Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




Flint Community School Board recall, Michigan, 2010

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 19:38, 26 October 2012 by Kelly O'Keefe (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Recall
New recall logo.PNG
Historical recalls
Recall news
Recall laws
In 2010, an unsuccessful attempt to recall six Flint Community School Board members was launched by board member David Davenport.[1]

A subsequent unsuccessful effort to recall David Davenport was launched in March 2010.[2]

According to Davenport, since his July 2009 election to the board he experienced "embattled relationship with the board." Davenport said, "Every time I bring up something they’re against it because they don’t like me. This is not about me. It’s about the kids. My goal was to get it to the public first and let the public decide whether they like it or it’s a good idea."[1]

Davenport recall

Davenport censured

In early February, the Flint School Board members targeted in the recall voted to censure Davenport in a resolution that accused Davenport of leaking confidential information to the media, criticizing board members and verbally assaulting district staff.[3]

Recall papers

Carolyn Spight, a resident of Flint, filed recall language on February 18, 2010 against Davenport. Spight's recall petition asserted that Davenport should be recalled because:

  • He allegedly disclosed details to the media of a closed meeting of the board
  • He allegedly verbally assaulted and insulted staff at board meetings.
  • He allegedly violated a board policy by soliciting private student information.
  • He allegedly violated board policy by publicly criticizing individual board members.
  • He allegedly made derogatory and defamatory remarks in public about public officials.[4]

According to Spight, Davenport "causes trouble."[5]

Davenport response

Davenport said he believes he is perceived in a negative light by some because he challenges the status quo and questions potential conflicts of interest in district hiring.[5]

Path to the ballot

To recall any one of the board members, about 8,000 signatures were required on each recall petition. Sufficient signatures were not submitted, and no recall elections took place.

See also

External links

References