EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Eagle Township resident Troy Stroud and others in Clinton County’s 29th Circuit Courtroom were disappointed on Wednesday that a judgement wasn’t rendered in the case of Township Supervisor Patti Schafer’s appeal hearing concerning the recall petition against her. Stroud was the one who originally submitted the petition language to the county and helped garner signatures for it.

MORE NEWS: East Lansing Police: Suspect in Freezer Dismemberment Deaths Died By Suicide

Despite Schafer starting the process to file an appeal back on April 17th, the recall petition moved forward and more than 560 residents signed it over her handling of the megasite development in Clinton County that the state calls the MMIC (Michigan Manufacturing Innovation Campus). The amount of signatures collected by Stroud and opponents of Schafer’s conduct concerning the megasite was in excess of the 412 actual signatures that were needed.

Those petition signatures are in the process of being reviewed. After the preliminary check by the county clerk, they have turned them over to the township clerk to be reviewed. It is required that signers be verified as registered to vote in the proper jurisdiction of the elected official being recalled. This has to be done in a 15-day period and then Schafer will have 30 days to submit challenges.

The petition to recall Schafer was drafted by Stroud and stated, “In the spring of 2022, Eagle Township Supervisor Patti Schafer signed a non-disclosure agreement pertaining to the potential large-scale development of land in Eagle Township. This act limited the information available to Eagle Township residents affected by the potential development.”

 Schafer’s appeal was heard in Clinton County’s 29th Circuit Court on Wednesday before Whitmer appointed Judge Cori Barkman, and argued by one of Schafer’s attorneys, Christopher Trebilcock of Clark Hill PLC, who also defended Whitmer during her own recall woes.

The Whitmer administration and her economic development partners have been trying to put a megasite on Eagle Township land for a while now. Their current efforts to find a microchip or EV battery plant come after a failed bid to lure Micro Technology to Clinton county.

Stroud was at yesterday’s hearing, which was not live-streamed to the public, and took notes. He told Michigan News Source that he wasn’t all that impressed with the arguments of Schafer’s attorneys and he wasn’t sure if the judge was either.

MORE NEWS: 911 Audio Released in Death of St. Joseph County Toddler

Stroud said that the main arguments from Schafer’s attorneys were that there was no misconduct on Schafer’s part and that the petition recall language wasn’t factual enough. Stroud, however, didn’t think that Trebilcock presented a very good case.

Stroud said Trebilcock told the judge that a recall had to have a component of an elected official doing something pertaining to misconduct. However, the defense lawyer for Clinton County, Attorney Laura Genovich, said there was nothing in the the law that says misconduct has to be proven. Genovich said that Trebilcock was trying to add things that were not in the law.

Michigan News Source took a look at the Michigan election law concerning recalls and it says, “Each reason for the recall must be based upon the officer’s conduct during his or her current term of office.” Nowhere in the entire act does it contain the word “misconduct.”

Stroud said that Trebilcock also argued that the Circuit Court is the gatekeeper on the clarity and facts of the petition language and not those involved in the clarity hearing itself.

Trebilcock argued that Schafer was being recalled for doing her job and compared Schafer signing the NDA (non-disclosure agreement) to having to sign a summons from the Clerk. He has argued this position before in a statement where he said, “The NDA was approved by township legal counsel and all the Trustees voted in favor of executing it. To recall a public servant like Patti for fulfilling her oath of office by performing the ministerial act of signing the NDA is disgusting and hypocritical.”

Trebilcock also argued that the phrase “large scale development” in the wording of the petition was an opinion and not factual. In another argument, Trebilcock said if the petitioners truly understood an NDA, they wouldn’t have said that it limited information.

After all was said and done, Judge Barkman didn’t make a judgment on Wednesday but instead said that she was exercising her right to do so in a written brief. Her opinion is expected to be released within two weeks.

Stroud is somewhat optimistic about the outcome of the hearing. He’s unsure if the judge was impressed by the arguments of Schafer’s attorney but said it was hard to tell what will happen. He remains hopeful as the legal process moves forward but is concerned that Schafer’s attorneys are trying to “time out” the whole process so that the recall isn’t able to appear on the November ballot.

Michigan News Source reached out to the Clinton County Clerk, Deb Sutherland, about the delay and she said, “Until there is a court order indicating otherwise, our office will proceed with the process as the law instructs.”