we can sit here all day and do this. But I don't19

see what this has to do with anything that's going on in20

this case. I mean, maybe I'm wrong and missing the boat,21

but I don't see how this relates to the removal issue, which22

is the issue that's going to be before the court.23

MR. WOTILA: Well, I don't -- I can't say I know.24

I know the general rule of a deposition is if you ascertain25

26

31

information, perhaps not admissible, may lead to relevant1

evidence. I didn't -- I just asked what Mike Bengelink had2

to say about the Filkins campaign. And it's your witness --3

I'm sorry -- your client that has responded about this4

situation. Now, I don't know if this goes to motivation,5

given this information, for the Mayor bringing the action6

against Mr. Blackburn, the information he heard; whether7

that information was correct or not and that was a8

motivating factor for his making the decision he made or9

not. I don't know. And I will say on the record this is10

the first I ever heard anything like this. And the Mayor11

brought it up, so I'm doing a follow-up.12

MR. HOMIER: Well, and I appreciate that. And I'm13

not -- I'm not looking to create any problems here except14

for we have set the deposition from 10:00 to 12:00. And an15

hour of that, or 50 minutes of that, was taken up with16

reviewing documents. And now we're at almost 11:30. We17

have at least on the schedule a half hour left and we have,18

I think, four other depositions today. These --19

MR. WOTILA: I would agree with that, Counsel.20

MR. HOMIER: Wait a minute. Let me just say21

something else. These witnesses that were on our witness22

list is a preliminary witness list. We talked about this23

with Judge Fagerman. We don't know, probably, because this24

is our first deposition, we've just started discovery, what25

26

32

a lot of these people may or may not say.1

MR. WOTILA: Of course not. I'm asking what he2

knows. Those are fair questions. What does he know, this3

person would testified to that's relevant. So I acknowledge4

that. Let me just close this up.5

Q You've linked Mr. Bengelink with being on Carla Filkins'6

campaign as a treasurer. Correct? And you've listed him as7

a witness. Is that correct?8

A Yes. He would make the same observations other --9

Q Now are you assuming whatever discussion that took place10

with Mr. Bengelink and Mr. Stevens, somehow involved me or11

anyone from our law firm?12

A I don't know that. He said "lawyers." You've had a13

long-standing position against me, so I would -- I would14

presume that. But this is, again, not relevant to my15

decision. He also indicated that Todd Golnick, that he16

would clear up whatever matters were with Todd Golnick.17

And --18

Q This is Mike Bengelink?19

A Yeah. And he would help Art. He was there to help Art as a20

friend.21

Q Now, so you are assuming that whatever it was Mike Bengelink22

said to Mr. Stevens, somehow involved either me or our law23

firm or someone from our firm?24

A I -- I would -- you know, consistent with your past, Roger,25

26

33

and what's happening, that would be a reasonable conclusion.1

Q Okay.2

A But, again, I don't sit and dwell on this stuff. This was3

Art's issue, not mine. He took care of it the way he4

thought he should. He went either to the City Manager5

and/or to the police, --6

Q Do you know if Art ever asked to clear that up, either with7

me, anyone else, our firm, about any involvement? Just if8

you know.9

A I don't know.10

Q Next question. Bill Rzepka. Why is Bill listed and what do11

you anticipate him testifying to?12

A Mr. Rzepka is an associate with Mr. Blackburn and a friend,13

probably; he has coffee with him every single day, he's14

listened to him, I would assume, with other folks that15

have -- in coffee shops that listen to Mr. Blackburn16

criticize me very much and has for years. But, again, he's17

criticized me for years. I think I -- I think I appointed18

him after he was critical of us in your attorney thing. I19

don't have any vindictive feelings to Jim Blackburn. I was20

minding my own business after he came and moved on after he21

came to our meeting. It was just another day of him22

criticizing me and, you know, it was not on my list to do23

anything in this matter until I got a phone call.24

Q So you anticipate Bill Rzepka has some information regarding25

26

34

Jim Blackburn being on Carla Filkins' committee?1

A I think he's familiar with Jim enough to know what he was2

doing, --3

Q Okay.4

A -- either in the committee or on his own committee spending5

money or the active management of the campaign.6

Q What do you mean, "on his own committee"?7

A He's FOIAing things for election purposes, so I guess that8

would probably -- in my opinion, be worthy a filing a9

committee himself. And I don't believe that was done. But10

if you're spending money to effect a committee, whether11

you're buying signs or buying FOIA's that you're12

distributing at city council meetings or using them in other13

ways.14

Q So you think Mr. Rzepka would have information regarding15

that?16

A I know he has his information with what was going on.17

Q Okay. Same question, Gary Finstrom you've named as a18

witness.19

A Gary --20

Q What information do you think Sheriff Finstrom would have21

regarding Mr. Blackburn either serving on the committee or22

managing the campaign?23

A One of their neighbors told me Gary is over there all the24

time, so -- during the summer. And they sit -- they live25

26

35

right across the street. They're best friends, the four of1

them, Mike, Carla, Gary and Gayla. Okay? So they are very2

close to them. They know what's going on. Mr. Finstrom was3

active in the campaign as well and --4

Q So you believe they have information. Do you have any5

information that Gary Finstrom would say that Jim Blackburn6

served on the campaign committee?7

A Consistent with Mike has said, we've put these people on8

because these are the closest people to Carla and Mike, and9

they're going to be questioned.10

Q I'm asking what specific information. So you said --11

A I don't have any specific --12

Q Thank you.13

A I don't speak to Gary Finstrom. He won't speak with me14

anymore.15

Q Thank you. I was just asking what specific information you16

have as to his anticipated testimony. If it's that --17

A I don't have any.18

Q Thank you. You don't. You named them because they know19

each other and he helped on Carla's campaign, so you think20

he may have information. Is that correct?21

A Yes.22

Q And as to Gayla Finstrom?23

A Gayla's a very nice person, and I just assume she would be24

present throughout this whole thing by Carla's side and25

26

36

walked in parades with her, you know. It's -- after you1

consider their friendship, I'm sure she has a lot of2

personal information and election information from Carla.3

Q You've named me. What specific information do you4

anticipate I have regarding Jim Blackburn either serving on5

the committee or managing the campaign?6

A You were -- I suppose your relationship with Mr. Blackburn.7

I recall him and you working together or being present and8

you are not my supporter and have caused great difficulty to9

my family and just you have obviously been working with10

Mr. -- Mrs. Filkins. I think you admitted you provided free11

legal advice or counsel, so there's where you are.12

Q Let me back up.13

A You were also meeting and drinking coffee with Mr. Blackburn14

and having other meetings, I presume, with regard to this15

election.16

Q So is there anything specific that you have information17

regarding --18

A No.19

Q -- my knowledge of who was on the committee or who managed20

the campaign?21

A Only that you've -- it's been brought to my attention you22

have consulted with Carla and her campaign.23

Q Okay. And regarding -- Mr. Charmoli is a reporter at the24

newspaper?25

26

37

A Yeah.1

Q And I know that he will get into -- authored -- was the2

reporter on a couple of news articles that appeared3

regarding the campaign and regarding the October 17th4

appearance of Ms. Filkins and Mr. Blackburn; correct?5

A That's a small part of it.6

Q All right. Now, what else and what other information do you7

anticipate Mr. Charmoli has regarding this case?8

A He's written the articles that presented Mr. Blackburn as on9

the committee -- a committee member, active in the10

committee, because -- I believe what happened was -- I guess11

I should back up here, maybe, and I'll tell you how I got to12

Rick Charmoli because that whole week went on without any13

concerns whatsoever. There was a contact to me at about14

5:30. I was driving -- or riding in a car going to a Viking15

football game in Buchanan, Michigan -- or Hamilton High16

School, we were playing Buchanan. And it was a call made17

from one of my council members that there's a concern in the18

rank and file --19

Q Let me -- I'm going to through this trying to be orderly, as20

your counsel is concerned about time, and I understand.21

Does have to do with Rick Charmoli?22

A Yeah.23

Q All right. Go ahead.24

A So I got Art's call. He jotted me down a couple of laws25

26

38

that were -- or one, maybe, one or two statutes that I1

should look at. I didn't know what they were, he just gave2

me numbers. I looked them up on my cell phone and -- while3

we were driving, and got to the stadium and went to work4

helping my buddy do the announcing. And when I thought5

about it and on the way home I had a 45-minute phone call6

with Rick Charmoli about why in the world he would put in7

the paper that Jim Blackburn is a committee member twice in8

the article.9

Q Can you point to the article where he mentioned committee10

members?11

A Yeah. "He's a member of the committee" probably is going to12

be the representation. Let's see.13

(Witness reviews document)14

A Okay. "During the public" -- this is the first line of the15

article, which I believe was on the --16

Q 18th of October.17

A Okay. I didn't print it out until the 1st.18

Q I understand.19

A "During the public comments portion of the20

Cadillac city council meeting Monday, Carla Filkins21

and a member of her campaign" --22

There's one.23

Q Well, you just said -- let me be clear. You just juxtaposed24

"committee member" with the phrase, "member of her25

26

39

campaign." So what you're reading says what?1

A "Member of her campaign."2

Q All right.3

A What does that mean to you?4

Q To me, it means he's a supporter. To you it means something5

different. But what I'm asking you is very specific -- very6

specific. You said explicitly that Mr. Charmoli stated7

twice that Mr. Barnett (sic) was a member of her committee.8

All right. Now, --9

A This is in the article; yes. That I -- it's not stated; he10

wrote it.11

Q All right. Now, reading the article that you're referring12

to does not use the word "committee," does it?13

A It implies committee, "a member of her campaign."14

Q Mr. Barnett, it does not use the word "committee," does it?15

A I don't know. I'll have to read the rest of it.16

Q Why don't you read the article?17


A Okay. The other part in the article, it indicates "who is19

part of Filkins campaign."20

Q Thank you. The article --21

A "Part of."22

Q -- does not use the word committee, does it, Mr. Barnett?23

A No.24

Q Thank you. Now, you've talked about a discussion you had25

26

40

with Mr. Charmoli.1

A Yeah.2

Q Which is what my question went to. You -- I'm a little3

vague, but you said you read this article. Did you talk to4

him before reading the article? Or after the article?5

A The article came out on Tuesday, --6

Q Thank you.7

A -- so I had obviously read it, put it away; done issue.8

Gone. Just another day in the office for me.9

Q Okay.10

A Okay?11

Q Thanks. Now, --12

MR. HOMIER: We -- before we move on, are we going13

to mark that as an exhibit?14

MR. WOTILA: I can identify it. I've got -- it's15

also attached to the pleadings, but --16

MR. HOMIER: Yeah; just some --17

THE WITNESS: That came from our pleadings. I18

just pulled that out last night.19

MR. WOTILA: That's fine. I have a copy that I20

can actually mark, I believe, here.21

MR. HOMIER: Yeah; I just want to make sure the22

record's clear what --23

MR. WOTILA: I believe this (indicating) is the24

same copy and she can mark it. You can erase that if you25

26

41

want. It's got a number "25" on it, which is my marking1

which means nothing; it was just in order of all the2

documents I have here. Can you mark that as 1, please, Ann?3

Thank you.4

(Deposition Exhibit 1 marked)5

Q All right. So we've established you had some phone calls.6

We've established that there was some form of a discussion7

with you and Mr. Stevens regarding some statutes and that8

you've read this article. Is that right?9

A Yeah. And a member of our rank and file was bringing that10

to his attention.11

Q All right. So someone from the City brought to his12

attention a law, or the newspaper article? Which of the13

two? I'm confused.14

A Don't know. I believe the law.15

Q So what happens next?16

A What happens next, I attend the football game, work on it.17

On the way back I was curious and called Rick Charmoli, who18

was working the sports desk waiting for scores to come in.19

And our game got over early for one reason or another and I20

chatted with him for 45 minutes. And, well -- my friend,21

Todd Golnick, drove and he's also -- did the game that22

night, I believe.23

Q So Mr. Charmoli, as I understand, would testify regarding24

his writing of the article or articles -- I've referred to25

26

42

one at this point -- any discussions that he may have had1

with Mr. Barnett (sic) or Carla Filkins or other people on2

the campaign and what information he was given. Is that --3

moving on, essentially why he's --4

A You're going to have to repeat that. I'm sorry. I was5

thinking of something else that he did.6

Q The question I'd asked you was that -- you had named Mr.7

Charmoli, trying to ask what information you anticipate he'd8

testify to, and to summarize because I believe your counsel9

would like to move on, you anticipate he would testify to10

the article or articles he wrote in the newspaper, any11

conversations he had with Ms. Filkins, Mr. Filkins, Mr.12

Barnett (sic) or any person involved in the Filkins13

campaign?14

A No.15

Q That would be what the testimony would go to?16

A No. It's just -- he was -- after the city council meeting,17

Mr. Blackburn presented himself at the "Cadillac News."18

Q All right. And he had discussions with Mr. Charmoli?19

A That's exactly right.20

Q And it's that discussion, that information, you anticipate21

Mr. Charmoli would testify to?22

A He would testify that -- yeah; what happened in that23

interaction.24

Q All right.25

26

43

A Why there's a citizen or person or member of a campaign1

coming to the "Cadillac News" after a city council meeting2

when the business is closed.3

Q All right. Marcus is the city manager of the City of4

Cadillac; number 11 on your list. I take it you -- he's5

been listed because he has information from talking to Mr.6

Blackburn and some e-mails, et cetera; is that right?7

A That would be it, probably.8

Q Do you know if he has any specific information regarding any9

conversation with Mr. Blackburn regarding Mr. Blackburn10

actually sitting on the committee or managing Carla Filkins'11

campaign?12

A Yeah.13

Q Okay. And what would that be, other than --14

A It's hearsay, but I -- you know, you want to get it from15

Marcus directly? We're skipping over a bunch of things that16

happened before the Wednesday in which he got the --17

Q I'm doing that deliberately because I have a lot to go18

through here. And I'm just trying to get a sense of why19

these people are called. So I'll come back to Mr. Peccia20

and Mr. Stevens, Mr. Mellema. You've listed Doug Mellema,21

who is both on the city council and a neighbor of Jim22

Blackburn's. Do you have any information that he ever had a23

conversation with Mr. Blackburn, where Mr. Blackburn would24

have stated he -- Blackburn -- was a member of Carla25

26

44

Filkins' committee?1

A I don't know that either one of them has spoken to Jim.2

Q Thanks, and I'll move on.3

A I don't know that.4

Q Thank you. John Horrigan is listed.5

A John Horrigan was approached by someone to manage her6

campaign; to be the manager.7

Q Okay. Do you know who he was approached by?8

A No, I don't. That's why he's on there. I haven't bothered9

him and other things, but he's,10

unfortunately, been dragged into this. But a lot of our11

mutual friends have been, and they're going to -- you know,12

this is painful.13

Q So he would be called because someone apparently approached14

him regarding -- you just used the word being a "manager" of15

her campaign, or manage it?16

A He's helped --17

Q I'm just asking.18

A -- Gordon Baas and they did a nice job -- with Bill Rzepka,19

Maynard Thompson -- against me before. He's a leader in our20

community and a nice fellow and they asked him to manage her21

campaign and he declined. That's what I know. So there was22

a search committee, more political activity which obviously23

bothers -- if you read the letter from the fire department,24

our rank and staff who are uncomfortable with having Mr.25

26

45

Blackburn continue.1

Q Let me be clear. You mentioned a search committee. Who was2

the search committee --3

A I don't know.4

Q -- for Carla Filkins?5

A That's what we're going to find out.6

Q All right. Well -- but you used the word "search"7

committee. Where did that come from?8

A I'm presuming that there was a search committee for the9

candidate. I apologize; I'm a little off on this, but there10

was probably a search committee for a candidate, too.11

Q Do you have any knowledge of anybody on a search12

committee -- there actually being a search committee?13

A No.14

Q All right.15

A Not personal. I recall some rumors of just people asking16

around and --17

Q Could I do this, to speed this up -- and I'm not -- I'm sure18

in your eyes I'm being rude; I'm not trying to be rude. If19

I ask a question, could you either testify as to personal20

knowledge --21

A Yeah.22

Q -- and not just talk about rumors, which -- a rumor here, a23

rumor there. Or, if you have information that is24

secondhand, that is a rumor or perhaps someone else told25

26

46

you, just clarify that so I know if it's from your1

knowledge, --2

A Right.3

Q -- or if it's secondhand or a rumor. Is that fair enough?4

A Sure.5

Q Because I'm just trying to be clear. So Mr. Horrigan may6

have some information regarding being approached to manage7

Carla Filkins' campaign; is that fair?8

A Yeah. I think he also worked on Gary Finstrom's campaign.9

As I recall he was on that one, as well.10

Q All right.11

A So he is extremely politically active and a good person to12

have run your campaign.13

Q And as to a comment about Carla Filkins having a search14

committee, would it be fair that that's not anything you15

have any knowledge of, such a committee?16

MR. HOMIER: Can -- let's clarify. Because I17

don't believe he testified that Carla had a search18

committee; he testified that he thought there may have been19

a candidate search committee.20

MR. WOTILA: Let me ask.21

Q Do you have any knowledge of Carla Filkins having a search22

committee?23

A I mean, just for her manager. She was -- someone on her24

behalf was searching for a campaign manager for her. I25

26

47

also -- I --1

Q Go ahead.2

A I don't know if there's a candidate search committee. I had3

heard through rumors that there was, and I couldn't tell you4

who said that or when. And, you know, this is America; I'm5

all for elections. This is why I'm in there is to have6

elections, have good debate and to run the city in the way7

the citizens want. So it's America, anyone can run. It's8

not something I focused on and none of this was in my head9

when I made my decision to remove him.10

Q All right. Mel Hurley. Who is Mel Hurley? Why is Mel --11

what do you anticipate Mel Hurley would testify to?12

A She's Carla friend and had made statements in the community13

that she's involved in the election. So that's --14

Q Anything more than that?15

A Until we find out, I'll get to that. Anything -- no. Just,16

I think, that she was a Carla supporter and meeting -- she17

was at meetings.18

Q Okay. David Coffey, number 16. Again, anything specific19

you anticipate he will testify to that -- out of your20

knowledge or is it simply that he was involved in her21

campaign and you will search for information from him?22

A That's an odd one. He -- part of the campaign, in my23

opinion, of Carla's, was to take out Mr. Stevens; in other24

words, have him not elected. That was obvious from the25

26

48

radio interview and the information expressed there.1

Apparently Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Coffey had both written2

letters around the same time, or e-mails, regarding Mr.3

Stevens' eligibility or tax records or where he lives, and4

it was sent to the media, at least Mr. Blackburn's were,5

apparently, according to Art. And Mr. Coffey had the same6

questions. So I presumed that they're tag-teaming or7

hanging out together or just simply have the same question8

at the same time, probably from the coffee shop, I'm9

guessing. And Evan Smith seemed to be riding on the10

coattails of Carla, from what I could see. And he's from11

her circle of friends, so there you go.12

Q Okay. Now, let me go back. You have -- let me go through13

these people specifically. Michael Filkins, Mike Bengelink,14

Bill Rzepka, Gary Finstrom, Gayla Finstrom, myself, Rick15

Charmoli -- forget Rick; I'll leave him out -- John16

Horrigan, Mel Hurley, Dave Coffey, Evan Smith. Are those17

all people that you believe were supporters of Carla18

Filkins?19

A I don't know about Dave Coffey; I don't know about John20

Horrigan. I don't know -- I guess the rest I would presume21

they were. I don't hold anything against people that22

supported Carla.23

Q Good. The -- are those people that you consider to be on24

her campaign committee?25

26

49

A That's why they're on the list is we need to ask questions.1

And I think the best way to do that is through depositions2

and so forth. I would guess that some of them are on the3

committee, because they're -- Jim's car was spotted there4

with big groups meeting. I would presume he was. But,5

again, it didn't enter into my thought process whatsoever6

about those -- who's on the committee at that point; other7

then this guy had a front page article, he's telling8

everybody he's on a -- he's a member of the committee, and9

he waited all week; no retraction.10

Q Excuse me. Could you point out the front page article?11

You've shown one article. Is there another article that Mr.12

Blackburn stated he was a member of the committee? I mean,13

that's what you stated, so I'm just asking.14

A Okay. You can mince words or whatever it's called all you'd15

like, but the article says what it says. It says here, it16

says he's a --17

Q Is there an article. -- thank you. It will stand on its18

own.19

A -- campaign member, working with the committee. What does20

that mean?21

Q I wish I could answer your questions. But as you know, as a22

licensed attorney, I'm not in a position to answer your23

questions unless your counsel wants me to. So there's no24

newspaper article that specifically uses the word25

26

50

"committee"; is that correct?1

A I don't know if there are other articles. The one article I2

read gave me the distinct impression he's a committee3

member. I didn't care two hill of beans until anything4

about that other than when I got a call Friday, I got a5

concern.6

Q All right. Now, the --7

A That was my --8

Q -- witness list also lists -- and I know this is9

preliminary, so I just want to clarify. It lists "any10

member of the city fire department." "Any member of the11

Cadillac Police Department." "Any person subject to Civil12

Service Commission and any employee of the City." Now, I13

again, preface this: You're an attorney. I respect your14

attorney very much, but that's rather broad. You've15

literally listed any or every employee of the City of16

Cadillac as a potential witness. To your knowledge at this17

point is there any specific employee of the City of18

Cadillac, other than the specific names you've given, such19

as Marcus, that you are looking to call at trial in this20

matter?21

A I'm not looking to call anyone. And I'm not looking to go22

into trial on this matter. Someone needs to take some23

responsibility here.24

MR. HOMIER: Can we take a break?25

26

51


MR. WOTILA: Good.2

(Off the record)3

Q Quick question, Mr. Barnett. There's an expert witness4

list, but no individual is named. Are you aware of any --5

at this point sitting here, any expert that would be called6

in your behalf, if you're aware at this point?7

A I'm not aware. The last stuff here is put together by the8

attorney, --9

Q I understand that.10

A -- not me. And the expert witness list was also prepared by11

him. I think he's just preserving the right.12

Q I fully understand that. I'm just trying to sort through13

what we have and don't. Would you -- certainly, and I'll14

make the request of you and of your counsel, if at any point15

a specific expert is going to be identified that that be16

done well before trial?17

MR. HOMIER: Do you know any experts in the Civil18

Service Commission Act?19

MR. WOTILA: I think every legislator thinks he or20

she is an expert. We might call the entire legislature.21

But other than that; no. Sorry. That -- for the record,22

that was sarcasm, but humor.23

Q As to the earlier question, any employee of the city, et24

cetera, I acknowledge, Mr. Barnett, that certainly this was25

26

52

prepared as a preliminary list. But I'm just asking you1

sitting here at this point if there is any specific employee2

of the city -- and I'm referring to --3

A Yes.4

Q -- paragraphs 18, 19 and 20, that you anticipate might -- or5

there's some likelihood would be called in this regard?6

A I don't know that they'll be called.7

Q Well, I --8

A I don't know.9

Q This is discovery. All I'm trying to do is get names --10

A Let me think.11

Q -- of folks that we would focus on, if there's a name of12

someone specifically.13

A It's interesting because at the time I filed this, I didn't14

know the name of the person, and it wasn't relevant. The15

issue was it was brought forward by a City employee.16

Q Okay. I'll leave it at that for the moment. And I don't17

want to --18

A It didn't go into --19

Q -- beat this dead horse.20

A -- my decision who it was.21

Q So let me be clear. At the time -- and, I'm going to get to22

that now, believe it or not. At the time that you filed a23

Notice removing Mr. Blackburn, you had some information that24

there was some employee of the city that had a concern but25

26

53

you didn't have a specific name at that time. Is that --1

A That's true.2

Q Okay. Thank you. Let me move forward, because I3

acknowledge moving slowly. You mentioned a radio show.4

I'll move through this quickly. During the course of the5

campaign, I believe sometime in October, you appeared on a6

radio show in Traverse City. Is that correct?7

A Yes, I did. It was on the 12th of October, in the morning.8

Q All right. And the hosts of that shows were whom?9

A Three hosts; Omelette, Finster, and Rick Coates.10

Q Now, at -- and during this radio show, this was -- your11

appearance was in relation to being -- it was in relation to12

the mayoral campaign; is that right?13

A That was what I threw out there, and they had invited Carla,14

my understanding was, the previous day as well. I fully15

expected her to be there. So the answer is "yes."16

Q Now, after you were on that show, a few days later at the17

October 17th city council member -- city council meeting;18

I'm sorry -- Carla Filkins and Mr. Blackburn both appeared19

at that council meeting and addressed that question; your20

being on the radio show, what was said; they criticized you.21

That's kind of a nutshell, but is that right? It was within22

that time period we're talking about?23

A They appeared on the 17th?24

Q Yes.25

26

54

A Yeah.1

Q And a good part of the -- their presentation, or what they2

said at council, had to do with your appearance on the radio3

show on October 12th?4

A Their statements were taped. They speak for themselves, and5

the answer is yes.6

Q Okay. On that radio show you made a reference to or mention7

of uncovering or revealing corruption; is that right, if you8

recall?9

A No. I wouldn't use that. I said there was soft corruption10

where things didn't look right. That's what I would11

classify as soft corruption. It has nothing to do with12

Carla Filkins, Jim Blackburn or anything to do with the13

election.14

Q So, again, a tape is available of the radio show as well; it15

will speak for itself. But you've made some mention of16

corruption; correct?17

A That's how the public perceived it. It was after someone18

called up and praised me; indicated I should run for19

president and a few other things that just -- that's the20

kind of thing I hear in the community quite often. And21

that's what I hear from citizens is that I've cleaned up22

corruption. And I don't like to say it like that, but there23

were some fishy things that happened at the city and they're24

not happening any more.25

26

55

Q All right. You also, in that -- at the radio show, there1

was a time when one of the people who was on the air used2

the word "sleaze" or "sleazy" in relation to Carla Filkins;3

is that right?4

A Omlette said, as I recall, and it was misquoted in the paper5

and has been misquoted by Mr. Blackburn, that they used --6

"they called her sleazy." Guess what? That's not what they7

did. He said her activities were sleazy, in passing, and8

then moved on to another subject.9

Q I'm asking you was it said and again --10

A You misquoted the word or misphrased it or put it in the11

wrong context --12

Q I did? Or --13

A It sure sounds like you did, because the word was not -- she14

is not sleazy; her activities.15

Q Could you read back -- let me stop you. Could you read back16

my question, Ann, please? Or play it back?17

REPORTER: Was it just the last one?18

MR. WOTILA: Yeah; about where I use the word and19

see what I asked.20

(Playback of previous question)21

A Okay. I apologize. That --22

Q Well, it will appear on the record. I just want to be23

clear.24

A Okay. Are we on the record?25

26

56

Q Until Ann let's us know.1

REPORTER: Yeah.2

Q All right. So there was some use of the word sleaze or3

sleazy; is that correct?4

A In a very fast fashion, "We're going to hear about all her5

sleazy activities she's been up to," I think is how they6

said it.7

Q All right. And, finally, there was an attempt, while on the8

air, to make a phone call to Ms. Filkins. Is that right?9

A Yeah.10

Q And where did they get her phone number?11

A I brought with me campaign literature so they would see,12

hey, here's Carla's campaign literature. I gave them the13

phone number, I think, the day before; please call her, so14

that she was invited, too. And I think they said they sent15

a FaceBook message to her, and I believe they said they16

called her, and no response. So I showed up, I have five17

minutes with them. As I got rushed into the door, "Hi,18

guys, how you doing?" And, you know, "How's the campaign19

going?" "Okay." And, you know, I did tell them I was20

removed from the radio by the radio station after her21

request for equal time. They thought that was -- I assume22

that's what they were referring to as sleazy. I never said23

that word or that her activities were.24

Q I didn't -- I didn't say you said anything, Mr. Barnett; I25

26

57

asked you. Now, when -- so while on the air there was an1

attempt to phone her; is that correct?2

A Yes. That was not my doing. I had no control over this. I3

appeared, answered their questions. You know, they're a4

comedy act, an entertainment team, and they're popular with5

some people and apparently not others. And you go on there,6

and it's tongue-and-cheek mostly anyway.7

Q Did you know that she was working at the hospital at the8

time you attempted to make -- they attempted to make the9

phone call?10

A I have no idea where Carla is at any time, other than if I11

see her or see her car.12

Q You're aware she works at the hospital, aren't you, sir?13

A I'm aware she's employed at the hospital but she works in14

Grayling and other places. I don't know where she is. I15

don't know where she was that morning.16

Q Okay. Fine. So after --17

A I don't know that she was working.18

Q All right. So after your appearance on the show, we move to19

the 17th at the city council meeting. And Ms. Filkins20

presents herself -- and I'm summarizing, but is critical of21

your appearance on the radio show. Is that right?22

A Oh, yeah.23

Q And, as you said, the tape of that will speak for itself.24

Mr. Blackburn then appeared as well; is that right?25

26

58

A Yes; both speaking at the wrong time in the meeting.1

Q And Mr. Blackburn was quite critical of you; is that a fair2

summary?3

A He always is, and that was not a surprise. This was4

obviously a political ploy in the highjacking of our council5

meeting.6

Q I'm sorry -- "highjacking"?7

A Yeah.8

Q Okay. He highjacked your council meeting?9

A Absolutely. They took it over.10

Q They came in and took over your council meeting?11

A Yeah; they did. That's a public comment that's supposed to12

be for items on the agenda, and neither one respected that.13

It was disrespectful, out of line and to use that forum in14

that manner for a political ploy it was, I thought, not a15

good use of their efforts.16

Q You, then, have testified that it was at that time that you17

concluded that he was on her committee?18

A No.19

Q Okay. What did you conclude from the two of them being20

there and their presentation?21

A Well, they're working together in concert and then there was22

a coordinated effort to appear and to speak one after23

another. And these are the two people that ended up coming24

out of their group.25

26

59

Q All right. After that meeting, did you have any discussion1

with -- and I'm talking within, let's say, 48 hours, be it2

that evening or 48 hours, with Ms. Filkins?3

A No.4

Q With Mr. Blackburn?5

A No.6

Q Did you inquire of them, or any of the people on that7

witness list, other than Rick Charmoli, what Mr. Blackburn's8

role was in her campaign?9

A No.10

Q You have already testified that you then read from Exhibit11

1, and I believe that is the October 18th newspaper article12

by Mr. Charmoli, some references you read in that article13

about Mr. Blackburn's involvement in her campaign. I'm14

using the word "involvement"; correct? There was a15

reference to --16

A Well, it says, "a member of her campaign" and whatever else17

it said. But I read that as being on the committee --18

Q Okay. I --19

A -- and being a campaign member.20

Q That's how you read that?21

A That's how I read it.22

Q All right. And you then -- okay. With that information, at23

this point now, you've had information that he has been at24

her house on at least three occasions, you had --25

26

60

A And I told you, that had nothing to do with my decision --1

Q Thank you.2

A -- to remove him.3

Q Then I'll ignore that. That had nothing to with it. The4

decision to remove him, then, I take it, was the appearance5

that took place at city council with Ms. Filkins and Mr.6

Blackburn, and the newspaper article? Those two things?7

A No.8

Q All right. The next thing, what was the decision -- what9

else --10

A His behavior after the meeting to go above and beyond, to11

come over to the "Cadillac News" to what I would presume12

"massage" the journalist to make sure the article says what13

it said in his eyes, and to -- you know, here's a closed14

business at night. I don't know how he got in, but he's15

waiting for Mr. Charmoli when they get over there. This16

is --17

Q So we have -- we have three things. We have the appearance18

at the council meeting by Mr. Blackburn --19

A Yeah.20

Q -- and Ms. Filkins; the article -- the fact that Mr.21

Blackburn talked in some way -- and you're outlining how it22

happened with the information you have -- at the newspaper23

that night; and then the ultimate article that appeared on24

the 18th. You had that information; correct?25

26

61

A Yeah.1

Q And that is was led you to move forward with your October2

24th letter removing Mr. Blackburn?3

A His statements to Rick Charmoli also were important.4

Q Statements to Mr. Charmoli.5

A That he made over at the "Cadillac News", taking a special6

trip there, going beyond -- going above and beyond what he7

had already done at the meeting and attended that and I8

assume that surprised the character at the -- the9

journalist, the reporter at the -- rather reporter at the10

"Cadillac News"; "What are you doing here?" And he asked11

him what he was doing there.12

Q Okay.13

A "I'm working with the campaign"; same thing he told Marcus14

the next Wednesday.15

Q Okay. Well, let's walk through that. Now, that is the16

17th, which was a Monday; correct?17

A Yes.18

Q And you've outlined three things we've walked through; the19

17th council meeting, the contact Mr. Blackburn had with Mr.20

Charmoli and discussion that evening; --21

A Yeah.22

Q -- and the newspaper article; correct?23

A Yup.24

Q You, then, --25

26

62

A And my discussion with him, by the way, his bottom line was1

that he was a committee member. He stated more than once, I2

believe, to Rick, that he was working with the committee.3

So Rick Charmoli, another educated person, felt he was on4

the committee.5

Q Let's be specific about that because, to be blunt, I've also6

talked to Mr. Charmoli. Is your representation that Mr.7

Blackburn used the word "committee" to Mr. Charmoli?8

A He said he's working with the committee; yes -- the9

committee, working with.10

Q And so, to be very clear, that night when talking to Mr.11

Charmoli, it is your testimony that Mr. Charmoli has told12

you or will testify that Mr. Blackburn used the word13

"committee"?14

A Absolutely.15

Q All right. Now, you then, on October 24th, prepared a16

Mayor's Notice of Removal of Civil Service Commission;17

correct?18

A Yes.19

Q Did you prepare that? Or Mr. Peccia prepare that?20

A It's like "Peccia, you betcha," Peccia (pronouncing), just21

for your future reference and just to help you with the22

pronunciation, it's Peccia (pronouncing), like "you betcha."23

Q Did you prepare that document?24

A No.25

26

63

Q All right. It's typed up. Who actually prepared and typed1

the document?2

A It's a legal document, and it was prepared by -- to the best3

of my knowledge, Mike Homier.4

Q Okay. Just -- and can I mark that as Number 2, please?5

MR. HOMIER: Okay.6


Q So sometime between the 17th and 24th, you contacted8

counsel. I'm not asking what you discussed. I believe9

that's privileged.10

A Council? Counsel?11

MR. HOMIER: Attorney I think is what he means;12

right?13

A I contacted counsel?14

Q C-o-u-n-s-e-l, not -c-i-l; your attorney is also --15

A You skipped over this --16

Q I haven't skipped anything.17

A -- Saturday.18

Q I asked you, some time between October 17th and October19

24th, you contacted legal counsel?20

A Yes; I did. I contacted him on the Saturday after viewing21

or seeing part of a T.V. ad that was plastered all over22

northern Michigan on cable T.V. featuring (unintelligible),23

Mr. Blackburn pictured prominently in the middle of the T.V.24

ad on every cable station, probably, out there, and on high25

26

64

repetition. There's our Civil Service Commission member,1

standing with the Filkins.2

Q So there was a -- did you call Ms. Filkins at any time about3

that ad or anything like that, or where the picture came4

from?5

A You know, when people are possibly committing a high court6

misdemeanor, I'm probably not going to get involved or -- I7

probably should have called the police is what I should8

have. But did I call her? No. I don't feel I wanted to be9

a witness anymore than I already was.10

Q Well, let's back up with the last statement, Mr. Barnett.11

You are accusing Mr. Blackburn of having committed a high12

court misdemeanor?13

A I did not. I read what I've read and I see that it is14

incumbent upon the appointing board to not allow someone to15

remain on a board or the appointing authority to not allow16

someone who is serving on a committee or taking an active17

management. And by the time I saw that video and the other18

three things we've mentioned, and knowing that our rank and19

file are complaining or bringing this to our attention, I20

made a decision myself, after conferring with counsel, and21

with --22

Q Let's talk about that, because certainly you just brought up23

the point of Mr. Blackburn possibly committing a high court24

misdemeanor.25

26

65

A I'm not looking at that in that regard.1

Q Let me -- I'm asking the question.2

A I would have taken that --3

Q You brought it up.4

A -- to the police if I thought that --5

Q You brought it up.6

A -- was the way to handle it.7

Q I don't know what you would have done, Mr. Barnett. But you8

brought up the point that he may have committed a high court9

misdemeanor.10

A No -- well, I -- that's true. But I --11

Q Let me --12

A -- worry about getting myself involved in what is a police13

matter, --14

Q Let me ask you about that.15

A -- and what could have or should have been --16

Q Did you at any --17

A -- a police matter.18

Q Back up. We're talking over, so I'm sorry, Ann.19

A I was -- if I could finish my answers it probably would be a20

little more clean for a record here, Mr. McCur- -- Mr.21

Wotila; sorry.22

Q Did you finish?23

A It wasn't an answer; I was just explaining the process here.24

Q Why did you bring up commitment of a high court misdemeanor?25

26

66

You're now saying as of that Saturday, you realized that he1

or think that he may have committed a high court2

misdemeanor.3

A All these reasons together start adding up, that the guy4

is -- newspaper article, front page; no retraction asked all5

week. Wouldn't you ask for a retraction? "Hey, don't put6

that" -- "you've got to clear this up; I'm not on the7

campaign," "I'm not on the committee," "Please put that in8

the paper"? Never happened all week. That's why I called9

Rick Charmoli, "Why in the world would you put this on10

here?" "Did he seek a retraction?" You know, I can't just11

call Jim Blackburn up and talk to him.12

Q Why not?13

A Because something's happened with our relationship. Last14

time you and him were together, he was giving me the "Heil15

Hitler" sign, walking out of the city council.16

Q That I was with him?17

A This is a person that I would be calling and asking18

questions? No.19

Q I'm sorry -- I really don't understand what you're talking20

about. I was with him when he gave you a Nazi salute?21

A Yes.22

Q When was that?23

A This was in the middle of the Jeff Hawke when the two of you24

were attending together, and you were standing right next to25

26

67

him and as I was driving out of the parking lot.1

Q And I was standing there, and he gave you a Nazi salute?2

A Whatever this (indicating) means.3

Q And this is the Jeff Hawke matter?4

A It was after the tape was revealed and a couple citizens5

came that night. And I believe it was that night, but I did6

not resign, and you were present, sitting next to him that7

night and walked out with him. The two of you were walking8

out, so I believe you're a witness to that, if you would9

like to acknowledge that.10

Q I won't acknowledge that, and I don't know what you're11

talking about, though I do know about the Jeff Hawke matter12

and I did attend one city council meeting to observe. I13

agree with you there.14

Q My point is this, Roger: I'm not -- this guy is hostile15

towards me, and what good is it to call him up and talk to16

him about it? I had discussions with Marcus about how to17

handle this and --18

Q All right. Let's go to that.19

A -- the decision was made to -- I made a decision after20

talking with both them. My decision -- this is what I felt21

was appropriate and the way to handle this, --22

Q Well, --23

A -- to maintain the integrity of our Civil Service24

Commission.25

26

68

Q Now, let me go to that. You made that decision, then, that1

Saturday. Monday was the 17th, --2

A No.3

Q I'm sorry?4

A I talked with Mike for two minutes on Saturday and basically5

let him know what the concern was and I was to get back with6

him Monday and I did.7

Q All right. So by Saturday, without going into -- I don't8

want you to go into what you talked with your legal counsel9

about. I believe that's privileged, but --10

A I haven't.11

Q But you did make contact -- legal contact. You did, by12

Saturday, talk to Marcus Peccia?13

A No; that was Mike Homier on Saturday, I dealt with the14

communications with -- I spoke to Mike as to -- well, I'm15

not going to get into it, but I had a conversation with the16

attorney and with Marcus and I made --17

Q When did you talk to Marcus?18

A During the day; sometime Monday, probably.19

Q All right.20

A I was catching him up on what happened; that there was a21

notification or complaint or whatever you want to call it,22

awareness brought forward to me that there's a concern with23

our -- with the people that Jim serves.24

Q All right.25

26

69

MR. WOTILA: Let me mark this as Exhibit -- 3, I1

think. This is the Section 38.504, which is attached to2

your pleadings on the Civil Service Commission. I want to3

ask the witness about that.4


A Can you repeat what it is?6

Q This is -- I'm going to hand it to you; I just want to get7

it marked, that is attached to the pleadings, I believe, and8

is part of the Civil Service Act, which is -- pertains to9

the case.10

MR. HOMIER: Thank you.11

Q What's marked as Exhibit 3 is a document that's also12

contained in the pleadings, part of the Civil Service Act.13

There are highlights there that did not appear -- that are14

my highlights. I want to ask you a question about that15

after you have a chance to look at that briefly.16

(Witness reviews exhibit)17

A This is -- I didn't consider number 4, which is 504. I18

looked at 3 and 16, I believe, 503. I didn't --19

Q Okay.20

A This, I think, was included in the lawsuit, I believe it was21

the --22

Q Well, let's be clear for the record, --23

A Let me read it first while you --24

MR. WOTILA: Then I'll mark 503 that he's25

26

70

mentioned as the next exhibit, since we'll ask questions1

about both.2


A This was not what I was proceeding on. It is included in4

the case. It --5

Q Well, I'll ask a question about it.6

A Good cause is where we're -- probably why it's placed in7

the --8

Q I'll get to a couple questions, I just want to identify what9

they are. Exhibit 3 is a section of the Act in question,10

and was attached to, I believe, the complaint filed, Section11

38.504. Exhibit 4 is Section 38.503. Now, let me go12

through that a minute. The section I've handed you, Exhibit13

3, is part of the law that you've referenced; is that14

correct?15

A It's referenced.16

Q And that section -- could I just see it a minute, and I'll17

try and take you to the exact language. We're talking about18

a situation where a commissioner of the Civil Service19

Commission, such as Jim Blackburn, a procedure to remove20

that person. Is that correct?21

A Right.22

Q Where 504 is. And there's language that says, "The mayor or23

principal executive officer shall at any time remove any24

commission for:" and it gives a series of reasons. Is that25

26

71

correct?1

A As I'm not reading it right now it says what it says, sir.2

And if that's what you say it says and it shows up on the3

statute, then your answer would be, from me, yes.4

Q Who is the principal executive officer of the City of5

Cadillac?6

A That's a good question.7

Q Thank you. Who is it?8

A I believe that would probably be argued by -- it could be9

argued that would be the city manager, since the mayor is10

already laid out specifically and --11

Q So that might --12

A That's a gray area.13

Q All right. The language of that statute refers, in the14

alternative, to what appears to be two people; is that15

correct?16

A Yes.17

Q And it appears to -- it does say --18

A Well, not necessarily.19

Q It does say --20

A The mayor could also be the executive principal -- principal21

executive officer. I'm an elected officer, so to speak, and22

I'm the mayor. So I run the meetings, so that's a gray23

area.24

Q So the statute itself states specifically "the mayor or25

26

72

principal executive officer"; is that correct?1

A Yeah. It could be, like, a -- I assume a supervisor or2

other similar thing to the mayor, or it could be a city3

manager.4

Q Reading the statute, it would appear that those are two5

separate, distinct people --6

A I don't agree.7

Q -- by using "or"; is that right?8

A I don't agree. I think that -- I think our pleadings could9

have identified me as the principal officer.10

MR. HOMIER: I'm going to object to that, inasmuch11

as your opinion of what it may or may not say doesn't really12

matter.13

MR. WOTILA: Thank you. It's not the first time14

my opinion doesn't matter, so I'm used to that.15

MR. HOMIER: As to the law I will say.16

MR. WOTILA: Yes. Well, anyways --17

MR. HOMIER: It speaks for itself.18

Q You would -- and you mentioned, Mr. Barnett, that one19

interpretation of that could be that the principal executive20

officer would be the city manager? You've said that;21

correct?22

A Yeah; yeah. It's arguable; yeah.23

Q Did you ever discuss with Mr. Peccia the idea that he should24

consider to be the one to bring any notice, such as you25

26

73

filed on October 24th, to Jim Blackburn?1

A I did have a discussion because "mayor" was specifically in2

the statute; it left no legal room for someone later to3

complain that there would be -- is the city manager the4

principal executive officer, or was that the mayor?5

Q So you had a specific discussion with Mr. Peccia --6

A I don't know.7

Q -- regarding whether he was the principal chief -- I'm8

sorry -- what is the language here? -- the --9

A I don't know that I had one --10

Q -- principal executive officer?11

A I don't know if I had one with him or it was Mike. I recall12

Mike discussing this with me.13

Q Did you ever have a discussion with Marcus as to whether he14

would be the appropriate person under the statute, or a15

appropriate person under the statute, to make the decision16

on moving forward?17

A Yeah; I probably think -- I think we had a discussion and18

there was no request by me to have him do anything at all.19

And on this kind of issue, I have broad shoulders; I know20

what the pushback is on this kind of thing. I knew this was21

going to hurt my campaign; that was all irrelevant. What I22

did was I thought was the right thing to do. And did I have23

a discussion with Marcus? Probably about that, and I'm the24

person that is in charge of appointing Jim, as far as I25

26

74

know, with the consensus of the Board. I think I appointed1

him, that's why he's here now and --2

Q Well, let me ask about the discussion that you would have3

had. I'm trying to take this a step at a time.4

A Yeah; I don't recall the specifics of the discussion, other5

than I know it came up and I made no request to have him do6

it. I think --7

Q Now, let me go to that.8

A I'm still talking.9

Q Well, you certainly do. So go ahead and I will listen.10

A Thank you. I spoke with him about it and I think he11

explained to me as well it could be either one of us.12

Q So your recollection now is that you spoke with Marcus, the13

city manager, and that he came of the opinion that it could14

be either one of you to file this action?15

A I don't know if he did or if our city attorney did, but the16

discussion --17

Q You just said that, so --18

A Yeah. I don't know where he got that from, but there was a19

discussion and I don't know if -- I guess -- I would -- if20

you give me a second to think here, I believe that we did21

have a discussion about who could sign it. And I wasn't22

going to -- this was my decision and I'm not going to have23

someone else take it and hide from my decision. My decision24

was to remove him. I felt it was valid at the time, it was25

26

75

protecting our workers and I wasn't -- there was no1

consideration in my mind to put Marcus Peccia on the paper;2

I was doing this. Not Marcus Peccia.3

Q Now, you have testified earlier that up until and through4

the time of your October 24th removal letter, which we will5

get to, you had not had any specific name of any city6

employee who had made a complaint.7

A That's correct.8

Q You had heard through other individuals that there was a9

person or persons that had some concern?10

A I heard specifically from Art Stevens, riding to a football11

game, minding my own business, on the 21st of October.12

Q Right. Thank you. Now, let me kind of walk through this.13

You have an opponent who has addressed you and criticized14

you, Carla Filkins, on the 17th at a city council meeting;15

correct?16

A Yes.17

Q You have Mr. Blackburn, who you characterize -- however we18

characterize it, who clearly came in support of Ms. Filkins19

and also criticized you in relation to the mayoral campaign;20

is that correct?21

A Among other things. Whatever he said is what he said, but,22

yes.23

Q And you make the decision that you should file this removal24

as opposed to the city manager; is that correct?25

26

76

A You skipped over the fact that he went to the "Cadillac1

News" and identified himself in such a way that --2

Q No; I'm not skipping over anything. We've been through3

that. I will acknowledge everything you've said on the4

record.5

A Okay. But that doesn't go back --6

Q Given all the information that had been gleaned at that7

point, you made the decision to file, rather than the city8

manager?9

A The city manager left it up to me. As far as I could tell10

he was going to let me make this decision. He was not11

volunteering to sign it; let's put it that way.12

Q He wasn't volunteering to sign it. Was there any discussion13

at that point regarding whether your view might be tainted14

or given that this was the candidate running against you for15

office?16

A I'm not sup- --17

MR. HOMIER: Discussion with whom?18

MR. WOTILA: With Marcus.19

A No. There's no -- no. I was supporting my employee that's20

made a complaint, and our system that's supposed to have21

integrity. And obviously from the letter written from the22

fire department, they have great concerns for him sitting to23

this date.24

Q Let's talk about your decision on that -- apparently Monday,25

26

77

or certainly by the 24th, and you saw and felt there was no1

indication of you being, in some way, possibly biased2

because this involved the candidate running against you for3

mayor?4

A I'm not the messenger that brought this to me. As I said, I5

didn't have this at all on my radar. I was minding my own6

business, going to a football game, and I got a call. That7

led me to --8

Q You explained that, and we can go through that.9

A I'm supporting --10

Q What I'm saying is you saw --11

A -- our employees, period.12

Q Okay. You saw no sense -- and so your answer is "no," you13

didn't see any possible appearance of conflict or any14

possible bias on your part because it was Carla Filkins15

running against you, as opposed to somebody who was not16

involved in --17

A Yeah; yeah.18

Q -- a political campaign against you?19

A That's correct.20

Q Right?21

A I did not, and I was extremely neutral about it. In fact,22

the act I took I knew was going to hurt me, and it could23

cost me the election. Okay? So I didn't have a --24

Q I don't know that --25

26

78

A -- taint that I was somehow biased. Okay? I put the city1

before myself here.2

Q Now, you filed that on the 24th. And "that," I'm referring3

to --4

A I signed it on the 24th.5

Q I'm sorry. I stand corrected.6

A It was mailed on the 25th. A phone call was made to Mr.7

Blackburn on that date and you'll probably hear about that8

from Mr. Peccia. But that's post-filing. I made my9

decision, I feel I made the right one, and I think handling10

this in a civil fashion was where I was most comfortable --11

Q Do you have the other --12

A -- as opposed to calling the police on him.13

Q As opposed to calling the police on --14

A Well, it's --15

Q You've brought that up twice without a question, so let me16

ask you about that.17

A It's a --18

Q Didn't you make statements, before the 31st of October,19

outside of city council that -- to the effect that, in your20

opinion, Jim had violated the criminal law?21

MR. HOMIER: I'm sorry --22

MR. WOTILA: I'll repeat it. I'm sorry --23

MR. HOMIER: Yeah -- no. I'm sorry -- I didn't24

understand.25

26

79

Q Let me back up.1

A I did not say that. I said --2

MR. HOMIER: Well, wait -- wait.3

A Go ahead.4

MR. WOTILA: Yeah; I just -- it may have been5

unclear, and that's very fair, Counsel; I agree with you.6

Q By or before October 31st, did you make statements to the7

effect that Jim did --8

A No.9

Q -- or may have violated the criminal --10

A "May have," but I would -- I tempered those to the fact that11

this is not a criminal matter.12

Q All right. Now, --13

A It's a civil matter.14

MR. HOMIER: This is -- I just want to be clear.15

This is prior to October 31st of 2011?16

MR. WOTILA: Yes.17

MR. HOMIER: And did you say where these18

statements were made, or anywhere?19

MR. WOTILA: That's where I'm following.20

MR. HOMIER: Okay. I'm sorry.21

MR. WOTILA: I'm trying to ask one question at a22

time.23

MR. HOMIER: Yup; I'm sorry. I just want to --24

MR. WOTILA: And that's fair, Counsel; I have no25

26

80

problem. We should be clear. Ann, could you read back my1

question as we walk through this so I'm clear?2

(Playback of previous question)3

(Off the record)4

Q All right. Next question. So prior to or before October5

31, 2011, you made statements to the effect that Jim may6

have violated the criminal law in relation to the statute?7

A No. I talked to Rick Charmoli that night, on Friday night8

and basically I just told him it was very serious; I had to9

have a very serious conversation with him, that I needed to10

know if he could please provide me with why he presented11

the -- Jim as he did in the article. And he provided me the12

background information. We talked for 45 minutes. And I13

asked him two or three times and he was very solid with14

this -- that Jim had --15

Q I understand that. And in that conversation, --16

A -- said he was working with the committee.17

Q -- you said to Mr. Charmoli, that Jim did, or may have,18

violated the criminal law; a high court misdemeanor.19

A I don't believe I told him that at that point. I just told20

him this is a very serious matter. I don't recall the exact21

details.22

Q When did you tell him --23

A I don't --24

Q -- or bring up the point of violation of the criminal law?25

26

81

A I don't recall. I told him it was a very serious matter. I1

don't recall if I did that or not. At that point I don't2

know that I was down to the other portion in the statute3

that says it's a crime. I don't recall if I got to that4

point.5

Q So you may have or may not; you don't recall?6

A I don't.7

Q Now, there were points you do recall, making some comment8

regarding the fact that Jim may have or a possibility of or9

something to that effect of violating the criminal law?10

A That -- I did have a phone call with Amy Bizzigotti on11

Saturday the 29th, because it was in the paper that -- those12

facts were in the paper.13

Q All right. So let's go to the --14

A So that's where --15

Q Let's -- could we --16

A -- our discussion was and there was no -- I didn't say he's17

broken the law or that he committed a high court18

misdemeanor; I just said I was put in a very tough place;19

that if I didn't remove him -- and I still believe this20

today, if the appointing authority doesn't remove somebody21

like this, they're guilty of the high court misdemeanor.22

Q All right. Let's go to --23

A The appointing authority --24

Q Let's go the 29th.25

26

82

A Okay? Yeah. 29th, I got a call from Amy Bizzigotti in the1

morning.2

Q It was the 29th of October, 2011; correct?3

A That's correct.4

Q And Ms. Bizzigotti is -- had a campaign sign of yours in the5

yard -- in their house?6

A Always have.7

Q All right. And you received a call from her, and this is8

regarding the Blackburn matter that, by now, had appeared9

publicly or in the paper; is that right?10

A Yeah.11

Q And what was it that you said about the criminal law to Amy12

Bizzigotti?13

A I don't recall. I note that it was in the --14

Q All right. You got the call.15

A -- newspaper.16

Q Im trying to be specific. Let me rephrase it, then.17

A I told her that --18

Q Is it possible --19

A -- it was a serious matter.20

Q All right. You told her it's a serious matter. Is it21

possible you said to her something to the effect that Jim22

may have or might have or even has broken the criminal law?23

A I don't recall that. I indicated to her I had no choice but24

to remove him.25

26

83

Q Okay. Did you -- we're still on the 29th, going from now1

until October 29th, mention to anyone -- we've talked about2

Rick Charmoli and you said you don't remember; you've talked3

to Ms. Bizzigotti and you don't have a clear recollection as4

to whether you did or didn't say something about Jim5

violating the criminal law.6

A The criminal law was not the focus of this case.7

Q I understand that.8

A It was a simple removal.9

Q Now, let's say by October 30th or before, we've talked about10

Ms. Bizzigotti, we've talked about Mr. Charmoli. Is there11

anyone else that you talked to, or would have heard you make12

reference to, Jim Blackburn either breaking or maybe or13

perhaps violating or possibly violating the criminal law in14

this statute?15

A I am not aware or cannot remember. I talked with -- Art16

Stevens over this whole thing is the only council member I17

confided in. And he basically remained neutral, let me do18

what I want, and knowing me, that this would hurt my19

campaign. I felt maybe he didn't want me to do that because20

of the campaign.21

Q Is it fair -- all right. So that's three people you talked22

to about it, and let me be clear.23

A And I don't know if I said anything about the law. I'm sure24

I defined that this is a serious matter on my side. I'm25

26

84

getting out from under this thing because I'm the appointing1

authority; this guy's on the front page of the newspaper,2

he's coordinating an article with Rick Charmoli, he's now3

showing up in videos -- her campaign video, which was part,4

too, of her big campaign. There wasn't much happening with5

this campaign until this event, the council meeting, her6

T.V. ads, you know, the campaign's in full -- full -- it's7

progressing fully. So --8

Q Is it fair to say as I've listened to you, that as to the9

three people you've identified you talked to -- Mr.10

Charmoli, Amy Bizzigotti and Art Stevens -- that you don't11

know -- you simply don't recall whether you did or did not12

make specific reference to a possibility that Jim Blackburn13

violated the criminal law?14

A I did with Art Stevens. I said here's the deal. This is15

us; we're making either the council or me as the appointing16

authority would be committing a high court misdemeanor to17

leave him on. That's how I felt.18

Q Did you say anything to him about the section of the statute19

that makes it a misdemeanor for a member of the commission20

to --21

A It doesn't say that. It says anyone or -- it doesn't say a22

member of the commission. You can imply that "anyone" would23

include the commission member; he's not listed. The heat is24

put on the appointing authority. That's where my focus was.25

26

85

I was avoiding --1

Q So let me --2

A -- in my mind, I mean, I said I was avoiding and you've3

interrupted me again. Can I at least finish? In my mind, I4

felt I could be in trouble for not removing him. I've5

allowed him -- and Art mentioned, "Let's just wait until6

then, until after the election" and that would be not7

straight up. What I did hurt me, and I don't put myself8

first. The city's interest -- our employees have come to us9

and indicated through a representative that there is a10

problem, and I dealt with it and -- before it got worse.11

Q Are you testifying, then, that you did not state to12

anyone --13

A I don't recall.14

Q Can I finish the question? Are you stating that you did not15

state to anyone, including the three people we've mentioned,16

Ms. Bizzigotti, Art Stevens or Rick Charmoli or anyone else,17

by the 30th of October --18

A As far as I --19

Q -- that Jim Blackburn may have violated the criminal law in20

his actions?21

A I don't recall. My discussions --22

Q All right.23

A -- that I had, I'm trying to remember them. I don't write24

them down. But my focus was not on Jim's criminal behavior.25

26

86

If I thought that needed to be addressed, I would have taken1

this matter directly to the police. Unfortunately, the2

police in this area do not do their job and have not3

protected me over the last few years, so why do that?4

Q By saying "I don't recall," is it fair to say you may have,5

you may not have, --6

A It's possible.7

Q -- you simply don't remember?8

A I simply don't recall.9

Q It's possible you said that?10

A This is -- what are we in? April? It was on the front page11

of the paper and, you know, people bump into me; I try to12

not make any comments and to -- this matter is going to be13

handled in court or he was going to resign. In fact, he did14

resign. So --15

Q Okay. Now, let's -- the situation with Ms. Bizzigotti, did16

you talk her husband, Dr. Bizzigotti?17

A No.18

Q All right.19

A She had a nice call to me, "Bill, we'd just like you to take20

the sign. We're friends with Jim; we don't know what's21

going on," and I tried to explain to her that I had concerns22

that -- and they were brought to me; that I didn't start23

this. It came from a Public Safety Department worker.24

Q Okay.25

26

87

A And that I didn't start this. This wasn't me.1

Q Did you, then, go to her house and talk to her?2

A No.3

Q All right. So you had a phone conversation with her?4

A Yup.5

Q And --6

A I did never go to her house. Someone else picked up the7

sign from her house --8

Q Somebody picked up the sign? All right.9

A -- that morning or that afternoon.10

Q You then in the notice that was filed state, specifically,11

that the removal is made for good cause under Section 3 of12

the Act, and it went on to say, "Mr. Blackburn has publicly13

represented he is a member of the political campaign of a14

mayoral candidate." Is that correct?15

A (Nodding head in affirmative)16

Q That's what you said. Now -- you nodded "yes," and I --17

A Yes.18

Q Thank you. And you've testified that where you got that19

information, you've testified to three events; the 17th20

council meeting, the discussions with Mr. Charmoli later21

regarding Mr. Blackburn's comments that night, and the22

newspaper article; and that was the basis for this?23

A No. No; that's incorrect again. I also viewed a --24

Q And the video; correct.25

26

88

A -- T.V. video that all over northern Michigan.1

Q All right.2

A That was, for some reason, pulled the next week.3

Q Okay.4

A According to the cable T.V. people that told me it was going5

to be aired the very next week, suddenly it was off the air.6

Q Who did you talk to at cable?7

A Margo.8

Q Okay.9

A And actually, she was sketchy with details, but did check10

that the next time it would be aired would be the next11

Saturday. I watched all the cables the next Saturday, or12

taped them, and it didn't appear; it was pulled, from what I13

can tell, which is my impression.14

Q All right.15

A She's an employee of Charter, or at least was at that time.16

And I knew her and made the phone call to find that out.17

Q Now, after the notice that you sent out on the 24th, did you18

receive a document from Mr. Blackburn in writing?19

A Several letters were -- and e-mails were sent back and20

forth.21

Q Let me start with this (indicating) one.22

A Yup.23

MR. WOTILA: And I'll mark this -- this is also24

attached as Exhibit 1, I believe, to the Answer to the25

26

89

lawsuit.1

A Right.2

MR. WOTILA: But this is an October 28th letter of3

two pages from Mr. Blackburn; that will be Exhibit 5.4


MR. HOMIER: Can I ask you a question?6

MR. WOTILA: Sure.7

MR. HOMIER: I don't know the answer to this, but8

was this letter ever signed, do you know?9

MR. WOTILA: As far as I know it was; that there10

was one that was signed, as I believe. But let me be clear.11

The copy you have there is not signed, I believe. The --12

for the record, I believe I got this -- this one from13

Marcus, but I'm not sure. So we'll have to clean that up.14

MR. HOMIER: Okay.15

Q Nevertheless, October 28th, 2011, this is a letter that16

purports to be from James Blackburn, addressed to Mr.17

Barnett, in care of the city managers. I'll hand that to18

you. Have you ever seen that --19

(Witness reviews exhibit)20

A Yes.21

Q -- letter before? All right. Do you have any reason to22

think that date is incorrect; October 28th?23

A Don't know either way.24

Q Okay.25

26

90

A Actually, yes, he did. He filed it -- I don't know when I1

got it, but I believe by the end of the week, he had totally2

flip-flopped from what he had told Marcus on Wednesday in3

this letter.4

Q So we'll get to some discussions --5

A So I do recall two days earlier he had totally opposite6

statements and by Friday, he's -- here's the letter.7

Q So what --8

A I do recall it came Friday.9

Q Well, you just kind of narrated it; I asked you a question,10

if you had seen that letter.11

A Yeah.12

Q So what if he did thing or another, changed his mind? Is13

that --14

A He contradicted himself from this letter is my point, and I15

had read it.16

Q All right. Let's go to the letter, and then we'll go to the17

contradictions or alleged contradictions you're referring18

to. October 28th is the letter. You have seen that. And19

would you have seen that before you filed the lawsuit?20

A Obviously not, because this was -- the filing occurred -- if21

you want to call it "lawsuit" or the notice?22

Q Let me back up. I am referring to the lawsuit, but there23

are two things. You -- we've already presented an exhibit24

that's your October 24th letter of notice to Mr. Blackburn;25

26

91

that's October 24th.1

A Yeah.2

Q Under the law, to jump ahead, we're talking a 10-day period3

where Mr. Blackburn has to respond in writing; is that4

correct?5

A Yes.6

Q And this letter is dated October 28th, --7

A Right.8

Q And you -- it's --9

A So it was obviously prior to the lawsuit; it was in the 1010

days.11

Q Fair enough. Did you see that letter before the lawsuit --12

we'll refer to the lawsuit, but the legal action that's13

filed in Circuit Court, did you see that letter?14

A Yes.15

Q Now, in it, among other things, Mr. Blackburn specifically16

states that he did not serve on Ms. Filkins' campaign17

committee and that he did not take an active part in the18

management of her campaign. Did you read that?19

A Yeah.20

Q Do you think Mr. Blackburn was lying?21

A I wouldn't use the word lying. I will say that it's22

inconsistent with what he said two days prior to Marcus23

Peccia.24

Q All right. Then we'll go to that. So he -- let me back up.25

26

92

I'll take that phrase, because you say he's not lying, but1

inconsistent. Did he tell, to the best of your knowledge,2

Marcus Peccia that he, Jim Blackburn, was taking, quote, "An3

active part in the management of her campaign," unquote?4

A No.5

Q Did he --6

A I'll tell you --7

Q Well, you said "no." Did he tell Marcus Peccia --8

A Can I finish?9

Q I thought that was a "yes" or "no" question, but you can go10

on all you want, sir.11

A Would you like to know what he said?12

Q I'm asking you --13

MR. HOMIER: Well, wait a minute.14

Q -- something very specific.15

MR. HOMIER: Well, let's back up a minute. We're16

talking about a letter from Mr. Blackburn to Mr. Peccia,17

that you asked whether the mayor had seen.18

MR. WOTILA: Yes.19

MR. HOMIER: And them you're asking him whether or20

not Mr. Blackburn told Marcus things.21

MR. WOTILA: Yes.22

MR. HOMIER: I know there were phone calls, there23

were voicemails, there were letters. So if we're talking24

about did Mr. Blackburn write to Mr. Peccia and state this,25

26

93

I just want the record to be clear that we're talking about1

the letter.2

MR. WOTILA: That's fair enough. To explain, I3

asked the witness about some specific statements in this4

letter, two statements, and this witness stated that this5

was inconsistent with what Mr. Blackburn had, quote, "told,"6

unquote, Mr. Peccia two days earlier. My next question was7

"Did Mr. Blackburn state two days earlier to Mr. Peccia that8

he, Blackburn, took an active part in the management of her9

campaign?" His answer was no. And then he wanted to10

explain more and I think that's where --11

THE WITNESS: Well, listen --12

MR. WOTILA: -- we were.13

A I don't know what Jim said to him. I know what was reported14

to me. So I have limited information. I can tell you what15

was reported to me.16

Q Well, you made an affirmative statement that this -- those17

two phrases, referring to an active part in the management18

of her campaign and referring to being on her campaign19

committee, those two phrases, --20

A My understanding is he admitted to that.21

Q -- were inconsis- -- can I finish?22

A He admitted.23

Q So your understanding is that Mr. Blackburn admitted to the24

city manager that he, Blackburn, quote, "served on her25

26

94

political committee," quote, unquote. Is that correct?1

A No. I assume --2

Q No; thank you.3

A I don't know. I wasn't present for the call.4

Q All right. So you don't know whether he admitted that or5

stated that to the city manager two days earlier? You don't6

know?7

A I don't know how it was -- the information was couched to8

him. I know what his response was.9

Q And you don't know whether Mr. Blackburn stated to the city10

manager, whether he, Blackburn, took a, quote, "active part11

in the management of her campaign," unquote?12

A I don't know what details were said besides what I know. So13

that could have been, I don't know. I'll tell you --14

Q Thank you.15

A -- if you want to just get right to the point, I'll tell you16

what I was told.17

Q I'm going to go through some e-mails and sort through them.18

I'd like to know what you know. At any time did Mr.19

Blackburn, from October 19th to the present date, state to20

you -- let's find out what you know -- that he, Blackburn,21

took an active part in the management of Carla Filkins'22

campaign?23

A Has he ever said that?24

Q To you, since October 19th, 2011?25

26

95

A Jim Blackburn said that to me?1

Q Yes.2

A Jim Blackburn has not spoken to me in years.3

Q Thank you. Has Carla --4

A Other than at public meetings.5

Q Has Carla Filkins ever represented to you that Jim Blackburn6

took an active part in the management of her campaign and7

was on her committee?8

A This has been asked and answered. I have not spoken to9

Carla --10

Q Okay. Thank you.11

A -- so how would that ever have happened?12

Q I don't know. I don't know if she -- I have no idea. I'm13

asking you. Now, you have a letter from Mr. Blackburn14

stating as it states on the 28th and a lawsuit is filed --15

or the legal action, we'll call it, in Circuit Court, to16

remove him by about November 2nd or 3rd; correct?17

A I don't have the filing date, but if that's what you recall.18

THE WITNESS: Mr. Homier, do you remember the19

filing date?20

MR. HOMIER: I think it's the 1st -- November the21

1st.22

MR. WOTILA: All right; or thereabouts.23

MR. HOMIER: No; November the 2nd.24

MR. WOTILA: I'll get to that next.25

26

96

Q This letter of the 28th also references his appearance1

before the city council. And it states, and I think it's2

the bottom line -- bottom paragraph, three lines down, that3

when he addressed council, he did so on his own; correct?4

MR. HOMIER: You're asking him if that's what the5

letter says?6

MR. WOTILA: I'm asking him that says that;7

correct?8

A What paragraph, sir?9

Q I'm pointing to the last paragraph, down -- "I did so on my10

own," three lines down.11

A "Neither have I donated money to her campaign.12

Well I did speak out during the recent public comment13

at council as to your irresponsible actions on the14

radio show, I did so on my own."15

Q All right. Now, let me point out, you, under the statute,16

did a letter -- I'm sorry -- you've testified as to the17

conclusions you drew from what you observed and heard that18

caused you, on the 24th of October, to send a notice;19

correct? You've testified to that?20

A I'm not -- go over and over and over again, why the notice21

was sent.22

Q And now you get a letter that states specifically he was not23

a member of her committee and did not manage her campaign,24

he appeared on the 17th on his own, and he's never donated25

26

97

money. Why did you, given that letter, go ahead and file a1

legal action after receiving the letter?2

A Because of his activities that we've talked about, because3

of I got a phone call from Marcus on the morning in which4

Jim was receiving this. Marcus made a decision to call Jim5

Blackburn and say, "Jim, there's a letter coming. You're6

going to be removed." And Jim, from what Marcus told me,7

resigned and said, "I want to continue working with the8

committee"; the exact same words that Rick Charmoli told me9

the week before. So he's working with the committee; he'd10

like to resign. Marcus called me and announced to me, "Jim11

Blackburn has resigned Wednesday morning. The matter's12

over."13

Q All right.14

A Okay? The next thing I knew, there's some e-mail to Jim15

Blackburn requesting it in writing. Mr. Blackburn, at that16

point -- well, the e-mails speak for themselves, I guess,17

but you can read those and you'll see that --18

Q So did --19

A -- he refused to. I don't know what the wording is but --20

but he would not sign something.21

Q Are you paraphrasing or giving exact words at this --22

A Paraphrasing.23

Q Thank you.24

MR. WOTILA: Now, let's mark as Exhibit --25

26

98

whatever number we're at, Ann.1

REPORTER: 6.2


Q Exhibit 6 is -- and I'll give it to your attorney -- dated4

October 30th. It is attached to your complaint, and it5

purports to be a letter from Jim Blackburn to Marcus -- and6

it will be in your pleadings, but I have a separate copy7

here.8


Q All right. I asked you the question, after receiving the10

October 28th letter from Mr. Blackburn, why you proceeded11

and you've discussed that to some extent. Now, on Sunday,12

October 30th -- and at this point, I'd point out that it13

appears the lawsuit or the litigation was still not filed --14

there was another e-mail from Mr. Blackburn that's attached15

to your complaint. Now, to walk through it -- and I'd like16

you to read that for a moment --17

A Well, let's walk through it. What do you want me to --18

Q All right.19

A Let's go -- whatever you want to walk through it with.20

Q It says, "Tonight" -- this is Mr. Blackburn writing -- "I21

returned home from being out of town and was called by22

someone Barnett talked to. He claimed this action to remove23

me was initiated by someone on the Cadillac City Police24

Department." Now, this was October 30th. Up until this25

26

99

date, do you know of any information Mr. Blackburn would1

have received by October 30th or before, that this action2

was initiated by someone in the Cadillac Police Department?3

A Absolutely not.4

Q All right. So you wouldn't contest Mr. Blackburn being5

truthful in stating this appears to be first time he heard6

anything about that?7

A I don't know.8

Q All right. Thank you.9

A How would I know that? I'm not privy --10

Q I'm asking you how you might know. You've told me --11

A I'm not privy --12

Q -- about rumors, you've told me about secondhand things13

you've heard from people, and so I'm simply asking you, if14

you would know. And if you don't, that's fine.15

A If I would know what?16

Q If you would know of any instance where Mr. Blackburn would17

have been informed before Sunday, October 30th, this e-mail,18

that the action to remove him was initiated by someone in19

the Cadillac City Police Department?20

A It was -- I've never said that to anyone.21

Q Okay.22

A I told Amy that a Public Safety Department employee had made23

a complaint, and that's how this started. I won't say24

"complaint," but notice -- I'd probably put it in the form25

26

100

of a complaint. I --1

Q Did you tell Ms. Bizzi- --2

A -- to this day don't know the exact details other than3

awareness was brought forward to our council member. He4

brought it to me, I looked it over and made the call.5

Q It also notes that it was represented to Jim -- "He6

represented to me that I was resigning." So Jim is7

indicating he got a call from someone Barnett talked to and8

it was represented that he, Jim Blackburn, was resigning.9

A No. I told that person he resigned and said he wanted to10

keep working with the committee, Wednesday morning.11

Q Okay.12

A And then decided to not sign anything to follow through with13

that; then sought a leave of absence for two weeks,14

according to Marcus, so he could continue working with the15

committee. That's what I was told by my city manager.16

Q All right. Now, are you paraphrasing? Or using exact17

phrases?18

A Exact phrases.19

Q Oh, exact phrase. Marcus said, "With the committee"?20

A Yeah. He used the same wording that Rick Charmoli did.21

Q Now, this goes on to state, Blackburn addressing Marcus,22

that Marcus had told Jim Blackburn that Bill Barnett23

initiated the action.24

A Where are we?25

26

101

Q I'm on line 3. And the point is, this is stating -- this is1

Mr. Blackburn stating he never heard anything from Marcus2

about a problem with the Cadillac City Police Department.3

He asked Marcus who initiated this and was told it was Mr.4

Barnett. And now he's hearing for the first time about5

someone else. Do you question that, that that would be --6

that this is the first time he's hearing about this?7

A As people get told things and they repeat them, obviously8

Amy misunderstood what I said.9

Q What did Amy Bizzigotti misunderstand?10

A First of all, Cadillac Police Department; the fact that he11

is resigning, which means he is still resigning; I explained12

to her what happened after the notice was served and his13

responses and that she was upset. They're friends with Jim.14

He works -- very important to their medical profession and15

it was just uncomfortable for her to have that sign up and16

it would just soothe everybody -- or soothe Jim, I think,17

and soothe them just to remove the sign. I said, "That's18

absolutely fine, I'll have someone over there in a second."19

And she asked me what's going on and I basically told her20

that a complaint was made, I didn't start this. I mean, in21

that paper, that day, he continued to -- you know, this22

whole thing has been a campaign more than just was he on the23

committee or not, it's all about me. But -- in his eyes. I24

see it as I'm not the one on trial here. I had this come to25

26

102

me; I didn't initiate it. Someone from our rank and file,1

police and/or fire, came forward to me. And I don't believe2

I even knew which side it was at that point. But I think it3

I was informed it was a public safety person.4

Q Now, this goes on to say -- and this goes on to deal with5

the discussion that Jim Blackburn had with Marcus that6

you've referred to. I am now --7

A I'm sorry -- I was not privy to, Roger; right?8

Q Thank you. And Jim says, --9

A What line, sir?10

Q Six lines down, halfway through. Quote, "To avoid Circuit11

Court action, I could resign, but it had to be in writing."12

In other words, he's stating he is told by Marcus "to avoid13

Circuit Court action, I could resign, but it had to be in14

writing. I said I would probably resign after reading and15

seeing it." In other words, Jim had not --16

MR. HOMIER: What is "in other words"? I mean, it17

speaks for itself, Roger. If you want to ask questions18

about what it says, --19

MR. WOTILA: All right.20

MR. HOMIER: -- let's ask questions about what it21

says.22

MR. WOTILA: Okay.23

Q Are you contesting that what Mr. Blackburn put in this24

October 30th e-mail, which you attached to your pleading,25

26

103

that this is incorrect?1

A Yeah.2

Q All right.3

A "To avoid Circuit Court action, I could resign. But it had4

to be in writing." That was never said in the first5

conversation. I got a call from Marcus, "He's done. He's6

gone. He resigned." Okay?7

Q Okay. That's --8

A I'll continue if you'd let me.9

Q All right.10

A The next thing I knew Marcus conferred with our attorney,11

who told Marcus --12

MR. HOMIER: Unh-unh (negative).13

THE WITNESS: Unh-unh (negative)? Okay.14

MR. HOMIER: Look, my discussions with you, my15

discussions with Marcus, --16

THE WITNESS: Okay.17

MR. HOMIER: -- are privileged.18

THE WITNESS: All right.19

MR. WOTILA: I agree with that. I didn't ask the20

question.21

MR. HOMIER: Yes, I know.22

A The next thing I know there was an e-mail sent to Jim,23

"please put this in writing."24

Q All right.25

26

104

A Okay?1

Q All right.2

A And at that point is where "I'm not going to resign" and3

whatever the e-mails say.4

Q So you believe that the version that Mr. --5

A I don't know.6

Q -- Blackburn put here is inaccurate? Or you just don't7

know; this is all hearsay?8

A I don't know. I -- this is not how I heard it go down, is9

all I'm saying. I don't know. The writing, you're going to10

need to go to Marcus on that. But what he told me was that11

he had resigned and later in the afternoon, he reneged. And12

basically refused to put it into writing and then proceeded13

to request a two-week leave of absence until the campaign14

was over so he could continue working with the committee.15

Q All right. So --16

A And he --17

Q I appreciate that. And you've heard -- you weren't privy to18

the conversations with Marcus and Mr. Blackburn; you heard19

from Marcus what you've testified to and then you saw this20

(indicating) e-mail. Would it be fair to say this e-mail21

seems to be somewhat different than what Marcus said?22

A Yeah. Well, it's also different than what I said to Amy23

Bizzigotti.24

Q All right.25

26

105

A So there's a communication gap here somewhere.1

Q All right. Now, this does, however, address for the first2

time -- Mr. Blackburn is saying here on October 30th it's3

the first time he heard anything about someone else4

initiating this action other than you. That's clear from5

this; correct?6

A The word "initiating" is a little tricky here.7

Q That's -- it says in the subject line, "Who initiated the8

action?" That's what I'm referring to.9

A What's "the action"?10

Q All right. Fair enough. The subject line says, "Who11

initiated the action to remove me from the Civil Service12

Commission?" That's what this says; correct?13

A Okay. You're talking way back at the top, at the subject?14

Q Yes.15

A Okay. Yeah; it does say that.16

Q It's from Jim Blackburn, --17

A It does say that.18

Q All right. And that's the subject line. And is it fair to19

say, looking at this, that Mr. Blackburn is saying, "This is20

the first time I heard anybody other than Mr. Barnett" --21

A How would I know?22

Q -- "initiated this action."23

A How would I know? Just because he's written it? I don't24

know what that means to me. I don't see consistency with25

26

106

what --1

Q Is this the first time that you have any document that would2

indicate that Mr. Blackburn states, "This is the first time3

I, Mr. Blackburn, heard about someone else making a4

complaint other than Mr. Barnett"?5

A How can I speculate that? This is the first document I've6

seen him. It was obviously a response to --7

Q All right. Don't answer the question. I'll go on. That's8

dated what date and time?9

A The 30th, 2202, which is, like, 10:02.10

Q Thank you. Now, --11

A P.m.12

Q -- up until this question arose in October of 2011, about13

how long had Mr. Blackburn served on the Commission?14

A He's been there 14 years, according to his letters, when he15

attends. Apparently the last few years he's attended just16

over half.17

Q And in his service to the city -- it's a non-paid position;18

correct? --19

A Correct.20

Q -- are you aware of any time before October 17th, 2011,21

where he was accused of being threatening or vindictive in22

any way regarding his actions on that commission?23

A Threatening or vindictive?24

Q Yes.25

26

107

A No.1

Q All right.2

A I -- I'm in the --3

Q Thank you.4

A -- dark, basically, about his --5

Q Are you aware of him?6

A -- of what he's done, other than his attendance record was7

not very good recently. I don't know how many years I8

looked back, but it looked like he had gone to maybe half9

the meetings or a little over or a little less. And this is10

a group I don't -- you know, these are Union issues. I11

don't attend meetings. I don't know when the meetings are.12

Q Well, you have your hand pretty much on the pulse of what13

goes on in this city?14

A Not this. Not this.15

Q All right. Do you have any information or knowledge --16

secondhand, hearsay, wherever -- that in those last 1417

years, Mr. Barnett, before October 17, 2011 -- I'm sorry --18

Mr. Blackburn, before October 17, 2011, acted in any19

vindictive way or intimidating way while serving on the20

Commission toward anybody in the Civil Service?21

A Not that I --22

Q Okay. Thank you.23

A If the question was I aware of anything, no. And that24

played no part, nor did his lack of attendance.25

26

108

Q All right. Now, we have that e-mail, wherein I will1

characterize -- you don't have to -- Mr. Blackburn2

mentioning that he's heard for the first time someone other3

than you may have claimed or initiated the action to remove4

him.5

A Right. Because he was --6

Q Now, let's go to the other documents that you attached --7

MR. HOMIER: Was that --8

Q -- to your complaint.9

MR. HOMIER: Was that a question?10

MR. WOTILA: No; that was a statement.11

THE WITNESS: I was going to answer it.12

Q Well, go ahead, if you have something to answer.13

A Well, he accused me of being behind this whole thing14

previously, because that's all he knew. You know, he didn't15

know there was a complaint made from the people he serves.16

Q Right. That's all he knew, in other words.17

A That's right.18

Q That's what you understood, --19

A That's understandable.20

Q -- that's the only information he had.21

A That's totally understandable.22

Q So that would be understandable.23

A I was taking the heat on this. I'm protecting --24

Q Would it then be --25

26

109

A -- our -- I'm protecting my employee, and the employees that1

have to -- they put my signs up, they put stickers up;2

they're politically active.3

Q They're employees?4

A Yeah. I don't -- yeah, they do. They're citizens. They5

don't do it as employees; they do it as citizens.6

Q Your employees put up, you just said, the signs and things?7

A Yeah; on their off time, or they ask to put them up. I8

mean, --9

Q Thank you.10

A -- I have supporters at the city that work for the police11

and fire that are worried.12

Q All right. Well, have you --13

A They've written letters.14

Q Everybody that puts a sign up is not on your committee, are15

they?16

A No.17

Q All right. Everybody that supports you is not on your18

committee, are they?19

A No. And people who put my sign up may not vote for me.20

Q Right. Well, I'm well aware of that from a highly failed21

campaign I had years ago. It's an interesting process. So,22

yeah; just because someone puts a sign up doesn't mean23

they're on your committee; just because someone supports24

you, it doesn't mean they're on your committee; is that25

26

110

correct?1

A (No verbal response)2

Q That's correct?3

A Yeah; that's correct.4

Q Now, you have a October 30th e-mail, which we've gone over5

in detail. That's Exhibit 6. And now you attach to your6

pleading a series of e-mails and messages from Mr. Blackburn7

to Marcus, asking who this person is making a complaint; is8

that correct?9

A Do we have that attached to our complaint?10

Q Yeah.11

A I believe so. I didn't draft the complaint, Roger.12

Q I understand that; that you didn't draft the complaint.13

However, there are a series of e-mails and affidavits. I'm14

not going to -- these are attached to the complaint15

primarily starting with -- well, there are various exhibits,16

C, just for the record, D and E, and I'm just going to hand17

those to you briefly. I'll just ask you to skim through18

that.19


(Witness reviews documents)21

MR. WOTILA: We can go off the record.22

(Off the record)23

Q Okay. We have had you look briefly at some additional24

attachments to the litigation of -- that was filed on your25

26

111

behalf, or you filed. And they are a series of e-mails and1

transcribed voicemails that Mr. Blackburn left for Marcus.2

Let me walk through that. Each one of those -- in each one3

of those, he is asking for the name of the individual or4

person employed by the city who brought this action; is that5

right?6

A I don't -- wouldn't characterize it as that:7

"I'm still waiting for the names of the8

individuals within the city police department who made9

contact with Bill Barnett in regards to wanting me off10

the Civil Service Board" is what it says. "Please11

provide me those names as soon as possible so that I12

can make a deal with them as I need to -- in response13

to what Bill Barnett's attempting to do to me."14

Q All right. Now, that one that you just read has a date on15

it of --16

A 10-31.17

Q -- 10-31-11; correct?18

A Yes. I don't know who put the date; I assume it was the19

attorney's office had this transcribed. In fact, if you20

could let me --21

Q Sure.22

A -- peek at that again.23


A Yes. They were transcribed by Beverly, it looks like, in25

26

112

Mike's office. And she is signing something to -- an1

affidavit representing that.2

Q Correct. So what you've just read is 10-31. Going through3

it quickly, and I'll let you come back to discuss them in4

detail if you wish, is another transcription dated 10-31;5

correct?6


A Right.8

Q And then attached as Exhibit D as in dog, are a series of9

e-mails, which I'll certainly give you time to review or10

discuss if we go into it. However, those are dated October11

31 as well; correct?12


A I see that date on there. There's a number of e-mails14

attached together. Let me just run through them real15

quickly. 31 looks to be the date on what's probably Exhibit16

D. Exhibit E appears to have the same dates; 6:00 in the17

morning, 6:51 in the morning, 1812, 1800 hours -- okay.18

Those are the same two, I believe.19

Q Okay. Now, a couple of things.20

A And there's --21

Q I'm sorry -- go ahead.22

A There's another setup here and that is also the same thing.23

So, there's three sets of e-mails but they appear to be all24

the same one.25

26

113

Q Now, trying to put this in a time line, you've testified1

that prior to, on, or before October 30, 2011, you don't2

recall whether you did or did not make any public comments3

to anyone regarding the possibility of Mr. Barnett being --4

"Mr. Barnett" -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Blackburn being charged5

criminally. You just don't remember?6

A I don't remember.7

Q You might have --8

A I recall two things while we've taken a break. I made a9

call to Dan Moriarity and just left a message on his machine10

explaining why I filed this, and the reasons were basically11

what we've talked about today. I also called Tiyi Schippers12

just to let her know why I called. I don't recall whether I13

said anything. I'm trying to be nice about this. I wasn't14

out there pounding him, saying "you broke the law"; I15

couched it in terms of I felt I had no choice because it16

says the appointing authority is the main emphasis on this.17

Q I understand that. But I --18

A It implies that a member of the Board -- is there a problem?19

Q I'm sorry -- was that a question to me? Or just --20

A Yeah.21

Q Okay.22

A Is there a problem? I mean, I'm just answering your23

questions here.24

Q No, you're not. And I'd like to ask this. I asked25

26

114

something very specific. You may or may not have said to1

someone, that --2

A I don't recall, other than Jim Blackburn. I talked to -- or3

rather, I talked to two people on the phone. I didn't talk4

to them, I just left messages; informational wise and I5

don't recall when that happened, if it was the 31st. Those6

are basically the people I recall leaving messages for, just7

to give them information and an understanding of what's8

happening.9

Q If someone were to say that it had been attributed to you10

before October 30, 2011, that you had made comments that Jim11

Blackburn may have violated the criminal law, --12

A Okay. I also --13

Q -- would you say that's wrong? Or you just -- you might14

have?15

A I'm not sure. I might have. I don't recall everything I16

said. I couched things in terms of I'm put in a tough spot17

here. Like, I talked to Dan's dad as well, Dr. Moriarity;18

that's just going door to door, that I was under the gun19

here to do something about a problem. That was probably one20

of the Saturdays around this time. But -- and I don't know21

how that discussion came up.22

Q So you may have, you may not have; you just don't remember.23

A I'm not in --24

Q Is that the bottom line?25

26

115

A I was not out there trying to make him look like a criminal.1

Intent is -- is an issue here; knowledge of the -- what his2

responsibilities are, whether he even knew that he's not3

supposed to do these things or not. You know, if you don't4

know, you know, Freedom of Information -- rather, Open5

Meetings Act, when people don't have the intent, I consider6

it the same thing. I don't know for sure. All I know is I7

have the feeling he's on the committee; I'm feeling if I8

don't act that I'm out of line.9

Q I want you to assume for my next question that Jim has10

information that you or someone at the City has said that he11

may have violated the criminal law or may be charged12

criminally. I want you to assume that.13

A That -- never have I said that he would be charged. I have14

not gone to the police. I have not made a police report on15

him.16

MR. HOMIER: I think he's posing a hypothetical to17

you. Is that what we're doing?18

Q I want you to assume that Jim would testify that he -- by19

October 30, 2011, he has been told or given information that20

you or someone involved with you has said Jim might be --21

could be -- may be charged criminally.22

A No.23

Q I want you to assume that.24

A Never.25

26

116

Q What --1

A I -- I have indicated to people that after that article went2

and to everybody's looking at it, I don't recall saying he3

would be charged ever. Police have not been involved in4

this up to this point.5

Q I didn't say -- let me be as clear as I can be. Let me back6

up. You're now testifying you never said to anyone, October7

30 or before, that Jim could be or may be or could be8

susceptible to being charged criminally under this Act?9

A It's possible. I don't recall.10

Q Thank you. Now, I want you to assume that by October 30,11

2011, James Blackburn will testify that he had heard that12

such a statement had been made; that Jim could possibly be13

or it would be possible that he would be charged criminally14

under the Act. That's a premise to my next statement, that15

he has heard that. We have the October 30 letter, which16

speaks for itself and now I get to the series of e-mails17

where he is e-mailing and phoning Marcus, asking for the18

name of the person that is accusing him. All right? Would19

you think that if Jim had been informed or heard that it's20

possible he'd be charged criminally, that it's unusual he21

would ask Marcus "who my accuser is"?22

A I'm not going to comment or -- I don't know. I'm not going23

to speculate on what's -- what his problem is. It sounded24

like he wanted to make a deal with him, and I don't know25

26

117

what that means.1

Q You don't know? All right. Well, let's go to your verified2

complaint, then, as to you don't want to speculate. Do you3

have a copy of that complaint?4

A I'll tell you what it looks like.5

Q Well, I have a copy, so we'll walk through.6

A And what it would look like -- and what it looked like to7

our staff.8

Q I'd like to walk through your complaint, and your counsel9

will have a chance to answer and ask questions. The actual10

complaint consists of six pages without the exhibits.11

MR. WOTILA: Why don't we mark this, since I'll go12

through it, as the next exhibit.13


Q Okay. I'm handing you a copy so we can walk through it.15

A Okay. I would just like to say that this is the complaint,16

not the notice of what I -- when I made my decision.17

MR. HOMIER: It's -- let's make sure we're clear.18

It is not a complaint; it is a Verified Petition for19

Confirmation of Removal of a member of the City of Cadillac20

Civil Service Commission.21

MR. WOTILA: Correct.22

Q Let me walk through to paragraph 8. Now, if you want me to23

go through, on the record, the first seven paragraphs I24

will, however I think that that -- those seven paragraphs25

26

118

speak for themselves as far as what the Act is that is1

involved and Mr. Blackburn serving in the Civil Service2

Commission. So I'm moving forward to paragraph 8, should we3

have to go back otherwise. Paragraph 8 states:4

"Upon information and belief, Respondent" -- who's5

Mr. Blackburn -- "either serves on a political6

committee or takes active part in the management of the7

political campaign."8

Is that correct, it states that?9

A Yeah.10

Q And then paragraph 9 refers to Mr. Blackburn having publicly11

stated he's a member of the political campaign, Exhibit A --12

for reference, Exhibit A attached is the newspaper article13

we've discussed. Now, let me walk through this. It states:14

"As a member of the campaign, Respondent Mr.15

Blackburn has undertaken an active part in the16

management of a political campaign."17

Are you basing that statement upon what you've already18

testified to?19

A It doesn't say that, Roger. It says, "Either serves on a20

political campaign or takes active part in the management of21

a political campaign." So you're premise of your22

question --23

MR. HOMIER: You're on paragraph 10. I think24

we're on paragraph --25

26

119

MR. WOTILA: I was in paragraph 10, I was walking1

through it.2

A Yeah. He told Marcus he wanted to continue working with the3

committee and that's why he would resign.4

Q Okay. Thank you.5

A That's the main reason I put that in there, because he's6

admitted to it. This is after the fact but he's in the7

video, he's speaking in a coordinated fashion with her, he's8

representing himself to Rick Charmoli that he's working with9

the committee, he's -- this is all pre-notice. You know,10

I've -- this -- things that are coming up afterwards are --11

are helpful, too, for our case because he refused to12

ultimately sign a resignation letter and then wanted a13

two-weeks leave of absence so he could continue working with14

the committee. So that -- how is he not a member? He's15

spending money, doing FOIA's, appearing at meetings with16

FOIA's at some point as well. Obviously very active and17

this -- you know, she's benefitted from his activities.18

Q Paragraph 13, states:19

"When Respondent" -- who's Jim Blackburn --20

"learned about this complaint, Respondent repeatedly21

demanded to know the identity of the complaining Public22

Safety Department employee."23

And I believe those e-mails and voice mails were attached to24

the complaint. We've gone through -- you've had a chance to25

26

120

look at them briefly; is that correct?1

A Yup -- yes.2

Q Now, nowhere in here, starting from paragraph 13 on, does it3

mention or state that Mr. Blackburn was informed or may have4

been informed that he could possibly be charged criminally,5

does it? It doesn't state that in the complaint, does it?6

A I don't know. I haven't read the whole thing right now,7

whether it's in there or not. It --8

Q Well, take a minute to read through, from 13 on while we sit9

here, because I'll have some questions about it.10

A Okay.11

MR. HOMIER: You're talking about the petition?12

MR. WOTILA: The complaint. The petition -- I'm13

saying "the complaint," and I apologize.14

MR. HOMIER: Because I know there's --15

MR. WOTILA: The correct --16

MR. HOMIER: -- "complaint" used in the --17

MR. WOTILA: Yes.18

MR. HOMIER: -- context of the paragraph itself so19

I don't want to get confused.20

MR. WOTILA: Correct. I'm referring to the21

Verified Petition which consists of six pages and some 2822

paragraphs.23


A I don't recall that it's in here. The city's handling this25

26

121

as a civil matter. I don't see it in here; I'm not quite1

done yet, though. I doubt it's in there. It's not2

specifically listed.3

Q All right. Thank you. Now, paragraph -- in paragraph 134

through 17, which you can skim through, specifically5

addressed attached e-mails wherein Mr. Blackburn is asking6

for the name of the individual who may have brought this7

complaint.8

A I would consider it "demanding," but very persistent and so9

forth.10


Q In paragraph 19, it states:12

"The Act is designed to prevent exactly this kind13

of political retribution against police officers and14

firefighters who might not support the same candidate15

for political office as members of the Civil Service16

Commission."17

That's what it states. And you signed this; correct?18

A Yeah; yeah.19

Q Now, you've already testified this complaint mentions20

nothing -- this petition mentions nothing about Mr.21

Blackburn being informed or a mention of possible criminal22

charges.23

A It was in the newspaper on the 30th or so.24

Q And -- fair enough.25

26

122

A 20- -- whatever.1

Q And your knowledge that there was mention of that in the2

newspaper by the -- roughly the 28th, 29th, 30th, in that3

time period; correct?4

A At least on the 29th. I believe there was an article that5

morning.6

Q That mentioned that?7

A Yeah.8

Q And that was certainly before any and all of these e-mails9

and voice mails that Mr. Blackburn left demanding to know10

who his accuser was; correct?11

A From what I can see is that those e-mails appear to be after12

the newspaper article.13

Q Thank you. Now, if it's out there in public in the14

newspaper that there's a possible criminal charge against15

Mr. Blackburn for any potential violation, and he --16

A That's not it said. It referred to that there's an Act --17

you know, the article speaks for itself.18

Q Thank you.19

A It doesn't say there's a potential criminal charge is -- my20

memory serves me --21

Q The article refers to a criminal -- potential criminal22

penalty -- correct? --23

A They mention a penalty.24

Q -- of up to two years; correct?25

26

123

A That's what the statute says.1

Q All right. And then after that there are these series of2

e-mails and voice mails asking who his accuser is.3

A Yeah.4

Q Now, why, in paragraph 19, 20, 21, et cetera, are there5

references to Mr. Blackburn wanting to know who his accuser6

might be on a criminal charge, as being vindictive?7

A Repeat your question.8

Q Paragraph 19 talks about the Act being designed to prevent9

political retribution; correct?10

A Yeah.11

Q Paragraph 20 talks about -- I'm sorry -- go to 21. For12

example:13

"A police officer or firefighter who supports a14

particular mayoral candidate may not receive impartial15

treatment from a Civil Service Commissioner who's a16

member of a political committee."17

Correct?18

A 21 speaks for itself.19

Q All right. 22 speaks for itself, but it does say that Mr.20

Blackburn's repeated demand to get the identity of the21

complainant -- or the person who complained, "illustrates22

the risk of political retaliation." Correct?23

A If I were --24

Q It states that?25

26

124

A If I -- it says what it says.1

Q All right.2

A I don't know why --3

Q Why -- why -- is that the only conclusion you drew, that4

with a newspaper article that sets out a criminal penalty5

regarding Mr. Blackburn's activity, and Mr. Blackburn asking6

who his accuser is, that that's political retaliation as7

opposed to simply wanting to know who his accuser is on a8

possible criminal charge?9

A If I were a policeman that has my bumper sticker or a10

fireman that has a --11

Q Can you answer the question?12

A I don't understand the question.13

Q Why did you only put in this Verified Petition, the "spin" -14

- and that's my word -- that Mr. Blackburn asking who his15

accuser was, when there's a, in the newspaper, mention of a16

two-year criminal penalty, that that's retribution as17

opposed to asking, "Who's my accuser in this criminal case?18

Mr. Barnett? Or someone else?" Why is that the only spin19

here?20

A No one has accused him of a criminal case. This is being21

handled in a civil fashion.22

Q All right.23

A I can't explain what was going through his head or his24

reasons, but when you come --25

26

125

Q Well, you did here in the complaint.1

A When you come down to the city --2

Q You said that this was political -- I'm sorry -- in here, in3

your petition, you specifically state that what he was doing4

was political --5

A Yeah.6

Q -- or potential political retribution --7

A Well, --8

Q -- against members of the Civil Service.9

MR. HOMIER: I'm sorry. That is not what it says,10

Roger.11

MR. WOTILA: Okay. Fair enough.12

MR. HOMIER: So let's not mischaracterize it.13

MR. WOTILA: Let me restate exactly what this14

says.15

Q "Respondent's repeated" -- paragraph 22:16

"Respondent's repeated demands to uncover the17

identity of the police officer or firefighter who18

complained about Respondent's role in the Filkins19

campaign, along with Respondent's statement that he20

will deal with the complainant" -- or person -- "as he21

needs to illustrates the risk of political22

retaliation."23

A Yeah.24

Q Now, --25

26

126

A This is not just knowing who his accuser is, he wants to1

make a deal with him. What does that mean?2

Q I don't know. You've drawn a conclusion as to what it3

means.4

A I have. It appears there's going to be a retribution of5

some -- he's going to make a deal with the person.6

Q So you have an individual, Mr. Blackburn, who is now7

clearly -- well -- and we know that there's a newspaper8

article that mentions criminal penalties and -- two years9

criminal penalty, I've asked you to at least assume Mr.10

Blackburn has heard the same thing from sources saying that11

this statement has been made and attributed to you or12

someone close to you, and Mr. Blackburn asks, in relation to13

a possible criminal penalty, "Who is my accuser?" You find14

that inappropriate?15

A I find it to march down to the city police department and16

fire department and start interviewing our officers when17

he's in a position overseeing their union activities or18

their hiring, firing, promotions, and he's down there out of19

line asking them those questions, I think would cause any20

normal person when their judge or the Board over the top of21

them is coming down in an individual basis asking those22

types of questions, I think that it would upset and concern23

people that there's something down the line that they're24

going to pay for.25

26

127

Q Your interpretation is that could do that?1

A I believe --2

Q And if -- if --3

A -- that is what normal employees that are under his --4

Q And if he's --5

A -- umbrella -- can I continue?6

Q I stopped because you had stopped --7

A All right.8

Q -- but continued. So I --9

A Under his --10

Q -- certainly wouldn't cut you off.11

A --umbrella --12

Q Proceed.13

A -- that they're going to worry about him coming down and you14

throw in these statements, then he's -- he didn't -- you15

know, that's an inappropriate act as well. It furthers our16

concern above and beyond just what we had.17

Q And it isn't inappropriate for you to bring the action not18

even knowing who said this or exactly what was said; for you19

to send that letter of the 24th, when you didn't even have20

the information of exactly --21

A It was not --22

Q -- who said it?23

A -- given to me. The council member was protecting the24

employee for just this reason.25

26

128

Q And if all the information Mr. Blackburn got from his1

efforts, A, no response from Mr. Peccia with the name, and2

B, asking some of the officers and the response is, "There3

was no complaint," that's what he's told, and Mr. Blackburn4

has read in the paper a possible two-year criminal charge5

and Mr. Blackburn has heard, correct or not, from sources6

that you or someone close to you have made mention of this,7

you do not believe that he should contact Mr. Peccia and ask8

who his accuser is?9

MR. HOMIER: And all I want to do is put on the10

record here that that assumes all of these facts --11

MR. WOTILA: Yes, it does.12

MR. HOMIER: -- that are not in evidence?13


A I don't understand your question, Mr. Wotila.15

Q All right. We'll move on. We'll move on. The answer to16

the -- your Verified Petition, is filed. And you've had a17

chance to review that as well; correct?18

A Yes.19

Q Did you see the two affidavits that were attached; one20

signed by Ms. Filkins and one signed by Mr. Bengelink?21

A At some point I did.22

Q Okay. And in each instance -- you know, you're welcome to23

look at them, and I'll give you a copy so I'm not misstating24

anything --25

26

129

A I've read them this week; last night or two nights ago.1

Q In each instance they're stating that Mr. Blackburn was not2

a member of a committee and did not manage the campaign. Is3

that correct?4

A Yeah.5

Q Or words to that effect?6

A That's inconsistent with what he told Marcus and his actions7

that I saw and the impressions he gave.8

Q All right. You're relying somewhat heavily on Marcus using9

the word "committee."10

A Well, I -- "working with the committee" was the exact same11

phrase Rick Charmoli told me; --12

Q Okay. Thanks.13

A -- totally consistent prior to him writing that letter on14

Friday after probably figuring out what happened and what15

he's done and that it is illegal, if -- if all of this is16

proven and is true.17

Q I'm sorry -- I didn't understand the last phrase. You're18

welcome to explain that. I didn't ask you that question,19

but you added something. So he figured out -- what and how?20

A His letter on that Friday certainly was different.21

Something must have happened between Wednesday and Friday to22

write a letter that was inconsistent with "I'm resigning. I23

won't put it in writing. I'm going to ask for a two-week24

leave of absence to" -- and "I'm working with" -- "I want to25

26

130

continue working with the committee," same phrase -- exact1

same phrase. I didn't know this when I filed the notice,2

but it turned out to be the exact phrase from Rick Charmoli.3

And I never told Marcus what Rick Charmoli told me in that4

regard.5

Q Let me ask you about the conversation that Marcus has with6

Jim. Did Marcus tell you that he phoned Jim --7

A Yes.8

Q -- Blackburn -- okay -- and that Jim had not seen your9

October 24th letter of removal?10

A He didn't get into any details. He said he explained that11

the letter's coming, --12

Q He didn't get into detail?13

A Not that detail.14

Q Okay. Well, fine. Go ahead.15

A He explained he had a letter -- that a letter was coming,16

the mayor has removed him, --17

Q Yes.18

A -- ands it states in there why.19

Q Yes.20

A Okay?21

Q So --22

A And at that response, "Okay, I'll resign then because I23

would like to" -- "I support her, I'm going to continue24

working with her committee." That's what's brought to me at25

26

131

10:30-ish Wednesday morning, on a phone call out of the blue1

from Marcus, "Hey, here's the deal," --2

Q So --3

A -- "he's resigned."4

Q Your understanding is that Jim received a call. Did Marcus5

tell you where Jim was when he received the call?6

A No.7

Q Would it refresh your memory that he would have said he was8

in a Spectrum Health Board meeting in Grand Rapids,9

Michigan?10

A I recall it at some other point, --11

Q All right.12

A -- in either one of his e-mails where he indicates he was at13

Spectrum.14

Q And did Marcus tell you that Jim had not seen or had read to15

him the details of the letter, --16

A No. Was not informed of that; it was a done deal. He17

resigned.18

Q Could I finish?19

A Marcus was relieved -- I got a very relieved phone call20

because he's under a lot of stress every single day. "Hey,21

he's resigned."22

Q Did Marcus --23

A "It's worked itself out, he's gone."24

Q Did Marcus indicate to you when he was talking Jim, first of25

26

132

all, we've now established Marcus did not read your letter1

to him, your letter of removal. Marcus did not Jim that --2

A I don't know if he did or not.3

Q Thank you.4

A All I know is that Jim indicated he wanted to continue5

working with the committee and if he had the choice to6

either serve on the committee or work -- on his Civil7

Service Commission, or work with her committee, he would8

choose to work with her committee and he would -- he was9

resigning. He's resigned.10

Q And the next thing is, then, did Marcus tell you whether or11

not -- let me back up. Did Marcus tell you that Marcus said12

to Jim, "You are removed, Jim." "You are removed by the13

mayor."14

A I have no idea what he told him. He --15

Q Thank you.16

A -- told me --17

Q You don't know.18

A -- "It's over; he's resigned. The matter is concluded."19

Q Did Marcus tell you that he, Marcus, said to Jim, "You can20

resign"?21

A Did he tell me? He told me nothing like that.22

Q All right. Did Marcus -- so Marcus didn't get -- when23

Marcus talked to you, he didn't get into details of what he,24

Marcus, had told Jim?25

26

133

A He told me that he called the person to tell them that the1

paperwork was on the way, --2

Q All right.3

A -- "be expecting it." Okay?4

Q And so Marcus did not tell you that -- and I'll be specific.5

Marcus did not tell you that he, Marcus, told Jim "You can6

just resign, Jim"?7

A I don't know what he said to him.8

Q Thank you.9

A All I know is Jim has chosen to resign, he had an10

opportunity, he wished to continue working with her11

campaign. He supports Carla, and that's fine and dandy; I12

appreciate that. But that's what he said, according to13

Marcus when he -- he resigned. And something changed after14

that and he changed his mind --15

Q And because you've said --16

A -- twice.17

Q -- you don't know what Marcus told Jim, you don't know18

whether Marcus talked to Jim about how much this would cost19

the city if it went forward and therefore you should just20

resign? You don't know?21

A That I don't know. He wrote a letter that said he would not22

contest this; if the fire department wanted him off he23

wasn't going to -- this is "he" being Jim -- that he wasn't24

going to cost the city taxpayers like Barnett and Stevens25

26

134

and, you know, it's all political. But the point is, I1

don't know if that was said -- I believe the first time I2

saw that stuff was in his letters, which was a continued3

campaign as opposed to just responding to "Did you serve on4

this committee or not?"5

Q Thank you. Now, moving --6

A Which this case is about the same thing, too, at this point.7

Q The case is -- what? I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last8

thing; I was shuffling papers.9

A You wonder sometimes if the campaign is still going.10

Q I would agree.11

A With the request for your discovery, in particular, which12

are mostly irrelevant and --13

Q I'm sorry -- what request are you referring to?14

A Well, my campaign literature. My campaign is not on the15

table here; it's Jim. My decision is -- and I made it after16

reviewing the three items. That's what's relevant here.17

And we've talked about it.18

Q Did you see the request made on your behalf in your petition19

by your counsel of Ms. Filkins?20

A Are you going to point it out?21

Q I'm asking if you saw it and what was requested for her to22

bring?23

A I did. Her campaign is in question; mine is not.24

Q Oh, I see. Okay.25

26

135

A It's -- I know how fairness goes with Interrogatories. I've1

complied with yours and I do feel that it's all irrelevant2

and you're wasting your time with the paperwork I've given3

you. Other than it's, you know, political and whatever. I4

don't know why you'd want my political stuff, but I gave it5

to you. You've asked; I've complied.6

Q Now, walking through the -- your testimony, did you -- who7

was on your political committee?8

A I'm not -- my campaign committee is not relevant.9

MR. HOMIER: What relevance does that have?10

MR. WOTILA: Because -- all right. Let me back11

up.12

Q How do you define Ms. Filkins' campaign committee?13

A We're going to find that out by discovery.14

Q No. I'm asking, sitting here now, you have caused to be15

filed a Verified Petition. You have stated in your Verified16

Petition, under oath, --17

A Yeah; absolutely.18

Q -- that Mr. Blackburn was a member of the committee.19

A Right. He's working with -- he wants to keep working with20

the committee.21

MR. HOMIER: I'm sorry.22

MR. WOTILA: I'm trying.23

MR. HOMIER: I know. I know.24

MR. WOTILA: I'm trying.25

26

136

MR. HOMIER: I know. The Verified Complaint says1

either --2

MR. WOTILA: Verified Petition.3

MR. HOMIER: Verified -- now I'm doing it.4

Verified Petition alleges that he was either on a political5

committee or took an active part in the management of --6


MR. HOMIER: -- a political campaign.8

MR. WOTILA: I agree with you.9

MR. HOMIER: That's what it says.10

MR. WOTILA: I agree with that.11

Q Who was on Carla Filkins' political committee?12

A We are -- I don't know. He referred to a committee, so13

there is one. I don't know who's on it. I didn't snoop by14

her house to see who the cars were to find out; I didn't15

care. I really didn't care. So I don't know who is. I16

know who her close friends are, I saw who was walking in her17

parades, you know, I see where her signs are. We're in the18

case to formally figure that out. All I know is he said he19

wanted to keep working with the committee. So there's a20

committee out there he was working with. He's defined it21

himself to two different people independently; Rick Charmoli22

and Marcus Peccia. That's the committee I'm aware of.23

Q All right. You would concede that everyone who is a24

supporter or everyone that gives aid or encouragement to a25

26

137

candidate is not, in fact, on a political committee for1

them. You do agree with that?2

A Obviously supporters and voters, whatever, are not on the3

committee. There's volunteers that become committee members4

de facto; whether you've appointed them or not. If5

somebody's putting out 50 signs for me, busting their6

backside to get me elected, that's a committee member.7

Those are some actions. That's what he did, I suspect. I8

don't know how many signs he put up. But he had --9

Q How many signs did he put up?10

A Let's get him under oath and find out. I don't know.11

Q I'm just asking what you know.12

A That's not been disclosed at this point.13

Q All right. Is everyone who donates money a de facto in the14

committee?15

A You know, it's -- you know, it's like the totality of the16

circumstances. You gave $500 to Jay Thibet before, you17

signed up under a group of endorsers for Gordy Baas,18

whatever. Didn't bother me then, okay? I'm not bothered by19

this. My employees are. I'm doing this on their behalf.20

It's not for any personal reason. I deal with my critics21

pretty well. They don't -- they don't cause me to jump out22

of my skin. Some of them do. One of the does, but --23

Q Who? Which -- out of your skin? I'm sorry?24

A There's very few people that can get me to jump out of my25

26

138

skin. And when my family is threatened or affected,1

you're -- you're going to see it come back at you.2

Q All right. And are you accusing someone of that?3

A It's not relevant at this point.4

Q Well, you're bringing it up, Mr. Barnett.5

A I'm just telling you, I don't have a problem with Jim6

Blackburn --7

Q Is that a threat that something's coming back to someone?8

A No. I'm just saying if people bother my family, --9

Q So if Mr. --10

A -- I would -- they would --11

Q So if Mr. Barnett -- I'm sorry -- it's Mr. --12

MR. HOMIER: Let's move on to something relevant,13

though.14

Q If Mr. Blackburn said he's going to deal with something, is15

that a threat?16

A Yes.17

Q And if you say --18

A To an employee, I'm sure.19

Q -- you're going to deal with it, or you're going to get back20

at someone if they are giving you a difficult time, --21

A Yeah; I would --22

Q -- that's not a threat?23

A -- call the police on them.24

Q All right.25

26

139

A Okay? There's ways to handle things, okay, that are legal.1

Q Okay.2

A Okay? That's how things get handled if people are harassing3

me.4

MR. HOMIER: Are we almost finished? I mean,5

really, we can sit here all day and argue about the last 206

years of bad blood between all of the people in this city.7

But frankly, it's got nothing to do with this case, so let's8

get on with it.9

Q Who managed Ms. Filkins' campaign?10

A I believe she put in an affidavit that she managed it or11

Mike Bengelink said he -- that she managed it. I don't know12

who the, quote, unquote, manager was. I know they sought13

out John Horrigan to manage it. So I assume there's a14

manager. From that, they passed him and went to the next15

person.16

Q And who was the next person?17

A I don't know. There could be a appointed, a de facto, she's18

put under oath that there was none, or one of those two did.19

So the questions are not -- I don't know.20

Q All right. And if she were to testify that she actively21

managed it or she and person "x" actively managed it, are22

you saying she's not telling the truth?23

A How do I know?24

Q Thank you.25

26

140

A I don't have the inside circle of this campaign that was1

conducted from Carla Filkins' side. I saw what I saw, and2

heard what I heard, and made a call on this filing; I3

believe it was valid. I stand by it to this day.4

Q Mr. Broddle, is it? B-r-o-d-d-l-e --5

A Yup.6

Q -- is a newspaper reporter who --7

A Absolutely.8

Q -- reported on this at times.9

A No; he -- Rick Charmoli was removed, my understanding is,10

from covering this story and Mr. Broddle is taking it over.11

Q Well, tell me about that. How -- I didn't realize that. I12

see a -- I see a November 3rd Cadillac newspaper article13

under a byline of Mr. Broddle.14

A Okay.15

Q You say that Charmoli was removed?16

A Well, I talked to the editor -- I went to the -- I had some17

discussions with the "Cadillac News" right about this same18

time about their perceived bias from the public. So I went19

down the next Monday or Tuesday and Rick Charmoli stopped me20

and asked what happened with all those questions I was21

asking him, because he got pulled into the story. "Please22

let me know what's going on." I said, "Are you asking?" I23

said, "I'm about ready to" -- "I've made a decision to file24

a removal." Then I walked in and talked to -- and I said he25

26

141

would be a witness. I walked in, I think on that day and1

talked to Matt Seward for three hours. And one of the2

things I'm sure I told him was, "I just want to let you know3

that Jim's contacts with Rick as a reporter have probably4

brought him into this case." The next thing I know Jeff5

Broddle is handling -- it's 2 plus 2. Jeff Broddle's now6

handling that particular city matter. So that's my7

perception of what happened. Nobody had -- I don't believe8

anyone's told me that.9

Q That's all I asked; I mean, you brought it up. Is Mr.10

Broddle a personal friend of yours?11

A He used to be. I didn't get invited to his wedding. I12

would still consider him a friend. But for whatever --13

employment reasons or whatever's happened, our social14

connection is over -- or, it's -- I don't hang out -- I15

might have gone to the movies with him -- I don't -- I've16

gone to one concert with him in Interlochen and he got17

married. He was single and lonely and just, you know, a18

fish out of water up here from a different city. And I19

would consider him a friend; yes.20

Q You would con- --21

A However -- yup. Yes, I would. But something's happened22

with the -- with him where he's uncomfortable even talking23

to me. And it was well before this case.24

Q Okay. That was my next question, would you -- this25

26

142

distancing -- that's my word, not yours -- has happened,1

when would you take that back to?2

A A ways; way before his wedding. I don't -- you know --3

Q When was his wedding?4

A I don't recall. It was probably a year or two ago and I5

wondered why I wasn't invited, but it was none of my6

business. And he's just --7

Q So it sounds certainly that you're saying from the time of8

the -- say, last summer, when you've started some of this9

testimony 2011 to the present, you haven't socialized with10

him?11

A No; I have not. I used to have a few beers with those guys12

at one point, and Charmoli was -- actually I went to two13

concerts. I went with Rick and just -- Jeff to another one.14


A And that was in Traverse City probably five years ago. So16

my contacts with these guys, almost zero, for whatever17

reason. You become mayor, and there you go.18

Q So in a nutshell, you've outlined your reasons why you19

brought this action and you would be clear that it was not20

brought out of any personal animosity toward Mr. Blackburn?21

A Absolutely not.22

Q And it was not brought out of any personal animosity toward23

Carla Filkins?24

A Absolutely not.25

26

143

Q And --1

A I had moved on -- Roger, I had moved on that week. This2

thing -- I have a good set of taillights and I don't look3

back. Okay? I move forward. I had forgotten by Friday4

this even happened. I don't even care. I move forward. I5

work 24 hours a day, it seems like. I do everything. I'm6

on the move. I don't sit and dwell on things, and I'm not7

out to get him. My concern came from outside. I acted on8

it, I felt I had the facts, I still have them, it's gotten9

worse since then and we've talked about that.10

Q As to whomever this person is that expressed some concern,11

let me back up so I can focus where the case is and move on.12

Would you agree that the question that is dealt with in your13

Verified Petition is, number one, whether Mr. Blackburn was14

a member of the committee of Carla Filkins? That's one15

question.16

A I'm not going to make a legal interpretation here. There's17

also something on there about good cause. And that could18

play in, as well. I'm not the judge that's going to make19

the findings here.20

Q Well -- all right. So then I'll go to it. You feel that21

there is more involved in this than whether he was a member22

of the committee or whether he was actively -- or took an23

active management part in her campaign?24

A I'll tell you this: The police -- or at least the fire and25

26

144

at least one policeman who's written a letter, don't even1

like him involved in politics, period; even to be speaking2

out and be active. It's driving them to an uncomfortable3

level.4

Q So is it your position that other than the question of5

whether Mr. Blackburn is -- was actively managing the6

campaign, or was a member of the committee, there are7

other -- there's other evidence that would be presented at8

trial in support of removal, other than to those questions?9

A There's good cause; that's listed in the Verified Petition.10

It's a dust bin, or --11

Q So now we're looking at potentially naming other witnesses12

from the city or the departments in this suit and bringing13

them in to testify to issues beyond whether he was on the14

committee or actively involved in the campaign. Is that15

your position?16

A I don't know.17

Q Well, let's go over --18

A We don't know. We're just starting -- this is discovery.19

Q That's why I'm asking --20

A I'm guessing that probably could happen, but I don't -- I21

don't know.22

Q Well, no; it's not "probably could," Mr. Barnett. We have a23

Verified Petition. We are looking at trying to see what the24

issues are, that's why we're here as you have told me many25

26

145

times in this deposition. And now I hear that we have1

issues other than whether Mr. Blackburn was actively2

managing the campaign or on the committee. Is that --3

A Okay. What have you heard?4

Q Is that correct?5

A What have you heard?6

MR. HOMIER: Well, hang on a minute. In7

fairness, --8

MR. WOTILA: I'm just trying to find out --9

MR. HOMIER: -- the mayor answered your question10

and said "that could occur" in terms of adding additional11

witnesses, et cetera, because it's not uncommon for that to12

occur as a result of discovery that you either amend the13

complaint, add new witnesses, et cetera. I don't -- I14

suppose none of know whether that will happen at this point15

or not. It depends in large part, I suppose, on discovery.16

A And petitions can be amended. What it says in here is what17

it says right now. So those are the grounds as we sit here18

today. Right?19

Q I don't know. You seem to --20

A That's what --21

Q -- be quite -- well, let me back up. You've just said,22

"What it says is what it says," which is the Verified23

Petition, comprising six pages. That's what you're pointing24

to; correct?25

26

146

A Yeah. It's got its legal basis --1

Q And as of today those are the -- what's in that Verified2

Petition in those six pages constitute the grounds of the3

action brought against Mr. Blackburn as of today; correct?4

A "Constitute the grounds"? I believe that's a fair5

statement.6

Q Nothing in there specifically indicates -- I'm sorry. That7

sets out two possible grounds of removal?8

A Three. There -- it says "good cause" in here, and I'd point9

you to paragraph 6, where it says that the mayor or10

principal executive officer may at any time remove any11

commissioner for incompetency, dereliction of duty,12

malfeasance of office or -- here's the -- what I just called13

"dustbin," but it's some other name, for -- with a broom,14

you sweep it in, it's a catchall phrase, it says, or any15

other good cause.16

Q What other things, at this point, do you consider grounds17

for removal, other than Mr. Blackburn either sitting on18

Carla Filkins' committee, or --19

A That's not what it says, Roger. It says a member of -- a20

commissioner may not serve -- you know, I don't know.21

Q All right. Tell me the grounds --22

A These are the grounds. They're bold. They're in the print.23

That's the bold print. "Nor any commissioner shall serve on24

any political committee or take any" -- "any" -- "any active25

26

147

role."1

Q I'm sorry -- "any active role"?2

A Yeah.3

Q In --4

A "Any active role in" --5

Q Go ahead.6

A Okay. "In the management of any" -- "any political7

campaign."8

Q "In the management of"?9

A Yeah.10

Q All right. Now, those, as I'm reading it, seem to state two11

grounds referring to committee and active management. All12

right?13

A That's what it says at this time.14

Q Thank you. Are those the two grounds that you have alleged15

in your petition and we are defending?16

A Obviously that's the case.17

Q All right.18

A And we've also added paragraph 6, which could almost be19

anything under good cause that I feel is good cause.20

Q All right. Well, let's go to that. I mean, are --21

A I've given you everything that I removed him for and what's22

going to come out in discovery may provide other good cause23

or good cause. But the thrust of this thing is right here;24

it's the bold print (indicating). Yes; if that's what25

26

148

you're asking for. Is it going to be limited to that by the1

time we get to trial? I don't know.2

Q As of today when you walked in here, the thrust of your3

complaint, what we're defending, is what is in bold print --4

A Yes.5

Q -- in paragraph 6? Correct?6

A I would say that's fair. That's why --7

Q However, --8

A -- it was pled that way.9

Q However, as to the future, you're saying that there could be10

amendments --11

A Yes.12

Q -- or something further; you just don't know at this point;13

is that correct?14

A Yes. A good cause could be his behavior going down to the15

police department and interviewing, accosting; whatever16

happened down there, I guess I'm not sure, --17

Q "Accosting"?18

A Well, he went in and started interviewing people.19

Q That was "accosting"?20

A Well, you're coming up to them and asking questions, I don't21

know what happened there other than he said he went down and22

couldn't find anyone he was a threat to.23

Q Are you accusing him of accosting someone?24

A Well, I don't --25

26

149

Q All right. Let's move on.1

MR. WOTILA: Well, he used the phrase.2

MR. HOMIER: I know. But --3

MR. WOTILA: He's rambling.4

MR. HOMIER: -- look. This is our --5

MR. WOTILA: What do you want me to do?6

MR. HOMIER: This is our first deposition; right?7

MR. WOTILA: Right.8

MR. HOMIER: So nobody's had the opportunity to9

question any of these other witnesses who actually were10

involved in a lot of these situations.11

MR. WOTILA: True.12

Q Well, then, since you're looking at other things --13

A I don't know what happened. I apologize if it sounded14

negative. I'm just saying when somebody -- the way he was15

writing, "Now, Marcus," "Name, Marcus," it didn't seem like16

he was level-headed and I was concerned that possibly that17

carried over to the staff.18

Q Did you tell Marcus at any time that you may have said to19

people that he may be facing criminal charges --20

A I don't --21

Q -- by October 30th?22

A No. I'm not out to get him for criminal charges.23

Q Well, I mean, you're putting one interpretation on those24

e-mails and I'm asking you if at any time by the 31st of25

26

150

October had told Marcus, "Maybe -- I'm not sure -- I don't1

recall exactly, but I might have said something about2

criminal responsibility." You never told Marcus that?3

A I -- no. I don't believe I --4

Q All right. Thank you.5

A That conversation never came up.6

Q Okay.7

A The only conversation I clearly recall was Amy's, which was,8

you know, it's in the paper. And she was saying it was9

serious. I said, "Well, it's serious to me because I'm the10

appointing authority here." This guy's presented himself --11

Q Well, I understand that.12

A -- on the front of the newspaper to the entire community;13

he's on the committee. He's a committee member.14

Q Okay.15

A And to Rick Charmoli, an educated individual, who's willing16

to sign an affidavit that he said he was working with the17

committee, --18

Q Now, --19

A -- because he wondered "what's he doing here at the20

'Cadillac News' at night?" Why would you come over there?21

Q Would you give me -- no; I won't do that now. It's going to22

take forever. Let me ask Counsel this to bypass it.23

MR. WOTILA: If this case is going to go beyond24

the two factors that are in paragraph 6 that I identified,25

26

151

"actively managed campaign or was on the committee," would1

you agree that you would give me the names of those other2

witnesses? Because we only have a preliminary witness list3

with no names, so that we could move forward.4

MR. HOMIER: Yeah; I --5

MR. WOTILA: Is that fair enough?6

MR. HOMIER: Yes.7

MR. WOTILA: Because I don't know that we're8

there, and we are in the early stages, and --9

MR. HOMIER: Yes.10

MR. WOTILA: -- I can't help defend a man that11

says every employee of the City.12

MR. HOMIER: I'm just saying, I'm --13

THE WITNESS: No problem.14

MR. HOMIER: In large part it depends how15

discovery goes.16

MR. WOTILA: Sure.17

MR. HOMIER: I mean, I don't know what --18

MR. WOTILA: Very good.19

MR. HOMIER: -- may happen, so --20

MR. WOTILA: Very good. Why don't we take about a21

two- or three-minute break?22

(Off the record)23

Q Given -- the materials you've given me are quite lengthy;24

I'm not going to go through them, so don't panic. I have25

26

152

one or maybe two questions. But other than the materials1

you've presented, do you have any other materials that2

pertain to this Verified Petition or your allegations?3

A Materials that --4

Q And by that, I will define it.5

A -- are relevant? Admissible?6

Q Yeah. By that I mean, for instance, materials given to you7

by someone from Carla Filkins; such as e-mails, or anything8

like that? I don't know.9

A No.10

Q Okay.11

A Not -- no. No e-mails; no letters. What I've given you is12

what I have from my election box. I had a big banker's box13

and I had -- my wife indicated she counted 33,000 e-mails we14

went through. That was probably a fair --15

Q 33,000?16

A That's what she said. But it was basically back and forth;17

that kind of thing. So it was probably about 3,000 times18

10.19

Q And it pertained to the election? Or just that you have20

saved on your hard drive?21

A No; I've got them all saved. But what I have I went from22

basically May to November 17th, as far as e-mails. It's a23

waste of everyone's time. My campaign's not on the hot seat24

or under inspection here.25

26

153

Q Just -- just a question and I'm going to hand you this. I1

don't -- because they aren't numbered, but just one quick2

question. And I just have a question on the one document3

there; I'll ask you what it is.4


A Yeah.6

Q There's something addressed to "Cadillac Citizens," several7

paragraphs or pages and then a blackout at the bottom.8

A Yup.9

Q Who prepared that?10

A This one with the black mark on it?11

Q Yes.12

MR. HOMIER: Are you talking about the letter13

itself?14

MR. WOTILA: Who prepared the letter itself.15

MR. HOMIER: Well, that, we've -- look. We've --16

we've redacted some of these documents because frankly it's17

not relevant to anything --18

MR. WOTILA: Okay.19

MR. HOMIER: -- that you've asked for in terms of20

this case. So we're prepared to defend that on a motion to21

compel if we have to, because --22

MR. WOTILA: I'm not asking for motions to compel.23

MR. HOMIER: I know. But you're asking the24

identify of somebody who wrote a letter that never intended25

26

154

it either to be public, because I don't know, or other1

contact information.2

Q Well, this appears to be something that actually was3

published or similar to something that was published in the4

Cadillac newspaper. Is that right?5

THE WITNESS: How do you want me to proceed,6

Michael?7

MR. HOMIER: Well, you can -- you can answer that8

question.9

A Yes.10

Q Okay. And that that was published in the Cadillac paper11

went under the signature of Mr. Mellema?12

A Yeah.13

Q All right. Did Mr. Mellema -- without asking who, then, did14

Mr. Mellema write this letter that you have in front of you?15

A My understanding is his -- he wrote it, so to speak. He has16

people -- I don't know that he can type or -- I assume that17

his lovely significant other, his spouse, was helping him18

write it or type it out. As I recall, that's the situation.19

I was afforded a copy at some point. And I stayed out of20

that.21

MR. HOMIER: I don't know -- just for the record,22

I don't know what the redaction was, either, without going23

back and looking at the original. So I don't -- I have no24

idea.25

26

155

Q I understand.1

A And that -- yeah.2

Q You know an individual named Louis Richardson, Jr.?3

A Uh-huh (affirmative); yes.4

Q Mr. Richardson has, from time to time, printed letters to5

the paper; is that correct?6

A Yes.7

Q From time to time in strong support of you; is that correct?8

A Yes.9

Q And other times criticizing other political figures; is that10

right?11

A Yes. He hasn't done it very much recently and nothing I can12

remember since May; I might be wrong.13

Q All right.14

A I tell him -- I ask him to not write letters because he gets15

all wound up and he's got some emotional issues and it's16

just best he just stay out of it.17

Q So you would agree that someone that might very actively18

write a letter in support of you, or a candidate, or go to19

council in support of your candidate -- it doesn't20

necessarily mean that they are on that candidate's21

committee?22

A It depends.23

Q All right.24

MR. WOTILA: I have nothing further. Thanks.25

26

156

THE WITNESS: Thank you.1

MR. HOMIER: I have nothing.2

(Deposition concluded at 2:27 p.m.)3

-0-0-0-4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

157

26499 00016 1468451-11

barnett deposition redacted

Documents