Mr. LaCross correctly noted that voters ultimately decide who serves on a school board, but his letter overlooked an important fact, there is no “special ballot” being created for this recall effort.

If enough valid signatures are collected, the recall question would simply appear on the regular November ballot alongside other elections already taking place. No separate election or unnecessary expense is being proposed.

More importantly, Mr. LaCross’s argument dismisses the legal process already followed. Recall language in Michigan is reviewed by a clarity and factuality committee, the Alpena County Election Committee consisting of the Probate Judge, the County Clerk and the Treasurer. That committee approved the language as meeting the legal standard by a vote of 3-0 and was not appealed. By claiming the allegations should not qualify for recall consideration, Mr. LaCross, himself a former probate judge, is essentially arguing that the current judge and committee were wrong in approving it.

While school board members do stand for reelection at the end of their terms, recall laws exist for a reason, to give voters a remedy when serious concerns arise before that time. Waiting years for an election is not always a responsible option when decisions made by board members are already causing distress to students, finances, and community trust.

In this case, the concern is not about isolated disagreements, but about the ongoing impact of decisions being made this past year. If voters believe those actions are damaging the district, they should not be expected to simply endure the consequences until terms expire. The recall process is itself a democratic tool that allows the community to decide whether those individuals should continue serving. Citizens exercising that constitutional right should not be portrayed as attempting to “crowd the ballot”!

Vicky Lindsay

Alpena