Politics & Government

City Commissioner Cleared of Ethics Charge but New Questions Raised in Email

A six-page legal opinion clears Jim Rasor of inappropriate actions. But more questions surface in an email to commissioners.

The legal opinion on whether or not the actions of a Royal Oak city commissioner constituted an ethics violation is now available on the City of Royal Oak's website.

Attorney William Hampton, a former state legislator and Oakland County Circuit Court Judge, prepared a report for the commission concerning the actions of City Commissioner Jim Rasor and an 

Hampton was asked by City Attorney David Gillam to determine whether Rasor violated the city's ethics ordinance when the commissioner filed an application for a parking station at the former Fresard property, a site the city previously relied heavily upon for parking revenues during the Labor Day weekend festival.

Find out what's happening in Royal Oakwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

On Monday, commissioners voted to release the attorney-client privileged legal opinion prepared by Hampton.

The report concluded Rasor "did not violate the city's ethics ordinance nor did he engage in any conflict of interest with the city."

Find out what's happening in Royal Oakwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

A copy of the legal opinion is attached to this article in PDF form.

New ethics debate

On Monday, after commissioners voted to release the legal opinion, new concerns regarding a conflict of interest emerged.

City Commissioner David Poulton asked City Attorney Dave Gillam what to do about an email he received prior to Monday's meeting regarding Rasor and a resident's concerns about another possible conflict of interest.

"I need some further direction to know what to do," Poulton said. "What is the process when something comes across our desk?"

The email, from Royal Oak resident Geof Vasquez, asked if it is a conflict of interest for a commissioner to represent a taxpayer owing delinquent taxes to the city. Vasquez asked the same question of Royal Oak Patch readers in a blog post on Saturday.

Poulton wondered if a conflict of interest was something the city attorney could look into, or if it required a vote.

"I think any member of the commission, under the charter has the right to ask my office for a legal opinion on an issue," Gillam replied.

In his comments, Rasor said partisans were trying to discredit him “in slimy attacks by innuendo and supposition.”

“I do not want us to be on the defensive at all times over someone who cowardly writes an anonymous blog post or comment on the Patch,” Rasor said.

Gillam, meanwhile, said Wednesday he would gather information as to whether or not there was a conflict of interest and provide the commission with a legal opinion in the form of an attorney-client privileged memorandum.

He would not speculate how long it will take. 

"When I start digging in, I'll have a better idea," he said.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here