My suspicion is that when MERS wants to get rid of someone without "just cause" and without going through all the "progressive discipline" steps, they just pay them off and have them sign a confidentiality agreement.
 

Without admitting or denying that any of the named individuals were "terminated," to the extent MERS may have entered into any "agreements" with these individuals, it would have been with MERS' promise of strict confidentiality. Further, MERS lacks discretion to release confidential information regarding private persons no longer employed by the system. See MCL 15.243(1)(a) (stating that a public body may exempt from disclosure information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy).

[Mr. Petroni]  gave two reasons for denying me copies of the termination agreements .... One is that the agreements were entered with MERS’ promise of strict confidentiality. I contend that if the information in those agreements would otherwise be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, the agreements were void. The agreements would be considered a conspiracy to subvert the Freedom of Information Act.

His second reason was that “MERS lacks discretion to release confidential information regarding private persons no longer employed by the system,” but he cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), which does not say that at all. It says “Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy” may be exempt from disclosure. There is no exemption for “confidential information regarding private persons no longer employed by the system”.

I am not interested in the reason these employees were terminated. I want only to know the terms of the agreements. If there is anything in the agreements regarding work performance or disciplinary matters, it may be blacked out. Even the names of the employees may be blacked out. I want to know only what was promised by MERS and what was promised by the employees.

On the agenda for this week's meeting is my appeal of MERS' denial of a FOIA request for copies of the termination agreements for several former MERS employees. Before you make your decision, please insist on examining each of the agreements. I suspect that if there is anything sensitive or embarassing in the agreements, it is MERS, not the employee, who is likely to be embarassed. 

Mr. D. Murphy moved to deny Mr. Steve Harry’s appeal on his FOIA request for information from the personnel files of individuals no longer working at MERS, for the reasons stated in the Designated FOIA Coordinator’s January 31, 2005 letter. Supported by Mr. G. Murphy. Motion carried.

There is no mention of severance pay in the MERS personnel manual. The chief executive officer has no authority make payments to employees other than as compensation for time worked and for reimbursement of work expenses.

Also:

If these terminations had really been voluntary, there would have been no need for payoffs. Nor would payoffs be required if proper procedure had been followed to establish that the employee had not performed satisfactorily. These employees were bullied into resigning and then paid not to put up a fight about it. It saved the CEO from having to justify her action, and it cost her nothing. It wasn't her money. The employees were paid off with public funds - money contributed by municipalities for paymIent of their employees' pensions.

After the hearing, MERS' attorney gives my attorney a $500 check for the statutory punitive damages.
 

• supply any termination agreements not previously supplied, or an affidavit that all agreements have already been supplied
• reimburse me for costs and attorney fees for maintaining this action

Judge Collette signs the judgment. It says that MERS must supply any termination agreements not previously supplied and reimburse me for reasonable costs and attorney fees. It approves the payment of $500 in punitive damages, which I have already received. And it dismisses without prejudice MERS' counterclaim for defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

Later that day, Mr. Starr sends Ms. Ward a letter along with an itemized statement of charges related to the FOIA lawsuit. The total bill: $6426.20. In his letter, he says that if MERS disputes the amount, we will go to court again and more charges will be added.