0

Denmark Township resident files recall petitions against board members

Resident seeks ouster of supervisor, clerk and treasurer

By Mary Drier
Staff Writer

RICHVILLE — The long controversy over water projects in Denmark Township could be headed to the ballot box.

On Tuesday, recall petitions were filed by Gary Schoenow with Tuscola County Clerk Jodi Fetting against Supervisor Donald W. Petro, Clerk Charles J. Heinlein, and Treasurer Dennis E. Weber.

The wording on the proposed recall petitions is exactly the same on each.

Petro

The petition against Petro says he should be recalled because he: “Knew that he and the township board had abandoned a water project, the preliminary cost of which was $395,000. By mid-February 2013, Petro knew that the Hearing Referee for the Michigan Tax Tribunal had determined that the township was not entitled to allocate that preliminary cost as an assessment against an existing water district.

On February 25, 2013, he voted to dissolved that district, exposing all township residents to payment of the $395,000. He thereafter encouraged citizens to petition for, and on September 30, 2013 and December 10, 2013 voted for the establishment of a new water district. He approved additional expenditure of township monies for the yet-to-be funded new water project which disproportionately favors agricultural land owners.

He is responsible for denials and delays of citizens’ requests for water

 

See RECALL A5

project-related documents, thereby interfering with the public’s right to now and exposing the township to unnecessary liability. By his actions, he has also caused the township to be exposed to additional legal proceeding and excessive engineering and legal fees.”

Heinlein

The petition against Heinlein says he should be recalled because he: “Knew that he and the township board had abandoned a water project, the preliminary cost of which was $395,000. By mid-February 2013,  Heinlein knew that the Hearing Referee for the Michigan Tax Tribunal had determined that the township was not entitled to allocate that the preliminary cost as an assessment against and existing water district.

On February 25, 2013, he voted to dissolved that district, exposing all township residents to payment of the $395,000. He thereafter encouraged citizens to petition for, and on September 30, 2013 and December 10, 2013 voted for the establishment of a new water district. He approved additional expenditure of township monies for the yet-to-be funded new water project which disproportionately favors agricultural land owners.

He is responsible for denials and delays of citizens’ requests for water project-related documents, thereby interfering with the public’s right to now and exposing the township to unnecessary liability. By his actions, he has also caused the township to be exposed to additional legal proceeding and excessive engineering and legal fees.”

Weber

The petition against Weber says he should be recalled because he: “Knew that he and the township board had abandoned a water project, the preliminary cost of which was $395,000. By mid-February 2013, Weber knew that the Hearing Referee for the Michigan Tax Tribunal had determined that the township was not entitled to allocate that the preliminary cost as an assessment against and existing water district.

On February 25, 2013, he voted to dissolved that district, exposing all township residents to payment of the $395,000. He thereafter encouraged citizens to petition for, and on September 30, 2013 and December 10, 2013 voted for the establishment of a new water district. He approved additional expenditure of township monies for the yet-to-be funded new water project which disproportionately favors agricultural land owners.

He is responsible for denials and delays of citizens’ requests for water project-related documents, thereby interfering with the public’s right to now and exposing the township to unnecessary liability. By his actions, he has also caused the township to be exposed to additional legal proceeding and excessive engineering and legal fees.”

The next step in the recall process is for the Tuscola County Election Commission to conduct a public hearing to make a determination on the clarity of the wording on the petitions. The clarity hearing will be 8:30 a.m., Monday, April 28, in the Tuscola County Probate Courtroom, 440 N. State St., Caro.

The election commission consists of county Tuscola County Probate Judge Nancy Thane, Clerk Jodi Fetting, and Treasurer Patricia Donovan – Gray.

Mary Drier is a staff writer for the Tuscola County Advertiser. She can be reached at drier@tcadvertiser.com.

 

Share
Filed in: Local News, Featured Articles

Recent Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

© 2017 Tuscola County Advertiser. All rights reserved. XHTML / CSS Valid.
Proudly designed by Theme Junkie.