7000 Wesr Tax Maz Roan, Secon Foon + Sovramiti, Micman 48075 + Pros 248.483.5000 Detols ese aw Fine —_. GOSMAN ACKER. STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS Hugh Madden, Plaintiff, Case No. 18-000098-MM. vy. Hon, Christopher M. Murray Bill Schuette, in his official capacities as Attorney General and head of the Department Of Attomey General, Defendant. J Goodman Acker, P.C, Kathryn M. Dalzell (P78648) Mark Brewer (P3661) Assistant Solicitor General Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant 17000 W. 10 Mile Rd., 2 Floor Solicitor General Division Southfield, MI 48075 P.O. Box 30212 (248) 483-5000 Lansing, MI 48909 mbrewer@zoodmanacker,com (517) 373-1124 dalzellk@michigan.gov / PLAINTIFF MADDEN’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SCHUETTE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION INTRODUCTION “ (3) No person who is subject to the provisions of this act, while retaining his right to vote as he pleases or express privately his opinions on political subjects, shall take any active part in political management or campaigns during the hours of his employment.” (5) No one shall ditectly or indirectly solicit or receive or be in any manner concerned with soliciting or receiving any subscriptions or contributions for any purpose whatsoever during the hours of employment of any state employee, nor shall any organization circulate any petitions, literature or any form of advertising in any state office.” = Michigan Civil Service Act, 1937 PA 346, § 2217000 West TEN MI ROAD. SOND FLOOR + SOUTHELELD, MicaZGAN 48075 » Powe 2a8.48s.s000 + Fax a48.a853251 ee= — GOOMAN ACKER. In the 80 years since the enactment of Michigan’s first civil service law, certain fundamental principles have been established by statute and constitution: no political campaigning or fundraising on state time by state employees. ‘The Schuette Political Enterprise is operated out of the Department of Attorney General where Defendant Schuette and his employees, all on the payroll of the State of Michigan, direct and control the Enterprise, integrating the Enterprise with the Department of Attorney General. Defendant Schuette’s Motion for Summary Disposition is a desperate, meritless attempt to evade responsibility for his illegal scheme of advancing his personal and political aspirations out of the Department of Attomey General, on the backs of Michigan citizens, in violation of the Michigan Constitution and Civil Service Commission Rules. His arguments in his brief fail in every respect. ‘The overabundance of evidence discussed in Section II substantiates Plaintiff Madden’s Complaint and, therefore, this Court should deny Defendant Schuette’s motion. ARGUME! I. SCHUETTE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY DISPOSITION PURSUANT TO MCR 2.116(C)(8). Tn Schuette’s failed attempt to whitewash the perpetual campaign activities occurring within the Department of Attorney General in violation of the Civil Service Rules and the Michigan Constitution, he conflates permissible political activity by state employees who are not on state time with egregious campaigning during actual duty time by staff who were hired to always be available to Schuette for campaign purposes. In his Complaint, Madden provides a detailed compilation of political activists employed within the Department of Attorney General for the purpose of running a continuous political campaign for Schuette, See Complaint, {¥ 19-25. The Complaint provides examples of how 2GSSBMRSACKERc ywmesrtastistn one fie Senn cnc «aba isn Faas Schuette commingles his personal and political activities with those of the Department of ‘Attomey General, id. at $f 16-18, and uses an employee “in the Office of Communications in the Department of Attomey General from which she discusses gubernatorial campaign topics.” ia. at 24. Madden has detailed Schuette’s creation of CRR positions within the Department and the political activists who are or have been in those positions, Id. at 26 In reviewing Schuette’s motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8), every factual allegation in support of the claim is accepted as true, as well as any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from the facts and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Wade v. Dept of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 162-163, 483 NW2d 26 (1992). The motion brought ‘under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted where “the claims are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id, at 163. ‘To say Schuette’s partisan staffing within the Department of Attomey General raised eyebrows is an understatement. See Exhibit 6 to the Complaint (Paul Bgan, Free Press Article) Schuette’s egregious behavior prompted an investigative newspaper article and an expert on civil service reform to state that the “situation in Schuette’s office sounds unusual,” Jd. (quoting.J. award Kellough, a professor of public administration at the University of Georgia and an expert on civil service reform). Without the availability of discovery afforded to parties in a lawsuit, Egan uncovered & wealth of information providing evidence that “Bill Schuette stocks AG staff with GOP Operatives.” Id. In response, “Schutte was unapologeti...when a reporter pointed out that his ‘executive office representatives were Republican activists and Schuette supporters. “They'd better be oF they're not going to work for me.’” Id. Schuette’s later attempts to soften that response in a public forum and in this lawsuit is of no matter. See Schuette's Briel, page. 16, 17. ‘The facts belie his backpedaling, Schuette is attempting to evede constitutional liability and