Monday, November 7, 2011

Buyer Beware – Voter Be Wary

Based on what I understand Michigan law to be where
township expenditures are concerned, a township may
legally expend public funds for a public purpose only if
an interpretation of the state constitutional and/or
statutes indicates the township is authorized to make
that particular expenditure. An expenditure that does
not meet this standard is illegal and prohibited, even
though the purpose seems worthwhile.

Some illegal expenditures cited on the Michigan
Township Association website include “promoting
election proposals or candidates.” … “retroactive pay
increases for township officials” … and “donations to a
community organization” where there is no explicit
contract for appropriate services to be received by
the township from the organization. An article that
summarizes laws that permit and laws that prohibit
township expenditures can be read at
www.michigantownships.org/downloads/novfeat_1.pdf .

Available at the same website is information about laws
that township leaders must follow in millage proposal
and election procedures. For example, the Michigan
Campaign Finance Act strictly prohibits the use of
public money to influence voters in a millage election.
Statute also prohibits the use of public resources by
the township board to persuade voters in favor of a
millage proposal or to otherwise influence the
outcome of a millage election. Also prohibited by law
is the misrepresentation of a millage proposal as a
“renewal” of an expired millage levy subject to the
Headlee Amendment.

The quarter page ad that the Iron River Township
Board purchased and published in the November 2
Iron County Reporter is confusing and illegal on at
least three points. First it misrepresents the 2 mills
proposed as a renewal of the millage amount that
expired in 2008 when the amount of the millage
expiring in 2008 was less than 2 mills. Second, it
tries to persuade me to think that the township road
maintenance is hampered by the need to cover other
expenses covered by the general fund, but it doesn’t
tell me anything about the current road millage
revenue or the current general fund balance that as
of September 30 was over $700,000. Third, at public
expense, it directs me to vote YES to keep the
township financially strong.

I have brought my concerns about illegal
expenditure issues to the township board and its
attorneys several times in the past five years. Within
the past year, I brought my frustration and the same
issues to the attention of the Iron County prosecuting
attorney. Nothing I’ve tried has caused a change in
how township leadership operates under state
mandates. I think the Iron River Township Board
needs to rethink its outlaw style of governance before
it loses the respect of the people it is entrusted to serve.

(signed) Tom Peterson, Iron River Township


(Editor's Note: Tom Peterson has been an advocate
for the people of the community since before I moved
to Iron County. We need more oversight. As the top
of our web page news states we need "to throw some
reins on local government." Peterson's efforts need to
become more widespread than has been the fashion
of late. I urge everyone to become involved in achieving
better governments than we presently have. Bill Vajk)

No comments:

Blog Archive