Clarity and factual hearing scheduled for Aug. 1

by Angie Asam-Staff Writer

There will be another clarity and factual hearing for the recall of Onaway City Commissioners Ron Horrocks and Bernie Schmeltzer on Aug. 1 at 10 a.m. in the commissioners’ meeting room at the Presque Isle County Courthouse.

It will be the fourth clarity and factual hearing tied to the recall of commissioners in Onaway. Two hearings were held before petitioners were given the nod of approval for the recall of commissioners Charles Abshagen and Jessie Horrocks as well as mayor Gary Wregglesworth. That recall will be before voters in November.

This hearing will be the second concerning the recall of Ron Horrocks and Schmeltzer. The first hearing was held on July 18 when recall language, the same that was approved for the recall of the other two commissioners and the mayor, was rejected by the election commission.

The language on the recall petition that was rejected stated, “that each individual has failed to make decisions in which the voters have entrusted them to make regarding the safety and security of our community by refusing to explore or take advantage of offers or options from citizens or other outside governmental agencies to retain the Onaway Police Department and by doing so, is putting the community’s safety and security at risk.”

On Thursday Aug. 1 the election commission will be charged with looking over new language that states “commissioners Ron Horrocks and Bernie Schmeltzer refused to explore or take advantage of offers or options from citizens or outside governmental agencies to retain the Onaway Police Department.”

Schmeltzer was the only member of the audience to speak at the hearing on July 18 and was able to convince the election commission the statements being made on the recall petition were not factual.

“Per the statute regarding recall petitions, it is the responsibility of this election board to determine whether every aspect of this allegation is both factual and of sufficient clarity to be put before the voters for signatures. At two earlier hearings, both in consideration of recall language against three other members of the Onaway City Commission, members of this board stated that they did not have to make a determination that the allegations are based on truth to move them forward, only that the allegations are factually stated. Further it was said that a determination as to whether the allegations are truthful is best left to the electorate. I do not believe that is the intent of the legislation, in fact I believe it is quite the opposite,” he said.

“Factual is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘based on or concerned with things that are known to be true.’ The key part of that definition I would argue is known to be true. Opinion meanwhile is defined as ‘a belief or assessment based on grounds short of proof, or what one thinks about a particular topic.’ The recall language here clearly fits the definition of opinion, it does not come close to meeting the definition of factual,” said Schmeltzer.

“Truth or fact can easily be proven by anyone submitting a recall petition against an elected official simply by stating action by that elected official as reflected in their meeting minutes. Meeting minutes could easily be used to prove an allegation true and those being asked to sign a recall petition would be deciding if the said action is in the best interest of the community, not whether the allegation is factual or true. A petitioner could present language that can easily be proven false by the meeting minutes but still move forward as factual or true by this election board. I would challenge that based on the interpretation of the legislation that passed earlier this year,” he said.

Schmeltzer continued going through the statute that was approved and signed into law. He highlighted the difference between statements such as “commissioner X is a thief with nothing to back it up” or “commissioner X has been charged with theft, with legal paperwork to back it up” saying that “it could be argued that both allegations were factually presented, but only one is based on fact and is therefore factual.

“Much of the allegation before you is nothing more than opinion,” Schmeltzer said. In regard to the statement that he and commissioner Horrocks, the subjects of the recall language, had failed to make decisions the voters entrusted them to make regarding the safety and security of the voters, he said, “Clearly we as elected officials have made decisions recently that involve public safety and law enforcement and there has been

no failure to make decisions.”

AFTER HEARING from Schmeltzer last week the election commission, made up of Probate Judge Donald McLennan, clerk Ann Marie Main and treasurer Bridget LaLonde, agreed that two statements made in the recall language, “that each individual has failed to make decisions in which the voters have entrusted them to make regarding the safety and security of our community and are putting the community’s safety and security at risk,” because of the lack of decision making, were conclusionary in nature and not factual. Therefore the recall language was rejected.

Citizens have not given up, however, as James Gibson filed the most recent recall petition on July 19, the day after the recall language was rejected, setting up next week’s hearing.