Gov Snyder Sends Letter To Oak Park Re Marijuana Decrim

[t-pain]

RICK SNYDER EXECUTIVE OFFICE BRIAN CALLEY

GOVERNOR LANSING LT. GOVERNOR

RECEIVED

June 16, 2014 _ cm, oF OAK PARK

 

JUN 2 3 2014

Mr. T. Edwin Norris, Clerk

City of Oak Park cm CLERK‘S OFFlCE

14000 Oak Park Blvd.

Oak Park, Michigan 48237

 

Re: City of Oak Park Proposed Charter Amendment

 

Dear Mr. Norris:

My office has received the proposed revised charter of the City of Oak Park,

which you submitted by way of a letter dated April 30,2014. I have reviewed the

proposed amendment, in light of the Home Rule City Act (HRCA), 1909 PA 279, MCL

117.1 et seq. The Attorney General's Office has also reviewed the proposed

amendment at my request.

 

The proposed amendment reads:

“Nothing in the Code of Ordinances shall apply to the use, possession or transfer of less

than 1 ounce of marijuana, on private property not used by the public, or transportation

of less than 1 ounce of marijuana, by a person who has attained the age of 21 years."

 

After review of the proposed amendment and the Attorney General's letter

(attached), I decline to approve the charter amendment for the reasons set forth below.

 

Nothing in this proposed amendment limits the responsibility of an Oak Park city

police of?cer to enforce the state’s criminal laws, including those applicable to

marijuana. Whether or not the proposed amendment is approved by the voters,

marijuana will remain a controlled substance under state and federal law. City, county,

state, and federal law enforcement will retain the authority and duty to enforce those

criminal laws, without regard to any provision in the charter.

 

Currently, MCL 750.479 and the Oak Park Code of Ordinances §50.4 both

prohibit any person from obstructing or resisting law enforcement of?cials performing

their law enforcement duties. The proposed amendment of the city charter seeks to

carve out an exception to §50.4, and any other marijuana-related city ordinance, that is

not found in MCL 750.479. Under Section 36 of the HRCA, however, no city charter

provision "shall con?ict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of the

state."

 

Furthermore, the ballot language does not conform to the requirements of

Section 21 of the HRCA, which require the ballot language to consist of a true and

impartial statement of the purpose of the amendment. The language is inaccurate

because it is does not inform the voters that the proposed amendment conflicts with

state law or that state law will control regardless of whether the proposed amendment is

adopted.

 

Because of these concerns, which are more fully explained in the attached letter

from the Attorney General's Of?ce, I do not approve the proposed revised charter.

However, it is my understanding that the amendment will nonetheless be placed on the

November 4, 2014, ballot.

 

Sincerely, 

Rick Snyder

- Governor

Edited August 5, 2014 by t-pain

[t-pain]

http://www.oakpark-mi.com/city_clerk/files/072114councilmeeting.pdf

is 404, but its still in google cache.

 

heres the attorney generals letter that was attached

this is a google cache, so there are typos. and its cut off...

 

 

 

BILL SCHUETTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
June 2, 2014

 

 

Honorable Richard D. Snyder
Governor, State of Michigan The George Romney Building 0 J0
Lansing, MI 48909 

 

 

Attention: Michael F. Gadola Legal Counsel to the Governor

 

Re: City of Oak Park - Proposed Charter Amendment by Initiative
Petition

 

 

Chapter 8, Section 8.15 — adds a new Section 8.15 to Chapter 8 of
the city charter, which would provide “Nothing in the Code of
Ordinances shall apply to the use, possession, or transfer of less than 1
ounce of marijuana, on private property not used by the public, or
transportation of less than 1 ounce of marijuana, by a person who has
attained the age of 21 years”

 

 

Dear Governor Snyder:

 

 

You have referred to this of?ce for examination a proposed charter
amendment, proposed by initiative petition ?led with the City of Oak Park City
Clerk. The letter of transmittal from the City Clerk, which your of?ce received on
May 2, 2014 and which this of?ce received on May 5, 2014, indicates he certi?ed the
suf?ciency of the petition on or about April 30, 2014. Although the letter of
transmittal does not state when the petition was ?led with the City Clerk,
information subsequently received from one of the proponents of the initiative
petition suggests the petition was ?led shortly before April 29, 2014.

 

 

For your information, the scheduling of the election regarding the proposed
charter amendment is currently the subject of litigation in Oakland County Circuit
Court in the case of Safer Oak Park Coalition v T. Edwin Norris [the city clerk], No.
14-140952-AW. As discussed below, neither your review of the proposed
amendment nor the review of the Attorney General regarding the proposed ballot
language is determinative of whether the proposal is submitted to the city voters or
the timing of that election.

Honorable Richard D. Snyder
Page 2
June 2, 2014

 

 

I have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Charter of the City of Oak
Park in light of the Home Rule City Act (HRCA), 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.1 et seq. I
conclude that the amendment is not consistent with the HRCA. Accordingly, I
recommend that the Governor not approve the charter amendment for the reasons
set forth below.

 

Nothing in this proposed amendment limits the responsibility of an Oak Park
city police of?cer to enforce the state’s criminal laws, including those applicable to
marijuana. To the contrary, “[p]olice are charged to enforce laws until and unless
they are declared unconstitutional.” People v MacLeod, 254 Mich App 222, 230; 656
NW2d 844 (2002). Regardless of whether the proposed amendment is approved by
the voters, marijuana will remain a controlled substance under state and federal
law. City law enforcement will retain the authority to enforce criminal laws,
without regard to any provision in the charter. Joslin v 14* District Judge, 76 Mich
App 90; 255 NW2d 782 (1977). That same conclusion would apply to county, state,
and federal law enforcement personnel who, in any event, would not be subject to
any city charter provisions.

 

Currently, MCL 750.479 and the Oak Park Code of Ordinances §50.4 both
prohibit any person from obstructing or resisting law enforcement of?cials
performing their law enforcement duties. If adopted, the proposed amendment to
the city charter seeks to carve out an exception of §50.4, and any other marijuana-
related city ordinance, that is not found in MCL 750.479. Under Section 36 of the
HRCA, however, no city charter provision “shall con?ict with or contravene the
provisions of any general law of the state.”

 

The Attorney General has a separate responsibility to review proposed ballot
language for compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of the HRCA. I have
examined the ballot language for the proposed amendment as set forth in the
petition and in an attachment to City Clerk’s letter. The ballot language is
inaccurate because it is does not inform the voters that the proposed amendment
con?icts with state law. The ballot language also does not inform the voters that
state law will control regardless of whether the proposed amendment is adopted.

 

Therefore, I conclude that the ballot language does not conform to the requirements
of Section 21 of the HRCA, which require the ballot language to consist of a true
and impartial statement of the purpose of the amendment.

 

The City Clerk’s letter of transmittal does not state when the proposed
amendment will be submitted to the voters, but Section 21 of the HRCA, MCL
117.21, provides the proposed amendments must be placed on the ballot at the
November 2014 election, that being the next general election not less than 90 days
after the ?ling of the petitions with the City Clerk shortly before April 29, 2014.

Although the August 2014 primary election is the next scheduled election,

then its cut off in google cache.

Edited August 5, 2014 by t-pain

[Restorium2]

The tip of the iceburg...

 

Then what about the dispensaries operating in places like A2? Aren't they operating under local 'carve outs'?

 

And what about Schuette's public objection to the dispensary bill?

 

Why speak out now when he has stood mute for so long?

[Willy]

LIkely he now realizes these are gonna pass and he's worried bout a cash cow.. and trying to frighten voters that there vote wont account for state regulations.. so he can have leo continue on with the cash cow robbery of patients and caregivers, and disp when they look like there making good enough money to raid and steal there items.. (disp)

Edited August 5, 2014 by Willy

[Restorium2]

LIkely he now realizes these are gonna pass and he's worried bout a cash cow.. and trying to frighten voters that there vote wont account for state regulations.. so he can have leo continue on with the cash cow robbery of patients and caregivers, and disp when they look like there making good enough money to raid and steal there items..

None of the local ordinances ever really did anything. We knew that all along. Why is Schuette being so 'selective' with his advice? Why didn't he help out those other cities with empty ordinances that put people in harms way?

[Willy]

None of the local ordinances ever really did anything. We knew that all along. Why is Schuette being so 'selective' with his advice? Why didn't he help out those other cities with empty ordinances that put people in harms way?

You have to ask? (sarcasm)  I think he just swings with the money... and I think he has a personal agenda of some sort.. we can hope he leaves with the next election.. and speaking of elections,, what choice we got  evil vs evil ?

Edited August 5, 2014 by Willy

[Restorium2]

You have to ask?  I think he just swings with the money... and I think he has a personal agenda of some sort.. we can hope he leaves with the next election.. and speaking of elections,, what choice we got  evil vs evil )?

David Leyton would most likely replace Schuette if we can get rid of Snyder and put in Schauer. You know, Leyton, the guy we had all primed and ready to go last time. He's still walking the walk for us.

[t-pain]

anyone have contact with tim skubic ?

 

tim wrote an article about how snyder was silent on these issues.

 

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/07/tim_skubick_gov_snyder_avoids.html

 

RICK SNYDER IS NOT SILENT, HIS MESSAGE IS JUST BEING KEPT HIDDEN.

[Willy]

Mark Totten is the Democratic candidate for Attorney General.

It looks like he has a good chance of winning..

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

I think the problem is that the city is basically trying to assert a change in law that it can't. It would be better off doing what other cities have done and just telling its police force that marijuana is to be a very low priority. Obviously in any city the state police can still conduct a sting and it seems as though the governor is pointing out that the city went too far with its language.

[+washtenaut]

anyone have contact with tim skubic ?

 

tim wrote an article about how snyder was silent on these issues.

 

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/07/tim_skubick_gov_snyder_avoids.html

 

RICK SNYDER IS NOT SILENT, HIS MESSAGE IS JUST BEING KEPT HIDDEN.

 

Here is an email address for 'Off the Record' tv show hosted by Tim Skubick

 

otr@wkar.org

[GregS]

The ballot box is where it all happens. 

[GregS]

Mark Totten is the Democratic candidate for Attorney General.

What are his creds and bona fides?

[slipstar059]

Basically with the language they've written it would directly pit state cops against sherif and city cops. Imagine a situation where sheriff were called in to arrest a state swat team. It wouldn't be a good situation for anyone involved. Also it seems Schutte is keeping his mouth shut because it's election time. No need to sway 64 percent of the voters against you, right before election. Imagine this after the election, his name would have been plastered all over it. Hell, his signature would have been notarized at the bottom. I can also picture a meeting where his friends at big pharma say, Bill your taking it a little to far, we here at ** pharmaceuticals have big plans for that little plant. I will say this before Bill Schuette I had no idea of what an AG did, we might be nit picky about his views on cannabis, but he has a hard job, I wouldn't want to see the crime he does on a daily basis, and he has made some really good decisions taking down a lot of quack doctors.

[GregS]

David Leyton would most likely replace Schuette if we can get rid of Snyder and put in Schauer. You know, Leyton, the guy we had all primed and ready to go last time. He's still walking the walk for us.

When is Schuette up for re-election? It would be a gas to put Leyton there.

Edited August 5, 2014 by GregS

[Kingdiamond]

This is why Snyder and Schuette need to be sent packing.

[GregS]

C'mon. Did we not already know this? The record is clear enough. Schuette is squarely against and all the Governor has to do is keep quiet. Not enforcing all laws is a prerogative that is taken in any government administration. It has been our turn in the barrel for too long, and theirs is coming. Feel free to use it in your campaign support arguments in social and mainstream media. Think I won't?

Edited August 5, 2014 by GregS

[t-pain]

Basically with the language they've written it would directly pit state cops against sherif and city cops.

Imagine a situation where sheriff were called in to arrest a state swat team.

 

that would never happen. where did you even think that from?

 

 

 

 

but he has a hard job.

only when he goes against the majority of citizens...

[slipstar059]

Yea unless Schuette came out in complete favor of full on medical legalization, I wouldn't want to see him in another term. You got to remember though there was a member here who wished him cancer, right around Christmas time. That's ridiculous, to say that on a medical board. I've had a lot of close family members die of cancer, cannabis is specifically used for cancer treatment. To wish that on anyone is terrible. So I can see why he wouldn't have taken this place seriously. I hope that after seeing the positive development in ours and other medical states it would be enough to change anyone's mind about cannabis. The real issue with these candidates shouldn't rest solely on cannabis though because who do I vote for when they both agree on cannabis. Don't get me wrong I think a politicians cannabis views are important, just not the only thing I look at.

[slipstar059]

Also I know it would never happen, but that would be an argument. It's like all those sherriffs in Texas that we're going against federal agents coming in and taking the farmers cattle. The same thing could happen in michigan with dnr killing the foreign pig species on the hog farms. It just takes one sheriff to stand against an injustice , in his county. That law change could have the same effect in that county.

[slipstar059]

It's still up.

[t-pain]

someone hoped he gets cancer on icmag

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=260453

[slipstar059]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/35756-more-bs-from-the-ag/?fromsearch=1

 

They did here as well, I was pretty disgusted when I saw it. To be fair it was in 2011, like I said I think the medical has grown up a lot and is doing positive things. Maybe someone could delete it though?

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Slipstar059 the locals can't arrest the state boys for enforcing state law. State law is state law and a city cannot opt out of it.

[slipstar059]

"Yea unless Schuette came out in complete favor of full on medical legalization, I wouldn't want to see him in another term." : me

In fact there's a lot more that I disagree with him about than medical legalization, so regardless I won't be voting for him.

I'm just sick of seeing people toe the party line, there's more at stake, than our right to medicate.

I'm sure if I had left it at my comment about him and big pharma, you'd be my best pal.

 

Since when can non-members post information on here? Also regardless, it's still there. It didn't get deleted, and yes I think people at schuette's office pay attention to our rambling. That's also mentioned in the thread. It's easy to moan about the AG until you get old, and preyed upon, and need his offices help.

Edited August 5, 2014 by slipstar059