A discussion over who will speak for cityhood and whether or not the village council should take a stand on the issue was sparked last week when Steve Allen told officials his temporary stint as chairman is over.
‘I think now’s the time to . . . take some decisive action because I’m not going to be the chairperson of that group,? he said. ‘I am absolutely not the right person to do that. I recognized that from the day I reluctantly said okay.?
After former village resident and cityhood founder Tracy A. Miller, Sr. moved to Lapeer County earlier this year, Allen said he ‘reluctantly accepted? the chairmanship of the committee merely as a ‘placeholder? until someone permanent could be found.
However, this was never done.
Allen said he will continue to be the registered petitioner for cityhood as far as the state Boundary Commission is concerned.
‘The reason my signature is on there as the requester for the cityhood petition is because it was decided by this body that it shouldn’t be a council member and it absolutely needed to be a resident of the community,? he said. ‘To change that at this point would be ridiculous.?
However, Allen does not plan on attending the 1:30 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 18 legal sufficiency hearing in Lansing at the Ottawa Building.
‘I don’t have to be there as the petitioner, just so you know,? he told council.
At the legal sufficiency hearing, the Boundary Commission will determine whether the cityhood petition meets the criteria to move forward in the incorporation process.
If it does, a local public hearing regarding cityhood will be scheduled later next year. If it does not, the petition will be rejected and the process ends.
In light of Allen’s wishes, Councilperson Teri Stiles suggested calling people who circulated the cityhood petition and asking them if they want to chair the committee.
‘If it is our responsbility to appoint someone … why not designate someone now so that they can be prepared when the Boundary Commission comes back with a ‘yea? or a ‘nay? and be an official representative?? she said.
Council needs to take the ‘whole issue back in house? by forming its own cityhood committee so it can ‘take control of it,? Allen said. Officials should ‘step forward? and ‘decide whether or not this is really what the community wants to do.?
Allen told officials he wasn’t asking them to take a position on whether cityhood’s good or bad, he was simply asking them to say, ‘Yes, this is worth bringing to a vote of the people or no, this is not worth spending another dime on bringing it to a vote of the people.?
‘It is within your purview to wrap your arms around these issues because you are supposed to be looking out for the future of the community,? he said. ‘And if this is something that may or may not become a part of the future … take the responsibility for either moving it forward or putting a stop to it right now.?
‘The inaction is what’s got people scratchin? their heads,? Allen noted.
But village President George DelVigna argued that council previously took a ‘neutral position? regarding cityhood because it wanted the issue to be decided by the people.
DelVigna personally feels council should remain neutral and noted ‘we can’t by law? be for or against it.
Not everyone on council agreed.
‘Because we are the council and we approve the bills,? said Councilman Tom Benner, ‘I think that we have the obligation to take a stand on the cityhood issue as a responsibility to the taxpayers.?
Since council agreed to hire cityhood attorney Thomas Ryan, at Miller’s request, in December 2003, the village has spent $13,395 on the issue as of June.
‘By law, you can’t (take a stand) as a council,? DelVigna reiterated. ‘That’s the problem.
‘We’re spending taxpayer dollars on something that we can’t have any control of,? replied Benner.
Manager Joe Young noted the village has a legal opinion stating that spending tax money to present the cityhood issue to the Boundary Commission and ultimately voters is a ‘legitimate expense.?
However, the village ‘cannot use taxpayer money to influence the vote? one way or the other, the manager said.
Allen said he understands council can’t take a stand, meaning starting a ‘pro? or ‘anti? cityhood campaign, but he said officials can ‘at least endorse the movement forward of the process to bring it to a vote of the people.?
‘Or you can stop it dead in its tracks and that is perfectly legal,? he said.
Councilman Dave Bailey didn’t believe that was possible.
‘It would be nice if we had that kind of power,? he said. ‘I don’t think we do because it’s in the hands of the people.?
Bailey said the people have the ‘ultimate say? and if enough people are interested in cityhood, they will move it forward ‘whether council tries to stop it or not.?
‘I think this is precisely one of those cases where the opinions of the council, not only are required by law not to influence the process, but where it’s actually appropriate for the people to take the lead,? Bailey said.
But Allen argued that ‘the people who live in this community look to you (council) for the leadership, not to me.?
‘If this council took a position that it’s not worth investing any more money into and you weren’t interested in doing it, I’d revoke the petition that I put in,? he explained. ‘You can bet your bottom dollar I would do that because if you don’t think it’s the right thing to do for this community, I won’t be a part of it. If you do think it’s the right thing to do, I will be a part of it.?
Given the fact 346 people signed the cityhood petition, Stiles said, ‘To veto or to discount or ignore that request . . . and pull that petition doesn’t seem like we’re working for the people, in my mind.?
‘If you as a council decide that the future of this village doesn’t include cityhood, not that you’re for it or against it, but the future of this village should not include cityhood, it’s within your purview to do that,? Allen explained. ‘On the other hand, if you decide that we absolutely need to move forward and bring it to a vote of the people, that’s within your purview too.
‘But you’re not saying yea to cityhood or no to cityhood. You’re not endorsing or condemning.?
‘I think it behooves us to bring it to a vote of the people,? said DelVigna.But village President George DelVigna argued that council previously took a ‘neutral position? regarding cityhood because it wanted the issue to be decided by the people.
DelVigna personally feels council should remain neutral and noted ‘we can’t by law? be for or against it.
Not everyone on council agreed.
‘Because we are the council and we approve the bills,? said Councilman Tom Benner, ‘I think that we have the obligation to take a stand on the cityhood issue as a responsibility to the taxpayers.?
Since council agreed to hire cityhood attorney Thomas Ryan, at Miller’s request, in December 2003, the village has spent $13,395 on the issue as of June.
‘By law, you can’t (take a stand) as a council,? DelVigna reiterated. ‘That’s the problem.
‘We’re spending taxpayer dollars on something that we can’t have any control of,? replied Benner.
Manager Joe Young noted the village has a legal opinion stating that spending tax money to present the cityhood issue to the Boundary Commission and ultimately voters is a ‘legitimate expense.?
However, the village ‘cannot use taxpayer money to influence the vote? one way or the other, the manager said.
Allen said he understands council can’t take a stand, meaning starting a ‘pro? or ‘anti? cityhood campaign, but he officials can ‘at least endorse the movement forward of the process to bring it to a vote of the people.?
‘Or you can stop it dead in its tracks and that is perfectly legal,? he said.
Councilman Dave Bailey didn’t believe that was possible.
‘It would be nice if we had that kind of power,? he said. ‘I don’t think we do because it’s in the hands of the people.?
Bailey said the people have the ‘ultimate say? and if enough people are interested in cityhood, they will move it forward ‘whether council trys to stop it or not.?
‘I think this is precisely one of those cases where the opinions of the council, not only are required by law not to influence the process, but where it’s actually appropriate for the people to take the lead,? Bailey said.
But Allen argued that ‘the people who live in this community look to you (council) for the leadership, not to me.?
‘If this council took a position that it’s not worth investing any more money into and you weren’t interested in doing it, I’d revoke the petition that I put in,? he explained. ‘You can bet your bottom dollar I would do that because if you don’t think it’s the right thing to do for this community, I won’t be a part of it. If you do think it’s the right thing to do, I will be a part of it.?
Given the fact 346 people signed the cityhood petition, Stiles said, ‘To veto or to discount or ignore that request . . . and pull that petition doesn’t seem like we’re working for the people, in my mind.?
‘If you as a council decide that the future of this village doesn’t include cityhood, not that you’re for it or against it, but the future of this village should not include cityhood, it’s within you purview to do that,? Allen explained. ‘On the other hand, if you decide that we absolutely need to move forward and bring it to a vote of the people, that’s within your purview to.
‘But you’re not saying yea to cityhood or no to cityhood. You’re not endorsing or condemning.?
‘I think it behooves us to bring it to a vote of the people,? said DelVigna.