“Do we want to update our charter to have language that’s ambiguous and has to be interpreted by a judge? That’s essentially what we’re asking the residents to do.”
Photo: Mill Creek Park North with the fire station in the background. Photo by Doug Marrin
On Monday, September 9th, 2024, tensions flared at the Dexter City Council meeting as members clashed over a proposed motion related to an upcoming charter amendment. The final agenda item of the evening quickly evolved into a contentious exchange, highlighting long-standing disagreements and procedural confusion.
The Proposed Charter Amendment
At the heart of the debate was a motion introduced by Councilperson Joe Semifero, who suggested that the council send a letter to Dexter residents about the upcoming November vote on a city charter amendment. The proposed amendment, which originated from a citizen-led petition, would modify the charter to ensure that city-owned land within the bounds of Alpine Street, Main Street, Mill Creek, and the railroad remains in public ownership and that it stays devoted to either active or passive recreation.
Semifero expressed concern about the wording of the amendment, arguing that it was vague and could lead to unintended consequences. He believes that the geographical boundaries described in the ballot language are not clearly defined and may require judicial interpretation. “Do we want to update our charter to have language that’s ambiguous and has to be interpreted by a judge? That’s essentially what we’re asking the residents to do,” Semifero stated.
This isn’t the first time the council has grappled with problematic charter language said Semifero. He recalled a previous amendment, which he says created complications for the city. He warned that they could be walking into a similar situation. “The last time we had a charter amendment, it was written in a way that ended up having unintended consequences for us, and we couldn’t dispose of anything unless it was put to vote,” he added.
Legal Concerns and Divided Opinions
The debate deepened as members of the council disagreed over whether the proposed charter language would create a closed and enforceable boundary for the designated land. Some believed the language was clear, while others echoed Semifero’s concerns about its ambiguity.
The city’s legal counsel, present at the meeting, stated that while his comments were preliminary, it does seem as though there is room for different interpretations of the amendment. More importantly though, he noted that the law prohibits the city from using public funds to distribute communications about a ballot measure within 60 days of the election, rendering Semifero’s proposal moot.
Accusations Over Motives
The meeting took a dramatic turn when Semifero suggested that the true intent of the amendment was not about recreation but about halting the development of a new fire station. “What’s worse is that the residents think this is about recreation. It has nothing to do with that. It was completely set up and done strictly to stop the building of the fire station,” Semifero claimed.
This statement prompted a reaction from Councilperson Zach Michels, who raised concerns about the appropriateness of making such claims. “As a point of order, are we allowed to assume and make statements about another council member’s motivations now? Is that allowed?” Michels asked, clearly uncomfortable with the tone of the conversation.
Mayor Shawn Keough attempted to diffuse the situation, responding, “I’d rather not get into that,” to which Michels replied, “Me too.”
Semifero, however, defended his remarks, clarifying that he wasn’t accusing any specific council members of a conflict of interest. “I wasn’t making any comments about any council member’s motivations… If the petition is the result of and comes from and is led or helped by members of the council, [that member] shouldn’t be discussing this at the table because it’s a conflict. I’m assuming that they’re not. So no, I’m not actually questioning [council] members,” he said.
Procedural Confusion and Delayed Decision
As the discussion unfolded, confusion over parliamentary procedure added another layer of unpredictability to the meeting. When Mayor Keough suggested that the council take time to review the printed information Semifero provided before deciding whether or not to second his motion, Councilperson Griffin raised a procedural objection. She argued that because Semifero’s document had been submitted after the deadline, the council would need to vote on whether it could be considered. Keough dismissed Griffin’s concern and insisted that the document was simply part of the actual motion.
After a tense back-and-forth, Griffin motioned to postpone consideration of Semifero’s proposal until the next council meeting. Having already voiced his concern over the potential misuse of city funds to influence voter decisions, Michels eventually seconded Griffin’s motion to postpone. Ultimately, except for Semifero, that motion was approved by the council.
However, for nearly ten minutes, the council found itself tangled in round-and-round discussions about which motion was being debated, leading to further frustration and confusion.
Looking Ahead
The debate over the charter amendment exposed deep divisions within the Dexter City Council. As the November election approaches, the fate of the city-owned land and its potential uses remain uncertain. For now, residents will have to make up their own minds on the ballot measure, which, according to Semifero, may have broader implications than it appears at first glance.
The next council meeting is scheduled for September 23rd and may bring more heated discussion as council members continue to prepare for the upcoming election.
