Graham Jaehnig/Daily Mining Gazette Trustees Tim Bies and Elise Matz, both appointed to the Calumet Village Council, listen to an address given by Village Attorney Jim Tercha at the regular monthly meeting on Tuesday. Tercha discussed a resolution he said was offered by the Houghton County Clerk to a lost petition, something the county clerk vehemently denied having made.

CALUMET — The disappearance of an eight-page ballot petition challenging Ordinance No. 157, along with the mishandling of another, similar petition intended to challenge Ordinance No. 158, has resulted in a firestorm between village officials, the Calumet Township Clerk and the Houghton County Clerk and it does not appear that the issues surrounding the petitions will go away soon.

At Tuesday’s regular monthly meeting, Village Attorney Jim Tercha told the Village Council that because the council lacked the necessary members at the Jan. 11 special meeting to approve an ordinance that would have repealed the previous two in question, those two ordinances remain in effect.

Virginia Dwyer, who circulated one of the petitions, responded to Tercha’s statement, saying:

“Ordinances 157 and 158 were passed but are not in effect until the voters decide because of our referendum petitions. They will not be into effect unless the voters approve. If the voters don’t approve 157 and 158, they are gone. Tercha is wrong again. Appears not to know how the law works.”

Section 4 of Ordinance No. 157 reads: “This ordinance shall take effect 45 days after the date of its adoption, unless a petition signed by not less than 10 percent of the registered electors of the village is filed with the acting village clerk initially appointed under this ordinance shall serve from the date of appointment until Nov. 15, 2022.”

In an email to the Daily Mining Gazette, Dwyer stated that both ordinances 157 and 158 passed by a 2/3 majority vote at the July 2021 regular meeting. A 2/3 vote of a seven member-council is 5, she stated, regardless of vacancy or absence. It legally passed. With two trustees absent, the ordinances were approved by a vote of 5-0.

“Days after the votes, I requested a list of the registered voters in Calumet Village,” said Dwyer. “I received it a few days later from township clerk Beth Salmela. Peggy Germain requested the same list but (she) was required to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). I was not.”

Neither Dwyer nor Germain could understand why Germain was required to FOIA the same information Dwyer was given.

Dwyer went on to say that she paid for and obtained a referendum petition to challenge Ordinance No. 158, empowering the Village Council to appoint a treasurer. Germain, she said, obtained the petition challenging Ordinance No. 157, permitting the council to appoint a clerk.

“Germain and I began to collect signatures to have both clerk and treasurer ordinances put on the ballot so the people could decide,” said Dwyer. “We together started obtaining signatures on Aug. 2, 2021, and finished on Aug. 10. I handed in my petition to Clerk Dave Geisler on Aug. 18, 2021. I have a signed statement by Geisler stating this. Germain handed hers into clerk Geisler the next week. She also has a signed statement verifying that Clerk Geisler received.”

In her email, Dwyer included the language contained in the petitions.

“Whereas the General Law Village Act MLC 62.1(3) provides: ‘the council by a vote of 2/3 of the members of council May provide by ordinance for the nomination by the president and the appointment by the council of the clerk or the treasurer or both,” Dwyer stated. “Whereas the General Law Village Act MCL 62.1(4) provides: ‘the council shall provide that an ordinance adopted under subsection (2) or (3) takes affect 45 days after the date of adoption unless a petition is signed by not less than 10% of the registered electors of the village is filed with the village clerk within the 45 day period, in which case the ordinance takes effect upon approval at an election held on the question;’ and whereas it is in the best interest of the residents of the village of Calumet that ordinance No.158 be voted on at the next election.”

Dwyer added that the language for the ballot is then made by the village clerk and that that the village clerk must verify the signatures.

“I don’t know why Clerk Geisler did not follow the law and just brought my petition to the township clerk for verification,” she said.

On September 20,2021 the village regular meeting did not happen for a lack of quorum, Dwyer said. A general discussion did occur, though, at which Germain asked Geisler about the status of her petition. Geisler replied that it would be on the May 2022 ballot. Germain asked why she not informed of that.

“Geisler,” Dwyer said, “stated he was telling her now.”

Dwyer further said that in December 2021, it was discovered that neither petitions were handled properly.

“I talked to County Clerk Kelly,” she said, “and she stated she would talk to Township Clerk and have her call me. I hear nothing until early January 2022 until Clerk Salmela called me to inform that Clerk Geisler handed my petition to her on August 20, 2021. I asked why I was never informed by anyone that my petition was verified or not.

“She stated she had no good reason and was sorry I was involved with the issue. It was then I was informed by Clerk Salmela that she never received the clerk petition from Geisler even though he claimed to have given to her. I received a letter from the township post dated Jan. 11, 2022, stating my petition was received on Aug. 20, 2021 and verified that day. Clerk Geisler, by law, is the person that petitions are to be submitted to for verification. Then the council gets the ballot language written. It’s unclear if after this procedure it goes the township clerk but clerk Kelly states that township sends the information to her. I believe that last day to get this to Kelly is Jan. 18 to be on the May ballot.”