History

A HISTORY of how it got to the vote...

Phone: 248.224.0361

To that end, we are a group of Berkley citizens dedicated to keeping a nativity in Berkley’s Christmas holiday display. As citizens we want to take a stand against the ACLU and their demands to remove the crèche from the holiday display. We want the citizens of Berkley to make a decision in what is right for our city, not the ACLU!

With the aid of legal counsel we have written a charter amendment that is legal, and, we believe, will help restore the true meaning of Christmas to Berkley’s holiday display.

Please browse our website. It will provide you with all the information you need to convince you that having a nativity display is not only legal, but is truly what the NATIONAL HOLIDAY of Christmas is all about!

Berkley Citizens Vote YES to Christmas Holiday Display is a non-profit Ballot Question Committee.

Berkley Citizens Vote Yes to Christmas Holiday Display

To contact us:

PO Box 725172

Berkley, MI 48072

Paid for with regulated funds by Berkley Citizens Vote YES to Christmas Holiday Display, PO Box 725172, Berkley, MI 48072

Berkley Vote YES!

KEEP OUR NATIVITY!

VOTE YES

ON THE

CHARTER

AMENDMENT!

NOVEMBER 6TH

(The following are excerpts from City Council meetings in Berkley, MI. These comments are all part of public record. You may request a copy of these meetings from city hall.)

December 19, 2005 ~

Citizen’s Comments:

“My name is , I am a Berkley resident and a cooperating attorney with the ACLU of Michigan. I am here to express my concern about the religious display that Berkley has erected on the front lawn of city hall. I originally expressed my concern to the city manager on December 5^th. The legal director of the ACLU of Michigan spoke by telephone with the city manager by telephone on December 13^th. The city manager at that time told us to bring the matter to the city council. To that end we mailed a letter to the city manager, also faxed it to her, and emailed it to her, and emailed it to all the members of the city council and the city attorney. If any of you have not received that letter I have a copy of the letter with me now and can give you a copy of it. To the substance of the matter. I’m here to repeat those concerns that were expressed in the letter that hopefully you have read. The display on city hall currently consists of a life size nativity scene, a Star of David affixed to the wall and a Christmas tree...

The easiest way to bring this display into immediate conformity with the constitution is to remove the two religious symbols, the Star of David and the nativity scene. And of course the city is completely free to display the Christmas tree and any other non-religious holiday decorations. As I’ve discussed the display as it stands currently violates the US Constitution. We’ve asked you in our letter to bring the display in to conformity with the constitution by tomorrow, Tuesday , December 20^th. We ask again that you contact or have the city attorney contact us by tomorrow to let us know what you have done to bring that display in to conformity with the constitution. Thank you.”

COPY OF LETTER FROM ACLU TO CITY OF BERKLEY HERE.

Work Session:

Marilyn Stephan: “Shall we discuss the ACLU request?”

City manager and city attorney did discuss the matter before the meeting and report as follows:

City Attorney, Schneider: “Ms. DiSessa and I did speak to it briefly earlier. I did have the opportunity to do a little research prior to the council meeting. What the attorney from the ACLU had mentioned was that was the easiest or quickest way to comply with the law is to take the nativity scene out and the Star of David. That is not the only way to comply with the law. We can add some other items that will make it more of a secular aspect to it, to keep it away from just solely religion. So we do not have to lose the nativity scene or the Star of David or anything else religious that we put there as long as we have other items that is more of the non-religious. Frosty the snowman, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, other items like that do not really signify religion, more of just the holiday spirit.”

October 16, 2006

Citizen’s Comments

Citizen asks mayor regarding the ad-hoc decorations committee. Asks who is on the committee, to which the mayor responds: “Mr. O’Dwyer, Ms. DiSessa, Mr. Goodcourage, DPW Director Bruce Jerome, Mayor Stephan, and City Attorney, Dale Schneider”.

Citizen: “If this affects the majority of the residents in the city of Berkley, why wasn’t a resident on this committee?”

Mayor: “It’s an ad-hoc committee of the council.”

Citizen: “No residents were invited to these meetings? Was an affiliate of the ACLU or Thomas More Law Center invited to these meetings?“

Mayor: “No”.

Citizen: “So the ACLU was not present at any of these meetings?”

Mayor: “I’m sorry, they did, they did attend one meeting.”

Citizen: “Okay, so you invited the ACLU to an ad-hoc committee, but you didn’t invite the other side to this ad-hoc committee at any time? As a resident of this city for 33 years...”

Citizen: “...this committee has decided on three things that were in the paper. Three things you are requesting this council to vote on. One was to move the nativity to a business site. Another was to move to a free speech zone. And the third was to give it to the religious leaders of this city so each year one of them can display it. Where’s the fourth option of keeping it where it’s been for sixty years? You didn’t even consider that? I think you should at least consider that, that’s my feeling.”

(the two women representing the ACLU approach podium together)

Citizen 1: “My name is (same woman from 12.19.05)”

Citizen 2: “My name is …and we are both residents and ACLU members.

Citizen 1: “so, as I said we are both Berkley residents and cooperating attorneys with the ACLU.”

They then went on to reiterate their talking points from 12.19.05 and items in the letter to the city.

November 20, 2006

Motion #M-11506A & B – Matter of approving one of the two following motions for the display of the City of Berkley nativity display as recommended by t he city of Berkley’s ad-hoc decorations committee.

Motion M-11506A – accepting the offer of the Berkley Clergy association to display the nativity or Motion M-11506B – placing the nativity on city property with additional secular items.

Citizen Comments:

Citizen: “Hi, my name is (same woman from 12.19.05). As the council knows I am a Berkley resident and a cooperating attorney with the ACLU of Michigan. As I have stated before, WE support option A and I would like to briefly reiterate my comments in regards to option B.” Reiterates talking points from prior meetings and letter sent to the city.

Council Comments before the vote:

Benton: “...when a resident asked us to evaluate the display, her request was to either remove it or make it compliant. There are residents that are requesting that we keep it and make it compliant. There is common ground here and that’s the course of action that I support. That this may be hard to do because of space limitations is an obstacle that I know we can overcome…There is another important clause in the first amendment: the people shall have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Our cities charter defines the process to overturn a decision of council, whatever that may be this evening. It involves securing only 8% of the registered voters on a petition to create a ballot referendum. I would suggest to whichever side (does not) prevail this evening that the true measure of one’s commitment to this issue be demonstrated more by this course of action then by initiating a lawsuit.”

(After this date and before the next council meeting, the ad-hoc decorations committee did meet with citizens from the grassroots group, STAT (Stop the ACLU Tyranny) and their legal counsel, Ed White from Thomas More Law Center. At which time, Ed White informed the city of their legal right to include a nativity in a Christmas display, and offered the city free legal representation