Sunday, August 22, 2010


A grass roots committee aiming to recall Flint's Mayor is one step closer to getting on the November 2 ballot.

ABC12's Iris Perez investigates why Mayor Dayne Walling expects at least 1,000 petition signatures will be thrown out.

...Mayor Walling tells reporters the signatures were collected in a misleading way.

But Recall Committee members deny that claim, saying the language on the petition is clear.

Ms. Iris Perez I believe you have been misled by the mayor and his spin managers.

Mr. Dan Parks is one of over 15,000 participants in the effort to recall Flint Mayor Dayne Walling.

These Petition were signed by a grass roots movement to PUT PUBLIC SAFTEY FIRST in Flint. "Many people, thousands of people in this city voluntarily signed those petitions, the language is as clear as can be .... After he made the cuts, it just gave the criminals a get-out-of-jail-free card.


Ms Prez You seemed to struggle to bring Mr. Davenport into your article. He is an irrelevant bit payer in this drama. Some say of the Mayor of Flint. "He lied. He campaigned that he was for neighborhoods. He's put not one dime into any neighborhood in this city. "

The only thing he did was take it away by cutting public safety."

The mayor misled you by saying the signature are down to 8,0000. That number is all that was required to cause an election .

The Clerks office procedure then holds those remaining in reserve if the mayor can cause a couple more to be rejected. I was once flint City Clerk and have conducted petition signature checks.

The mayor spins common practice into a negative against the grass roots citizens movement. “When they turned them in, there were 15,000. Now the clerk has it down to 8,200 and change. And we know that another thousand or more have problems," added Walling.

The Cleks has thousands of signatures in reserve to count.

Mr. Rozycki is dead wrong. He says . "Recalls were meant really to remove someone who is clearly incompetent and corrupt. Probably not designed to remove someone you just disagree with," said Analyst Paul Rozycki.

The recall movement is a democratic process to allow the community to hold its elected officials accountable for their public policy decisions between election.

Recalls can reverse the prior election and thus must be held to highest standard of review and challenge. But if these petitons qualify and a recall of the Mayor is placed on the November high turnout election.

What better election could have been selected to allow the community to decides the future of Dayne Walling and the question,


Dayne Walling Mayor of Flint is a highly accomplished individual. Flint's image has improved because of his Mayorialship. Some disagree with his public policy choices.

Some say the level of funding for police and fire was set to low . Some... because they think to this Mayor public saftey is a low priority signed recall petitions against him. To set aside the will of the people who elected Mayor Walling to a 4 year term is a significant event.

A mechanism is available through the clerks office for validation and the courts for direct challenge.

After this test if there is in fact a recall election the community can decide at a high turnout election if the Walling election should continue. it will be a one sided contest. Walling will have an unchallenged opportunity to take his message to the voters.

 The petition organizers simply facilitated the community will to put this question on the ballot. I think recalls are destabilizing and would never sign a petition. But in our democracy the voters have this recall opportunity to hold a Mayor accountable for his policy decisions.

Our community should be actively involved in an informed debate on the appropriate level of public saftey (polic and fire) that Flint should have and what are the tradeoffs.

Should other issues beyond public saftey be argued? My first impression was yes but now I think we should focus on what was on the petition PUBLIC SAFTEY FUNDING.

 Should the recall organizers be challenged? Its Walling option. I say focus on the issue of public saftey. Why is the funding at the level its is? What could Walling have done to not layoff as many police and fire as he did? Whose fault was it that negotiations broke down?

Did the mayor make the right decision as to funding and management of public saftey services?

Sphere: Related Content