Despite the momentum generated by many dedicated residents, Independence Township will not see language on the November ballot for a legal defense fund millage.
However, the idea is not gone forever, either.
At the Sept. 6 board meeting, Independence Township trustees voted unanimously to immediately establish a dialogue between township attorneys and members of Citizens for Orderly Growth with the purpose of creating ballot language ‘appropriate to creating a legal defense fund.?
The motion was made by Trustee Dan Travis and supported by Trustee Dan Kelly.
‘Maybe the announcement from ORCO (of no Wal-Mart on the property) will blunt many of these points,? said Travis early in the meeting, ‘however, it is no less an opportunity, as I have maintained, to support our Master Plan.?
‘I think the first step is to get the lawyers to agree on what is and is not legal in this matter,? said Kelly in a later interview. ‘I think there is language which can be legal.
‘I am not in favor of a tax increase to pay lawyers. At this point, that is what we have and I can not support that.?
Before casting their votes, the township board reviewed information from several sources ? including separate opinions from Independence Township attorney Stuart Cooney and attorney Gregory Need representing COG.
Cooney’s opinion agreed with and supported the opinion received earlier this month from Michigan Township Association attorney Kenneth Sparks. According to the two opinions, the township can establish a legal defense fund, but the proposed ballot language contained several problems that would ‘not pass legal challenge.?
Ultimately, Cooney concluded the ballot language presented did not simply ask for a millage, but contained language which is misleading, creates ambiguity and creates an ‘unreasonable limitation of inherent authority of the township board.? Like the MTA attorney, his largest concerns rest with language pertaining to a ‘referendum? requirement.
In his legal opinion, Gregory Need responds directly to those issues raised by Sparks in his opinion from the MTA. He contends in his conclusion that Mr. Spark’s opinion is ‘based upon what appears to be a misunderstanding of the ballot language and without any statutory authority of case law specific to the questions posed.?
In a public comment period allowed during the agenda item, Mr. Need stated that there really is no law history to compare with this ballot language because of the uniqueness of the proposal. Also, he informed the board the ‘referendum? language can be easily removed, an offer made previously by COG members.
‘I not only helped to write this proposal, I am affected by this proposal, my money and property are affected by this proposal,? said Need during the meeting. ‘That makes me unique in that I would actually be financially affected by it.?
‘I find this disingenuous that the board supports the idea, but declines to take action,? said COG representative Neil Wallace during the comment period.
Wallace also maintained that board members can remove all wording in regards to the ‘referendum? and the ballot language still makes sense. ‘It stands on its own,? he stated.
Wallace emphasized the need for this proposal.
‘Even if we dodged the bullet this time, there’s another one in the next chamber waiting for us,? he stated. ‘It is vital, vital that we follow through.?
No time frame was included in the motion from Trustee Travis. He moved later in the meeting, again with Kelly’s support, for talks to begin as soon as possible and the issue placed on the next election, but was voted down five to two.
Kelly, who voted for the motion, said he is supportive of working quickly and does not want to see the issue become buried in other township topics.
He added he has also come to the conclusion the matter should go on a ballot, but one with a high voter turnout and additional issues. With media attention recently turned on ‘stealth? elections, Kelly said he wants to make sure the issue is well addressed.
‘I recognize this is a unique idea, but we have only been looking at this for about two months now,? he stated. ‘I don’t think there has been a delay for the sole purpose of delay. I also don’t understand what the rush is for this election.
‘There’s really no reason why this has to be on the forefront; however, I really want this? I think that we’re going to get something done in the next two to three months on this.?