State Board rejects recall petition seeking removal of Grand Traverse County prosecutor

The State Board of Canvassers rejected a recall petition on May 21 seeking the removal of Grand Traverse County prosecuting attorney Noel Mogenberg, saying the petition’s reasons were not “factual and sufficiently clear” as required by state law.

The petition, submitted by Brenda Dyper and supporters, listed multiple allegations including an asserted failure to secure sexually transmitted infection testing and allegations that investigators missed evidence in a case involving a young child. Andrea Flowers, who said she is a clinical social worker and the child’s grandmother, described what she called “a pattern” of weak prosecutions and urged the board to allow voters to decide.

Michael Brady, an attorney appearing for Mogenberg, told the board the petition is drafted as a dense paragraph that mixes multiple incidents and victims and therefore does not meet the statutory clarity standard in MCL 168.951A. Brady argued the petition should identify defendants or case numbers — information he said would be publicly available and would allow both the officer and a voter to identify the alleged conduct.

Board members pressed both sides about what would make the petition adequate. Several members expressed sympathy for victims but emphasized the board’s statutory duty is to apply the clarity and factual standard, not to decide the merits of the allegations. One board member said the practical fix would be to separate the content into discrete case entries ("case one," "case two") or provide court docket identifiers so electors can know precisely what conduct the petition targets.

After discussion, a motion that the board find the petition’s reasons were not factual and sufficiently clear was moved, seconded and passed. The chair and staff explained that a rejection for statutory insufficiency is not a finding on the underlying merits; petitioners may revise and refile. Staff also advised petitioners about the statutory deadlines the board must meet if the petition is resubmitted.

The board’s action followed questions about who bears responsibility for investigatory steps described in the petition. Brady and other board members noted that law enforcement agencies conduct many investigations and that prosecutorial decisions about charging and plea offers often reflect prosecutorial discretion and available evidence. Petitioners countered that, in their view, Mogenberg had the authority and opportunity to request additional testing and investigation and declined to do so in the cases listed.

The hearing included extended public testimony and pointed exchanges between petitioners, counsel and board members. The board announced its ruling at the meeting and encouraged petitioners to resubmit clearer language if they wished to pursue the recall further.