TRAVERSE CITY -- Frustrated Acme Township officials may file personal lawsuits against Meijer Inc. and its agents over the retailer's alleged acts of intimidation.
Meijer targeted eight Acme board and planning commission members with lawsuits over alleged conflicts of interest regarding two proposals to build large retail developments along M-72.
Those suits were dismissed, and now many of those Acme officials may follow the lead of township Treasurer William Boltres, who last year successfully sued the Grand Rapids-based retailer for malicious prosecution.
Boltres' suit exposed Meijer's clandestine attempts to recall the township board in 2007 and prompted state and local investigations into the company's campaign law violations.
Robert Carstens, an Acme planning commissioner, said Meijer's lawsuits were meant to intimidate him and other officials over pending zoning issues.
"I really didn't give a damn about any lawsuit until (Meijer) admitted they participated in illegal behavior," Carstens said. "That isn't something that should be swept away."
Talk of lawsuits heated up after a criminal inquiry by Grand Traverse County's prosecutor into Meijer's actions recently stalled.
Thirteenth Circuit Court Judge Philip E. Rodgers ruled this month that only the secretary of state can refer campaign finance violations for criminal investigations.
Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land has yet to act, three-and-a-half months after Meijer admitted to campaign violations.
"I'm concerned that they may be allowed to get away with this," Carstens said. "I just feel the actions of Meijer and its attorneys need some careful scrutiny and action."
Acme Trustee Eric Takayama and planning commissioner Clare David both said they are considering legal action against Meijer and its law firm, Dickinson Wright.
"I've spoken to some people about the irresponsible acts (Meijer) has taken," David said. "It's a poor business practice that should be discouraged."
Township trustees Frank Zarafonitis and Ronald Hardin declined to comment on whether they might sue Meijer, but said any action would be as private individuals and not as township officials.
The township officials would not discuss specifics of possible lawsuits or reveal the names of attorneys with whom they consulted.
Former township Supervisor Bill Kurtz and former planning Commissioner John Pulcifer were the lone Acme officials targeted by Meijer to say they don't intend to sue the retailer.
"I'm out of the picture and that's where I'm going to stay," Pulcifer said.
Meijer hired Grand Rapids attorney James Brady to replace Dickinson Wright on Acme Township matters. Brady said he's aware of discussions about additional legal actions against Meijer, but declined further comment.
In 2005, Meijer, through Dickinson Wright, alleged Acme officials had a conflict of interest due to their alleged association with a citizens group that opposed Meijer's developments. Meijer representatives indicated in e-mails that the retailer would seek millions of dollars in restitution from Acme officials.
Courts dismissed Meijer's conflict claim on four occasions, but Meijer continued its appeals until after it settled Boltres' suit.
The Boltres settlement came as Meijer and its public relations firm were scheduled to provide testimony and documents that could have detailed who authorized illegal corporate expenditures to orchestrate the recall attempt.
Meijer then agreed to drop lawsuits against the township and its officials, but demanded they agree not to sue Meijer.
Brady said that agreement prohibits the Acme officials from suing Meijer.
Convincing a court to set aside such a deal will be difficult for the Acme officials to overcome, legal experts said.
Traverse City trial lawyer Dan O'Neil said such an agreement is considered a binding contract on both parties, unless one party intentionally deceived the other. Even if the conduct that damaged the parties turns out to be criminal, it would not invalidate a release, said O'Neil, who is not involved in the Meijer suits.
Acme Township attorney Chris Bzdok said individuals did not sign an agreement.
"I signed a stipulated order and a joint motion that said any future claims would be released," he said.
Bzdok said the township has not discussed any action, but declined to comment on what actions might be taken by individual officials.
Print this story
E-mail this story
