Royal Oak commission votes to put issue of Veterans Memorial location on ballot

Royal Oak — The Royal Oak City Commission voted unanimously Wednesday night to put the location of the Veterans Memorial on a city-wide ballot on Nov 2.

The special meeting was held after the Michigan Court of Appeals on Friday rejected an effort by city officials to overturn an Oakland Circuit Court ruling that the petitions for a Preserve and Protect Veterans Memorial ordinance were sufficient and must be decided by the commission by Friday, or be put on the November ballot for a city-wide vote.

Last Friday, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel rejected a half-dozen arguments raised by the city and ruled: “All that remains is for defendants to follow the trial court's order and take the actions necessary to place the proposition on the ballot for the November 2, 2021 election.”

The city, mayor and commission are individually named as defendants in the action and failure to comply with the court’s order could result in fines or jail time for contempt of court.

The Veterans Memorial relocation has prompted lawsuits and the petition effort by area veterans, who want to leave the memorial at its current location near the public library and a Centennial Common park area underway as part of the city’s remaking of its civic area.

The conflict resulted from the city’s overall plan to raze the old City Hall and Police Department, which required moving the memorial 40 feet southeast toward Troy Street.

After a 45-minute closed session Wednesday, the commission spent an hour in public discussion faulting the petitioners, the petition language and how costly it will be for residents if they pass it in November.

“This (petition) is either incompetently written or written to create chaos,” said Mayor Michael Fournier, who said he would not approve it at the ballot box.

City Manager Paul Brake said returning the memorial to its former site could result in revisions to the 2.2 acre Centennial Common that could cost more than $400,000 to taxpayers.

Several commissioners and attorneys said the city clerk, commission and others had acted within the law and with the good of the city in mind.

Some residents who spoke during public comment disagreed.

“I’ve never heard such balderdash and lies,” said Ron Wolf. “You should be ashamed of yourselves.”

Bill Harrison accused the commission of spending an hour Wednesday night “spewing out misinformation”

Tom Roth, a candidate in the fall election for the Royal Oak mayor’s job, scolded the commission for being out of touch with veterans and residents.

‘It is a shame that all of the time, effort and money devoted to fighting the veterans on this issue could have been avoided had you simply shown more empathy for our citizens, and leadership in looking for a solution,” Roth said.

“But either you never took the time to learn why so many residents cared so deeply about preserving our memorial, or you just didn’t care.  Either way it is a shame. Had you put forth just a fraction of the effort talking with veterans, perhaps you would have found a solution that would not have alienated so many within our community."

A former city attorney, Charles Semchena, who has worked with the Save the Veterans Memorial group for several months, heralded the Court of Appeals decision leading to Wednesday’s vote.

“The Court of Appeals made clear to Royal Oak's mayor and City Commission something that should have been clear all along — elected officials are not free to ignore laws they find inconvenient or simply don't like,” said Semchena.

“The veterans followed the rules and did everything correctly. From the beginning, elected officials should have done the right thing and put the veterans' proposed ordinance on the ballot. They chose instead to waste tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in a futile attempt to suppress voters' right to decide an issue of great community concern.

The city argued while enough signatures were gathered for the petition to put the matter on the ballot, they claimed there were technical legal deficiencies. The city clerk initially verified that enough signatures were gathered, but on advice from city officials, declined to certify the petitions.

mmartindale@detroitnews.com

(248) 338-0319