Bleau and Ugly: Election Commission Rejects Recall Petitions

[XLFD]

The clarity hearings for three recall petitions filed by Pere Marquette Charter Township Treasurer (PMCT) Karie Bleau against two of her fellow trustees, Rachel Enbody and Ron Soberalski were held Friday morning (August 11) and the Mason County Election Commission rejected them decisively.  

The county commission room was filled with about 20 interested parties, predominantly partisan for the targets of the petitions rather than the petitioner.  Karie Bleau would sit by her husband, PMCT Supervisor Jerry Bleau, who remained quiet throughout both proceedings, despite credible allegations made by others and the commission about whether he should have been the person behind the corrective action plan process, rather than the other two who were being recalled, or any other trustee for that matter.  

Soberalski had the benefit of being able to look in at Enbody's hearing first, another Trustee Andy Kmetz (not to be confused with County Treasurer Andrew Kmetz of the election commission) also attended, making a quorum of the PMCT Commission present (though township business would not be conducted this day).  Enbody, the township clerk, was represented by an attorney, Brad Springer, who would address the two recall petitions against his client.  

    Karie and Jerry Bleau (foreground) prepare for hearing before the panel:  Judge Nellis, Treasurer Kmetz, and Clerk Kelly

But first Probate Judge Jeff Nellis would open the meeting as the chair of the election commission, with County Clerk Cheryl Kelly and County Treasurer Andrew Kmetz rounding out the membership.  He would explain that the reason for the clarity hearing was to determine whether a petition's language was factual and of sufficient clarity to identify the course of conduct that is the basis of the recall.  After listing the procedures, he used an allusion to his shirt to describe the difference between what was factual and what was opinion or subjective.  Calling it a blue shirt is factual, while calling it an ugly shirt is opinion, as others may feel otherwise (see more here).  

This was an important distinction for the first petition reviewed which alleged that Enbody made degrading and inappropriate comments about an employee, an employee made a complaint of harassment and bullying against the clerk and that she “created a volatile, hostile and toxic work environment.  Bleau would introduce two items in support of her position, complaints against Enbody.

Springer's main legal tact in defense was to point out that the language was almost fully opinions.  When the commission asked for any other input, one of the authors of the complaints (one of the team that circulated petitions on the Bleaus) would rebut her own letter, saying it was resolved with the help of Enbody and two former employees at PMCT would confide that it wasn't Enbody who had made the poor work environment-- but stopped short of saying who may have done so.  

The commission would confer and all would agree that the petition contained opinion in the first and last sentence and was a bit unclear for them.  They would vote 'no' using that rationale and move on to the second petition against Enbody which wasn't as easily adjudged.  The second petition alleged that Enbody received information from the township’s former auditor about billing errors with the water and sewer systems “on or about June 23, 2022 and Aug. 8, 2022” and did not bring a corrective action plan forward to resolve the issue.

In support of her position, Karie Bleau would once again rely on the words of a current Bleau detractor present at the hearing, former treasurer of PMCT, Connie Andersen, reading parts of a letter she had published in the local paper holding the whole board of trustees to blame for not timely crafting a corrective action plan, and handled some supportive material to the commission.  Attorney Springer would argue that the petition lacked clarity because the assumptions underlying the allegations were false legally, as the duties of the clerk did not contain such a responsibility.  He offered up MCL 42.19(d) and (o) to show that if it was anybody's duty it would have been the supervisor's.  

When they offered the public a chance to comment, Tim Iteen would support the attorney's positions, with Iteen asking why were only two of the trustees up for recall if they were all of equal responsibility.  Kelly would question whether there was a duty the clerk had and would grant both the opportunity to present their experience and training, and Enbody's resume came out much more solid than Karie Bleau's.  Treasurer Kmetz would agree that the petition was unclear in that voters would be led to believe that the duty to make a plan was Enbody's. 

Judge Nellis was a holdout, stating the duties and even the truthfulness of the facts were effectively irrelevant:  “I’ve read case law on this and the statute on this probably 30 times.  It’s not up to this body to determine what the law is… Whether or not what the role of the clerk or treasurer to do is not our call to make. There’s even case law in regard to these hearings that it’s not even appropriate for a judge to make other interpretations outside whether or not the language is clear or not.”

It would not sway the other two, Kelly was also concerned about the indefinite times of the petition, and Kmetz not being able to get past the job description/duty conundrum rendering it unclear.  The petition would fail by a 2-1 vote.  

Trustee Soberalski was up next after a brief respite of about ten minutes, the original hearings taking about 50 minutes.  He was not represented by counsel, but faced similar language to Enbody's second petition, and so was told by Springer to consider the same defenses used.  Rather than mention the clerk's duties to maintain accurate records, his petition mentioned he had a fiduciary responsibility as a trustee to create a plan.  

Bleau would once again touch upon Andersen's letter to the editor and clarify the time at which trustees would have received the letter from the former auditor.  Kelly would point to an organizational chart of the township provided by Bleau and noted that accordingly the supervisor was the next step up the ladder before the board and should have been responsible for the action plan.

                     Trustee Ron Soberalski confers with some supporters before defending against the petition against him

When Soberalski had his opportunity to speak he would argue that the language is confusing and would not be clear and concise to voters and otherwise paralleling Springer's defenses.  Iteen would once again get up and remind the assemblage that Supervisor Bleau had claimed it was a "simple clerical error" in downplaying the underbilling on an April 11 newscast by TV 9 & 10, while claiming the mistake was missed by everyone at the time.  

Late arrival, Cyrus MacAdoo would speak on behalf of Trustee Soberalski's character, before Trustee Andy Kmetz got up and stated that the whole board did create a corrective action plan once it came before them at a meeting.  Soberalski's daughter Shelby, a frequent attendee at meetings, gave the commission information on how her father had difficulty bringing former Auditor Wahlberg to the meeting in order to formulate a plan thanks to obstructions laid down by the Bleaus.  

Inspired by the peanut gallery, the senior Soberalski would add a novel defense, stating that the language was inaccurate by not noting that there was a plan eventually created by the board of trustees and implemented within six months of figuring out the error.  Since the corrective action plan was made well before the petition was filed, the language was totally inaccurate and definitely unclear.

Despite all of this, Judge Nellis would stick to his original stance, recalling the shirt analogy before once again voting to accept the petition.  The other two were similarly entrenched in their position and voted no, rejecting the petition.  

The day would end with three failed recall petitions for Karie Bleau.  Trustee Soberalski, who had worried that the petition had a good chance of passage with the low thresholds of clarity and factuality at play, was asked for a comment to share with the readers of the Ludington Torch.  He smiled and in a second moment of inspiration quipped, good-naturedly:

"The judge's shirt is ugly."

EPILOGUE:  It is unknown at this time whether Karie Bleau will appeal the decisions in circuit court, she has 10 days to file if she does, or whether she will revise the petition language for another try with the election commission, or whether she will give it up.  With the current timeline, even if she is ultimately successful on appeal or another filing, the two trustees she pursued would not face a recall election until May 2024.  

If the strategy of the Bleaus was to get another pair of trustees on the November ballot to dilute the recalls against them, they have failed.  They may want to adopt political tactics that will attract more voters to them before November rather than make themselves look retaliatory and petty or otherwise remind voters about their own errors from the past.