Kevyn Orr at Wayne State Law School

[313WX]

I get that we live in a democractic republic. Which means the mayor and city council should have public hearings. It also means we, as citizens, are ultimately responsible for what happened over the past 50 years. No one else. We were the CEO's of the cities [[i.e. we elected someone to represent us on our behalf). We clearly failed to govern, or appoint people who could govern effectively.

The emergency manager is the warden sent to correct us. He has no allegiance to us, nor should he. He is here to fix our problems. Prisoners don't suggest punishments or corrective therapy to their wardens. They do as they're told.

In 16.5 months, we'll have our city back and collectively we will become CEO's again. But to think an emergency manager "owes" us public dialogue is patently absurd.

The purpose of these so-called public hearings is to create the illusion that Detroiters stil have their democratic rights and to lessen the bite of any lawsuits filed against PA 436, such as the federal lawsuits that are pending.

[coracle]

Although it's still early days I think Kevyn Orr is doing a sterling job. In a short time he has established his authority over all the clamor; he has the ear of the City; he's sidelined the culprits [[where are the Council and Mayor?); he's put the Unions and their Pension takers on notice; he's left himself a completely free hand on assets and [[unfortunately) he's informed the Investors they are going to lose their money. [[because they won't come back)
But the future looks decidedly better provided his job is not "finished" after 18 months and the process is allowed to start again. At least it should go on until the next Democrat Governor is elected.

[Danny]

Too bad Detroiters! The Emergency Manager is trying its best to save this city from bankruptcy! There will be massive cuts and horrendous sacrifices. But by any means necessary Detroit's 15 billion dollar debt must to reduced. Don't blame Kevyn Orr for this mess. Blame recent Detroit mayors and city councils past and present for overspending, embezzling, wasteful spending our tax dollars. Other Michigan cities like Benton Harbor, Ecorse, Allen Park and Flint are under EM's but those folks are not crying about it, so should Detroiters. New York City government went bankrupt in 1970's. Trump and his corporate venture friends came to the rescue to revitalize all of its financial district and its rough up neighborhoods. Give it up Detroiters, the Coleman Young years are over. The Kilpatrick Manoogian parties are over. It's time to move forward further to the 21st Century and stop going back to old civil rights-black power movement of the 1960's. Our city will be in rough rocky road for a recovery. So cast yourselves into God's hands and start cleaning your hoods. Detroiters are the new city council not government.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET!

For Neda, Guy Fawkes, George Stinney, the 99 Percenters Rodney King and Trayvon Martin.

[Wesley Mouch]

I get that we live in a democractic republic. Which means the mayor and city council should have public hearings. It also means we, as citizens, are ultimately responsible for what happened over the past 50 years. No one else. We were the CEO's of the cities [[i.e. we elected someone to represent us on our behalf). We clearly failed to govern, or appoint people who could govern effectively.

The emergency manager is the warden sent to correct us. He has no allegiance to us, nor should he. He is here to fix our problems. Prisoners don't suggest punishments or corrective therapy to their wardens. They do as they're told.

In 16.5 months, we'll have our city back and collectively we will become CEO's again. But to think an emergency manager "owes" us public dialogue is patently absurd.

Exactly right. I'm glad Orr has the sense to engage the public -- but I think he has zero obligation to do so.

Let's not mistake EFM Orr for a civic leader. He may be a better leader than we've had, but his role here is not to engage the populace and build a coalition. His job is to straighten out the cities finances. We elected him to do so by our choices of leaders. Local leaders who were incompetent. State and Federal leaders who gave us what we wanted -- a public service that gets more expensive and less effective year after year. Mix that with a bad economy, and the weak don't survive. We were weak.

[Wesley Mouch]

What in the everloving fuck is so hard about scheduling public meetings in adequately-sized venues? It's almost like they're doing it on purpose or something.

They're doing it because its a reasonable size. Bigger, and it ceases to be productive. You don't think a room with a few hundred people can provide a reasonable cross-section of citizens and civic leaders to ask good questions? Or maybe we could try that Occupy megaphone idea?

[downtownguy]

All fun and games until the Wayne State Police start assaulting the press. At least we know Steve Neavling ain't no wussy.

Apparently, he wasn't the only journalist involuntarily dispatched outside.

Jeff Wattrick of Deadline Detroit writes that Neavling was shooting video of Wattrick getting shoved out the door by a DPD lieutenant when that WSU cop more forcefully threw Neavling out the door and onto the ground. From what I can see in the video, it looks like a WSU sergeant gets between the cop and Neavling pretty quick. I wonder if the sarge bothered to say anything about excessive force to his charge after the incident.

Wattrick's article:
Residents Locked-Out Of Kevyn Orr's Public Meeting In Classic Detroit Style

and Neavling's blog:
Public, media forced out of EM meeting

[downtownguy]

Exactly right. I'm glad Orr has the sense to engage the public -- but I think he has zero obligation to do so.

Exactly wrong.

According to The Detroit News,

The Detroit Emergency Manager, Kevyn Orr, is required by Public Act 436 to hold a public meeting announcing the Financial and Operating Plan established in the first 90 days as Emergency Manager.

[Honky Tonk]

Apparently, he wasn't the only journalist involuntarily dispatched outside.

Jeff Wattrick of Deadline Detroit writes that Neavling was shooting video of Wattrick getting shoved out the door by a DPD lieutenant when that WSU cop more forcefully threw Neavling out the door and onto the ground. From what I can see in the video, it looks like a WSU sergeant gets between the cop and Neavling pretty quick. I wonder if the sarge bothered to say anything about excessive force to his charge after the incident.

Wattrick's article:
Residents Locked-Out Of Kevyn Orr's Public Meeting In Classic Detroit Style


and Neavling's blog:
Public, media forced out of EM meeting

I can't access Neavling's blog for some reason, but I'm disapointed reading Wattrick's. Sounds like he's got a case of sour grapes combined with "Don't you know WTF I am?" syndrome. I'm also surprised @ some of the analogies, parallels, undertones and conclusions he draws in his article. Almost like he's pleading for support. I for one, am glad it was handled the way it was. Not all -700,000 residents can get in, and that's it. No Ford Field, or Commerica Park. Orr's here to do a job, hand in a report, and come up with a game plan, not to listen to renditions of "Onward Christian Soldiers" by Detroit's Idle. Better luck next time.

[antongast]

...not to listen to renditions of "Onward Christian Soldiers" by Detroit's Idle.

You do remember who did that, right? A politician, engaging in political theater. Not a member of the public.

[Honky Tonk]

You do remember who did that, right? A politician, engaging in political theater. Not a member of the public.

It depends which time you're referring to? I seem to recall a couple of performances.

[antongast]

It depends which time you're referring to? I seem to recall a couple of performances.

I could certainly be wrong about this, but I am not remembering a member of the public singing Onward Christian Soldiers during a comment period, and I can't find anything on Google that isn't about Barbara-Rose Collins. I've attended a lot of public meetings in this city, been shut out of some others due to the same kind of bullshit Kevyn Orr pulled last night [[I did not have high hopes for Mr. Orr in general, but I did hope at least that he'd manage not to absorb some of the most frustrating practices of our regular political class), and I feel pretty comfortable saying that renditions of Onward Christian Soldiers are not a typical component of public comment periods at public meetings in Detroit.

[belleislerunner]

The problem of immature outbursts should be easily solved by using those same comment cards - but having the moderator collect them and then only she reads them to the speaker. You get public participation without the public embarassment.

[antongast]

The problem of immature outbursts should be easily solved by using those same comment cards - but having the moderator collect them and then only she reads them to the speaker. You get public participation without the public embarassment.

I don't view it as a problem that needs solving. Kevyn Orr's salary is ten times the city's median household income, and he has unilateral control over city operations. If he can't handle a little blowback from the people whose lives are directly affected by his actions, he shouldn't have taken the job.

[313WX]

I don't view it as a problem that needs solving. Kevyn Orr's salary is ten times the city's median household income, and he has unilateral control over city operations. If he can't handle a little blowback from the people whose lives are directly affected by his actions, he shouldn't have taken the job.

That's really the long and short of it.

[michimoby]

I don't view it as a problem that needs solving. Kevyn Orr's salary is ten times the city's median household income, and he has unilateral control over city operations. If he can't handle a little blowback from the people whose lives are directly affected by his actions, he shouldn't have taken the job.

Well, Dan Gilbert's net worth is several thousand times more than the typical Detroiter and has near-unilateral control over downtown, but his meetings seem to be fairly civil. What's your point?

[Wesley Mouch]

Exactly wrong.

According to The Detroit News,

True enough. I wasn't aware that it was a legal requirements. My comment wasn't about whether he had to hold meetings by law.

I should have said that there's no need for public meetings -- except to comply with the law. I think its a waste of time. Most public meetings these days are. There's this idea that somehow if you hold a public meeting, everything's gonna be alright.

[antongast]

Well, Dan Gilbert's net worth is several thousand times more than the typical Detroiter and has near-unilateral control over downtown, but his meetings seem to be fairly civil. What's your point?

What's your point? I'm happy to repeat my griping about Dan Gilbert as often as people want to read it, but it seems a little off-topic in this thread. To briefly summarize, Gilbert should not have "near-unilateral" control over downtown, and the only real reason he does is that our city government is failing in its duty to protect the public interest. If members of the public want to make comments on Gilbert's plans, I think they should have an opportunity to do so and I think Gilbert should be obligated to address their concerns, but as a private actor he's not bound by government public accountability laws, which is why it's so important to have a government that's willing to hold him accountable on our behalf.

As far as the "civility" at his meeting, might that have been because it was an invitation-only event? I certainly wasn't invited to attend or comment.

[antongast]

There's this idea that somehow if you hold a public meeting, everything's gonna be alright.

I am pretty sure that nobody actually believes this.

[michimoby]

What's your point? I'm happy to repeat my griping about Dan Gilbert as often as people want to read it, but it seems a little off-topic in this thread. To briefly summarize, Gilbert should not have "near-unilateral" control over downtown, and the only real reason he does is that our city government is failing in its duty to protect the public interest. If members of the public want to make comments on Gilbert's plans, I think they should have an opportunity to do so and I think Gilbert should be obligated to address their concerns, but as a private actor he's not bound by government public accountability laws, which is why it's so important to have a government that's willing to hold him accountable on our behalf.

As far as the "civility" at his meeting, might that have been because it was an invitation-only event? I certainly wasn't invited to attend or comment.

Funny enough, I agree with you on every single point you state about Gilbert.

I was more focused on addressing your point re: the income parity between citizens and the speaker. It's totally irrelevant to the point.

What seems apparent, based on the handful of city council meetings I've attended, is that the batshit crazies that collectively strongarm their way to the podium to offer inane commentary that is racist, xenophobic, and unproductive needs to be kept in check at these meetings.

It's probable that most of these folks that disagree with what's happening, and have something to say about it in a public forum, have never been informed about the power of solid analysis, empirical statistics, and presenting in a way that is balanced, rational, and free of vitriol.

[313WX]

I am pretty sure that nobody actually believes this.

Well, not any sane people.

[antongast]

I was more focused on addressing your point re: the income parity between citizens and the speaker. It's totally irrelevant to the point.

My point isn't about income parity per se, it's that Orr is being very well compensated for this job. If one were to question why he is being paid what he is being paid, the answer would undoubtedly include some reference to the fact that the job is difficult, stressful, and politically controversial. Orr knew this going in. He understood that his compensation partly reflected the fact that he would be dealing with the public, and that a significant proportion of the public is inclined to be critical of his position and his actions.

I also intended to make the point that Orr, unlike most people who comment at public meetings, is largely shielded from the effects of his actions. He may have to sit through some contentious public meetings, but he's not going to lose his job, he's not going to spend his retirement eating dog food, and he's not going to have to live in whatever's left of this city when he's through with it. That isn't exactly a point about income parity either, but it is about power parity, and to some extent money is power, so in that sense I disagree with you that income parity is "totally irrelevant."

What seems apparent, based on the handful of city council meetings I've attended, is that the batshit crazies that collectively strongarm their way to the podium to offer inane commentary that is racist, xenophobic, and unproductive needs to be kept in check at these meetings.

Why? To protect Orr's virgin ears? He's a grown man. He can handle it. And if he can't, he is not qualified for this job.

It's probable that most of these folks that disagree with what's happening, and have something to say about it in a public forum, have never been informed about the power of solid analysis, empirical statistics, and presenting in a way that is balanced, rational, and free of vitriol.

I don't think it's incumbent on people who are having their lives disrupted by government policies to remain calm and civil, or to conform the presentation of their ideas to your preferences. If you think you can make your point more effectively by different means, then I wholeheartedly support your right to attend a meeting and do so. But apparently that support isn't mutual, since you're presuming that I "have never been informed about the power of solid analysis, empirical statistics, and presenting in a way that is balanced, rational, and free of vitriol" and therefore need to be "kept in check."

[michimoby]

I don't think it's incumbent on people who are having their lives disrupted by government policies to remain calm and civil, or to conform the presentation of their ideas to your preferences. If you think you can make your point more effectively by different means, then I wholeheartedly support your right to attend a meeting and do so. But apparently that support isn't mutual, since you're presuming that I "have never been informed about the power of solid analysis, empirical statistics, and presenting in a way that is balanced, rational, and free of vitriol" and therefore need to be "kept in check."

I never can make my point in Council meetings, because the people I reference often overstep their time limits or attend en masse to bum rush speaking time.

And it's quite difficult to sit comfortably through City Council sessions when phrases like "hostile, white takeover" are being uttered. It makes me, as a [[now former) citizen of the city, feel like I'm part of the problem rather than someone that empathizes with the challenges EVERY one in the city faces.

So, yeah. Maybe I do wish that some of these commenters would acquiesce to my preferences, because I feel completely alienated and disrespected when my skin color makes me an alleged opponent of progress.

[antongast]

I never can make my point in Council meetings, because the people I reference often overstep their time limits or attend en masse to bum rush speaking time.

This is a legitimate point. I'm certainly not suggesting that public meetings in Detroit are always well-run. If you're going to go with the typical comments-at-the-podium format [[and I think that format is overused, and other formats may work better for some types of meetings) time limits need to be strictly enforced, and thirty people making the same off-topic comment should be repeatedly asked to stay on topic, and cut off before their time is up if necessary.

And it's quite difficult to sit comfortably through City Council sessions when phrases like "hostile, white takeover" are being uttered. It makes me, as a [[now former) citizen of the city, feel like I'm part of the problem rather than someone that empathizes with the challenges EVERY one in the city faces.

So, yeah. Maybe I do wish that some of these commenters would acquiesce to my preferences, because I feel completely alienated and disrespected when my skin color makes me an alleged opponent of progress.

If you're confident that you aren't complicit in any hostile white takeovers, I don't understand why it should make you uncomfortable. Besides, making you feel comfortable isn't the purpose of these meetings.

[corktownyuppie]

Any civil discourse should reflect the real, unadulterated views of the stakeholders. But the need for individual expression should not trump the rights of other individuals to have their voices heard. Lastly, a speaker's need to be hostile should trump the sensitivities of its audience members, though politically and tactically speaking, it's generally not a productive use of our time.

Which brings me to the last point. Debate should be productive. Which means that dialogue should move in both directions. If people wish to protest with the volume of their voices, they deserve a venue to be able to do so. Perhaps that is the venue of the City Council meeting. But if that be so, then those of us are interested in listening, learning, contributing, thinking, and solving should have another venue for our preference toward productive dialogue.

[mwilbert]

If you're confident that you aren't complicit in any hostile white takeovers, I don't understand why it should make you uncomfortable.

Do you really believe this? If I went to a public meeting where I heard lots of complaints about the actions of a particular ethnic group as an entity it would make me feel uneasy regardless of whether I were a member of the group, or had anything to do with whatever actions were being criticized.