In what seems like a surprisingly quick response to State Representative Sara Cambensy’s request for an investigation into the former hospital property project being engineered by the NMU Foundation, the Attorney General’s office has weighed in with a letter to Cambensy in which they indicate they aren’t going to be looking into the issue any further. Kind of an unvestigation.
From the letter…“We’ve reviewed all of the materials presented to us thoroughly, and ultimately concluded that the Department must decline to issue an opinion on the legal questions you’ve presented. Further, we have not been presented with sufficient grounds to open an investigation at this time.”
The statement, from Christina M. Grossi, Chief Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Attorney General, seems to present a couple different unrelated reasons why they won’t be diving any deeper into this complicated, and somewhat unique deal.
The previous section, above, says they haven’t been “presented with sufficient grounds to open an investigation at this time.” The next section, below, indicates that this kind of local stuff is out of their jurisdiction anyway.
“First, although we would like to be helpful in answering questions about local issues, because the Attorney General is not legal counsel for local units of government or universities, both she and her recent predecessors have concluded that this office’s resources will best serve the interests of the people of the State of Michigan by responding to opinion requests that involve the operation of state government. Moreover, while the Attorney General’s opinions are binding upon state agencies and officers, they do not have the force of law and, therefore, are not binding upon local units of government or private actors.”
(The entire letter can be found below.)
No word yet from Cambensy’s office… they’re working on a response, but the NMU Foundation was understandably happy to let us know how they feel.
Their statement reads, in part, “The Northern Michigan University Foundation is extremely pleased with today’s decision by the Michigan Attorney General declining to take any action regarding unfounded allegations by State Representative Sara Cambensy concerning the redevelopment of the former hospital site.
“The Board of Trustees and staff leadership of the NMU Foundation appreciate the Attorney General’s diligent, expeditious and thorough review of this matter, and we remain focused on continuing the process of bringing this significant project to fruition for the benefit of the Marquette area, Northern Michigan University, and the Upper Peninsula.”
So, is this settled? Can the Foundation and UP Health System finalize their deal? Can Veridea crank up some bulldozers on that property?
The statement from the AG’s office suggests that it’s a local issue, and not under their jurisdiction. That’s a little confusing in that we thought the Attorney General had statewide authority, but apparently not in all cases. Is there someone local so inclined to go where the AG’s office won’t? Not that we know of.
So, yeah. It appears to be settled. Gentlemen… start your engines.
Letter to Cambensy:
Honorable Sara Cambensy Michigan House of Representatives Michigan State Capitol
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Re: Proposed Redevelopment of Marquette General Hospital
Dear Representative Cambensy,
P.O. BOX 30212 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909
We are in receipt of your letter dated July 28, 2022, and modified by your letter dated July 29, 2022. In short, you’ve requested an investigation into, and asked a series of legal questions related to, the proposed redevelopment of the old Marquette General Hospital. This office has also received responses stemming from your inquiry from various parties including the Veridea Group, the Marquette City Commission, the Northern Michigan University Board of Trustees, and the Northern Michigan University Foundation. We’ve reviewed all of the materials presented to us thoroughly, and ultimately concluded that the Department must decline to issue an opinion on the legal questions you’ve presented. Further, we have not been presented with sufficient grounds to open an investigation at this time.
First, although we would like to be helpful in answering questions about local issues, because the Attorney General is not legal counsel for local units of government or universities, both she and her recent predecessors have concluded that this office’s resources will best serve the interests of the people of the State of Michigan by responding to opinion requests that involve the operation of state government. Moreover, while the Attorney General’s opinions are binding upon state agencies and officers, they do not have the force of law and, therefore, are not binding upon local units of government or private actors. See, e.g., Michigan ex rel Oakland Co Prosecutor v Dep’t of Corrections, 199 Mich App 681, 691 (1993). The matters in your letter strike at the very heart of those that constitute local concerns, namely economic planning and redevelopment. We take no position on the wisdom of the redevelopment project at issue here. We only note that – as counsel for the State of Michigan – the legal questions related to conflict of interest, tax consequences, property valuation, and the bidding process for a local project are
Page 2
September 6, 2022
often times best left to local counsel. Further, the questions presented related to the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act are not novel but rather can be evaluated under the existing body of case law, which weighs against the Attorney General issuing a formal legal opinion.
Finally, the Department has reviewed the matters in your letter pursuant to the Charitable Organizations and Solicitations Act, PA 169 of 1975, the Supervision of Trustees for Charitable Purposes Act, PA 101 of 1961, and the Nonprofit Corporations Act, PA 162 of 1982 (collectively “charitable trust law”). The facts provided do not support a viable action under charitable trust law, nor provide sufficient grounds for the institution of a criminal investigation by the Department at this time.
In conclusion, after considering the information presented in your request, we have respectfully determined that action by the Attorney General is not now warranted. In the interest of transparency, we have copied to this correspondence those who contacted this office in response to your request. If you have any additional questions or concerns, or if you have any supplemental information concerning this matter that you would like us to review, please let us know.
Sincerely,
/s/ Christina Grossi
Christina M. Grossi
Chief Deputy Attorney General Department of Attorney General