Michigan Votes Forum

 why restrict recall elections at all?

Why not?

 because recall elections are the will of the people.

a way to express BUYERS REMORSE.

why hamper that?

Elections are an expression of the will of the people, and expensive enough, without having more of them for "buyers remorse".

using our tax money to pay for elections is one of the few REAL JOBS OF GOVERNMENT.

and besides, it's the price we pay for freedom.

what else does the state REALLY need to spend money on?

Roads, schools, police, fire departments, parks, the environment, and on and on.

 i've already covered private roads, private schools, volunteer fire departments,

i'm also in favor of private ownership of parks and recreation facilities, and as for the environment, hunters put more REAL dollars into conservation of natural resources than the government has. i know of SEVERAL hunting clubs who lease THOUSANDS of acres of hunting land from oil and timber companies, forcing these companies to 'clean up their act' to keep the tennants happy, and bringing the sport of hunting to hundreds of members and their families.

not a dime of government money is expended, and more NATURE is preserved than in some national parks. real, wild, pristine nature, not some park with gift shops.

see, the PRIVATE way works, and without spending a dime of tax money. let's see the government do it for free.

Next time you take a car trip, confine it to private roads.

Nothing wrong with sending your kids to private school, if you can afford it. Surprise, not everyone can.

Who pays the volunteer fireman? Are they paid by a private firm, or do they do it for nothing, or are they paid with tax dollars?

Soon as you can line up a buyer for our state parks, let us know.

jmangan:

Next time you take a car trip, confine it to private roads.

<i would, but the money making private toll roads were all snapped up after the big war. billions were spent to gobble up the small (well kept) toll roads, and some EVEN STILL CHARGE TOLLS. (go figure)  there are a few FREE PRIVATELY OWNED BRIDGES, though. in fact, the longest railroad trestle is part of a privately owned bridge. look it up for yourself. 

Nothing wrong with sending your kids to private school, if you can afford it. Surprise, not everyone can.

why not? i can afford it, it's not that difficult, if you give up a couple of bowling nights a week and are serious about your kid's education.>

Who pays the volunteer fireman? Are they paid by a private firm, or do they do it for nothing, or are they paid with tax dollars?

<they are PAID NOTHING. they VOLUNTEER their time and effort to help their neighbors for free and for nothing. by the way, some of the oldest (in fact THE oldest) continually active volunteer fire department helps the neighborhoods they serve maintain the best fire ratings available. the public fire department can't say that.>

Soon as you can line up a buyer for our state parks, let us know.

<i never said YOUR state parks. those aren't worth buying. >

 you seem to have a grudging dislike for the word PRIVATE. why is that?

do you believe that nothing good comes from the private sector?

before the big bailout/nationalization, the big three automakers put out the finest cars in the country, and among the finest in the world. pity they forgot how to do that lately.

i'm wondering what the government is going to do with several dozen car factories?

maybe we'll make a YUGO equivalent.

 and by the way, the next time your kids want to go to DISNEYWORLD, or BUSCH GARDENS, or CEDAR POINT, tell them that you CAN'T go there, because it's not a public park, and it makes NASTY PROFITS, and that its run by the WICKED REPUBLICANS.

Now your talking!

crazycajun:

<they are PAID NOTHING. they VOLUNTEER their time and effort to help their neighbors for free and for nothing. by the way, some of the oldest (in fact THE oldest) continually active volunteer fire department helps the neighborhoods they serve maintain the best fire ratings available. the public fire department can't say that.>

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Most volunteer firefighters are compensated by the taxpayers to some degree for the time they spend fighting fires. Also, their training and equipment is furnished by the community, either through taxes or grants. They do have fund raisers, which is a form of communities sharing responsibilities, much like government.

crazycajun:

<i would, but the money making private toll roads were all snapped up after the big war. billions were spent to gobble up the small (well kept) toll roads, and some EVEN STILL CHARGE TOLLS. (go figure)  there are a few FREE PRIVATELY OWNED BRIDGES, though. in fact, the longest railroad trestle is part of a privately owned bridge. look it up for yourself. 

Funny you would mention the interstate highway system build by Eisenhower after WWII. Wasn't he a republican?

 it wasn't the interstate roads that i was referring to.

it was roads like the new jersey turnpike. (a toll road that STILL charges tolls every few miles. it also uses the toll booths as timing stations, if you get from one to the other too quickly, you get a ticket.)

don't ASSUME.

 by the way, you NEVER DID SAY why it's a good idea to restrict recall elections?

regular elections are expensive, but i don't hear you talking about restricting them?

perhaps we should cut back on some of the un-needed social programs and duplicitous payments for bad behavior that the government makes to be able to afford to ACTUALLY RUN THE GOVERNMENT.

 really??? so the hundreds thousands of volunteer fire fighters get a PAYCHECK?

the hundreds of volunteer fire companies, (private corporations in most cases) don't raise money to buy equipment, purchase and maintain trucks and hose and gear? they don't have HELMET SHAKES on street corners, showing off what they have done on a shoestring budget, polishing up the old fire trucks and getting out there in bunker gear to raise a few bucks to maintain those trucks?

most of the cities and small towns they serve don't have the resources to provide a paycheck in the first place. some don't even have the money to provide free fuel to fight the fires. yes, there are SOME companies that get government support, but most live or die on PUBLIC SUPPORT.

a lot of bigger towns foot the bill for a paid chouffer, or driver to make sure the truck gets there in a shorter period of time, thus UPPING THE FIRE RATING, but no support beyond that. ONE paid person at a time in the department does not equal government support.

Debunking claims and keeping facts factual:

really??? so the hundreds thousands of volunteer fire fighters get a PAYCHECK?

I don’t know about firefighters in other states, but according to the (Michigan) State Fire Marshal, as cited in the legislative analysis of Michigan HB 5022, dated September 23, 2003:

There are about 1,078 fire departments and 31,024 firefighters in Michigan. Only about 15% of all firefighters in Michigan are unpaid.  The remaining 85% of firefighters are either full time paid professionals (28%), or part-paid (57%). 

Most Michigan fire departments – 760 of them – are a combination in which one or more members are paid and the remainder are either part-paid or not paid at all.

(Cite: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2003-2004/billanalysis/House/pdf/2003-HLA-5022-a.pdf)

But getting back to this bill (SB 9 of 2009), which is about the recall of public officials …

The current law provides that officials are recall proof during the first and last six months of their terms of office, period.  SB 9 would keep the first and last six months limitation on offices with terms of two years or less, and extend the protection of recall to the first and last full years on offices with terms of greater than two years. 

That seems like an unnecessary complication, but it might help save taxpayers some wasted expense on virtually unnecessary recall elections.

SB 9 also would change criteria for a legal recall petition.  The specific change would require that the petition:

“State clearly AND FACTUALLY each reason for the recall. Each reason for the recall shall be LIMITED TO ISSUES THAT CANNOT BE OVERTURNED BY BOARD ACTION OR FOR WHICH NO OTHER POLITICAL RECOURSE IS AVAILABLE AND SHALL BE based upon the officer's conduct during his or her current term of office. …”

(Capitalized portions are proposed new language as it actually appears in the bill, not rude internet “shouting” of a sort we so frequently see.)

Those are very reasonable and good requirements to add.  They will help keep recall efforts honest.  They also will limit or eliminate recall campaigns mounted over petty and frivolous disputes or motivated purely by politics.  That will help conserve tax dollars by eliminating wasteful recall efforts, and make this bill very much worth supporting.  

 so, you consider the process by which the people keep politicians HONEST to be wasteful?

you wish politicians to be RECALL PROOF? to be above the will of the people?

your honesty is refreshing.

by the way, most small townships have ALL VOLUNTEER fire departments. NO paid members. that saves the local government MUCHO DINERO, and keeps the fire ratings higher, and fire insurance lower. that means that if there is no CITY fire department close by, they STILL get fire protection without having to wait for help to come from 'over yonder'.

some farms and factories also have their own fire apparatus, and volunteers to operate it outside the plant if necessary.

don't just stop looking when you run out of government information. keep looking, you'll be surprised how much COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT there is out there. PEOPLE working to make their lives better, not just GOVERNMENT.

crazycajun:

 so, you consider the process by which the people keep politicians HONEST to be wasteful?

Recalls can be wasteful under certain circumstances.  Recalling somebody in the first or last six months of their time in office seems wasteful to me, when you consider the cost of a recall election.  This is particularly true in places like those small townships and villages that you claim don’t pay firefighters.

Moreover, in smaller communities like the one in which I live, experience tells me that recalls can shatter the sense of community, which is not a good thing. 

I don’t believe recall elections or the threat of recall keeps politicians honest, any more than does a mechanism like term limits.  In my view it does provide a means by which really bad apples can removed, if necessary.

But as the law stands now, in my opinion, it also provides a means of prematurely removing decent, hardworking and effective public officials who make difficult and politically unpopular decisions that protect rather than harm the community, for no good reason.  And in my view, that is more harmful than beneficial when it happens.

you wish politicians to be RECALL PROOF? to be above the will of the people?

Have I said that?  (No.)  Does SB 9  propose that?  (No.)

So what are you talking about?  Building strawmen to argue over, are you?  That’s not very … err-r-r … factual.  Or honest.

your honesty is refreshing.

Thank you.  Oh, how I wish that could be said of you.

by the way, most small townships have ALL VOLUNTEER fire departments. NO paid members. that saves the local government MUCHO DINERO …

Which mucho dinero you evidently are eager to throw away on costly, ill-timed and non-factually supported recall elections, over issues that can be overturned by board action or for which other political recourse (such as an upcoming election) is available. 

By the way, there you go again giving us another pseudo-fact.  What’s your source for that information about small township fire departments, anyway?  Oh, we know, you don’t have one this time either.  So what’s new?

In fact, only 15% of Michigan’s 31,000 – plus firefighters are unpaid volunteers, according to the State Fire Marshal.  Where they are, I don’t know, or pretend to know.

Now, I figure you probably object to that provision in  SB 9 that would require a reason for recall to be stated “clearly and factually” in a recall petition, having seen your “way” with facts and such here.  Scares the daylights out of you, no doubt.  Makes you feel powerless.  But that doesn’t make such a provision a bad idea.  In fact, it pretty well underscores the reasonableness of it.

Electing people to public office is serious business that should be undertaken with care.  Recalling elected officials is equally serious business that also warrants care.  That is why, on balance, I support SB 9, which proposes reasonable adjustments in the existing law.

SaneMichigander:

crazycajun:

 so, you consider the process by which the people keep politicians HONEST to be wasteful?

 

Recalls can be wasteful under certain circumstances.  Recalling somebody in the first or last six months of their time in office seems wasteful to me, when you consider the cost of a recall election.  This is particularly true in places like those small townships and villages that you claim don’t pay firefighters.

<that is IF you ASSUME that the recall is wastefull and unncessary. many times, recalls are brought on by the very people who voted FOR the object of the recall. usually because the object of the recall has not been honest. as in HONEST in the way he represents the people who voted for him. in order to get a recall, you must really tick off the majority of the people who voted for you. i'd say a recall election was NEVER WASTEFUL.>

 

Moreover, in smaller communities like the one in which I live, experience tells me that recalls can shatter the sense of community, which is not a good thing. 

<so can a poor politician, or one who votes directly opposite of the will of the people. so what's your point?>

 

I don’t believe recall elections or the threat of recall keeps politicians honest, any more than does a mechanism like term limits.  In my view it does provide a means by which really bad apples can removed, if necessary.

<and that's EXACTLY why they shouldn't be meddled with. >

 

But as the law stands now, in my opinion, it also provides a means of prematurely removing decent, hardworking and effective public officials who make difficult and politically unpopular decisions that protect rather than harm the community, for no good reason.  And in my view, that is more harmful than beneficial when it happens.

<you have your view. the people who put up the signatures for a recall election have theirs. if you are being recalled within the first six months, you have not been honest with the people who voted for you. you have gone against the principles you SAID you lived by.>

 

you wish politicians to be RECALL PROOF? to be above the will of the people?

 

Have I said that?  (No.)  Does SB 9  propose that?  (No.)

<s.b.9 DOES propose that the candidate be recall proof for the first year. and the last year. how much damage could a bad politician do in that time?>

 

So what are you talking about?  Building strawmen to argue over, are you?  That’s not very … err-r-r … factual.  Or honest.

<no one's building strawmen. YOU are evading the question (as usual). the fact is, when a politician has raised the ire of the very people who voted for him within the first (or last) few months of his term to the point that they go to all the trouble of recalling him, they are speaking very loudly that they are dissatisfied with his performance. we DO have the right to redress our grievances, don't we? (you remember the FIRST AMENDMENT, don't you? why do you wish to take our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AWAY?>

 

your honesty is refreshing.

 

Thank you.  Oh, how I wish that could be said of you.

 

by the way, most small townships have ALL VOLUNTEER fire departments. NO paid members. that saves the local government MUCHO DINERO …

 

Which mucho dinero you evidently are eager to throw away on costly, ill-timed and non-factually supported recall elections, over issues that can be overturned by board action or for which other political recourse (such as an upcoming election) is available. 

 <why wait for a board to correct a corrupt politician? why wait for the next election cycle? besides, the STATE pays for the election, not the township. besides, the bad politician may have a four year term, like the governor.>

By the way, there you go again giving us another pseudo-fact.  What’s your source for that information about small township fire departments, anyway?  Oh, we know, you don’t have one this time either.  So what’s new?

<the source of my information is that i LIVE in a small town that has a ZERO PAID FIREFIGHTER DEPARTMENT.>  

In fact, only 15% of Michigan’s 31,000 – plus firefighters are unpaid volunteers, according to the State Fire Marshal.  Where they are, I don’t know, or pretend to know.

<oh, you PRETEND to know... but once again, you are FACTUALLY IGNORANT.>

 

Now, I figure you probably object to that provision in  SB 9 that would require a reason for recall to be stated “clearly and factually” in a recall petition, having seen your “way” with facts and such here.  Scares the daylights out of you, no doubt.  Makes you feel powerless.  But that doesn’t make such a provision a bad idea.  In fact, it pretty well underscores the reasonableness of it.

 <NO, i have no problem with stating the REASON for the recall clearly and factually, i'm looking for YOUR reason for making the voters wait to exercise a constitutional right. and once again, you are wrong. that's YOUR way with facts and such here. always an improper assumption.>

Electing people to public office is serious business that should be undertaken with care.  Recalling elected officials is equally serious business that also warrants care.  That is why, on balance, I support SB 9, which proposes reasonable adjustments in the existing law.

 <putting yourself up for office is also a serious business that should be undertaken with care. and performing your duties is serious business that should be undertaken with care. when they ARE NOT, the people have a right to act swiftly, and not have to wait a year. the recall election at the end of that year will still be costly, and divisive, but if it is the will of the people, it WILL happen. the PEOPLE pay for it, after all.>

 so, you would take away our first amendment rights to simply save the state money???

boy, you sure don't have a lot of respect for the PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, DO YOU?

One cannot help but suspect the motives of any governing body who wants to restrict the only process by which the people may hold them accountable.  Most recalls take place within the first year of service.  What is at the heart of this issue is the right of people to self govern.  Do we really want those we elect to limit our liberty to object to their behavior once they take office? 

 well said.

touche'.

Just because a recall fails or costs money in that moment should not be the judge of the entire system.  A recall is a warning to all elected officials that they are accountable.  Money spent in the recall of one may make others mindful of not overspending in the future and in many instances has backed officials down from subeverting the will of the people.  The impact of a recall reaches far beyond the immediate circumstances.  It is the Freedom to recall that protects us.  To limit IT is to cut our our own vocal cords.  Mistakes will be made but the benefit of the one's full ability to speak outwieghs any single mispoken word.

 once again, well spoken.

speaking softly, poking them with the big stick of truth.