When the Howell City Council voted last week to request that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer remove a library board member over alleged misconduct, it began a process that is often invoked yet very rarely, and in fact almost never, results in the desired outcome.
On Dec. 11, Howell council members approved a motion 4-2 to “Refer the matter to the Governor of the State of Michigan and request removal of Anthony Kandt from the Library Board.”
Kandt had come into the crosshairs of council members following an October 10, 2023 Howell Carnegie District Library Board meeting in which his behavior was described as “inappropriate” and statements made by him were, “among other things, misogynistic, demeaning, mocking, and condescending, on a roll call vote.”
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer outlines her fall legislative priorities during a “What’s Next Address” in Lansing on Aug. 30, 2023. (Andrew Roth/)
While the details on the incident in question have importance to those involved, the process the vote initiated is one that hasn’t always been available to Michigan governors, who historically have been extremely reluctant to accept, much less bring to a conclusion.
The broad power of the governor to remove a public official from office derives from Article 5, Section 10 of Michigan’s constitution, adopted in 1963.
“The governor shall have power and it shall be his duty to inquire into the condition and administration of any public office and the acts of any public officer, elective or appointive,” states the constitution. “He may remove or suspend from office for gross neglect of duty or for corrupt conduct in office, or for any other misfeasance or malfeasance therein, any elective or appointive state officer, except legislative or judicial, and shall report the reasons for such removal or suspension to the legislature.”
In the case of Kandt, the Howell library trustee, the conduct in question involves his reading aloud a letter to the board by a Howell council member over a land issue in which he’s alleged to have “attempted to emulate a female voice that was shrill, mocking, and condescending in tone and volume.”
Whether that falls under the definition of “gross neglect of duty or for corrupt conduct in office, or for any other misfeasance or malfeasance therein,” is now up to Whitmer to ultimately decide.
Whatever one may think of the issue’s gravity, the decision itself is only made after a thorough vetting, according to Stacey LaRouche, Whitmer’s press secretary.
“Once an individual submits a formal petition to the state for removal, it is sent to the attorney general for review and recommendation,” LaRouche told the . “After the attorney general makes a recommendation, the governor reviews the request.”
Per Attorney General Dana Nessel’s press secretary, Danny Wimmer, while the Department of Attorney General is typically asked to review such requests, ultimately the AG’s office has no statutory role in such removals, as that is exclusively reserved for the Office of the Governor.
But it wasn’t always so. In fact, the process has evolved over time from nonexistence to a broad discretionary authority.
Since its formal admission as a state in January 1837, Michigan has had four different constitutions: the one it had adopted in 1835, updated versions passed in 1850 and 1908, and the current 1963 iteration.
The 1835 constitution had no specific provision relating to removal of officials by the governor as that power was reserved exclusively for the legislative branch.
While the 1850 constitution initially had no provisions for removal of officials by the governor, an analysis by the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan noted that an 1862 amendment granted that power after the governor at the time, Austin Blair, “felt that he did not have authority to remove the state treasurer for failure to perform his duties properly while the legislature was not in session.”
The statue of former Gov. Austin Blair at the Michigan Capitol | Susan J. Demas
That amendment gave the governor limited authority to remove public officials, confining it strictly to when the legislature was not in session, and defining it as including, “The Attorney General, State Treasurer, Commissioner of the Land Office, Secretary of State, Auditor General, Superintendent of Public Instruction or members of the State Board of Education or any other officers of the State except Legislative and judicial, elective or appointed … .”
While Blair never utilized the new authority, Michigan Gov. John T. Rich did, when he removed in 1894 State Treasurer Joseph Hambitzer, Secretary of State John Jochim and Land Commissioner John Berry, who all served on the State Canvassing Board, after finding them guilty of falsifying returns on a vote for a salary raise for state officeholders. Rich’s decision was made while the Legislature was not in session and was ultimately upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court.
So it was no surprise that 14 years later when the 1908 Constitution was adopted, the governor’s power to remove public officials, but only while the Legislature was not in session, was carried over. But it was streamlined to remove the specific list of officials, as it was deemed redundant.
However, when the 1963 version was approved, it removed the qualification of the Legislature not being in session and gave broad authority to the governor to remove public officials.
Despite that, it is a power that Michigan’s chief executives have been reluctant to wield, and only then, in cases which came closest to the definition of “gross neglect of duty … corrupt conduct in office, or for any other misfeasance or malfeasance.”
While there is no definitive list of public officials removed from office by Michigan governors, Eric Lupher, president of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, told the Advance he suspects it wouldn’t be very long anyway.
“A I think there is a deference to letting the voters act via the recall process, and B) seeing what happened with Kwame Kilpatrick, there is an inclination by the politician to quit before being kicked out,” Lupher said.
That reference was to the last time a Michigan governor utilized the process of removal, when in 2008 former Gov. Jennifer Granholm scheduled a removal hearing for then-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. The Detroit City Council requested Kilpatrick’s removal based on his false testimony during a police whistle-blower trial and his efforts to settle that case while failing to disclose text messages with a former aide that indicated they were having an affair.
However, following a single day of testimony, Granholm suspended the hearing after Kilpatrick pleaded guilty to two felony counts of obstruction of justice and resigned from office. He was subsequently convicted on federal corruption charges in 2013 and sentenced to 28 years in prison, although that was commuted by former President Donald Trump in January 2021 with more than 20 years remaining to serve.
Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (L) and former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (R) | Getty Images
Prior to that, former Gov. William Milliken held a hearing in 1982 on a request to remove then-West Bloomfield Township Treasurer Andrew Lobodocky after he was alleged to have accosted female employees while intoxicated. Milliken ruled that while Lobodocky was guilty of official misconduct, he allowed him to remain in office under certain conditions, including abstaining from alcohol, and attending mandatory Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Wimmer says the AG’s office has reviewed 11 removal requests in 2023, but declined to offer any specifics.
“The contents of that review, and any therein recommendation, are attorney-client privileged communications,” he told the Advance.
However, Whitmer has publicly commented on one potential case, although it has yet to even be officially referred for a removal.
In October, when Michigan State University Trustee Brianna Scott called on Board Chair Rema Vassar to be removed from her position, saying she had acted unethically and outside her scope as chair, including that she had failed to cooperate with a Title IX investigation, Whitmer sent a letter to the board calling for “total candor, full transparency, and complete cooperation.”
The governor later told reporters that while a formal request from the board to remove Vassar had not been made, she was prepared if it came.
“It’s a part of the constitution, it’s a part that I take very seriously. [It’s] nothing that I have relished using, but if necessary, I will,” she said.
authored by Jon King
First published at https%3A%2F%2Fmichiganadvance.com%2F2023%2F12%2F19%2Frequests-for-michigan-governors-to-remove-public-officeholders-far-outnumber-actual-removals%2F
Comments are closed.