The Berkley Brief

03/18/2026

It's ! FOIA is not just for journalists--it's for YOU. And it's easy. Do not let public bodies bully you into filling out complicated forms, charging arbitrary fees, providing unlawful responses, or say they are burdened by Freedom of Information. This page is here to help you out.

Under Michigan FOIA law this is all you need to make a FOIA request via email:
- State "FOIA" Freedom of Information Act, within the first 250 words (subject line works)
- Describe the record or information (the more specific the better for you)
- Include your name, address, and contact information
- Send it to the Public Body. Preferably, the FOIA coordinator (e.g. City Clerk), but it's the responsibility of the public body to process the FOIA request regardless of where the request was addressed.

Source: MCL 15.233(1), MCL 15.235(1), MCL 15.235(3)(b)

That's it. You do not need to fill out any forms. You do not need to sign anything. You do not have to agree to anything. Under Michigan FOIA, the public body's forms and procedures are for YOUR convenience and protection--not the public body. There is also no limit to the number of FOIA requests you can send. FOIA law has built in controls to protect public bodies from "frivolous" or broad requests.

Is there something you don't understand about how things are working in Berkley or you think is not being followed properly? Discuss below--because it can probably be easily requested to obtain the truth.

03/06/2026

The City's Manager's opinion that the City Attorney is not an officer and not subject to the ethics code completely contradicts the City Charter:

Sec. 8.1. - The administrative officer—General.
"(a)The administrative officers of the city shall be the city manager, clerk, treasurer, assessor and the city attorney. "

We’re sharing a recap of the most recent City Council meeting on March 2. The full video is available to watch on our YouTube channel at youtube.com/cityofberkley, and the next meeting is March 16 at 7 PM.

💲 Financial Reports and Budget Amendment
Finance Director and Treasurer Carl Johnson presented two reports as well as a budget amendment. These focused on City revenues and expenditures and investment information. Amendment 2026-3 focused on how funds are allocated for emergency repairs and proposed a one-time, non-recurring surplus for the expenditure of funding a wall repair for DPW.

🚧 Security and Access Control Upgrades to City Facilities and DPW Wall Repairs
Facilities Manager Alex Brown shared how he and Lieutenant Jordan Kobernick hope to implement new security measures to help improve employee access while keeping buildings secure. Brown also shared how the wall surrounding the DPW yard is becoming a safety hazard. Proposed repairs include replacing the wall and installing a gate that faces Phillips Ave. These repairs are expected to cause minimal disturbance to surrounding homes, and residents in the area will be notified of the project prior to its start.

✅ Accepting the City Manager's Advisory Opinion Responding to Alleged Ethics Violation Under Section 2-40 of the City of Berkley City Code
In response to a recent ethics complaint, City Manager Crystal VanVleck explained that the City Attorney is not subject to the filing, due to City Code 2-40g only applying to City employees and City officers, of which the Attorney is neither.

Click here for the full recap: https://berkleymi.gov/news/city-council-meeting-recap:-march-2--2026

03/01/2026

The City Manager is issuing an official Ethics Code Advisory Opinion to Council stating that the City Attorney was not required to file the Ethics Code Acknowledgement. The fact that no acknowledgement exists is not disputed. The City Manager also affirms that no legal review of her interpretation was conducted. The Opinion is on the Monday March 2, 2026 Berkley Council meeting agenda.

The Ethics Code begins in Sec. 2‑40(a) by stating that the Code applies to all city officers and employees, elected or appointed, paid or unpaid:
"This Code sets minimum standards of ethical conduct for all city officers and employees, elected or appointed, paid or unpaid."

Nowhere in the Ethics Code is any city officer excluded from coverage.

Sec. 2‑40(g) requires an acknowledgement of the Code from a city officer or employee upon election or appointment (underlined in red) and includes a list of volunteer-board officers. In her summary, the City Manager highlights only the volunteer‑board list to suggest the Code does not apply to the City Attorney, while omitting the controlling clause that applies the requirement to a city officer or employee.

The practical implication of City Manager's Opinion is that the Berkley ethics ordinance does not apply to any administrative Charter officer, including City Attorney, City Manager, City Clerk, City Treasurer, and City Assessor.

You can contact City Council at [email protected] and ask whether they agree with the City Manager’s Opinion that the City Attorney does not need to acknowledge the Code of Ethics.

02/27/2026

City Manager's Official Opinion: Berkley’s Ethics Code doesn’t apply to City Attorney

02/25/2026

Berkley City Staff Said the Oath Was Required. Then an Off‑Record Conversation Changed Everything. [UPDATED 2/28/26]

Emails from the City show that both the City Clerk and the City Manager believed the City Attorney was required to take the oath of office and sign the ethics acknowledgment. The City Manager reversed her position only after an undocumented, in‑person conversation involving the City Attorney. The FOIA response shows no written legal basis for the reversal. Also, the City Manager's "close the loop" email was created an hour and half AFTER the FOIA request was submitted showing an attempt to sanitize the record with some kind of written basis.

The City Manager also asks staff to include the City Attorney on responses to City Attorney FOIA requests, a structural conflict of interest.

These emails show that Council's action to deem the constitutional oath of office "unnecessary" for the City Attorney was done without any written legal analysis after an off‑record meeting.

What about other cities in Oakland County? Many are compliant with the constitutional oath requirement. Many are not, including Berkley. Some cities with missing oaths corrected the issue once FOIA requests were filed, including Rochester Hills, Pontiac, and Lake Orion. Berkley voted to deem the constitutional oath of office "unnecessary".

More to come.

02/07/2026

City FOIA Presentation Shows Negligible Time and Budget Burden

The City’s own Strategic Framework charts show that Berkley spent 64 hours on general FOIA work in 2025, including appeals. This is 3% of a full-time staff member's time or 1.2 hours per week for a statutory required resident right.

Using the City Manager’s equivalent hourly rate of $75, the total annual cost is under $5,000.

For context, Berkley’s general fund budget is over $16,000,000. That means FOIA activity represents 0.03% of the General Fund.

These figures came from the January 26, 2026 meeting. While the City describes FOIA as a "strain", residents can see that is not actually the case. If you seek to be informed, you have that right to do so.

Filing a FOIA request is very easy and can be done in a simple email to the Clerk or FOIA Coordinator:
* You state "FOIA request*
* Describe the information you're seeking--the more concise the better
* Include your name, address, and contact information

You do NOT need to submit any special forms, sign anything or write in any "legal language". The forms the City and other public bodies provide are only for your convenience--they are not required.

If you have questions about filing FOIA requests, feel free to message this page.

02/03/2026

When it was asked whether Council has the legal authority to waive a Charter and Constitution‑required oath, Councilmember Dennis Hennen interrupted with a sarcastic cough “yes” during public comment. No legal explanation was provided.

Is Berkley the first community in Michigan to declare the constitutional oath of office unnecessary for a public official?

Nearby communities like Royal Oak, Clawson, and Birmingham all have oaths of office on file for their City Attorneys. Oak Park does not—but unlike Oak Park, Berkley went further. Berkley appears to be the first community in Michigan to *formally vote* to deem the constitutional oath unnecessary for a public official. No examples of similar action anywhere else in the state have been shared.

Across Oakland County, the pattern is inconsistent, but Berkley is the only city so far to take the extraordinary step of declaring the oath “unnecessary.” This is exactly why a formal Attorney General opinion is needed to resolve this statewide constitutional issue.

If you haven’t already, contact state Representative Natalie Price and Senator Mallory McMorrow and ask them to request an Attorney General opinion on the oath‑of‑office requirements for administrative officers.

01/30/2026

🗣️Berkley Resident Call to Action: Send an email to State Representative Natalie Price ([email protected]) and ask her to request a formal Attorney General opinion concerning the Constitutional Oath of Office requirements for municipal attorneys.

Rep. Price will actually be presenting an update to the City Council on Monday, February 2, so your email will be very timely.

Below is an email you can use.

****
To: [email protected]
Subject: Request for AG Opinion on Constitutional Oath of Office Requirements for City Attorneys

Dear Representative Price,

I’m writing to ask you to request a formal opinion from the Michigan Attorney General on whether the constitutional Oath of Office applies to municipal attorneys.

At the January 26 Berkley City Council meeting, the Council voted to deem the Oath of Office “unnecessary” for the City Attorney without addressing the constitutional requirement in Article XI, Section 1. Other cities, like Royal Oak and Clawson, administer and file the oath as required. This inconsistency suggests a broader statewide issue that needs clarification.

Because this is a non‑partisan constitutional compliance matter affecting communities across Michigan, your leadership in seeking an AG opinion would provide valuable guidance statewide.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your City]

01/30/2026

🚨"Council has the right to formally deem the oath of office necessary or unnecessary for administrative offices, including our City Attorney." This is 100% FALSE!

You can immediately see the absolute absurdity of the City's position as it would mean City Council could deem their own oath of office unnecessary.

And it's spelled out in the portion of the charter the City quotes and highlights :

"All administrative officers and appointees, as the council shall deem necessary, shall take an oath of office supporting the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of the State of Michigan, and faithfully discharging the duties of such office before entering upon the duties of the respective offices, and file [the] same with the city clerk.”

1) The Charter ONLY says Council can deem an oath NECESSARY. NO WHERE does it say it can deem an oath unnecessary. They can deem it NECESSARY for appointees (non-officers) where it is not automatically necessary. Otherwise an oath is required for ALL administrative officers. The "can deem necessary or unnecessary" is entirely made up.

2) The Michigan Constitution requires ONE Oath for ALL public officers, including the City Attorney. Even if the City's absurd interpretation were true, the Michigan Constitution is the overriding authority. When this point was raised at the meeting, it was ignored and Council promptly voted to "deem the oath of office unnecessary".

Council exceeded their Charter and Constitutional authority by voting to "deem the oath of office unnecessary".

We're sharing a recap of the most recent City Council meeting on January 26. The full video is available to watch on our YouTube channel at youtube.com/cityofberkley, and the full recap post is available by clicking here: https://bit.ly/4k9GhvA

👥 Deputy City Clerk Rachel Patterson presented a report on what our volunteer boards and commissions accomplished in 2025. These community members donate their time to make Berkley better. More information is available at berkleymi.gov/volunteer.

⭐ City Manager VanVleck presented the Strategic Framework annual report covering 2025 accomplishments. This roadmap helps us define our goals and make decisions about how to allocate resources for the best benefit of our community. View the report at berkleymi.gov/strategicframework.

🌳 Council adopted the 5-Year Parks & Recreation Master Plan to guide improvements and program expansion. This plan is required every five years for state DNR grant eligibility and was developed by Johnson Hill Land Ethics Studio with input from residents through public sessions and surveys.

📝 Last fall, a resident raised concerns about potential conflict of interest in hiring our City Attorney. City Manager VanVleck reviewed the matter and found no ethics violation. The resident filed formal complaints on November 3 and December 18, 2025.

To ensure transparency, Council engaged independent legal expert Angela Mannarino of Greco Law PLLC to conduct an external review. Ms. Mannarino thoroughly reviewed all relevant documents including complaints, meeting minutes, and proposals.

At the January 5 meeting, Council voted to make her findings public. Her independent review confirmed absolutely no violations of state law or City ordinance occurred in the City Attorney hiring process—applying to both complaints.

📚 Council addressed whether administrative officers need to take our City's oath of office. Since all Michigan attorneys already take a required oath before practicing law, Council formally deemed the City's oath unnecessary for the City Attorney position now and in the future, as it would be redundant.

Click here for the full post: https://bit.ly/4k9GhvA

01/23/2026

City Manager VanVleck: Charter Mandated Oath of Office "Redundant and Unnecessary" for City Attorney

On Monday's Agenda, the Berkley City Manager Crystal VanVleck tells council in a memo that the Charter mandated Oath of Office for the City Attorney is "redundant and unnecessary".

She asserts the Lawyer's Oath "satisfies the requirements of the City Charter" for the Oath of Office. This is false.

The Lawyer’s Oath is a state requirement for practicing attorneys. The Charter Oath is a municipal requirement for assuming public office. They are not interchangeable.

Furthermore, the Charter does not give any authority to Council to waive the mandated Oath Requirements of Charter officials such as the City Attorney.

The City Manager cites the Charter Oath requirement, but omits a crucial part of Sec. 8.3 in her memo:MCL 15.151

"In case of failure to comply with the provisions of this section within ten days from the date of appointment or commencement of the term, such person shall be deemed to have declined the office and such office shall thereupon become vacant unless [the] council shall, by resolution, extend the time in which such person may qualify as above set forth. "

The Oath of Office is also a Michigan Constitutional mandate that all officers must take and explicitly states it cannot be substituted.

These important questions need to be answered:
1) Why is Council being asked to override the Charter and Michigan Constitution, which they do not have the authority to do?
2) Has the City Attorney taken and filed her oath of office in accordance with the Charter?
3) If no oath exists, how is the City interpreting the Charter’s vacancy clause?

Please contact City Council before Meeting on Monday, January 26: [email protected]

01/19/2026

Below are the letters Council voted to treat as the City Manager’s advisory opinion on the ethics complaint concerning the City Attorney’s actions while serving on the Planning Commission. The City said these will be included in the January 26 meeting packet. The problem is that the City's opinion does not review the conduct raised in the complaint.

The analysis does not match the facts in the record. The letter evaluates Ms. Hamameh’s actions as if she were a former commissioner, even though the conduct in the complaint occurred while she was still serving. The letter never states when she left the Planning Commission, even though the timing determines which ethics rules apply.

In other ethics complaints, the City addressed the factual allegations. In this one, it did not. Instead, the letter analyzes a timeline that does not match the record, treating the conduct as if it occurred after she left the commission.

Because the letter rewrites the timeline and applies the wrong rules, accepting it as the advisory opinion would set the following precedents:

1. A City appointed official may privately solicit and negotiate a City contract for themselves without any public meeting disclosure.
2. A City official pursuing a contract does not need to disclose monetary ownership interests as conflicts of interest in the Request for Proposal (RFP) response.
3. A firm responding to an RFP does not need to disclose that one of its principals is a sitting City official as a conflict of interest.
4. Residents and competing firms do not need to be publicly informed if a City official is privately pursuing a City contract.
5. A Planning Commissioner may pursue a paid City contract without publicly disclosing it on the Planning Commission record, preventing the Commission and public from evaluating recusal.
6. A paid City official may participate in and defend themselves during an inquiry into their own conflict of interest, at taxpayer expense.
7. A City official who is the subject of an ethics complaint may participate directly in the City’s handling of that complaint, also at taxpayer expense.
8. Even when Council is aware of a financial interest before awarding a contract, the meeting minutes do not need to disclose the nature of that interest.
9. An ethics complaint may be resolved without any fact finding or evaluation of the alleged conduct.
10. The ethics ordinance does not apply if an official resigns or changes positions, even if the conduct occurred before the resignation.

These are not hypothetical. They follow directly from the facts and reasoning in the advisory opinion — facts the City has not disputed. If Council disagrees with any of these precedents, it should deliberate and take corrective action. If not, these will become the City’s new standards for ethics, appointed officials, and the procurement process.

12/13/2025

Berkley City Attorney Involved in her own Ethics Complaint and Blanket Withholding of Records
By: Joshua Hunter

I recently filed a FOIA request for emails between the City and its attorneys concerning the ethics complaint regarding the City Attorney contract. The FOIA was filed because the Berkley City Manager and City Council will not confirm that the City Attorney would not be involved in the ethics complaint. The City Attorney did not recuse herself during the December 1 meeting on an agenda item concerning the ethics complaint.

The records confirm not only the City Attorney's involvement in her own ethics complaint, but that she is also directly advising the City on how to respond to the complaint and FOIA request, including blanket use of privilege to shield public disclosures of emails.

You can see the redactions in the emails below, but there are also emails that were withheld in their entirety under attorney client privilege. In one unredacted email, the City Attorney asked her associate if records could simply be denied. Certain email attachments were provided including a November 10 Advisory Opinion draft, but not the transmittal emails.

The City also invoked the "personal privacy" exemption, even though the request was strictly for emails about the ethics complaint. No exemption log was provided in the FOIA response.

Residents deserve transparency and an impartial ethics process. They Mayor and Council all claim a commitment to transparency. But transparency isn’t a campaign catchphrase —it's the foundation of public trust. You can send an email to council for the meeting record at [email protected].