MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Miscellaneous > London Clerk and Treasurer (transferred)


Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: London Clerk and Treasurer (transferred)  (Read 2037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jcastellese

  • Guest
London Clerk and Treasurer (transferred)
« on: June 18, 2007, 01:45:40 PM »

Link to archived thread:
http://monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/news_message?Category=forum&ThemeID=877&GroupID=234798&InReplyTo=69476

Posted by Gary Taepke
Posted: 17 Jun 2007 09:56 pm
Post Subject: Re: London Clerk and Treasurer


Quote
Tell me, is there anyone at that township that has a clue as to what they're doing?


That's an easy one: NOPE.

The hard part is getting the voters to choose wisely, instead of believing the lies. The newer folks that came to the last couple of meetings sure got an education, though. Just hope the word spreads, and the truth gets out before the election on August 7th.
Logged

Aretta

  • Active Talker
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
Re: London Clerk and Treasurer (transferred)
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2007, 08:01:42 PM »

At the June meeting Trustee Zieske asked the audience to prove why they should not reinstate the clerk and treasurer with full voting rights.  None of us are in the habit of carrying around computers and filing cabinets of material to answer something like that on the spot.

We suggested they call the State Bureau of Elections and talk to Brad Wittman.  Trustee Eaddy said if
we wanted to call the state for us to do that and bring them the paper. Well, we did that and below is the answer that verifies what we were trying to tell them that night.

None of the citizens ever had a problem with the board appointing people to write checks.  No checks were ever neglected because of not having a clerk and treasurer.

The problem seems to be that if Supervisor Beck resigned, they would not have a quorum so they had to reinstate Stoll and Irby.  If they had read the law, they would have known the county could appoint a supervisor to make a quorum so they could conduct business.

Below is the state's answer to several of us who independently contacted the state.  The state did a group eailing to all of us.

Aretta
------------------------

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 4:47 PM
Subject: London Township Board


Greetings:  This is in response to your recent email regarding the
contentions made by Lewis Irby and Charles Stoll that they remain voting
members of the London Township Board.

After inquiring into this matter, it is my understanding that Mr. Irby
contacted the Michigan Townships Association (MTA) to inquire if he and Mr.
Stoll could legally write checks on behalf of the township due to the need
to keep the township in operation.  Mr. Irby was advised by an attorney
employed with MTA that if questioned or challenged on the check writing
authority issue, both he and Mr. Stoll could maintain that they continue to
hold their positions as Township Clerk and Township Treasurer as "holdovers"
from the period when they served as interim appointees as no one has yet
qualified for the two offices since their earlier appointments to the
positions.  When offering this advice, it is my further understanding that
the MTA attorney recognized that Mr. Irby and Mr. Stoll are the individuals
who failed to qualify for the offices after being elected to the positions.

As explained to me when I contacted the MTA attorney who spoke with Mr.
Irby, the above advice was offered on an informational basis only and was
not provided or intended as a legal opinion.  The MTA attorney further noted
that she did not take a position on whether it was appropriate for Mr. Irby
or Mr. Stoll to continue voting on Board matters and would have declined to
offer advice on this issue if asked as direction on such a question would
have involved legal interpretations which she was not prepared to provide.
Apparently, this is a conclusion that Mr. Irby and Mr. Stoll reached
independently without input from the MTA.

Here, it should be noted that neither the MTA attorney that I spoke with nor
anyone here at the Bureau agree that the Board had the authority to
"appoint" Mr. Irby or Mr. Stoll as members of the London Township Board at
the Board's meeting of June 11, 2007.  We in fact take the exact opposite
view.  This is without any real consequence in terms of resolving this
matter, however, as both Mr. Irby and Mr. Stoll have both concluded for
themselves that they never actually left their positions in the first place
based on their contact with the MTA attorney.  Why the Board proceeded with
the appointments is entirely unclear.

Given the long history of events and developments which have led to this
point, anyone wishing to challenge the right of Mr. Irby and Mr. Stoll to
continue serving as voting members of the London Township Board would best
be advised to seek recourse through appropriate legal channels.  As it is
clearly their view -- and the view of the other individuals who currently
serve on the London Township Board --  that they retain the right to serve
as Board members pending the upcoming August 7 election to fill the Clerk
and Treasurer positions, the involvement of the  courts would be the most
effective and assured way to conclusively settle this matter.

Thank you for writing. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you
have any questions.

Best Regards,
Bradley S. Wittman
Director, Election Liaison Division
Michigan Department of State
Bureau of Elections
P.O. Box 20126
Lansing, MI 48901-0726
Phone: (517) 373-2540
Fax: (517) 241-4785

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up