I once had a discussion with a local resident about the clearness of state statute. He tried to tell me that state statute on the issue we were discussing was quite clear, in his mind, and that the county needed to follow it as such.

I told him that in my 20-plus years of covering government issues and the courts, nothing is black and white even state statute. Put five lawyers and a judge in the room and you would get six different opinions about what state statute said on any given subject.

Here’s just one example of how “muddied” state statute can be on a subject.

Brownstown’s town council consists of five members, but only four are required to vote. State statute says the president is the executive member of the council and does not vote unless there is a tie.

State statute also says that an ordinance needs to have at least two readings for passage and those readings need to be on different nights unless the council passes it unanimously on first reading. That by the way, means the president has to vote.

Another state statute, however, says the vote does not have to pass unanimously for an ordinance to be enacted during the same meeting. That statute says only a simple majority has to vote yes.

And here’s another interesting tidbit. The clerk-treasurer in Brownstown also may vote in the event of a tie vote if the president is absent.

I hope that clears everything up.