OAKLEY, MI -- The state of Michigan and Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards have filed legal documents in a lawsuit against the Oakley Police Department reserve program.

The move comes after the Michigan Court of Appeals asked for more information about Oakley's 100 reservists in the village of 290 people.

Oakley resident Shannon Bitterman sought the names of reserve officers, and the village denied the request, leading to the lawsuit that is now at the appellate court level.

"The state agency responsible for licensing police agencies completely agrees with Shannon Bitterman's legal opinion that reservists are not police officers, as expected," said Bitterman's attorney, Philip Ellison of the Hemlock firm Outside Legal Council.

"The court will have to decide whether Oakley is right or if everybody else is. One or the other."

The village's use of its reserve force violates Michigan's General Law Village Act, the Michigan Attorney General's office states in the court document filed in Saginaw County Circuit Court on Tuesday, Feb. 10.

The AG's office filed the document after the Court of Appeals in January ordered the release of the names of donors to the police fund and sent part of the case back to develop a record of Oakley reserve officers' "powers or duties."

"The Village of Oakley's use of its reserve officers violates sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the General Law Village Act, MCL 70.13(1) and 70.13(2), because the reserve officers have not been properly appointed as required under section 13(1), and because the reserve officers do not comply with MCOLES employment standards as required under section 13(2)."

The relevant sections of law are as follows:

(1) The council may establish a police force, and may authorize the president to appoint, with the consent of the council, the number of police officers and other personnel that the council considers expedient for the good government of the village and protection of persons and property. The council by ordinance may delegate authority to the police chief to employ police officers and other personnel. This subsection is subject to an ordinance adopted under section 8 of chapter V.

(2) The police force shall comply with the minimum employment standards for law enforcement officers published by the law enforcement council under the Michigan law enforcement officers training council act of 1965, 1965 PA 203, MCL 26.601 to 26.616.

The documents do not specify in what way Oakley is said to have failed to follow the rules except that the reservists do not have MCOLES certification.

MCOLES' minimum employment standards include passing a background investigation, minimum auditory and visual ability, a passing result on a physical fitness examination, graduation from a basic law enforcement training academy or completion of the MCOLES Recognition of Prior basic law enforcement training and experience program, a passing result on the MCOLES licensing examination and a negative result on controlled substances screening, the motion states.

The document asks the court to allow the AG's office, serving as legal counsel for the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards, to present oral argument in support of the motion. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 17 for that purpose.

"MCOLES asks this Court to include in the record on remand evidence and arguments establishing that the Oakley reserve officers are not authorized to perform law enforcement functions for the Village of Oakley Police Force because the Village of Oakley has not complied with sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the General Law Village Act."

Oakley is a "general law village," with powers defined in the Michigan Constitution, the General Law Village Act, local amendments to the charter of the Village of Oakley, and other statutes. Oakley has not amended its charter, according to the motion.

The Attorney General's Office and MCOLES Director David Harvey did not immediately return messages left seeking comments on the case.

State intervenes in law-clarifying case

A rainbow over the Oakley village meeting hall before the Oct. 14 board meeting, when the board of trustees voted to release the names of police officers and reserve police officers.

Oakley resident Shannon Bitterman submitted a Freedom of Information Request Act request with the village in the spring of 2013 seeking information including the names of police reserve officers.

When the village denied the FOIA request, Bitterman hired Hemlock attorney Philip Ellison and sued the village to get the information.

Saginaw County Circuit Court Judge Robert Kaczmarek ruled Feb. 20, 2014, that the village had the right to keep the names of police reserve officers secret but had to release the names of inactive reservists.

Both sides appealed the ruling, and the Michigan Court of Appeals considered evidence in the case in late 2014.

The Court of Appeals issued a published decision in January 2015, outlining some of the issues with the Oakley Police Department donation fund and reserve force.

"The ratio of reservists to residents is striking -- a town of 300 residents has 100 reserve police officers. Given this apparent imbalance, the Village's use of private citizens as reservists has sparked significant public interest about possible over-policing, or, perhaps, non-policing by the 'reservists,' and into the processes that lead to one being named a 'reservist.'"

The issues have been discussed in the media for more than a year, the decision states, and Police Chief Robert Reznick has admitted that some of the donors are police reservists.

The Appeals Court cites a Sept. 11, 2013, MLive article, in which Reznick refers to the police department as "'self-funded,' with donations from the reserve officers paying for equipment, community events, uniforms and more."

Further, the opinion states, "the donations to the police fund are being used

in large amounts -- $30,000, for example -- to fund village operations other than those connected to the police department."

The published decision issued in January states the village can not withhold the names of donors to the police department fund.

Ellison said that portion of the order is a "published decision," meaning it clarifies Michigan law on the issue.

"From here forward, donors to police departments are not exempt from FOIA, anywhere in Michigan," Ellison said in a recent interview.

Most decisions from the court of appeals are unpublished, Ellison said, meaning that courts can follow a ruling if a judge finds it persuasive. But courts are required to follow a published decision like in the Oakley case, he said.

The court said it needed more information on the role of reservists to determine whether or not their names should be disclosed to the public or if they are exempt from FOIA disclosure, leading to the filing by the Attorney General's Office.

The AG's office began an investigation of the village police department in July 2014, months after a series of MLive articles detailing the controversy that led to the village losing its insurance.

Read all stories: Small town, big problem

The Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction in the case, ordering the Saginaw County Circuit Court to hear more evidence in the matter. The hearings are expected within the next two months.

-- Brad Devereaux is a public safety reporter for MLive/The Saginaw News. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and Google+