A temporary holding place for this blog until such a time as a new site is launched.
Welcome to The Asylum. Just as before, Josh is always right.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Puzzling (Ballot) Issues

How did it feel to go to bed Tuesday night with less authority than you woke up with?

That's exactly what happened if you live in the City of Hillsdale.  Thanks to an entirely illegal ploy by Lew Loren to unilaterally -- against the directive of the city council -- move the clerk and treasurer ballot issues to August (an election date reserved for primaries, which we by law did not qualify for), those two positions are now appointed by the mayor instead of elected.  The voters no longer have any voice in choosing who fills them.

That's not to mention the vague language of those ballot issues that raises many questions, especially when compared to the 2011 clerk issue.  Oh, yes, let's compare them!  We can do that!  (To anyone saying "we are the factory" right now in your head as you're reading this, I'm sorry.)

The 2011 ballot question was as follows:

"Should Sections 3.7, 3.8 and 5.4 of the Hillsdale City Charter be amended so as to change the city clerk from an elective officer to one appointed by the Mayor, subject to the approval of Council, commencing November 8, 2011; to provide that the other terms and conditions of employment applicable to the city clerk shall thereafter be provided by ordinance; and to provide for the filling of a vacancy in the office of city clerk in the same manner provided for making the original appointment?"

And the 2015 ballot questions were thus:

"Should Hillsdale City Charter Sections 3.7, 3.8, 4.9(b), 4.12, and 5.4 be amended to authorize the City to fill the office of city clerk by mayoral appointment, with the approval of Council; establish the city clerk's term of office as an indefinite period to be served at the pleasure of Council; and authorize Council to fix the city clerk's compensation and conditions of employment?"


"Should Hillsdale City Charter Sections 3.7, 3.8, 4.9(b), 4.12, and 5.4 be amended to authorize the City to fill the office of city treasurer by mayoral appointment, with the approval of Council; establish the city treasurer's term of office as an indefinite period to be served at the pleasure of Council; and authorize Council to fix the city treasurer's compensation and conditions of employment?"

Interesting differences to note there between the two years.  For starters, in 2011, it was explicitly stated that this charter amendment would change the office from elected to appointed.  That language was not present in the 2015 questions, but the charter sections listed in all three questions are those charter sections detailing the methods of acquiring office, terms of office, compensation, and the methods of filling vacancies in those offices.  So while there was no explicit mention of changing the offices from elected to appointed in the 2015 issues, the charter sections make it clear that that's the intent.

There's also one little problem with one of the charter sections listed that we'll get to in a moment.

Secondly, you'll notice that the 2015 questions contain no date for these charter amendments to take effect.  Now that we've given the city "authorization," is the charter amended immediately?  Does that mean that they don't have to amend the charter, they simply have the authorization from us to do so, and they might decide not to?  And if they decide not to, does that mean that the election is still on?

Of course, we know that the intent was to amend the charter to make these appointed positions, as shown in the listed charter sections, so such an argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, but it certainly goes to show just how carelessly these questions were written.

And thirdly -- and speaking of carelessness -- you'll notice that Section 4.12 of the City Charter is listed in both 2015 questions.  Section 4.12 says this:

"The City Treasurer shall receive such annual compensation as shall be fixed by ordinance. The ordinance fixing his salary may not be amended less than ninety days before any regular annual City election. Until the Council shall provide otherwise by ordinance, the salary of the City Treasurer shall be $1,200. per year.

Editor's note— Compensation of the city treasurer is determined by the local officers compensation commission which was created by ordinance in section 12-131 of the Code of Ordinances, pursuant to MCL 117.5."

Yep.  Our esteemed City Attorney literally copied and pasted the ballot language from one question to the other, changed the job titles, and called it a day.

Can you say "invalid vote," kids?

Sure, it's a small mistake, but it absolutely makes a difference.  At the very least, it's grounds for a re-vote on the city clerk question -- the very question Lew wanted a "yes" vote on so that his daughter would get the job permanently.

And please, spare me the argument that Michelle didn't file to run for the position.  Are you kidding me with that bullcrap?  She didn't file to run because she knew daddy was planning this for her, and it was almost guaranteed to work.  Why bother filing to run when you know there isn't going to be an election?  I mean, sheesh, who would want to go back to the Recreation Department after having so much authority?  Not to mention the differences in pay and the direction of one's career.  Are we truly supposed to believe that she's willing to regress?

This could prove quite costly for the Good Ol' Boys.  See, if they had wanted that authority, all they had to do was keep up the interference that drove the elected officials out the last few times, because in the case of vacancies, those positions become appointed.  Make no mistake about it: people have left these jobs because of the meddling of corrupt forces.  Don't doubt that fact for a second.

To quote Captain Kirk in Star Trek IV, "One little mistake..."

If you're still playing nice at this point, it's time to quit that right now.  Stop insisting that we have to just accept things and move on.  Stop pussyfooting around names and call out the criminals (and I have no qualms about calling them that) who maintain this situation.  We have just been robbed by an extremely small minority of voters of our right to elect people we trust.

Get mad.  Get angry.  Get pissed off.  Disappointment is not the correct response.  Righteous outrage is.

Tell the city council what I just told you: the vote was invalid, and a re-vote is not merely desired, it is legally necessary.

We can get this authority back.

As I've said before, we're here to play the long game.  The corruption in this city's government is so entrenched that these single events are just the small pieces to the giant puzzle.  If we look at them individually, we're never going to finish the job.  If we look at them as part of the bigger picture, it becomes clear that each and every piece is necessary, and we can't finish the puzzle when some asshole has hidden a few pieces.

But we know where those pieces are now, and we need to put them in their proper place.  These questions need to be corrected and put right back on the ballot -- the November ballot, where they were supposed to be this time -- so that we can get a real vote on them, not the intentionally skewed farce we just had this week.

No comments:

Post a Comment