The burden of proof..

Throughout the 23 pages of background material and charges, and the 17 hours of testimony and arguments relating to the four charges brought against Health Director Hambley, Counsel Kallman never made the argument, at least with any attempt at proof, that Director Hambley had misled the public regarding her portrayal of the proposal made by Chairman Moss for a $2.5M General Fund transfer to the Public Health budget. In fact, when asked about why they levied the charge in regards to her August 30 Press Release, Counsel Kallman refused any attempts to justify the charge, when it was evident Ms. Hambley’s Press Release was simply reiterating language the Administrator had used in his own Press Release just two days earlier.

I find it significant that that was never done. My understanding of the hearing process is that Counsel had the burden of proof. But throughout the hearing, Counsel did not care to take up that burden. There were insinuations in the document that maybe her language was not tempered sufficiently, but no serious attempts at proving her language incorrect or misleading were made in the document or the hearing.

I realize that the hearing was not a legal hearing, but rather a political one. However, the hearing was still a ‘hearing under MCL 46.11(n)’ for statutory removal. As such, I believe that there is still a burden of proof, one that I believe Counsel did not seriously attempt and never at all achieved.

In the end, Ottawa County residents should expect the protection of law, and when there is a hearing for the removal of the Ottawa County Health Director, they should expect that one of the basic tenets of legal protections, the burden of proof, is respected by Counsel that seeks to remove her.