Publication select ▼
HAZEL PARK — The Hazel Park City Council will remain one person short until the next general election in November, following a technical mix-up by the city’s administration that left the council with limited options.
In November, Mike McFall was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives, where he now serves the newly formed 8th District. At the time, he was the mayor pro tem of Hazel Park. With his departure from the City Council, his seat would need to be filled by appointment.
However, there was apparent confusion as to how much time the city had to fill the seat.
In its current form, Hazel Park’s city charter language reads: “In case of a vacancy in the office of any member of the Council, the vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term by the remaining members of the Council within thirty (30) days after such vacancy occurs.”
According to Hazel Park City Manager Ed Klobucher, McFall submitted a letter Dec. 13 stating he would resign Dec. 21. This was done so that he could be sworn in and take his seat in the Michigan House for 2023.
The City Council then voted to accept his resignation and declare his seat vacant at its meeting Jan. 10. Interviews commenced with nearly a half-dozen candidates for the appointment.
The council was ready to appoint someone at a special meeting on Jan. 24, thinking the 30-day window started with the declaration of a vacancy on Jan. 10. However, on the day prior, Jan. 23, Klobucher began contacting members of the council, informing them that the city attorneys had decided the 30-day window actually started with the Dec. 21 date McFall stated in his letter.
It was then determined that the period of time to appoint a replacement had already expired. As a result, the council now consists of the mayor and three members. Votes will only pass if the vote is 3-1; in the event of a 2-2 vote, the motion will fail.
Alissa Sullivan, a member of the council, said the whole situation is deeply frustrating for her and her colleagues.
“We on the council really tried to leave no stone unturned. But then it turned out the information we had been provided by the administration was inaccurate, and it left us with no choice but to proceed in this way,” Sullivan said. “After the meeting Jan. 24, I made a request to form a charter commission to review the charter and tighten up the language so that there are no ambiguities that could lead to situations like this again in the future.”
Andy LeCureaux, another member of the council, said that the city administration was unsure how to interpret the word choice in the charter.
“We had many discussions on when a resignation is official — whether it’s the date of the letter or when it’s accepted by the body. We had our city attorneys looking at this, and they determined we were past the 30 days,” LeCureaux said. “There’s no penalty for us not appointing. But if it turned out that we had violated the charter, then there could be an issue. My understanding is that the attorneys decided to play it safe.”
He described a scenario where an appointment could become a problem for the council.
“Like, say with a five-person body, if later there was an issue where something was decided 3 to 2, and one of the people in the minority was upset, they might look at how we approached this appointment and say we violated the charter,” LeCureaux said.
He also said that other external factors may have played a part in the mix-up, including the holiday season, weather-related shutdowns and personnel changes at City Hall.
“I agree that to prevent this happening ever again in the future, we need to clean up the language in the charter,” LeCureaux added. “I’m sure that will be a subject in the very near future. These sort of things are where we rely on attorney’s opinions; we pay them a lot of money to keep us out of trouble. So this is something we (on the council) just didn’t see coming.”
