I also attended the clarification hearing Feb. 2, regarding the language of the recall petition for four of our Dickinson County Board members. I’m interested in how government works on local levels and have attended several city and county board meetings in the past two years. This particular hearing was a learning opportunity.

I found the process worked exactly the way Michigan law intends. A recall hearing isn’t a trial and isn’t designed to determine the truth or falsity of allegations. The panel’s sole responsibility is to determine if the language of the petition is factual in nature and sufficiently clear so the average voter can understand what the recall is about. This standard has been in place for years and applies to every recall effort regardless of party or position.

It was suggested by another citizen in attendance that the “truth was irrelevant.” This mischaracterizes the purpose of the hearing, which was to decide not what’s right but if the language had clearly stated the reason for the recall. Credibility and accuracy will be determined by voters and is how a democratic process should function. Calling out the petitioning citizens as “disgruntled” for exercising their constitutional right to pursue a recall sets a troubling tone. Recall is a legal mechanism available to voters; whether one agrees with the effort or not, it is a lawful and democratic tool.

I felt the clarity panel did their job by not determining true or false. They determined that the language met the legal clarity standard. That distinction matters.

Ultimately voters are capable of reviewing facts, asking questions and making decisions for themselves. Encouraging people to ignore the process entirely undermines civic engagement. Whether one supports or opposes the recall, the appropriate response is informed participation, not discouragement of rights.

Dickinson County residents deserve respectful dialogue, transparency and trust in their ability to decide.