What is this recall about?

Save Open Space/Elmwood, the same group that organized the successful referendum on the new zoning ordinance, is gathering signatures on petitions for the recall of the seven members of the Elmwood Township Board of Trustees.

Why is that necessary?

The specific charges against the Board are detailed below. Generally speaking the Board is being recalled because they have shown that they cannot be deterred from their determination to open Elmwood Township to rampant development, even in the face of an overwhelming vote of the people and of the judgment of the courts. They have left us no choice but to remove them from office. The charges are detailed below.

1) Contempt of court The petition charges that the Board "Acted contrary to court orders in approving the Lincoln Meadows project,resultinjg in a finding of contempt of court" (13th Circuit Court, 12/02/2002).

What are the facts?

In his second ruling on the Lincoln Meadows case, Judge Phillip Rodgers of the 13th Circuit Court directed the Board to reconcile its approval of the Lincoln Meadows project with the plain language of the township zoning ordinance, which would not allow such projects, or to officially amend the ordinance (a process which would open their decision to review by the voters). Instead, the Board chose to try to circumvent these requirements. In his ruling of 9/19/02, Judge Rodgers spoke of the "...Township's abstinence and refusal to conduct its business in a lawful manner" and characterized their approach as "disingenuous at best." Commenting that "The problem between Elmwood Township and its citizens stems from the Township conducting business in disregard of the rights of its citizens", the Court took the unusual step of awarding legal costs to the Elmwood citizens who had to reach into their own pocketbooks to bring the suit. When the Board continued its legal maneuvering, on 11/01/02 the Court ruled that "The Township was in contempt of court" and again chastised them for their "repeated attempts to circumvent the statutory process by which it can legitimately make zoning decisions."

Why does it matter?

We have a rule of law, not of men. When government officials ignore or try to circumvent the law, it subverts the very foundation of our system of government. In the case at hand, it means that the Board has acted to pursue their own agenda even in the face of the letter of the law and of the direct orders of the courts. Such a board cannot be trusted to execute the wishes of its constituents and employers, the people.

2) Contempt for the law

The petition charges that the Board "Violated the Open Meeting Act (PA267.15.267.2) by voting on 11/12/02 to approve incomplete minutes of the special meeting of 9/27/02, thereby shielding important spending decisions from public scrutiny. On 2/10/03, illegally altered the minutes for the special meeting of 9/27/02. Has never approved closed session minutes as required by law."

What are the facts?

The Elmwood Township Board has systematically used closed and special meetings as a way to discuss controversial issues away from the public scrutiny associated with its regularly scheduled open meetings. While closed and special sessions are not in themselves illegal, their potential for abuse--for allowing public bodies to make the decisions in a way not accountable to the public--is great. The Open Meetings Act is the public's guarantee that the deliberations and decisions of public bodies can be reviewed by the public.

The Elmwood Board has failed to follow the rules of the Open Meetings Act, and failed in ways that leave little doubt that the intention was to cover up and hide controversial actions that the public would not approve of.

Take for example the special meeting of 9/27/02--held on a Friday morning, when few members of the public could be expected to attend. One requirement of the OMA is that the full agenda of all meetings, including special meetings, be published beforehand and no agenda can be added without a full board. In the case of the 9/27 meeting, only two innocuous items were posted on the agenda, and only those two items were mentioned in the minutes approved on November 13.

Five months later, the Board claimed that at a closed session at the same 9/27 of that special meeting, they approved their ill-fated decision to spend more taxpayer dollars in an appeal of their latest loss in Circuit Court. No mention was made of this decision in the original meeting minutes that were approved unanimously in November the previous year. When confronted with the discrepancy, the Board voted unanimously on 2/10/03 to amend the meeting minutes, even though amending official meeting minutes 5 months later is forbidden by law. There are many other examples.

Why does it matter?

The Board's actions might be dismissed as mere incompetence were it not for the fact that they fit a pattern wherein crucial and controversial township decisions are being made by a small group of insiders (and then ratified later as need arises by the Board as a whole as necessary), rather than in a public form where they can be evaluated and commented upon by the public. This is the decision-making process that makes possible all the other abuses detailed in this document.

 

3) Contempt for the taxpayer

Between 2001 and 2003, the Board authorized over $40,000 in tax dollars for legal fees to assist the developer of the Lincoln Meadows project, with whom Board member John Gallagher was found on 6/6/01 by the Circuit Court to have inappropriate business ties. On 5/12/03, the Board voted to pay attorney Ed Roy $2,875, who has advised the Board in its fight to approve Lincoln Meadows, for an unauthorized 4-page draft of a tax abatement ordinance that is available for free through many governmental agencies. These are but a few examples of township monies being spent to assist developers, a practice which continues today.

Why does it matter?

Local government should be run in the interests of its citizens and taxpayers, not the cronies of Board members. The money squandered by the township on such activities comes out of your pocket.

4) Contempt for the township's future

On 12/9/02, the Board voted for a new zoning ordinance that will open 8300 acres of township agricultural land to residential development. This new ordinance, which was overwhelmingly defeated by a referendum of township voters on July 29, would have resulted in increased taxes and diminished quality of life for its residents. In the weeks since the ordinance's defeat, the Board has given no indication that they have absorbed to voters' message, claiming that voters were "misled" and "confused."

Why does it matter?

The zoning and land use policies of the board have shown a single consistent theme -- from its repeated and dogged attempts to approve the Lincoln Meadows, to the new zoning ordinance, to its legally preposterous claims that Judge Rodgers' March 2002 ruling requires one acre zoning in the AO-1 District -- to facilitate the speedy subdivision of the township's AO-1 District, and to create there a landscape far from the township voters want. This type of densely populated development on the agricultural land will have catastrophic consequences for traffic, taxes, and quality of life for the residents of Elmwood.

Why are there seven petitions? Is it really necessary to recall all the Board members?

Unfortunately it is. All of the Board members have participated and voted for the policies and actions cited above; and none of them has shown the courage or the integrity to stand up against these wrongdoings. As they have shown as of late, they will not be dissuaded by public and editorial opinion, by court orders, by the law, or by vote. They must be replaced.

Isn't the Board contesting the language of this petition?

The Board filed an appeal of the County Elections Commission's ruling that the language of the recall petitions met the standards of the election law for clarity several months ago. The appeal was decisively and finally rejected by the court on September 29.

What will happen if the Board is recalled?

When the Board is recalled, a special election will be held to replace them. At that time, any of the many qualified and public-spirited citizens of Elmwood can be elected to replace them.

Why can't we wait till the next regular election in 2004 to rid of them?

The board cannot be recalled during their last 9 months in office. If allowed to continue in office, the Board will have a free hand to take actions that will have a lasting effect on our Township's future. Once they achieve their goal of opening the agricultural land for development, it is not important if they are defeated in 2004.