hold that the Council’s decision concerning the 2008 stipulation for settlement was an “administrative” decision on the facts presented and therefore not subject to the referendum process. [¶ 15.] Affirmed. [¶ 16.] ZINTER and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur. [¶ 17.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, dissents. [¶ 18.] SABERS, Retired Justice, disqualified. 1 . It would be an untenable position if a municipality, after having the opportunity to weigh the merits of a lawsuit and confer with counsel, decided to settle litigation and that decision was determined referable. However, if the City were to ignore the benefits of settlement and proceed to a final court disposition, that judgment could not be referred. See Green Oak Twp. v. Green Oak MHC, 255 Mich.App. 235, 661 N.W.2d 243, 246 n. 5 (2003) (<HOLDING>). GILBERTSON, Chief Justice (dissenting). [¶
recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine holding that statute that retroactively reduced penalties for drug offenses did not violate separation of powers recognizing separation of powers doctrine holding legislatures retroactive amendment of statutory definition which rejected court interpretation did not violate separation of powers