In order to prevent the possibility of being sued and ultimately losing a costly court battle, Oxford Township officials last week voted 7-0 to direct their attorney to research and draft ordinance language concerning door-to-door solicitors.

Officials fear the township’s current ordinance, enacted in 1978, prohibiting uninvited solicitations, except those for charitable purposes, is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

“If we use the ordinance that’s in place now, are we going to violate somebody’s constitutional rights?” asked Supervisor Bill Dunn.

“Yes,” replied township attorney Gary Rentrop.

Rentrop explained to the board, if the township is sued because of the ordinance and the plaintiff is successful, all they have to do is “show $1 in damages” and the municipality is on the hook for the opposing side’s legal bills.

“If a governmental body infringes upon anyone’s constitutional rights, you expose yourself to (paying) actual attorney fees,” he said. “It is a common situation where the damages are always small, but the attorney fees are always large.”

“I have an ordinance on the books now that’s violating someone’s civil rights. I don’t want it on the books,” Dunn said.

This issue arose at last week’s board meeting because of an Aug. 28 letter the township received from Michael Zarrilli, an attorney representing Charter Communications.

The letter was prompted by a June incident in which a law enforcement officer stopped a direct sales representative for Charter and instructed them to obtain a permit from the township.

Zarrilli explained the township “refused to issue permits to Charter . . . on the basis that Charter is a for-profit enterprise” and therefore, the company’s door-to-door marketing activities are prohibited by ordinance.

Under the existing ordinance, “The practice of going upon private residential property by peddlers, hawkers, or vendors of goods, wares or merchandise, or by persons soliciting orders for future delivery of goods, wares or merchandise or for the performance of services for a fee, not having been requested or invited so to do by the owner or occupant of such private residential property, is hereby declared to be a nuisance and punishable as a misdemeanor.”

“Persons licensed . . . to make charitable solicitations are not prohibited by this section from making such solicitations,” the ordinance states.

“The township’s refusal (to issue a permit),” Zarilli wrote, “impermissibly treads upon Charter’s rights under the federal telecommunications laws, as well as its free speech rights under the Michigan and United States Constitutions.”

“Charter is entitled to engage in speech activity about its entirely lawful services free from discriminatory and unwarranted interference by the township . . . The township cannot prevent Charter from speaking to residents through door-to-door visits while allowing other First-Amendment speakers (such as charitable organizations) to engage in the same practice, based solely on the content of Charter’s communications,” the attorney wrote.

In his letter, Zarrilli cited a litany of case law to support Charter’s position.

Zarrilli informed the township “these issues are significant for Charter, and if they cannot be resolved, then the parties could potentially face a protracted and costly legal dispute.”

Rentrop explained the courts have ruled, “The state cannot make that decision as to what the residents hear or want to hear.”

“What the courts tend to say is if the resident wants to put a ‘no solicitation’ sign up or if the township or the police department wants to provide a ‘no solicitation’ list that people sign up (for), that’s the safe haven to be in,” he said.

He noted that by only allowing charitable solicitations, the township’s current ordinance, in addition to prohibiting commercial solicitations, “effectively precludes anyone (from) going door-to-door for religious or political reasons if they’re not a charity and that’s completely unconstitutional.”

“I don’t like the idea of leaving ourselves exposed to (a potential lawsuit for) violating anybody’s civil rights, especially when there’s case law that (says) we’re going to lose,” Dunn said.

Back in 2014, the township took a stab at crafting a new ordinance concerning solicitors and peddlers, but when the draft was presented to the board in order to schedule it for a first reading, it was shot down in a 4-3 vote.

The attempt at redrafting the decades-old ordinance was motivated by a June 3, 2014 letter from an attorney representing independent distributors of a line of cleaning systems. That attorney also cited case law showing that door-to-door sales “is deemed commercial speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” and the township’s ordinance is “illegal.”

According to Rentrop, the 2014 draft ordinance started with Treasurer Joe Ferrari “cobbling together” ordinances from two different communities.

“There’s still problems with that ordinance,” the attorney said.

Rentrop noted crafting such an ordinance is “really, really tricky business,” so what he could use is a “good example” from another community, something that’s really been scrutinized and put “through the mill.”

In his reply to Charter’s attorney, Rentrop said he “invited” the company “to offer an ordinance that they thought was acceptable.”

Based on his research, Ferrari said the courts don’t seem to have a problem with a community having a no-solicitation list to which residents can voluntarily add their names and uniform, no-solicitation stickers that residents can post on their houses.

“I’ve seen that being upheld,” said.

Rentrop said such measures are fine.

“There, the resident makes the decision, you don’t make the decision,” he explained.

When a resident posts a no-solicitation sign on the property, “you don’t have to listen to anybody, political or otherwise.”

“It’s when government sticks (its) nose in between the resident and the solicitor. . . that’s where you get in trouble,” Rentrop said.

“We don’t want to infringe on anybody’s rights out there. Certainly, none of the communications companies that we deal with,” said Trustee Elgin Nichols, who’s employed by Oxford Community Television (OCTV), which derives funding from the franchise fees paid by Charter and AT&T U-verse TV subscribers.

That being said, Nichols would “like to see a registration process” for solicitors, so the township knows whether or not they’re “legitimate.”

Rentrop said the township could have a registration requirement, so solicitors could be subjected to background checks.