The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolutions - 1980.05.22 - 12073May 22nd, 1980 REPORT WY: General Government Committee, Mat J Dunaskiss, Chairperson IN RE; Resolution #9391, Placing Advisory Questions on Presidential Primary Ballot TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen; The General Government Committee having reviewed Miscellaneous Resolution #9391 reports without recommendation so that the entire board would make the choke on how to proceed on this matter; however, if the full board adopts resolution #9391, then the General Government Committee recommends that 1) the May 20th, 1980, date be changed to November 4th, 1980, and 2) that Civil Counsel's opinion of April 7th, 1980, and September 1st, 1976, be attached to the resolution. The General Government Committee by Mat J. Dunaskiss, Chairperson, moves the acceptance of the foregoing report. GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE J, Dunaskiss, Chairperson April 17, 1980 Miscellaneous Resolution # 9391 BY Anne M, Hobart, County Commissioner - District #4 John H. Peterson, County Commissioner - District #6 RE: PLACING ADVISORY QUESTIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOT TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr, Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS, over 5,000 Oakland County Citizens have signed petitions requesting the Oakland County Board of Commissioners to place an Advisory Question on the Presidential Primary Election Ballot, May 20, 1980, on the question of a Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority Light Rail Subway System; and WHEREAS, as elected representatives of the citizens of Oakland County, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners deems that the residents of Oakland County should be allowed to advise their public officials as to the concerns as stated in the petitions. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners does hereby call for the placement of the following adivsory questions on the ballot of the Presidential Primary Election, May 20, 1980 ; Shall a tax be assessed against the residents of Oakland County for the construction, maintenance or operation of the transportation system including a subway as proposed by the Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority (SEMTA)? Yes No 2. Shall the County of Oakland withdraw as a member of SFMTA? Yes No 3, Shall the County of Oakland provide a transportation authority for the residents of Oakland County and raise funds for the construction, maintenance and operation of such a transit system? Yes No 4. Shall any tax be assessed against the residents of Oakland County for the operation and maintenance of any transportation system without the voted approval of said county residents? Yes No Mr, Chairperson, we move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. Anne M. Hobart County Commissioner, District #4 JCZT-11-=)eterson County Commissioner, District #6 F. SLAV!N 5,5 ft 5 5.; TA T JOHN F pos5, jp._ ALS.t5T1.,t A. P. ill-, 7,5 7, ND COUNTY CONTI Tr' TLC h403.1i T e5e-onf;"0 P.017 ETZT P. ALLEN civiL Ccr..! N7; E..t- 65B ..ozs April 7, 1980 hr. Wallace F. Gabler, Jr., Chairman Oakland County Board of Commissioners 1 200 North mejeg -r,poh . Road Eontiac, Michigan 48053 You have informed .me that the Board of Commissioners is contc7i- - 'olatlY1 submitting the following questions to the electorate of Oakland County .: .. 1. Whether the electorate • of Oakland Co unty. would miLi.11ae levy for the operation of a transport a tion systn within Oakland County without a subway. 2. Whether the electorate would support a hillage'fo -r, a t7-2 ,Ts- portation system as proposed by SE ,ITA including a au:Dw=,y, 77o -r- the ouroosr,s of th i s oinion, the questions may b.a the following question: May the Oakland County Board of Com7lissionel-s submit ad- . visory questions to the electorate of the County of -Oakland? By letter dated September I, 1976, I opined that the Board of Cr)- missfoners had no authority or Dower to call a Spcial Elect i on ten the purpose of advisory •votes. That opinion, as stated, was isc ,-uzd In 1976. To determine whether 1 hold the same o;)inion, it has bum necessary to review legislative activity pertaining to advLF=y questions, judicial decisions addressing themselves to the nowers of' th ,P Board of Comm issioners, and county powers, in oeneral Si n ce 1976, there has been no Bills introduced that would g -oant. co;.mty or the board of commissioners the authorty to 7,1 ace on the bal,lct an advisory auestion affecting the people of the county. OAKL_AND COUNTY CAVIL COUNSE.L Gabir Page Two 4/7/80 You will recall that Representative Jacobetti, in 1975, :(1t,r -uo::.:d a House Bill that would have granted to counties the fo'-Lc)win7: "including the power to place on the ballot an advis:-. question on a matter affecting the people of the county involved." That Bill was never adopted by the Legislature and h -,=,s not beocre a Public Act of the State of Michigan. Failu r e to adc:,-, that pro -oosal into law clearly falls within the ruling of' Co et of Alpp-FM in Co=ty Pr -)1s 63 Mich App 390, wherein the CoTi7;2-hold-: "Further evidence of the Legislature's intent that defendant not be given authority to audit co u nts road commissions is found in. its refusal to p a ss three hills containing an express :rant of this power. See 1973 SB 357, 2974 SB 707, 2975 SB 707." Anplying that ruling to the failure of the Legislature to a.-,o,-Dt the proposed language pertaining to advisory ballots, one 7 ,_:st draw the conclusion that the legislature did not intend to -.1-ant counties the authority to call for advisory, questio n s. Further, the Court of Appeals addressed itself to the riow-s of a county in Crain v Gibson, 73 Mich Apr 192, wherein it stated "Some rather general principles relate to county govern- ment and the Powers of county boards of co=ission---1-=,-. In the first place, with few limited exceotions, the Con- stitution of the State of Michigan vests all government a l power in the tripartite executive, legislative and divisions of government . Local ,c7Ivernments have no gener a l or inhere n t powers. Mason County Civic Resea r ch Contil v- Ilason County, 343 Mich 313; 72 NW2d 292 (1955)-. limited powers rather, are only those expressly coerred upon them by the Constitution of the State of 2lichi,7an, by acts of the Legislature, or necessarily imolied Alan v Wayne County, 388 Mich 210; 200 NW2d 623 (1372)." RPA:ck At1,-,ach. Robert P. Allen hr. Gabler Page Three 4/7/80 - And, again on page 204, the Court stated: "What is the business of the county board of commLss•nr—s? Apart from its legislative powers and specific administra- tive powers and duties imposed upon it by the Legislature, it has only such administrative powers as are necessary to accomplish its on organizational houseeeng and to en a ble it to attend to the details of performing its other duties" In view of the language found in the two app e llate court decisions and the failure of the legislature to enact into law sDe ,if 4 c authority to place advisory cuestions on the ballot, I am cY' thP opinion that a county does not have the autbc)rty to sutit P,d- viso -r-y'Questions to the electorate of that county. Fupt'r=, I reaffirm my opinion of Septe7lber l, 1976, a coy of which is attchs'i hereto. Trusting the foregoing answers your inquiry, I am Very truly yours, HAYS a5:5-0.1553. H FREDEFOC?". ASSJSTANT 85 B•c-'5.55 Septeber 1, 1976 - Jr..).HNF.r?Cs . F.;50-05np (,31-)1 OA K. L. A NA' D COUNTY 0 0 PONTJAZ 4EC,'2,3 85 8-0155 ROD CVtL E7r1- P. /-+I_LEN • 855-C7_-:55 DONAL D E Mr. Lynn D. Allen County Clerk-Register of Deeds 12TO North Telegraph Road Pontiac, Michigan 48053 Dear Sir: You have requested Tv opinion on the following cp.lest "May the County„call a Speci21 Elect to place on the ballot an "advi.soy question" as requested by the Conty Toard of Co27--aissioners?" I note that the Oakland County Road Conn-ission, by resolution, T-:,,-. requested an advisory question be placed on the ba-Llet. This uD1 On the ballot. will answer whether the Road Coissigri nay place advisory questi If an advisory vote is to be held,'the authority nust be found :In defines Special Election as follows: - either the Constitution, State statute or case law. YSA 6.2006 tern 'special elic,77H', as 2,,,...se in t72is act, , ,,37?,c11-1 i-,,,,--(2n any election, ot7-;er then a regze7- eZoct .Zon, colt ea' -by co72::-.,:f?-.:t. c.r.b?.t.7-2or,ity for the pz,ErpOse of e.hoo,s.z:r.:;' off-Zo..-::(2Z-s to fi ll vc-,c -i: Les ._ in pzi,blic office, C.) 2' for ,sib.777,(3sion to the e7-cat,-)2-3 of any public,. cpestio.,-.'," Prior to 1965, the words "o.r for si/Z7 -.7 -17,32,-: to the eleet02'3 of czny p7..-,,:c cistion" did not appear. It 1-;:ay be contended that the Iang,uage "c.)!- for sub.77;:ssion to the elors of an py.,37?7:7 ciz%:?,7,t" is broad ono:-,-1-1 to permit advisory votes on natters that are subject to the legislative discretion of the Oakland County Board of Conmissi..oners The question of County advisory votes has been the subject of 3 -- interpretation, and in particuan, one _ suit The law. Cit (77-f , . Hr Allen /7,=- I 0 for the County of' Ontonagon in'Trena Hill v Ontenas,on County 7.:::'7,', _ _ of Co7issrioners and Irene Wol.fe, On -tenac:en Connt -C-- _ No. 0-75-TO-2\W, was asked to rule whether the Ont -naen County B3:::::d of Commissio-lers could he co7lpelled to Place an adviserv on the ballot. Plaintiffs reauested an injunction c0.7„711in7, th e Defendants to hold a Special Election on an advisory o'J'ic,:;. The ,_, Court, in effect, treated the action as manda7,us. In an opth -lon dated December 18, 1975, the Court dismissed the action denyinc, the injunction-mandar= on the grounds that an action for T -]:,nc'Jic-n or mandamus does not lie against the Board of Co=issfoners in a matter resuming the exercise of their discretion, The Co urt .-'-'th.:- concluded that the defendants had the authoty to hold a Sn:JciLT Election. , this case is not binding on any other celoort o' county in this state. A county, to act, must have express powers found in the i. or the' statutes of the State of Hichigan or the impli.ed sary to carry out the express -ocwers irlason County 0:1,1 -T Council v Mason County, 70 -3 w -] 'asbtena Abst7ot ,Hach When answering any quest i on involving the powers of the Cc'5-t - of Oakland, it is necessary to review the provisions of Act 139 of 1°- Public Acts of 1973, as amended. This 1 have dene anc,' find Jet silent as to the subject of elections. Therefore, one T7.nst Icek to the general county and election law. Apparently, the legislature does not believe that such statutory authority exists for counties to hold soecial elections for arl- visbry leurposes and now intends ;0 ,rant such power. _After the cision of the Ontonagon Court on December 18, 1975, on Hebmuonc 12, •1975, Representative Jacobetti introdu.ocd House Bil? 5987. Bill 5987 amends Section 3 of Chapter 1 3 of the R ,,v 1 sed Statutc of 13A6 which pertains to powel-s of counties. house Bill 59e7 w(7)1d the following powers to now-1-s of counties: "inciuding t7-1.e balZot cr4. 5Og C7',.).23T.;-2.-07/1 ne neetter cfec ii nq the people of the c o>nt1::::(;) Z. I House Bill 5987 passed the 11 -!chf-7:an House on parch 18, 7 976 and, is in the Senate Committee on T,Tunicipalities and Elections. It areoro Hr. Allen cvTh r7M-r,n 9/V76 to me that in vie y of House B124 5987, wherein the legislature is attempting to grant the -COunty the 'cower to hold special election on advisory questions, such power does not exist. This conclusioh is :also supported by a ruling of the 1,lichigan Supreme Court in Soovill) v City of Ypsi1ant 207 iviich 288, where:in the Court held that advisory votes were not permitted except as -outlined in the Provisions of NSA 5.1005. The Scovill decision p -recPdcd the 1955 amen dm ent to NSA 5.1005, and thP—, the added wa not construed by the Court. The Attorney General, in 2 letter opinions, 'ono to Ken Doran, Staff Assistant to Representative Jacobetti, dated October 13, 1975 and one to J. B. Jenkins, Ontonagon County Pros ec utor, dated November 23, 1975, stated that there was no a hcmüty fur a to hold special elections for advisory questio n s. Subsequent .to the Ontonagon de c ision, the Attorney Genera, in an opinion to Representative Cas7,ere P. Ogonowski, -arcrcd h9 fo7- lowir,g question submitted by the .7-1e0,-esentative: . . Doas th,q o -F° a a _ poptio%z of 2,000,000 or nurs(5.:.2c27,,, as a loCal Unit Of rioni..ir-iw,-:-3n.t) Neuc a7,./,;;.1 or t y on its to c17,.2t7--.oir.i.,? an ot a rear as1iE;o77.3cd •on the sz.•nbjer-1.7of legalizedZi_rirLtPd cesio The Attorney General, after discussing the issues invoivc, stat e d, the -following: H1. If a local unit of go,....-.7ent does on its 072:Y7 Clt -?: 2 0orize an a e ory refere r,(77.772 and the issue of its aut7-,or-.7.L'v to do so is lit- te Wayne LlilL not hord b2.) in the 127:7-1 0 case, supra " "2 1770 Itichinas ST.J7):r'ef? Court has -,iot oner- ruled its holdi?2:2 in the Secn ii case, suarn, that spial oletions nay n:Dt be c..:11-led for the pu_2-Tose of bring the public decide cir3tions which .s72oVid he ^ Zstisiatiue 2'),277; r.r. Allen Pa g e Four 9/J/70 As you can see, the question of whether a county nay hold a spec i al election for advisory questions has not been given a d-f -Initive answer to -date. Reading the Scovill decision and the Nason . decision in eonunotien with the language found in 1;:SA 6.1006, and peraT),,, rorr, the legislative attempt to grant counties, the authority to held advisory votes as evidenced by House Bill 5987, leas me to the conclusion that the better view is that a county board of r'emmis- sioners does not have the authority to call special elections to • place advisory questions on the ballot. The County Board of Read - Commissioners also has no authority or power to call for a. spcial election for the purpose of advisory votes. . . . Trusti ng the foregoing answers your inquiry, 1 am - Very truly yours, „ f Robe -Pt P Allen #9391 April 17, 1980 - Moved by Peterson supported by Hobart the resolution be adopted, #9391 May 22, 1980 Moved by Dunaskiss supported by Moffitt the report be accepted. A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the motion carried. Moved by Dunaskiss supported by Peterson that Resolution #9391 be adopted. Moved by Dunaskiss supported by Hobart the resolution be amended by: (1) the May 20, 1980 date be changed to November 4, 1980; and (2) that Civil Counsel's opinion of April 7, 1980 and September 1, 1976 be attached to the resolution. A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the amendment carried. Discussion followed. Moved by Moore supported by Pernick the resolution be amended by deleting items #2 and #3 from the the resolution. Discussion followed. A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the amendment failed. Moved by Aaron supported by Pernick the resolution be amended by striking the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs and insert the following language: "Shall Oakland County withdraw from the Southeast Michigan Transportation Authority and fund its own transportation system by any means within the authority of the County of Oakland? Yes - No" AYES: Kelly, Lewand, Page, Pernick, Price, Aaron, DiGiovanni, Doyon, Fortino. (9) NAYS: Kasper, Moffitt, Montante, Moore, Moxley, Murphy, Patterson, Peterson, Wilcox, Caddell, Dunaskiss, Gabler, Gorsline, Hobart, Hoot. (15) A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the amendment failed. Discussion followed. Mr. Murphy moved the previous question. Seconded by Mr. Peterson. The Chairperson stated those in favor of calling the question say 'Aye' and those opposed say 'Nay'. The vote was as follows: AYES: Kelly, McDonald, Moffitt, Montante, Moore, Moxley, Murphy, Page, Patterson, Peterson, Price, Wilcox, Aaron, Caddell, DiGiovanni, Doyon, Dunaskiss, Fortino, Gabler, Gorsline, Hobart, Hoot, Kasper. (23) NAYS: Lewand, Pernick. (2) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the Chairperson called for a vote on the main motion. Vote on resolution as amended: AYES: McDonald, Moffitt, Montante, Moxley, Page, Patterson, Peterson Wilcox, Caddell, Dunaskiss, Gabler, Hobart, Hoot, Kasper. (14) NAYS: Lewand, Moore, Murphy, Price, DiGiovanni, Doyon, Gorsline, Kelly. (8) ABSTAIN: Pernick, Aaron, Fortino. (3) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, Resolution #93 was adopted. as amendec #939I May 22, 1980 STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal, do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of Miscellaneous Resolution #9391 adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners at their meeting held on May 22, 1980 with the original record thereof now remaining in my office, and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole thereof. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan 22nd May Bo this day of„..............19.... Lynn D. Allen.......... ....... .....Clerk By Deputy Clerk