Supportive Material for Councilor Les Johnson's Recall Petition Clarity Hearing

[XLFD]

To best introduce and explain Ludington Third Ward Councilor Les Johnson's recall petition's applicability, factuality, and clarity, petitioner has created this informational resource in a "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) format for use by the Mason County Election Commission on August 4th, 2023 at 9 AM.  This platform allows for the sharing of supportive material through hyperlinks given when those materials can be used for verification inside this FAQ resource. 

Q:  Is Ludington City Councilor Les Johnson subject to recall?

A:  According to Michigan recall law, all elective officers in the state, except judicial officers, are subject to recall by the voters of their districts.  It also states that a recall petition shall not be filed against an official during the first and last years of the officer’s term of office, if the term of office is more than two years.  

Johnson was elected to become 3rd Ward Councilor for Ludington in November 2020 for a four year term that officially began on January 1st, 2021 and would end on January 1st 2025.  The elective office is non-judicial and this action is filed after January 2022 and before January 2024, the period of time when a recall can be legitimately filed against an elective official.

Q:  What is the language of the proposed recall petition for the election commission to consider?

A:  It reads:  "On 7-10-23, Johnson voted for several ordinances raising taxes on city property owners by about $300,000 (city estimations) yearly.  He would say after his votes that if they had not passed the tax increases, citizens would NOT have garbage pickup, a police department and a "lot of other services".  Truly, if the inceases weren't passed, the city's property tax revenue would grow by the inflation rate, plus new construction taxes; no services were slated to be lost."

Q:  Did the action by Councilor Johnson occur during his current term, a requirement under recall law?

A:  Yes, the language refers to events that occurred on July 10, 2023 only 

Q:  Is the petition's language factual?

A:  That will ultimately be decided by the election commission; however, here is a sentence-by sentence analysis of the facts put forth in the petition.

"On 7-10-23, Johnson voted for several ordinances raising taxes on city property owners by about $300,000 (city estimations) yearly." 

The approved July 10, 2023 minutes of the meeting shows Councilor Johnson voting for all six ordinances affecting the millage rates/tax levy.  A memo from the city manager (see p. 43 & 44 of this packet) indicates that the approximate value would be in the $300,000 area:  $257K + $32K + $2K = $291K, plus $8K when you include the estimated reduction if they weren't passed, for a total of $299K.

 "He would say after his votes that if they had not passed the tax increases, citizens would NOT have garbage pickup, a police department and a "lot of other services"."

On the meeting's video, which also showed Johnson voting for the ordinances without comment, it shows Johnson take a little time at the end to explain why they needed to pass those ordinances.  At 32:15 into the video, Les Johnson clearly says (emphasis added) in a complete statement:

 "Mitch, please help me out here if I'm way off base.  But, if we did not approve these ordinances, we would not have garbage pickup, we would not have a lot of other services that we have.  The police department, I don't know of any of you would like to live here without the police department that we have, so I guess I just want to make that clear that if these did not pass, we wouldn't have a lot of these services." 

To be sure, Johnson did not call them tax increases by name, but three of the ordinances did just that and he explicitly and implicitly stated that the money lost would deprive citizens of the services mentioned specifically and generally.  

"Truly, if the increases weren't passed, the city's property tax revenue would grow by the inflation rate, plus new construction taxes; no services were slated to be lost."

This primarily explains to potential petition signers of what the Headlee Amendment does to millage rates when revenue is expected to increase enough as it was in Ludington.  The memo drafted by City Manager Foster explains what would happen with the city's property tax revenue, consistent with what happens at truth in taxation hearings.  He also explains what would happen if the truth in taxation hearing was not held [under Alternative Options].  The loss of any city service is not stated, nor was it stated by anybody other than Les Johnson.

Q:  Is the petition's language clear? 

A:  The petition's drafter took pains to make the language clear and understandable to most electors by avoiding terms like "Headlee Amendment" and "Truth in taxation" which are not fully understood by many, then explaining them in common terms with easier readability.  The first sentence explains what Councilor Johnson did to raise taxes, the second explains what he said about his action afterwards, the third explains why his reasoning was faulty.  All in simple to understand terms and edited to fit the three lines the petition allows for a reason(s).

Q:  If Councilor Johnson is subject to recall at this time and he is being recalled solely for actions occurring during his current term and if this commission determines the language of the proposed recall petition is factual enough and clear enough, what should happen?

A:  Allow democracy and its accompanying political process to continue unabated by approving the language of the petition and remind Councilor Johnson all about his right to appeal the commission's decision.

[XLFD]

This webpage was shared with the Election Commission and Councilor Johnson this morning as a means to provide them most fully with reasons and documentation (including video) behind why the proposed language in the recall petition of Les Johnson is vaild, factual, and clear.  Let's hope they have their own clarity tomorrow morning.

[Willy]

Excellnt presentation X. I agree that Johnson deserves to be recalled for his many blunders but I don't think that will be the outcome for this situation. If he would have made his comments publicly before the vote on raising taxes he would have been admitting to voting for fraudulent reasons. However voting for the increase then stating why he did so could be regarded as making an error in judgement. It's like a person saying they are going to commit a crime and then doing so compared to committing a crime and making an excuse after the crime. This would be the same as a premeditated crime compared to a crime of passion. Not knowing the reasoning behind how recalls are approved, I can only guess how this will turn out. I know this may not make sense but I think that is going to be how this will be judged. I definitely hope the recall language is approved.

[XLFD]

The process isn't all that difficult to understand, but there is a reason why recalls don't often happen.  Once the recall language is approved and survives appeal (if tried), the footwork has to be done, where you must seek out and get signatures of 25% of the voters in the Third Ward who cast a ballot in November 2022 (the last gubernatorial election in Michigan).  

Presuming you can get the nearly 200 validated signatures on your recall petition, you are able to get it on the next May or November ballot.  It doesn't do any good, however, if the recalled official runs and there is no other candidate, but getting on the ballot as a candidate is pretty easy.  Whoever wins the plurality of votes would be the winner of the recall election and serve the remainder of the term.

[Freedom Seeker]

Good job, X, on the language! I agree with Willy's thoughts to a degree, but feel that Johnson should be responsible for his words at all times and that garbly-gook he spoke shows how garbly-gook his judgement is--before or after or in between, imo.

[XLFD]

I think there's some validity to Willy's point too, because I think if Johnson did say this before the votes and he wasn't corrected by Mitch, or anybody else, that the officials who actually knew better would be worse people than they are, by not only misleading a vulnerable senior citizen into thinking major city services would be lost, but then allowing that statement to reflect the City's position.  

As it was done, I think they let it stand because they didn't want to embarrass him-- that's how I interpreted Mitch's body language, at least.  Thanks for your suport, FS.

[Freedom Seeker]

Interesting point, X, about the younger administrators possibly misleading the vulnerable senior Councilor (Johnson). Still, a Councilor should study the issue before the vote.

Sadly, this push by MML-guided city administrators may be a downfall to the taxpayers as they seem to be trained to raise taxes and screw the taxpayer, imo., and maybe misguide or not completely inform even older councilors. If that misinformation has happened to Johnson, I hope Johnson considers a "recall" of the city manager.

[XLFD]

Success this morning, the ballot language was approved 2-1 by the commission.  Councilor Johnson now has the option to appeal this decision.  More details forthcoming.  Time to enjoy the day.

[Willy]

Congratulations X. Here is one of the things that I don't understand about recalls. You said the recall language vote was in your favor at 2-1. If your argument was so compelling that 2 votes were cast to approve then why was there a dissenting vote? Either your statements on the recall were correct and proper or they were not. If there are guidelines that the board must follow in order to approve, then how could there be a split vote if you met those requirements? Is this an example of the board siding on political reasoning, was your logic better than the opposition? There must be guidelines for the board to follow as well as the combatants regarding filing for and defending against a recall? Again, congratulations.

[XLFD]

I will explain this in my forthcoming article for my case, but be advised that in both of Eric Thue's recall petitions of Marcy Spencer had 2-1 votes (the second in his favor) and if I remember correctly it happened with Tim Iteen at least once for his petitions.

They have definitive guidelines for looking at language they express before every clarity hearing and their rulings should be done through logic and law; however, you see these split verdicts happen in state appeals courts all the time as they have three decide an appeal, and you see it all the time in the Supreme Court, where 9 justices rarely make decisions that go 9-0 using the same facts and laws as a baseline.  Obviously, politics does come into play at those venues which is why judicial appointments are often disputed, but one hopes that those politics do not extend beyond the reasonable when it comes to interpreting the case before them.