A 10-page lawsuit was filed against Oxford Village in U.S. District Court by three individuals who claim they were deprived of their constitutional rights, had their reputations harmed at a public meeting and the action taken to remove them as reserve police officers was improper and invalid.

“This lawsuit is about making sure governments do not smear the good names of the people that work for it and volunteer for it,” said Philip L. Ellison, the Hemlock-based attorney representing plaintiffs Bruce Meyers and his wife, Kallie Roesner-Meyers, both of Oxford Township, and Eugenia Calocassides, of Metamora.

“There can be political disputes that come up . . . but what you don’t get to do is destroy the reputation of someone just because you’re the government. Federal due process requires that you be given a chance to defend yourself and that wasn’t afforded here.”

In response, the village claims it has absolutely no record whatsoever of these individuals having ever served as reserve officers for the municipality, so the basis of the suit is flawed.

Their request to become reserve officers was “denied” in July 2016 “because they did not want to adhere to the reserve officer rules and procedures,” according to a written statement issued by village attorney Bob Davis.

“At this time, the village does not see any merit in this case,” Davis wrote.

All three plaintiffs claimed they had served the village on a voluntary basis as reserve officers with a mounted police unit. In their suit, they claim they “were issued badges and uniforms bearing the name and authority of the Village of Oxford Police Department” and served as reservists until a Jan. 10 motion by council declared they are “not associated” with the municipality “in any way.”

They’re suing the village along with Manager Joe Young, council President Sue Bossardet and Davis in both their “personal and official capacity.” Acting Police Chief Mike Solwold was also named as a defendant, but only in his “official capacity.”

In addition to seeking damages, plus attorney fees and costs, the suit is requesting the plaintiffs “retain their public offices” as reserve officers.

“We’re not seeking, technically, reinstatement,” Ellison explained. “What we’re seeking is an acknowledgment that the council did not have the authority to remove them, so they’ve been reservists the entire time . . . Our argument is (they) were never removed to begin with and it was improper for the council to act.”

“Now, whether, once this lawsuit is done, they will continue to serve the Village of Oxford will be up to them to decide,” he noted.

Council meeting leads to lawsuit

The lawsuit stems from the discussion and subsequent action taken by council at the Jan. 10 meeting regarding the existence of a mounted police unit and the plaintiffs’ status as reserve officers for the village.

In a 4-1 vote, council approved a lengthy and detailed motion making it clear that no mounted police division had ever been “reviewed, approved, authorized, sanctioned or otherwise allowed” in the village and that the three individuals – Meyers, Roesner-Meyers and Calocassides – “be notified to cease any and all activities wherein there is a representation of any kind that they are part of the Village of Oxford Police Department in any way.”

As part of that motion, council required that “all uniforms, patches, equipment or any other items provided to these individuals by the Village of Oxford shall be immediately retrieved.”

Although the plaintiffs were in attendance at the Jan. 10 meeting, they were each notified of council’s action via a Jan. 13 letter from Davis.

The plaintiffs claim that during the meeting, the village council “questioned” and conducted “bitter and unprovoked attacks on” their “reputation, good name, honor and integrity.”

“Some of the comments that were made by the council members during the Jan. 10 meeting, if they did not have government immunity, they would likely be liable for slander,” Ellison said.

“They basically accused them of impersonating reservists or impersonating police officers at that Jan. 10 meeting and you simply don’t get to do that just because you’re the government,” he added.

The suit accuses village Councilman Erik Dolan of “literally” conducting “a police-like interrogation” of former Police Chief Mike Neymanowski, who has since resigned. He worked his last day Feb. 14.

Dolan asked Neymanowksi a series of questions including if he was aware that Roesner-Meyers, Meyers and Calocassides had been investigated by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office. Last year, there were two investigations involving these individuals. The Leader obtained copies of both police reports via a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the sheriff’s office.

The first involved allegations the three had impersonated police officers during the search for a missing woman who had wandered away from a local adult care home in August 2016.

The second investigation centered on Roesner-Meyers and Calocassides. This one looked into whether the pair had violated the portion of state election law that makes it illegal for candidates who are not incumbents to represent themselves as such. At the time, Roesner-Meyers was running for a seat on the Oxford school board and Calocassides was her campaign manager.

No criminal charges were brought against Roesner-Meyers, Meyers or Calocassides as a result of either investigation.

The suit alleges that as a result of village officials’ actions, the plaintiffs “were and are subject to community ridicule, scorn, contempt, disdain, mockery” and “suffered losses” related to the harm done to their reputations.

Roesner-Meyers believed, according to the suit, that she was “about to lose her longtime public position held with the Township of Oxford” because of what happened with council. She has served as a member of the planning commission since the 1990s, an appointed position that pays $105 per meeting.

But township Supervisor Bill Dunn told this reporter neither he nor the township board ever discussed or considered removing Roesner-Meyers from the planning commission as a result of the whole flap over the mounted unit.

“None of that had anything to do with her being on the planning commission,” Dunn said. “That was a village thing. It had nothing to do with the township. Why would we kick her off over that?”

In addition to allegedly damaging the plaintiffs’ reputations, the suit claims council overstepped its bounds because it lacked the “ability and right to direct or request” their “removal” as reserve officers.

“When the council voted to essentially strip my clients of their position, the (village) charter prohibits them from doing that,” Ellison said.

According to the village charter, “council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the village manager and neither council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the village manager, either publicly or privately.”

The charter prohibits council members from directing, requesting or ordering the removal of any person from any employment or office for which the village manager is responsible.

Reserve officers serve under the police chief, who, in turn, reports to and serves at the pleasure of the village manager.

The charter states, “All of the powers of the municipal government possessed by the village are hereby divided into two general divisions, i.e., legislative or policy forming and administrative,” and “no person or body” from one division “shall exercise powers . . . belonging to another.”

The charter dictates it’s the “duty of every” village officer to keep these two divisions “distinct and separate.”

Village: No records, just a denial

The village claims the plaintiffs were never reserve officers for the police department.

A Feb. 20 letter from village Clerk Susan Nassar to Davis, council and Young states, “I maintain a record of all Village of Oxford Reserve Officers and their swearing in process. I have no record of swearing in or administering any oath of Reserve position (to) Kallie Meyers or Bruce Meyers.”

Acting Police Chief Mike Solwold penned a Feb. 20 memo stating Bruce Meyers and Kallie Meyers were not reserve officers and in fact, they were formally denied the positions.

Solwold explained that on July 9, 2016, he “sat on a reserve officer board” that heard a “presentation” by the couple “concerning positions as reserve officers.”

Consisting of Solwold and two reserve officers, the function of this board is to interview candidates for reserve officer positions and determine if they should move forward in the process to potentially join the force.

“After consideration, the request was denied because the group was not willing to comply with the police department rules for the reserve program because they wanted to become a mounted division all on their own,” Solwold wrote. “The individuals were advised accordingly.”

“As of the date of this communication, I have no record that either individual is a reserve officer with the Village of Oxford Police Department,” concluded Solwold in his memo.

Ellison: They were reserve officers

Ellison claims the village’s argument isn’t valid. “The village has said over and over again . . . they were never sworn in. There is no such requirement in the State of Michigan for reserve officers,” he explained. “There (is) for full-time law enforcement officers, who are paid, full-fledged police officers, but (for) those that volunteer and participate as reservists . . . there is no swearing-in requirement.

“So, that argument is largely a red herring designed to misdirect the real issue in this case, which was the way these three individuals were treated by the village council and its various officers.”

Ellison claims the plaintiffs were reserve officers and they were made such by Neymanowski when he was chief.

“They were, in fact, reserve officers,” he said. “They were issued badges, issued uniforms. Attached to the (lawsuit), there’s a number of letters . . . where (Neymanowski) publicly identifies them as reserve officers.”

Neymanowski wrote two letters last year, dated Sept. 15 and Dec. 22, where he refers to the plaintiffs as “officers” and “mounted officers.”

Ellison believes a “fundamental question” that’s going to be answered by this lawsuit is “what is a reservist and who has the authority to create them?”

Where did they get those badges?

One of the exhibits included with the lawsuit is a photo of a badge with the words “Police Mounted Reserve Oxford Michigan” engraved on it. The suit claims Roesner-Meyers, Meyers and Calocassides were issued these badges.

But if the reserve officer board denied the request regarding mounted reserve officers in July 2016, where did these badges come from?

The Leader obtained a copy of an Oct. 12 invoice for three “mounted reserve badges,” each costing $72, from Harwood Tuxedos and Uniforms in Waterford. The invoice states the badges were ordered by the “Chief” of the “Oxford P.D.” and it’s signed at the bottom by Michael H. Neymanowski.

These badges were purchased the day after Neymanowski informed council, during the public comment portion of a village meeting, that he was planning to form a mounted unit. More on that later.

According to Davis, this invoice was “recently discovered” and “has not yet been paid.”

Name-clearing hearing: Denied right or not applicable here?

The suit claims the village didn’t provide the plaintiffs “with notice or the opportunity to formally conduct a name clearing hearing,” nor did it “allow them the opportunity to present testimony/evidence prior to” council’s causing “interference and impingement” upon their “reputation, good name, honor and integrity” at the Jan. 10 meeting.

“That’s something that public bodies have to provide to those who they are going to, basically, publicly eviscerate before they do it,” Ellison said.

In the suit, it’s stated that following the meeting, the village and officials named as defendants “failed to provided [sic.] and otherwise flatly ignored all written demands/requests for a name clearing hearing (for the plaintiffs) as is constitutionally obligated under federal law.”

But Davis, in his statement, said the village is not obligated to conduct such a hearing.

“Under the law, the name clearing hearing process applies to employees who are terminated and stigmatized at a public hearing during the employment termination process,” he wrote. “Again, the village has no record of employing any of the plaintiffs in any capacity. There is no record of the plaintiffs being sworn in as reserve officers.”

Davis cited the 2002 case Quinn v. Shirey in which in the U.S. Court of Appeals “identified five factors that a plaintiff must show in order to establish that he was deprived of a liberty interest and entitled to a name-clearing hearing.” The first factor is “the stigmatizing statements must be made in conjunction with the plaintiff’s termination from employment.”

How all this got started

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs contend that “with the advent of various events and festivals and the needs [sic.] for patrols within the village,” former Police Chief Mike Neymanowski “approached” them last year “about becoming part of (his) newly created horse mounted division.”

However, during the Jan. 10 village meeting, Neymanowski told council it was they who approached him about forming a mounted unit. “I said, well, that sounds like a great idea,” the former chief told council. “So, the plans were on the board.”

Prior to their involvement with the village, the trio had been reserve officers with the Lapeer County Sheriff’s Mounted Unit. Roesner-Meyers and Meyers served from December 2013 until they resigned in May 2016. Calocassides served from December 2014 until her resignation in May 2016.

According to an Aug. 26, 2016 email sent by former Lapeer Undersheriff Robert Rapson to the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office as part of an investigation, the three resigned from the mounted unit “due to an inability to work with” the lieutenant in command.

“There had been what appeared to be a power struggle between some of the Mounted Unit members and the mounted Lieutenant,” Rapson wrote.

In addition to the idea of forming a mounted unit in Oxford, Roesner-Meyers approached Neymanowski about the opportunity for her, her husband and Calocassides to participate in the 32nd Annual National Mounted Police Colloquium, an event consisting of training sessions and competitions held last September in Lexington, Kentucky.

“We would very much like to represent our fantastic community,” Roesner-Meyers wrote in a Sept. 13, 2016 email to Neymanowski. “All we would need to represent the department . . . is a letter from the department stating that we are representing the Village of Oxford for this event.”

Neymanowski agreed and sent a Sept. 15, 2016 letter to one of the contacts for the colloquium stating, “My agency is in the process of creating the first Police Reserve Officer’s Horse Mounted Unit. The members of this Mounted Unit will consist of Officers Kallie Roesner, Dr. Bruce Meyers and Eugenia Calocassides.”

The trio participated in the Kentucky event and were given Oxford Police uniforms and patches to wear while there.

During the public comment portion of the Oct. 11, 2016 village meeting, Neymanowski introduced Meyers and Roesner-Meyers to council, reported they did well at the colloquium and stated they were willing to volunteer their time as part of a mounted unit for the village that would be an “extension of our reserves.”

“We’re in the process of doing that,” the chief told council back then.

Council members provided positive feedback in response to the chief’s announcement and raised no objections at the time.

“They thanked them for their service as reserve officers. So, they can’t come back and claim they never knew,” Ellison said. “They were reservists by that particular point. They were in the process of becoming the mounted division or mounted section of the reserve unit. That was something that was being worked on by the chief and ultimately, the chief approved.”

No council action regarding the mounted unit issue was taken at the Oct. 11 meeting because the news was part of public comment. Since then, a formal proposal to form a mounted unit has never been an agenda item at a village meeting or been voted on by council.

The trio went on to participate in Oxford’s Oct. 15 Scarecrow Festival with Roesner-Meyers and Calocassides wearing village police uniforms and patches. Bruce Meyers wore the Lone Ranger costume he’s donned for the last few years when he plays the fictional masked lawman for Oxford’s parade and festival celebrating the character.

In December 2016, the trio was invited to participate in the 58th Presidential Inaugural Parade as part of Michigan’s Multi-Jurisdictional Mounted Police Drill Team and Color Guard.

In response, Neymanowski sent a Dec. 22 letter to one of the drill team’s founders stating, “I am honored to approve and send my three Mounted Officers to the upcoming Presidential Inaugural Parade. The officers are: Kallie Meyers, Bruce Meyers and Eugenia Calocassides.”

After it was reported in the Oakland Press that three mounted reserve officers from Oxford Village were going to be in the national parade, council, at its Jan. 10 meeting, asked questions, raised various issues and expressed concerns because it had never given any approval to form a police mounted unit.

No “approved” mounted unit

At the Jan. 10 meeting, Neymanowski twice told council the village has no mounted unit – “I agree, 100 percent, we do not have an approved mounted unit” and “You’re right, we don’t have an official mounted unit.”

Even Bruce Meyers, during the meeting, told council he “cringed” when he read the Oakland Press story and blamed the reporter for writing the village had a mounted unit.

“He came up with that conclusion,” Meyers told council. “But that’s not something that we had ever said.”

“We’ve been very careful not to make that connection – not until everything was approved,” Meyers continued. “We were not representing ourselves as (the) Village of Oxford police mounted unit. We are a mounted unit, but we’ve never claimed a connection yet. We would like to have a connection in the future, but we’ve been very careful not to do that.”

Prior to receiving the inaugural invite, Neymanowski told council at the Jan. 10 meeting, that following the Scarecrow Festival, with the winter months approaching, he decided to “put (the mounted unit issue) off for a little while” and bring it back to council in the spring.

In a Jan. 11 email to Davis, Neymanowski once again admitted the plaintiffs were not officially mounted officers yet – “All were in the process of being considered to be mounted volunteer reserves with this agency.”