The Lynching of Ray VerWys by City Hall

[XLFD]

State law prohibits those who commit felonies while serving as a public employee/official from holding an elective office as per a law instituted in 2010.  In 2009, a man named Ray VerWys successfully ran for a City Council position in Kentwood.  He had a couple of felonies in his background, both taking place back before he was a public servant, and both disclosed before he was elected.  He served his sentence a little over ten years prior, but now he stands to lose his job due to his fellow Kentwood City Hallers creating a special ordinance to restrict any felon from holding any elective office in Kentwood.  Here is a background of what they did to be able to vote an elected councilor, who won with 54% of Kentwood citizens' vote, out of office. 

 

In June 2011 Kentwood City Commissioners approved taking the question of whether to allow a felon to hold office in Kentwood to voters by a 5-1 vote, with one abstention. If approved, it would not allow anyone with any felony conviction to be eligible for an elected position in the city.

Commissioner Frank Cummings brought the proposal to the group last month. He said he’s been considering it since Ray VerWys, who has a felony record,was elected to the City Commission in 2009.  His proposed ordinance amounts to: 

"No person shall be eligible for any elected office (in Kentwood) if that person has ever been convicted of a felony."

VerWys pleaded guilty to two charges of felony embezzlement in 2000 and 2001: one for embezzlement of between $20,000 and $50,000 and the second charge from $1,000 to $20,000. He served three months in a boot camp for the first charge in Ottawa County, and was on probation for four years for the second charge in a Kent County case. 

Kentwood City attorney Jeff Sluggett said there are other communities in the state that prohibit felons from holding public office, so the case being made in Kentwood is not new {Torch note:  He has never offered any examples of these other cities even though he has also made this claim on October 30 as well.  I found no such ordinance.}.

 

Ray VerWys is/was an active and unapologetic Tea Party member who makes it a policy to vote against tax abatements(corporate welfare),televise City Council meetings, and reduce the power of government.  This flies in the face of most local politicians ingrained in politics for personal power or gain.  Here is a thread he started on the Tea Party of West Michigan about this in June

 

This video aired on WOOD TV just before the election.

 

Kentwood weighs felons as officeholders: woodtv.com

 

The people of Kentwood voted to disallow felons from holding public office by a 2-1 margin on November 8, and the City's mayor and others in the council looked to remove VerWys from office as soon as they could, and that could be tonight at 7:00.  This public lynching of this man who has served out his punishment years ago could be a costly mistake for the citizens of Kentwood.

 

In his two years of service, VerWys has served the people of Kentwood admirably, and has no cause to be otherwise ousted from office.  By Michigan's Home Rule City Act, which defines the rules as to how a city/town is to run has this law, MCL 117.5 (d):  A city does not have power to do any of the following:  The term of a public official shall not be shortened or extended beyond the period for which the official is elected or appointed, unless he or she resigns or is removed for cause, if the office is held for a fixed term.

 

Removal by the City Council vote would also violate the Federal and State Constitution,

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. (U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted. (Michigan Constitution, Article 1, Section 10)

as the new law is effectively an ex post facto law, a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.  It could also be looked at loosely as a bill of attainder.

 

Removal by the City Council vote would amount to a violation of these laws by the Kentwood City Council.  How ironic; they wish to exercise an untested power to illegally cast out a former felon who has done nothing but followed the law in the defense of his political career.  The council claims it has a desire to hold officials to a higher standard.  Wow; by breaking Federal and State Laws?  Who is going to be the criminal today, Kentwood City Councilors?

[Willy]

I have never understood how anyone who has committed a felon can be stripped of their Constitutional rights. They have paid for their crimes and should be allowed all the rights enjoyed by all citizens. Probably, nobody has challenged the Constitutionality of the laws barring felons from attaining full rights as citizens because these folks are not the most popular community residents.

[XLFD]

Ray VerWys has an unfortunate background, but he's paid his dues and was able to be elected to the Kentwood City Council even with two felony embezzlements in his past less than a decade old.  That should show how 54% of the Kentwood electorate thought of the other experienced candidate he unseated. 

The news is in, Ray VerWys has been kicked out of the seat he was elected to.  Read the comments.  One has to wonder why they decided to create a law, that will probably cost the City hundreds of thousands to legally defend (and likely lose), when they could have had concerned citizens start a recall and do it legitimately? 

[Marty Redman]

Good question.  The recall process is the legal way to get rid of bums in office by having the people vote again.  The mayor and the rest must have figured that it would not have worked.  Ray and his stances that I read about in the links is exactly in line with what I want.  The people of Kentwood would not have ditched him, but they would vote for the issue of keeping felons out of office.  But retroactively???

[Sweater Cows!]

Felonies are the most overused charge in modern society. The 'powers that be' seem to think anything should be a felony. It is not right that things that are not seriously damaging to another are felonies. If I was queen of the world most things considered felony now days would not be. Felonies should be rape, murder, sexual assault(pedo's), crimes like armed robbery/carjacking, robbing someones house,. real stuff that actually hurts or endangers someone.

[XLFD]

Here is a partial list of potential felonies (some can be misdemeanors, depending on the severity) listed on this site, along with the state law describing that crime:

 

Arson MCLA 750.72
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon MCLA 750.82
Felonious Assault MCLA 750.82
Assaulting a Peace Officer MCLA 750.479a
Attempted Murder MCLA 750.91
Carrying a Concealed Weapon MCLA 750.227
Computer Fraud MCLA 752.797(1)(C)
Controlled Substances-Delivery/Manufacture of Marijuana MCLA 333.7401
Controlled Substances-Delivery/Manufacture of Analogue MCLA 333.7402
Controlled Substances-Delivery/Manufacture of Schedule 1/2/3 MCLA 33.7402(2)(b)
Controlled Substances-Possession >10 grams Ephedrine MCLA 333.17766c
Controlled Substances-Possession 25-49 grams MCLA 333.7403
Controlled Substances-Possession <25 grams MCLA 333.7403(2)(a)(v)
Controlled Substances-Possession 50-224 grams MCLA 333.7403
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Domestic Violence-Third Offense MCLA 750.81(4)
Embezzlement
False Pretenses Over $100 MCLA 750.218
False Report of a Bombing or Threat to Bomb MCLA 750.411a(2)
False Report of a Felony MCLA 750.411a(1)(b)
Financial Transaction Device-Uttering & Publishing MCLA 750.248a
Fleeing & Eluding-1st through 4th Degree MCLA 750.479a
Home Invasion-First Degree MCLA 750.110a(4)
Home Invasion-Second Degree MCLA 750.110a(5)
Indecent Exposure by a Sexually Delinquent Person MCLA 750.335a
Insurance Fraud MCLA 500.4511(2)
Larceny from a Motor Vehicle MCLA 750.356a
Larceny from the Person MCLA 750.357
Malicious Destruction of Building over $100 MCLA 750.380
Malicious Destruction of Personal Property MCLA 750.377a
Manslaughter MCLA 750.321
No Account Check MCLA 750.131a
OUIL MCLA 257.625
Prostitution MCLA 750.451
Receiving and Concealing Stolen Property MCLA 750.535
Retail Fraud MCLA 750.356c
Sex Offenders-Failure to Register MCLA 28.729
Unlawful Driving Away of an Automobile MCLA 750.413
Uttering and Publishing

 

Do we really want to disallow someone from running for public office many years later, after they have served their time who has:  carried a concealed weapon, possessed a small amount of marijuana or other controlled substance, falsely reports a crime, flees and eludes a police or CO, 2nd degree home invasion, indecent exposure, larceny from a motor vehicle, malicious destruction of a building (over $1000), OUIL and prostitution?! 

 

The rest of the Kentwood City Council does not like Mr. VerWys because of his open government/Tea Party views which run totally contrary to their expanding government ideologies.  I would want someone like Ray representing me rather than anyone else in that City Hall... and trust him more.

[Heaven Therzke]

there is some honor among thieves.  once a crook always a crook. 

[AQUAMAN]

Trouble is that the current legal system is two-faced on this sort of thing, and has been for all too long. They tell the public incarceration/imprisonment is a good thing for many law breakers, and have been over-building correctional institutions in the USA like no other country in the world the last 30 years. It's costing the American public untold fortunes. They tell us that these law breakers can be rehabilitated and re-enter society and start over, based on the incarceration and it's effects on the individual. Then, after the individual serves their time, rehabs to society to become a positive person again, you find you get stripped of your Constitutional Rights, and now this guy gets ousted from a City Council. Not because he's a danger to embezzle again, nor commit new felonies by his conduct, but just from the simple fact he is never to be forgiven and considered rehabilitated for the rest of his life. I feel for this guy, and think he should sue to get reinstated and $$ damages to his reputation. The State wants it both ways, that's wrong. Until and unless this guy showed he was unfit, he should have been left alone. Or, as per law, a recall should have gone forward, IF the People electing him desired it be done. So far, I didn't see where the People were against him, just his fellow council members and the Mayor. Why didn't they start all this 2 years ago when they knew it from the start?

[Willy]

Well stated Aquaman. You hit all the nails on the head.

[XLFD]

There is a grass roots movement around Kentwood for recall petitions on the mayor and three of the city councilors.  VerWys himself has admitted he has not the resources to fight a legal battle to test the legality of the processes, but hopefully an attorney will step forward to clarify the 'ex post facto' nature of the law, and the apparent unconstitutionality of being removed from office without a recall before his elected term expires without cause.  These are rights that should not be taken from Mr. VerWys or any other legally elected person.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/01/kentwood_m...