Wednesday, May 22nd 2013
 

More Area News

Holly Township says more signatures needed on citizen-initiated petition effort

Print
Written by Amy Mayhew
Saturday, July 28 2012

George Kullis

HOLLY TOWNSHIP, Michigan – He thought the 205 petition signatures he and other citizens had collected might have been enough to cause members of the Holly Township Board of Trustees to put the issue of expanding the board from five to seven members on the November ballot, but as it turned out, he was a little short – 645 signatures short, to be exact.

The matter was discussed at the July 18 Holly Township Board of Trustees meeting.

Ever since April when township officials rejected Supervisor Jesse Lambert’s idea of adding the issue to the November ballot, resident and Holly Township Supervisor candidate George Kullis has spearheaded a citizen-initiated petition drive, enlisting the help of several other citizens in collecting enough signatures to force the issue on the ballot.


Just how many signatures are required, however, has been the question over the last two months with township officials telling Kullis last month that he would need 595 signatures or 10 percent of the 5,995 registered electors that voted in the last gubernatorial election.

In the meantime, Kullis and others have collected more than 200 signatures, and township officials asked Attorney Greg Need to weigh in on the matter.

In a memo dated July 12, Need confirmed that a citizen-initiated petition would need to contain signatures representing 10 percent of the registered and qualified electors of the township as of the close of registration for the last general November election, and that they must be submitted no later than Aug. 14.

Holly Township Treasurer, Mark...


Treasurer Mark Freeman explained that there are approximately 8,500 registered voters in Holly Township which also includes the village. “According to Mr. Need who is the legal counsel for Holly Township, we would need to have 10 percent of those registered voters which would be 850,” Freeman said. “When the board discussed this, really our consensus was we wanted 10 percent of the voters that voted in the last election and approximately 6,500 voted in the last election, so we wanted to see at least 650 signatures on the petition to put it on the ballot.”

“OK, so we’ve got numbers bouncing all around,” Kullis said from the audience. “The question that we’re asking is to have it put on the ballot because a lot of people went in the voting booth and didn’t understand what it was,” Kullis said referencing the time in 2008 when township officials were obligated by law to place the issue on the ballot because of an increase in the township’s population. The 2008 proposal failed by just 23 votes.

While the state law says Kullis’ group has until Aug. 14 to turn in the petitions, Kullis said he was initially told that they must be returned by July 11.

“The problem with Aug. 14 was that you didn’t have a meeting until three days after that,” Kullis said. “I was then told by you that I could request a special meeting, but then I was told that there was no guarantee that I could get it.

“This has been an initiative that has been going back and forth, and the sad thing is that all we’re asking for is an opportunity for the voters to make the decision on an educated basis – as it was said it was done with no fanfare before and people didn’t understand it,” Kullis said, adding that to him, it isn’t a matter of bigger government, but one of better representation.

“The cost of adding two trustees is $3,000 apiece if they attended all the meetings, and this township has been running with a surplus so it’s not going to create an additional tax burden to the taxpayers,” Kullis said.

Trustee Janet Leslie summarized.

Trustee Janet Leslie


“We could decide as a board to put this issue on the ballot with our without a certain number of signatures,” she said. “If we made that attempt and it failed again, we would then be required under state law that the citizens could compel us to have this on the ballot by having the 850 signatures.”

“Exactly,” Supervisor Jesse Lambert said. “If they come up with the necessary signatures, there are no bones or questions about it – the board has to do it.”

“I think it would behoove us to cut some slack, put it to a vote amongst ourselves and vote as to whether we would voluntarily put it on the ballot knowing that they can compel us to do it whether we choose to or not,” Leslie suggested.

“Well, we already did that once and it failed,” Clerk Karin Winchester said. “And we don’t have a fifth board member here tonight,” she added, noting Trustee Steve Ruth’s absence.  While state law dictates that the citizens’ group has until Aug. 14 to collect the signatures, Winchester noted that the township has until the end of the month to get the proposal information to the state.

Leslie agreed with Winchester, but still pushed for a vote, making the motion for the board to accept the 200 signatures and place the issue on the November ballot. The motion failed with Winchester and Freeman casting the dissenting votes.

During the public comment segment of the meeting, Code Enforcer Roger Welsh took the opportunity to address the issue, speaking solely as a Holly Township citizen.

Roger Welsh


“I’ve been all for having four trustees as part of a charter township – I’ve long been a supporter,” he said. “I would hope that your petitions would be passed to make us a charter township which is a true move forward – then we would have four trustees,” he said. “But to be the only general law township in all of Michigan to have four trustees is a ridiculous approach and is completely backward from what the real intent needs to be and what it should be.”

Referencing Kullis’ comments, Welsh offered his thoughts. “What I do take incredible exception to is the idea that $6,000 doesn’t matter,” he said. “That’s my tax money – I live here, I pay those taxes, and the reason you guys have a surplus is because of old board members like me who didn’t waste $6,000 on crap that wasn’t needed,” he added. “You cannot at all support anything about putting trustees on that’s based on the tax money I pay has no value – it has value to me.”

Kullis’ opponent in the upcoming election, former Holly Township Supervisor Dale Smith said Kullis’ idea of adding more members to the board is unnecessary.

Dale Smith


“It’s like putting chrome wheels on a Chevette – why dress something up when it doesn’t need to be dressed up?” Smith said. “Not only is this not economically sound in today’s market, it’s almost unheard of in a general law township,” he added. “It makes absolutely no sense to create a larger board, and it certainly smacks of the “court packing” done in the 1930s by FDR.”

Of the 1,240 townships across the state of Michigan, Tammy Underhill of the Michigan Township Association said there are currently 64 general law townships having seven member boards. Among those having the most are Kent County with eight, and Livingston and Washtenaw Counties each hosting seven general law townships.  Southfield Township currently is the only general law township in Oakland County with a seven member board, Underhill said.

Kullis said efforts continue in garnering petition signatures, and that qualified voters wishing to sign a petition can find one at Great Lakes Market Place, 107 S. Saginaw St., Holly during regular business hours.



Comments   

 
#1 hollyshopper 2012-07-28 16:55
Chrome wheels on a Chevette? That analogy doesn't even make sense. If all trustees are to the township board is decoration, why have any at all? Ooooh, now I get it! Trustees are nothing more than decoration to Dale Smith and his old cronies Winchester and Welsh because as long as the three salaried board members (of which Winchester is one and Smith hopes to become one again) remain in the majority on a 5-member board, the trustees ARE as unnecessary as chrome wheels on a Chevette! The supervisor, clerk, and treasurer can all come to the meetings with their minds all made up, run rough-shod over the trustees, and never be questioned because, as Mark Freeman likes to say, "majority rules." Ha! Well, what do you know? Old Dale Smith made the strongest argument yet in favor of adding two trustees to the board! With four instead of two, the non-salaried legislators (trustees)can finally become more than mere decoration. No wonder Dale Smith, Karin Winchester, and Mark Freeman are so against it. Now, where do I go to sign that petition?
Report to administrator
 
 
#2 Ryan Bladzik 2012-07-30 07:46
If Mr. Kullis is successful in his bid for Township Supervisor, doesn't that nullify this "issue" of the administrators having a tyrannical majority, since Mr. Kullis is basically the "opposition" and breaks the alleged voting bloc?

What guarantees are there that the 2 additional trustees will join the existing trustees to form a majority? If the paid administrators do vote as a bloc, then all it takes is 1 trustee out or 4 to join them to keep that majority.

And in the same vein, what happens if the 4 trustees become the "tyrannical majority"? Then do we have a ballot proposal some years down the road to remove 2 trustees to eliminate their majority?

These are some questions the community should consider when deciding on this proposal. Is this a narrow fix for a short-term problem, or does it truly create the structure of government that is best for Holly Township?
Report to administrator
 
 
#3 Angie Lemon 2012-07-30 16:28
I am actually surprised this subject hadn't come up sooner .......when I heard about it .......it was like an "a ha " or "oh my goodness " moment .......It never occurred to me that you have 3 people in a building on a daily basis who have been able to plan an agenda at will whenever they choose .....without the other 2 ( trustees ) in attendance .......that certainly doesn't seem fair. I'd like to think that doesn't happen .....but - come on , get real .....we are "only human" .....I imagine the urge to speak re. meetings coming up or agendas , etc has to happen on occasion ......and I can't imagine the "3" stopping each time .....thinking "oops , we have a quorum , stop talking and someone call the other 2 right now ".
I also find that comments made by Mr. Welsh seemed a little over - the -top as to Mr. Kullis ' statement ......seems to me he's trying to put words in his mouth about "$6,000 doesn't matter". I got the feeling he was stating the exact opposite .....it DOES matter and the people should have a say as to HOW to spend their hard earned tax dollars ........WITH A VOTE BY THE PEOPLE ......ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE TAXPAYERS !
As for the argument there aren't a high percentage who have bigger boards .......I'm not too sure I'd follow a large group of people jumping off a bridge just because they are doing it any more than I'd follow a small group jumping off either ....what does it hurt to offer a vote if enough people show an interest ??
Report to administrator
 
 
#4 Janet Leslie 2012-07-30 22:38
As I am already on record as being in favor of putting this question on the ballot, having voted in favor of Supervisor Lambert's motion in April, I'll add my thoughts.

The issue isn't about the personalities currently on the board creating an "alleged voting bloc" as described above by Mr. Bladzik. As always in government, one must consider how each position functions, and not how each person functions, because each person serves only as long as the voters wish, but each position continues on as part of the structure of our government. The township form of government is unique in that the administrators serve also as legislators. In most forms of government, such as our federal and state governments and city and village governments, there is a distinct separation between the executive and legislative branches to prevent what some here have referred to as "the fox guarding the hen house." As the article states, many general law townships, especially those in economically developing areas such as Brighton/Howell, Traverse City, and Kent County, have elected to add two trustees in order create a more balanced decision-making process.

It is debatable whether this is the best course to take, but I believe firmly that our residents ought to have the option on the ballot in November.
Report to administrator
 
 
#5 Holly 2012-07-31 08:52
I seem to remember reading several times where there is clearly not a majority by the three administrators. On several different occasions one of the three administrators have disagreed. I saw the petition being passed on the 4th seems like they could have gotten far more than 200 signatures at Lakeside park alone.
Report to administrator
 
 
#6 Mark Freeman 2012-07-31 12:51
Fact Check: The proposal was on the ballot in 2008. It lost. It doesn't matter if it lost by 1 vote, 20 votes or 1000 votes. The voters spoke. I am not in favor or opposed to this issue. The voters decided. If a citizen's initiative can obtain enough signatures then it will go back on the ballot. It is impossible to know whether the voters understood the ballot language. I assume that they did. $6,000 a year will be a total of $30,000 after 5 years. I cannot remember any votes taken by the Board over the last 3 1/2 years where the three "salaried employees" voted one way and the two trustees voted another.
Report to administrator
 
 
#7 Angie Lemon 2012-07-31 13:14
It's not just a "majority issue" - I thought that at first too !From the Open Meetings Act-
15.262Definitions,Section 2 as used in this act (b)"Meeting" means the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy.
So....when I walk into the Township Office how do I know if the 3 persons are speaking about personal day to day topics ......OR about Township policy, agendas for upcoming meetings , etc ......OR WHAT ???? At the very least it raises suspicions and doubt ......even if it is totally innocent chit chat ! This raises the proposal at hand from being just a "majority issue " to an "ethical issue ".
Maybe the people will not think it's an issue to be worried about ......but since it has been brought out into the open - what's the harm in putting it up to a vote ?
Report to administrator
 
 
#8 Ryan Bladzik 2012-08-01 09:25
I'm not opposed at all to putting it on the ballot, but is it really a critical issue for the community?

The OMA does not preclude a "quorum" of a board from being in the same place or meeting. It says that a "quorum" cannot deliberate or make decisions that the whole board would normally have to consider without public notice of that meeting.

It's certainly a flaw in the Township government structure that the three paid administrators are in that position. However, there's nothing that could stop 4 trustees (or any other combination) from meeting on their own in the same manner and in much less visible of places.

In 3 years of the tenure of this board, this issue was only revisited in April 2012, one month after Ms. Leslie accused the paid administrators of conspiracy based on one email from a non-board staff member. The other Trustee, Mr. Ruth, has consistently joined the administrators on that issue. Is this a "person" issue or a "position" issue?

The whole point of "change" is to remedy a problem or take a new direction. Ms. Leslie cites economically developing communities: is Holly Township analogous to those townships and their issues? Are there recurring divides between the two Trustees and the paid administrators that indicate a structural problem?

If 5 board members works for 95% of civil townships in Michigan, then what exactly is the problem here in Holly that it's not working?
Report to administrator
 
 
#9 Janet Leslie 2012-08-01 18:52
Mr. Bladzik, you are certainly correct that violations of the Open Meetings Act and incidents of collusion can occur regardless of the number of board members. If the problem could be solved as simply as altering the number of people seated on governing boards, there would be no need for the OMA.

The point is, the perspective of those who are employed full time by the township is necessarily different than the perspective of those who serve only as representatives of the township residents. And since state law allows townships of over 10,000 residents to add two trustees, it is legitimate to question whether we are being adequately represented with only two.

You are a smart man, Mr. Bladzik, and I think you know very well that this is not a "person" issue. Neither is it an issue precipitated by my statements in March which were based, not as you described on one piece of correspondence between our code enforcer and the three administrators, but on a voluminous number of documents provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

I was in favor of adding two trustees four years ago when the question was on the ballot by state law, and though I hesitate to speak for Supervisor Lambert, he has also given vocal support to the issue since long before my statements in March.
Report to administrator
 
 
#10 TheDuke 2012-08-01 21:39
The Open Meetings Act includes much more than a quorum discussing policy outside of an open meeting. It also addresses specific reasons that "executive" or "closed" meetings are allowed. Closed meetings outside of those reasons are against the law. Furthermore, even if the board is in a legit closed session, they are not allowed to discuss any items, except the valid ones allowed for the closed meetings. No decisions can be taken in the closed meeting. The decisions must be voted on in open session.

In the case of the township, where a quorum is expected to be at work everyday in the same offices, the public must trust the individuals to stay in compliance with the OMA. So it would be a violation to discuss any issue or item that would potentially be on a meeting agenda when the three of them are together, even over lunch or at the coffee pot. The potential for this to happen is certainly there. However, if there were seven members on the board, then the three admins would not be a quorum and they could discuss issues in private all that they want.

Which side do you fall on? Have seven members and remove the possibility of a violation (even accidentally) or keep it at five and trust the three that they will not discuss township policy during the work week?
Report to administrator
 
 
#11 Ryan Bladzik 2012-08-02 10:18
Again, if a 5-member board works for 95% of civil townships in Michigan (and has for years):

What makes Holly Township like the other 5% of civil townships that have opted for 7-member boards? Or alternately, why not take the full measure and become a Charter Township with a mandated 7 member board (as 11% of Michigan townships and more than 50% of Oakland County townships have done)?

What substantial problems does Holly Township's general law government or population face that a 7-member board would rectify, or what new direction is being held up by a 5-member board?

Change for the sake of change does not necessarily equate to "progress".
Report to administrator
 
 
#12 localyokel 2012-08-02 11:23
I am concerned that you ask the question what would a 7 member board rectify as some concerns are written pretty clearly above in several commentators responses. The Duke said it eloquently when he noted that if we changed to a 7 member board the three elected officials who work together on a daily basis would no longer make a quorum which means there will be no accidental improprieties if needing to discuss an ongoing issue. I have not done the research but perhaps the other local civil townships do not employ 3 full time board members working in the same office day to day or maybe those township board members have not been accused of colluding with each other on an ongoing hotbed issue. I can only speak to what I see in our local government and I think given their track record of this past term, I would feel much more comfortable knowing that a three person majority would not be able to block the other one or two board members from adding items to the agenda and hopefully we would not have to fear that the three board members are voting together on all issues therefore blocking or impeding progress. It seems, in our townships situation, this is a necessary change and I fully support and encourage it. Given the examples and explanations, how can one not??
Report to administrator
 
 
#13 Jason M Hughes 2012-08-02 15:39
Quote:
hopefully we would not have to fear that the three board members are voting together on all issues therefore blocking or impeding progress. It seems, in our townships situation, this is a necessary change and I fully support and encourage it.
The administrators of the township board don't have a history of continuously voting in kind. Disagreements and discussion among the board aren't strangers to the town hall.
Report to administrator
 
 
#14 Ryan Bladzik 2012-08-02 17:19
Quoting localyokel:
I have not done the research but perhaps the other local civil townships do not employ 3 full time board members working in the same office day to day or maybe those township board members have not been accused of colluding with each other on an ongoing hotbed issue. I can only speak to what I see in our local government and I think given their track record of this past term


Is this a "person" issue or a "position" issue?
Report to administrator
 
 
#15 localyokel 2012-08-03 12:27
I do not follow your question Mr. Bladzik - please elaborate.

Mr. Hughes that was merely a speculation that the three board members who work together on a daily basis could in fact impede issues. Although there are healthy debates at most of the meetings I have attended, there are also, more often then not, agenda items being blocked and a continual lack of consistency in how items are added.
Report to administrator
 
 
#16 Ryan Bladzik 2012-08-03 15:07
lokelyokel, take that one "hotbed" issue away from the table, and do the same problems you suggest still exist? Have the two trustees been continuously in the minority on other issues throughout this board's four year term?

Even with that hotbed issue on the table, would the issue of adding two trustees have come up if the board had made different decisions? As I said above, it was statutorily asked in 2008, but wasn't revisited until April 2012, immediately following Ms. Leslie's allegations of collusion.

It seems like there wasn't a problem until one singular issue came before the township board, and even in that case, the other trustee, Mr. Ruth, joined with the three paid administrators in their majority. So is this really a problem with the structure of Township Government, or is it an isolated case stemming from disagreements of perspective?
Report to administrator
 
 
#17 Janet Leslie 2012-08-04 04:23
Mr. Bladzik, you really ought to ask Supervisor Lambert why he asked that the board consider putting this issue on the ballot at our meeting in April. While many of us may see a connection between this issue and what occurred regarding the property at 1031 S. Holly Road, I sincerely doubt that is what he had in mind when he broached the issue.

As you have demonstrated, there are many arguments for and against adding two trustees to the board. If the residents decide they would like the option of voting on the issue, it will be evident in the number of signatures presented to the board later this month.
Report to administrator
 
 
#18 Ryan Bladzik 2012-08-04 07:20
Ms. Leslie, I asked Mr. Lambert that question back in April, but thank you for the suggestion.
Report to administrator
 

To comment on this article, please register for an account or log-in if you already have an account.

 



Front Page | Community | Sports and Outdoors | Opinion | Education | Holly Express | Site Map
©2013 The Holly Express.
Send feedback to Editor@theHollyExpress.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast, published, rewritten or redistributed without prior written permission.