News Photo by Reagan Voetberg Alpena Public Schools Board of Education President Eric Lawson stands up to speak at the election commission hearing on Monday in the Howard Male conference room. Lawson is one of three APS board members facing a recall petition sponsored by Alpena County Resident Yvonne Johnson.

ALPENA — The recall petitions against three Alpena Public Schools board members were declared sufficiently clear and factual by the Alpena County Board of Election Commissioners at a public meeting on Monday.

The petitions against APS board members Sarah Costain, Monica Dziesinski, and Eric Lawson were filed by Alpena County resident Yvonne Johnson on Feb. 13.

The commission was made up of Alpena County Treasurer Cindy Cebula, Probate Court Judge Alan Curtis, and Alpena County Clerk Keri Bertrand. All three school board members and Johnson were in attendance.

Curtis said this is his first time running a recall hearing in his four years as probate judge.

The hearing got off to a rocky start with some confusion about what exactly each side was supposed to be arguing for or against. Additionally, with no defined way to run that type of hearing procedurally according to statute, Curtis changed course partway through the hearing, allowing Johnson to read an opening statement which he did not at first allow. That opening statement allowed the meeting to flow better and both sides were given multiple opportunities to argue their positions.

The position that was supposed to be argued was whether the petition’s language is clear and factual.

The petition language for Sarah Costain reads as follows:

Petition for the calling of an election to recall Sarah Costain from the office of Board of Education Member, Alpena Public for the following reason(s):

1. On 03/24/2025, Sarah Costain voted No to a $150,000 grant for a rain garden at Alpena High School.

2. On 06/30/2025, Costain voted yes to hire a second law firm, Kallman Legal Group, for Alpena Public Schools.

3. During 2025, her first year in office, Costain missed 30% of all school board meetings.

The petition language for Dziesinski and Lawson are the same with the exception of their names. That language reads as follows:

Petition for the calling of an election to recall Monica Dziesinski from the office of Board of Education Member, Alpena Public Schools for the the following reason(s):

1. On 01/27/2025, Monica Dziesinski voted yes to award a paving contract to a higher bidder.

2. On 03/24/2025, Dziesinski voted no to a $150,000 grant for a rain garden at Alpena High School.

3. On 06/30/2025, Dziesinski voted yes to hire a second law firm, Kallman Legal Group, for Alpena Public Schools

The meaning of the term “factual” caused confusion at first.

“The determination of factualness only requires that a statement be a factual assertion, we’re not here to determine if the statement is truthful or not,” Curtis said.

There remained some confusion about the difference between factuality and truthfulness, which Bertrand attempted to clear up.

“I think what Judge is trying to say is you don’t have to provide evidence that it’s true, we just wanted you to–agree that this is not an opinion based statement, that it’s an actual factual and clear statement,” Bertrand said.

As one member of the public explained, “a factual assertion is a statement that can be proven or disproven.”

At the hearing it was noted that Johnson had provided 93 pages of evidence, including meeting minutes, as proof of each of the assertions made in the petitions. That evidence was ultimately unnecessary for the purpose of determining factuality and clarity, as Curtis attempted to explain.

Similarly, Dziesinski handed each of the election commissioners physical copies of the meeting minutes pertaining to the votes that Johnson listed in the petition as reasons for the recall of the three board members. That evidence too was ultimately unnecessary to the argument of factuality and clarity.

The major point of inaccuracy that Dziesinski argued was that she voted against implementing the rain garden, not against the grant itself. Costain and Lawson echoed the same. She said that using the word grant in the petition language makes the statement misleading.

Curtis said that whether the petition language is misleading gets into the nuance of it, which is not the point of the hearing.

He said that the petition language is clear and factual as written. Bertrand and Cebula concurred, and all three voted to accept the petition language as factual and clear on the three petitions.

Dziesinski, Costain, and Lawson have the opportunity to appeal the decision in the 26th Circuit Court.

“I was unaware that a petition could be approved even if it contains untrue or misleading statements,” Dziesinski said in a statement after the hearing. “Now that I understand this I look forward to the democratic process playing out and to educating voters into the truth behind the votes I stand by. I am confident that once the decisions are clearly explained, voters will understand why we voted the way we did.”

“I am happy to hear that the elections commission determined that the petition language is factual and clear and I just want these issues to go before the voters,” Johnson said in a statement after the hearing. “The recall process is a safeguard within our representative democracy. The petitions are signed by voters. The recall election is called when we get enough of those signatures. Based on the decisions and actions that the board members have taken in office I think it is essential that they go back on the ballot in November. I think the voters should decide if we want these board members representing us.”

“Well, I’d prefer that the judgement today was about what happened in fact, rather than what could be a fact,” Lawson said in a statement via text message. “Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to defend my conduct as an APS Board member and I look forward to continued to represent our community on this board.”

Reagan Voetberg can be reached at 989-358-5683 or rvoetberg@TheAlpenaNews.com.