Court Opinion

ID: 9701441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:19:41.537683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:48.314329
License: Public Domain

Allen, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Reasons three and four in the recall petition refer to specific acts of alleged misfeasance or nonfeasance, but no date, place or time is set forth. However, specific allegations of time, place, person or occasion are not necessarily required. People, ex rel Elliot v O’Hara, 246 Mich 312; 224 NW 384 (1929), Eaton v Baker, 334 Mich 521, 525; 55 NW2d 77 (1952). Date, time, and place are not required if the person charged may reasonably identify the incident and prepare his response as permitted under § 966 of the statute on recall.1 Thus, in Elliot, the petition stated a specific sum of money ($60) withheld from a specifically named person. In Eaton, the petition stated continuing alleged wrongful acts (receipt of salary and use of a school station wagon). In Amberg v Welsh, 325 Mich 285, 293-294; 38 NW2d 304 (1949), one of the *352several reasons for recall alleged a specific date.2 In each of these cases, the Court found that the reasons stated were sufficiently specific to identify the incident charged and thus permit the official to prepare his response.
Reason three charges the officer with "conducting secret meetings”. Does this reasonably identify the specific wrongdoing so as to allow the officer to prepare his defense? I think not. As noted by the trial judge, certain types of meetings may be held in secret without violating the Open Meetings Act. MCL 15.268; MSA 4.1800(18). The only way plaintiff could answer the charge would be by a blanket denial covering the entire period of his last elected term of office, viz.: January 1, 1979, to the date the recall petitions were filed on or about February 1, 1980. In my opinion, some supplemental facts identifying the occasion or occasions were needed in order to provide the electorate and the officer with adequate information. Unlike Eaton, supra, Amberg, supra, and Woods v Clerk of Saginaw County, 80 Mich App 596; 264 NW2d 74 (1978), the alleged reason does not identify the particular occasion or incident charged.
For similar reasons, I find reason four deficient. The allegation that plaintiff failed to follow procedures set forth in the township manual regarding "appointments of committees, boards, etc.,” does not meet the requirement of clarity. No time frame is supplied and no specific appointment is given. Particularly vague is the "etc.”. Without some more specificity, the officer is unable to prepare an adequate explanation and the electorate is unable to render an informed decision when called upon to sign the petition.
My brethren call attention to the new para*353graph regarding recall added when the 1963 Constitution was adopted,3 and argue that under the new language, reasons three and four of the instant petition are sufficiently clear. Though the issue is obviously close, I disagree. The intent and meaning of the new constitutional language is described in Noel v Oakland County Clerk, 92 Mich App 181; 284 NW2d 761 (1979). In that case, this Court held that while the new language broadened the reasons for which an official might be recalled, it did not weaken or do away with the clarity with which the reasons must be stated.
"Thus, it appears from the foregoing cases that the reasons set forth in a recall petition need no longer constitute allegations of nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in office, but that the speciñcity requirements enunciated in Newberg [Newberg v Donnelly, 235 Mich 531; 209 NW2d 572 (1976)] and its progeny remain extant. Indeed, in holding that the sufficiency of the reasons in a recall petition is an electoral rather than a justiciable question, Wallace, supra, at 678, 680, reaffirmed the necessity that the reasons, whatever they may be, must be stated with adequate clarity. We are in accord, and view such a rule as necessary, on one hand, to prevent abuse of the elective franchise by ensuring deliberate and informed action by those called upon to sign the recall petition.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id., 187-188.
One must look at the petition as a whole and decide if the reasons stated, when collectively considered, meet the test of clarity. In my judgment, four inadequacies taken as a whole do not become adequate. If anything, when viewed in their entirety, the task of defense and response is made more difficult. Accordingly, I would affirm the respected trial court’s decision._

 Under MCL 168.966; MSA 6.1966, the person whose recall is sought has the right to draft and have included on the recall ballot a 200 word statement defending his conduct.

 "Violated standing commission rules by refusing citizens right to be heard at commission meetings on May 9, 1949.” Amberg, supra, 289.

 Const 1963, art 2, §8 provides: "* * * The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.”