Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed. And I thought the folks wanting to get the state involved were all about "small government." They didn't want the federal money for our train station. Why would they want the state getting involved in Troy politics? Small government means we solve these issues ourselves. And we certainly don't spend money on a special election.

Glenn Clark? That guy has a horrible political reputation. Please. If Wade Fleming had been chosen as mayor, Glenn would not be in front of the news cameras making noise. I can guarantee you that.

State election law should trump the Troy Charter if the Charter violates the law. That part of the Charter has not been tested yet.

It's surprising that half the council does not want to seek the advice of the Secretary of State, in essence ignoring state election law. State laws trump city ordinances, especially regarding elections.

Federal law trumps state law unless it's been ruled unconstitutional. It's called separation of powers.

That's why Mayor Daniels swore to uphold the Michigan Constitution, as did the new council members who were sworn in the same day. I think they also swore to uphold the laws of the State of Michigan. Now they want to ignore them to uphold the Troy Charter.

It seems City Attorney Bluhm has EGG all over her face!

Now can we recall her and replace her too?

The decision made by the council was far from being legal. When Slater voted, he was actually voting against Fleming and not for McGinnis; Slater must really think the Troy citizens are stupid for not recognizing this. How much sense does it make to be in the running for mayor, and then vote for someone else? Slater is someones puppet. Of course there has to be an election, you can't have a mayor hand-picked by the council; if the state let this happen, then why should we even bother having registered voters - just let the puppets decide everything for us. We'll just keep sending in our tax dollars. This isn't the first bungled mess by the city administration - hopefully the state can help straighten this out with as little cost to the residents as possible. We're lucky to have oversight by the state, otherwise things could actually be much worse than they really are. It is obvious that the need for a special election was kept quiet, for the recall to go through. if anyone didn't realize this, then you must not have been paying very much attention back in the 9th grade!! Maybe we should have Slater recalled before the special election.

Jack, how is any of this against the law? Look at the city charter, section 6.3. It clearly says that if an office is vacant, in this case the mayor, then council shall appoint a new mayor which will serve until the next November's election. It IS the law in our city.

Talk about puppets......who is pulling the strings of Henderson, Tietz and Fleming...how fast can you say Bob Gooselin.....oops...Gosselin....the Master Puppeteer has had so many run-ins with the law I am shocked that he could even be elected as dog catcher...ask him about his arrest for felonious assault a few years ago, his arrests for soliciting and his arrests for flashing.....how any of you can support such an individual is beyond me and now he has his 3 puppets on the City Council.

Just got caught up after being off the web travelling - thank goodness, I'm outside the fallout zone. Anyway, why would/should the City seek a FINAL and BINDING opinion from the AG who has a history of being far right. As CW McGinnis said this is a difference of opinion/interpretation of the possible conflict between the Election Director and the City. (I also note that the State letter was not concurred to by Secy. Johnson or the AG if that matters). Anyway, as such, a neutral party is needed to determine the issues - and that is the Court, and certainly not another branch of one part (AG and Election Comm.) of the State

The burden is on the State now. If they, the AG really, feels they need to invalidate the election of Mayor Slater, then the State needs to file suit for an Administrative Ruling. That nonsense of the "press event" just reinforces my belief the Council did the right thing

I would think that before the council had the vote for mayor, that Ms. Blum would have researched the county AND state election laws to make sure we were in compliance ALL election laws. Well, maybe we will find out that she in fact did have information and choose not to divulge it hoping that no one would be the wiser.. thats already happened with our budget. WE heard in an accidental Szerlag staff meeting in his new job in Florida that he "buried information so deep that no one would find it"... Im certain that if he's already burring information that Ms. Blum is in the habit of burring info here as well... Id be shocked if this wasnt all planned and there's open meeting act violations. hmmm checking phone bills for call might be a good idea.

It is my understanding that Ms. Bluhm worked with the county, and NOT the state, so she did not do what I suggested, and no, I do NOT believe she did her due diligence and did NOT do her research - as expected of her position of City Atty.. Because of this lack of due diligence, we might very well be front and center (yet again) of the news media with a court battle for Mayor AGAIN. I thought that all these citizens that were embarrassed by Daniels as mayor with her blunders were trying upset with giving Troy a black eye... Yet the same people are giving Troy a black eye themselves by not wanting researching and getting opinions from the state to make sure we are not violating State election laws..

The city attorney and the city clerk found two or three examples of cities in Michigan with the same circumstances. None of them were questioned and didn't receive letters from the state. The timing of the letter Troy received is suspect to say the least. I would like to find out who was the motivating force behind the sending of the letter. I dough that if Fleming had been made mayor it would have happened. Until this city gets rid of the tea party dialogs this kind of thing will continue.

Humorist Stephen Colbert has a word for the mood on these replies...TRUTHiNESS. Saying things like: "It is my understanding...", accusing Attorney Bluhm of burying information WITHOUT any proof, making legal judgments without a clear understanding of the law, etc., does not make any case. Facts...those are what matter. Concrete facts.

I didnt realize we were in a Legal forum... Unfortunately we are not privy to all the details and like i said, when this is said and done, I would not be surprised if she knew this and decided not to inform the council, hoping that Slater would be Mayor because he is part of the "big spenders" and its always easier to run a city when you have a majority on council that will rubber stamp needless spending.

I am a big believer of researching ALL information possible - both sides of the issue - and then make a decision (not just one side of the issue). And no I do NOT believe that Ms. Bluhm did her due diligence on THIS issue. period. It was her job to ferret out all information she did not - otherwise we would have known the states opinion before the election.

Re: CM Fleming's resolution to ask for AG's rushed opinion so as to have a February election. First of all, you haven't heard what the opinion is yet, so why make it final and binding? You never commit to more than you need to legally, that's foolish. It shows to me that he hasn't Troy's best interest at heart. He and his supporters seem to be pushing for a quickie election at $100K and unfair abbreviated amount of time for possible candidates to turn in petition signatures by Monday afternoon.

Second, the AG's website says the following about cases where he would not issue his opinion:

Consistent with his primary mission, the Attorney General prioritizes opinion requests that affect the operation of state government. Because the Legislature has authorized local units of government to employ their own legal counsel to provide guidance on matters of local concern, the Attorney General typically does not issue opinions concerning the interpretation of local charters, local ordinances, locally negotiated collective bargaining agreements, and other uniquely local issues. Other typical reasons for declining a request are: 1) the requester is not a person authorized to request an opinion under the applicable law; 2) the request seeks an interpretation of proposed legislation that may never become law; 3) the question asked is currently pending before a court or administrative tribunal or likely to be the subject of litigation in the near future; 4) the request involves the operation of the judicial branch of government or a local unit of government; or 5) the request seeks legal advice on behalf of, or involves disputes between, private persons or entities.

Seem's to me our situtation might fall under more than one of the above reasons, i.e.,
it involves local charter and could be subject of future litigation.

Thirdly, if the AG does decide to issue an opinion, here is an outline of the process:

If the opinion request is granted, it is assigned to an assistant attorney general having recognized expertise in the relevant area of the law. This attorney is expected to prepare a thoroughly researched and well-written draft. The Assistant Attorney General for Law then reviews the draft to assure it is legally sound and performs any editing that may be needed before sending the draft to the Chief Legal Counsel. The draft also may be circulated to other attorneys within the Department of Attorney General for additional substantive review. Drafts of most formal opinions and some letter opinions are first submitted for consideration and approval by the Attorney General's Opinion Review Board (ORB), before submission to the Attorney General for his review. Given the time and attention accorded these matters, the opinions process may take several months to complete depending upon the complexity of the question presented.

Given the above, I find it laughable that anyone could expect a well-researchd AG opinion by next week, let alone Monday (to make the February election deadline).

So let me get this straight, Dale, Dave Wade, Thomas, et al.
The heroes of Troy are the people who are TRYING TO GET THE STATE TO SUE THE PEOPLE OF TROY? How did you all get so twisted? The destruction of our good name, business appeal and property values continues thanks to you "fiscally responsible conservatives." With y'all protecting us, we'll all be destroyed in no time! http://www.keeptroystrong.com/2012/11/bob-gosselin-troys-enemy-number-one.html

So now I hear Bob Gosselin is calling the AG up himself since the city council wouldn't do it officially?
Talk about going against what is good for Troy! We don't need another bruising and divisive election so soon and to be wasting money on special elections.
I hope the AG follows his own rules, above, about giving out opinions, otherwise something will seem fishy.

Don't you people understand! The Troy City Charter is a WHIMSICAL DOCUMENT...c'mon get with it!

I have never met a realator who has touted Troy Schools while selling a home. Cuz Troy Schools are corrupted by evil puplic employees (not private sector). Similarly I have never met a realator who touted Troy as the Safest City (cuz Troy is protected by evil public employees) I am glad realators have such Morals. If I am wrong please tell me.

One of the participants in Wednesday's meeting, Michael Ross, has written to the Attorney General. He has inferred "election fraud." What a guy!!!! Remember, he is part of the Gosselin/Clark show.

The citizens voted in Janice because she campaigned as fiscally responsible and lower taxes. She was recalled because she said really stupid things in public and then voted down the train station even though it was funded with Federal dollars and very few Troy dollars

The people went from a "tax and spend" majority on council last election and in the most recent election the citizens voted in a conservative "low spending" majority this time. And putting Slater in as Mayor changes the citizens "intent" because he is one of the "big spenders" on council.

The voters have an uncanny way of knowing what is right for this city.

Daffy duck: The "tax and spenders:" certainly did raise our taxes with the Library milleage - thank goodness the tax payers didnt buy into their 2 mil increase they originally wanted!! And it took 3 milleages before they said they would close the library if we did not vote for it. THREE WEEKS LATER THEY "FOUND" 10 MILLS.

So, yeah your comments are a complete LOAD.

And Janice was not in office long enough to lower the taxes yet.

Total Health:

Nice childish name calling.

The "tax and spenders" on the council did not raise taxes. The voters of Troy did. When they had an opportunity to vote for the library without the slimy dirty tricks pulled by JD and her pals. Overwhelmingly. Your falsehood about the "found" money has been debunked so thoughroughly and often I won't even bother.

JD was in office for a YEAR and did absolutely nothing related to the budget except voted against a fiscally conservative one (the ONLY no vote) and admitted she found the budget "overwhelming ". How much time did she need? 10 years? 50? I don't have that kind of time, and neither does the city, for a mayor to learn how to be competent.

Your comments have been and remain a complete load.

Daffy" The voters voted in 4 conservatives this time into office and I think the council needed to honor their wishes in selecting a mayor that is a conservative. The liberals had their turn and now the conservatives need their time in office ,just like the liberals did. The 10 mills was not debunked.. its real $$.

I dont have time to see more money be spent on HUGE inflated pensions either - they need to be re-negotiated, and cut to an "industry standard" type of pension. We cannot afford it and the "big spending" needs to be stopped. You may be surprised, but I normally vote democratic, yet I am also conservative when it comes to budgets - and "there's more burried in the weeds" as Szerlag said, that we need to find.