HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2012.02.01 - 19122REPORT (misc. #12006) February 1,2012
BY: OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE — Mike Gingell, Chairperson
RE: MR #12006 — APPORTIONMENT OF THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Oversight Committee reviewed the above titled resolution on January 27, 2012 and
considered a draft of FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTED ANSWERS and a
tentative meeting schedule and hereby recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Chairperson, on behalf of the Oversight Committee, I move the acceptance of the foregoing
report.
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Motion carried on a roll call vote with Greimel absent.
MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION .#12006
BY: Michael J. Gingell
IN RE: Apportionment of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS Public Act 261 of 1966 provides for the apportionment of county
boards of commissioners; and
WHEREAS PA 261 was amended by PA 280 of 2011, effective March 28, 2012;
and
WHEREAS PA 280 revises the following pertinent provisions concerning county
apportionment:
• Reduces from 35 to 21 the maximum number of county commission
districts in any county;
• Limits the number of county commissioners to no more than 21 in a
county with a population of more than 50,000;
• Revises the composition of the county apportionment commission
in a county with:
- a population greater than 1,000,000, and
- an Optional Unified Form of County Government, and
- an Elected County Executive.
In such a county, the apportionment commission shall be the county board of
commissioners; and
WHEREAS the population and governmental framework of Oakland County
comports with the criteria set forth in PA 280, and pursuant to § 2 requires the
apportionment commission of an affected county to, within 30 days of the
effective date of the statute, apportion the county; and
WHEREAS the remaining provisions of PA 261 of 1966 remain unchanged by PA
280 and are still in effect with respect to county apportionment in Oakland
County; and
WHEREAS to comply with the time frames for county apportionment established
by PA 280, as well as those that exist in the original statute (PA 261), it is
necessary to begin the process for county apportionment prior to the March 28,
2012, effective date of PA 280.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that, pursuant to PA 280 of
2012, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners shall serve as the
Apportionment Commission for Oakland County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson of the Board of
Commissioners shall serve as Chair of the Apportionment Commission and the
County Clerk shall serve as its Clerk; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this matter be referred to the Board of
Commissioners Oversight Committee which is hereby directed to begin the
business of apportionment of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
consistent with PA 280 of 2012. That business shall include but is not limited to:
Adopting Rules of Procedure in consultation with the
Department of Corporation Counsel and the County Clerk's
Elections and Plat Engineering Divisions;
- Creating a draft plan for 21 County Commission districts;
- Providing appropriate opportunities for public input and review
of the plan;
- Complying with all other provisions of PA 280 and PA 261.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners Oversight
Committee shall complete a draft Apportionment Plan that complies with PA 280
of 2012 for review and comment no later than February 29, 2012.
Commissioner Mike Gingel
District #3
Commissioneri
District #
if v49
Commissioner
District # Lf
CoXmissiefner
Strict #
Cornmissiorier
District #
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
District #
ommissioner
Diitrfet
Commisdioner
Distribt #'
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
Distri9t #
Commissioner
Distriqt #
Commissio
Disri
Commissions
District # 3
—
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
District #
Commissioner
District #
Resolution #12006 January 19, 2012
Chairperson Michael Gingell addressed the Board and asked Vice Chairperson - Jeff Matis to act as
Chair.
Commissioner Gingell addressed the Board to present a proposed Miscellaneous Resolution entitled
Apportionment of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, and requested it to be referred to the
Oversight Committee.
The Chairperson referred the resolution to the Oversight Committee; Commissioner Nash addressed the
Board to object.
Discussion followed.
Moved by Nash supported by Zack to object to the proposed Miscellaneous Resolution being referred to
the Oversight Committee.
Discussion followed.
The Chairperson addressed the Board and stated that when voting if a Commissioner supports the
objection state (yes); and if a Commissioner opposes the objection state (no).
Vote on objection:
AYES: Gershenson, Hatchett, Jackson, McGillivray, Nash, Quarles, Woodward, Zack,
Covey. (9)
NAYS: Dwyer, Gingell, Gosselin, Hoffman, Long, Matis, Middleton, Nuccio, Potts, Runestad,
Scott, Taub, Weipert, Bosnic, Crawford. (15)
A sufficient majority having not voted in favor, the objection failed.
Discussion followed.
The Chairperson referred the resolution to the Oversight Committee. There were no objections.
February 1, 2012 Resolution #12006
Moved by Gingell supported by Runestad the resolution be adopted.
Discussion followed.
Moved by Gingell supported by Runestad the Oversight Committee Report be accepted.
Vote on Report:
AYES: Long, Matis, Middleton, Nuccio, Potts, Runestad, Scott, Taub, Weipert, Bosnic, Crawford,
Dwyer, Gingell, Gosselin, Hoffman. (15)
NAYS: Jackson, McGillivray, Nash, Quarles, Woodward, Zack, Covey, Gershenson, Greimel,
Hatchett. (10)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the report was accepted.
Discussion followed with an objection by Commissioner Greimel.
Discussion followed.
Moved by Woodward supported by Nash to refer the resolution to the Finance Committee.
Vote on referring the Resolution to the Finance Committee:
AYES: McGillivray, Nash, Quarles, Woodward, Zack, Covey, Gershenson, Greimel, Hatchett,
Jackson. (10)
NAYS: Long, Matis, Middleton, Nuccio, Potts, Runestad, Scott, Taub, Weipert, Bosnic, Crawford,
Dwyer, Gingell, Gosselin, Hoffman. (15)
A sufficient majority having not voted in favor, the referral to the Finance Committee failed.
Commissioner Quarles addressed the Board to inquire about the legality of the actions the Board is taking
to Corporation Counsel, Judy Cunningham.
Corporation Counsel, Judy Cunningham addressed the Board referencing the letter that was read during
Communications, sent via Email from the firm, Sachs Waldman Counsel for this litigation.
Discussion followed.
Moved by Hatchett supported by Zack the resolution be postponed until the February 16, 2012 Board
meeting.
Discussion followed.
Moved by Taub supported by Gosselin to call the question and vote on the resolution as it stands.
Vote on motion to call question:
AYES: Matis, McGillivray, Middelton, Nash, Nuccio, Potts, Quarles, Runestad, Taub, Weipert,
Woodward, Zack, Bosnic, Covey, Crawford, Dwyer, Gershenson, Gingell, Gosselin, Greimel,
Hatchett, Hoffman, Jackson, Long. (24)
NAYS: Scott. (1)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the resolution, as it stands, was before the Board.
Vote on motion to postpone:
AYES: McGillivray, Nash, Quarles, Woodward, Zack, Covey, Gershenson, Greimel, Hatchett,
Jackson. (10)
NAYS: Middleton, Nuccio, Potts, Runestad, Scott, Taub, Weipert, Bosnic, Crawford, Dwyer,
Gingell, Gosselin, Hoffman, Long, Matis. (15)
A sufficient majority having not voted in favor, the motion to postpone the resolution failed.
Discussion followed.
Commissioner Woodward addressed the Board to inquiry to Corporation Counsel, Judy Cunningham if
the Board has the authority to proceed.
Corporation Counsel, Judy Cunningham addressed the Board and stated that the Court will decide on
February 8, 2012.
Commissioner Woodward requested to have the records reflect that Corporation Counsel, Judy
Cunningham refused to advise.
Discussion followed.
Moved by Gingell supported by Scott to object having the records reflect that Corporation Counsel, Judy
Cunningham refused to advise.
Vote on objection:
AYES: Middleton, Nuccio, Potts, Runestad, Scott, Taub, Weipert, Bosnic, Crawford, Dwyer,
Gingell, Gosselin, Hoffman, Long, Matis. (15)
NAYS: Nash, Quarles, Woodward, Zack, Covey, Gershenson, Greinnel, Hatchett, Jackson,
McGillivray. (10)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the objection to the records reflecting that Corporation
Counsel, Judy Cunningham refused to advise passed.
Vote on resolution:
AYES: Nuccio, Potts, Runestad, Scott, Taub, Weipert, Bosnic, Crawford, Dwyer, Gingell,
Gosselin, Hoffman, Long, Matis, Middleton. (15)
NAYS: Nash, Quarles, Woodward, Zack, Covey, Gershenson, Greimel, Hatchett, Jackson,
McGillivray. (10)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the resolution was adopted.
DOES NOT REQUIRE COUNTY EXECUua
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Bill Bullard Jr., Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true
and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on February
1, 2012, with the original record thereof now remaining in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the County of Oakland at
Pontiac, Michigan this 1 st day of February, 2012.
H,L)2(2., oz-e.
Bill Bullard Jr., Oakland County