Saline Township FOIA Request & Response

Compressed Settlement Timeline

The Board denied the project on September 10. A lawsuit was filed two days later on September 12. By September 26—only 14 days after filing—litigation counsel had already received a proposed consent judgment from the plaintiff's attorney. The Board voted to settle on October 1, and the consent judgment was entered by mid-October—roughly 30 days from filing to final judgment. A typical contested zoning case in Michigan runs 12–18 months.

Vote Reversal

The Board's voting trajectory moved from a 4–1 vote to deny the data center (September 10) to a 4–1 vote to settle the lawsuit (October 1) to a 4–0 vote to approve the Industrial Development District (October 15, Treasurer Zink absent). The Township's own attorney stated publicly at the October 15 meeting: “the Board was not in favor of this project but had to decide on the facts of the lawsuit.”

Attorney Retention

No board resolution, meeting minutes entry, or other documentation authorizing the retention of litigation counsel David B. Landry was produced. The insurer confirmed it “will not retain counsel on behalf of the Township,” meaning Landry was not insurer-assigned. The question of who authorized $17,280 in public funds for a litigation attorney without a documented board vote in the records produced raises governance questions.

Meeting Minutes vs. Video Record

The October 1 meeting minutes suggest the settlement vote occurred in closed session and describe only a vague motion to “move forward with trying to settle the lawsuit.” However, a publicly available video recording of the meeting shows that the vote was preceded by substantive public comment in open session—residents questioned the attorneys about decommissioning terms, DTE power prioritization, industrial zoning implications, and the adequacy of a $5–10 million bond for a billion-dollar project. The actual motion, stated in open session, was: “I move to approve the consent judgment with the terms outlined by our attorneys.” The roll call vote is clearly recorded: Kelly Marion (yes), Jim Marion (no), Tom Hammond (yes), Dean Marion (yes), Jennifer Zink (yes)—passing 4–1.

This demonstrated inaccuracy of the October 1 minutes raises questions about the reliability of all meeting minutes produced in this FOIA response. If the October 1 minutes are materially inconsistent with the video record of what occurred, the September 10 minutes (recording only a 5-minute hearing with 59 citizens and no discussion) may be equally unreliable. The Township's own litigation counsel later researched whether “reenactment of a meeting” could “cure any procedural error in meeting minutes”—suggesting he identified the deficiencies as well.

Erratum: Filing Venue

The Tokio Marine HCC coverage determination (February 6 Letter, p. 1) states the lawsuit was “filed with the State of Michigan, in the Circuit Court for Lake County on September 12, 2025.” However, all other available evidence—including the consent judgment itself, the Washtenaw County Circuit Court docket, and the February 20, 2026 hearing before Judge Owdziej in Washtenaw County—confirms that Case No. 25-001577-CZ was filed in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, not Lake County. The insurer's reference to Lake County appears to be a factual error. Our original analysis characterized this as potential “forum shopping”; that characterization was incorrect and has been withdrawn. However, an error of this magnitude in a formal coverage determination—misidentifying the court in which the lawsuit was filed—raises questions about the thoroughness of Tokio Marine HCC's review of the underlying claim and whether other factual or legal conclusions in the coverage letter warrant similar scrutiny.

Insurance Coverage Gaps

The insurer (Tokio Marine HCC) determined it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Township, offering only limited $250,000 defense cost reimbursement while reserving fraud and bad-faith exclusions. Critically, the consent judgment was entered before the insurer issued its coverage determination.

Significant Gaps in Production

The following categories of documents were either not produced in response to the FOIA request or do not exist: the executed consent judgment itself, the denial reasons attachment referenced in the September 10 minutes, all electronic communications (including text messages), consent judgment drafts, and all intergovernmental correspondence. The insurer's February 6 coverage letter appears to respond to prior correspondence from the Township or its representatives, yet none of that underlying correspondence was produced. Attorney Landry's October 6 email to the Board was produced with a question from a resident redacted—raising questions about what was removed and why.

Notably, the September 24 special meeting minutes were not included in the FOIA production despite being publicly available on the Township's own website. Those minutes record a nearly four-hour joint Board and Planning Commission meeting (7:00 PM to 10:50 PM) at which both attorneys addressed the Board and over 30 citizens, Related Digital representatives gave a presentation, DTE answered questions, and the Board's options—settle, negotiate a consent judgment, or litigate—were discussed at length. The September 10 public hearing minutes, also available on the Township website but produced in a different format in the FOIA response, record a meeting with 59 citizens as lasting five minutes with no substantive content.

We intend to seek clarification on these gaps through appropriate channels.