Does anyone know who actually 'approves' union contracts w/ municipalities. Are they signed by an elected official?
Printable View
Does anyone know who actually 'approves' union contracts w/ municipalities. Are they signed by an elected official?
Who decides what's "in the best interests of the people," if not the people themselves? It's not like there is some universally agreed-upon standard for governing in the best interests of the people. The way democracy works is that the people themselves have the right to decide who is governing in their best interests. In other political systems, an individual or small group of elites make decisions on behalf of the people and use their own judgment to determine what's in the people's best interests, and if you believe in that sort of system that's fine, but here in America we haven't officially had a system like that in about 236 years.
Our Metro Detroit family of communities as a whole has successfully walled-off the vast majority of the region's poor, disabled, felons and ex-felons into a handful of communities.
Such citizens cannot pay taxes and those communities therefore cannot generate enough revenues to maintain services, thwart crime and maintain their infrastructure. On top of that they are penalized with higher insurance rates, blight, crime and poor services and schools. This continually drives out the remaining middle classes, which cuts property values, therefore tax revenue and down and down goes the spiral.
No EMF can fix this from within these communities. The money just isn't there and can't be there. If they shut down or reduce public safety and other services for some temporary 'fiscal stability' they are merely applying bandages and worsening the long term problems.
If these communities are going to be expected to remain as prisons for the metro region's problems, then they need serious state and regional aid combined with lower taxes and lower insurance rates than the rest of the region, not be punished by some non-elected slash-and-fly-away EFM.
That begs the question. The state arbitrarily puts an EFM within the community who reflects the state's wishes first, above the community's.
The State's 'bigger picture' is failing to understand or address the core issues at the basis of the revenue problems -- the blunt fact that there are not enough tax-generating citizens within the community and too many tax-consuming citizens instead. No state-appointed EFM can fix that.
If you have a "council-manager" type government, the unelected manager does.
If you have a "strong mayor" type government like Detroit, the mayor does.
Depending on the local government, the council/commissioners may or may not have to approve it before it is signed.
First of all, Lowell, thanks for your always-thoughtful commentary. Your solution in the previous post [[state aid) unfortunately does not hold water; not that it's not part of any reasonable solution, just that it is not going to happen. There is no appetite in the suburban and outstate communities to provide monetary support to the historic cities of this state.
The difficulty we have here is twofold. First of all, Detroit in particular has a long and proud history of squandering whatever money it has. The intentional misspending, misdirection and even nonspending of targeted money over the decades has completely soured the rest of the state on the idea of helping Detroit with money. Giving a sledgehammer to a toddler once might be a forgivable mistake; giving a sledgehammer to a toddler repeatedly is insane.
Second, our bizarre "home rule" constitution has made southeast Michigan in particular sort of a copy of Germany or Italy in the early 1800s: a huge mishmash of a large number of parochial entities that won't ever work together in any meaningful way. The paragraph above gives a good reason why politicians in Grand Rapids, Marquette and Okemos aren't interested in helping Detroit; home rule explains why Dearborn and Madison Heights aren't any more interested.
To fix Michigan's cities we first must be able to establish some kind of meaningfully controlling regional government. It doesn't have to control everything, but it does have to control at least some things, so that resources can be allocated based on a combination of availability and need, rather than just availability [[as is done now). If you want some examples how it could work, take the Metro Parks model and apply it to Public Transportation or road maintenance, just for example.
But so long as our State's constitution automatically makes Detroit and Ferndale compete against each other every single day, we can never solve our essential problems. Our constitution is the rope we've voluntarily put around our own necks, and now we're astonished that it's hard to breathe.
I am so glad this is up for a vote. This law absolutely needs to go. These managers don't even get assigned a time frame. They can remain as dictator indefinitely. One EM even came out recently and said it does not work. What's to stop Snyder from just appointing business buddies with their own corruption and self interest as one of these emergency dictators? They then have freedom to bust contracts, raise taxes, and sell off whatever they want to the lowest bidder. Who would have ever though Republicans would be the biggest government socialists Michigan has ever seen? This is some Soviet Union style shit.
Because of the size of Detroit, State Aid would be a disaster for Michigan taxpayers. Dependency has an insatiable appetite for other people's money. Once started it is never taken back because it becomes "a right" and it knows no limits on its wants. It would attract new tax-consuming citizens to the City and add to the problem.The only way forward to save Michigan is EMF/bankruptcy for Detroit.
When the cities are forced into bankruptcy these union folks are going find they are going to get a much worse deal than from the EM. So much for home rule. Maybe they can get the Michigan constitution changed to shut down the bankruptcy law. Yea that's the ticket.
No! you misunderstood my codespeak. If you want to get rid of your corrupt city leaders, make a protest and make a petition for a recall. Otherwise vote him or her out. It's simple democracy in America. The Public Act IV is unconstitutional. The Michigan Supreme Court said so by looking at its judical review and the Amendments of IX, X and Article III of the Michigan State Constitution. You can not have a EM overseeing, hire or fire any public city government official. Doesn't matter if that official is good or bad. If any city in U.S. is facing financial crisis, that city government official must apply for bankrupcty protection to have some supreme court judge from out of state or hire just a emergency manager to oversee financial cutbacks. The Public Act IV is form of almost goverment dictatorship when city government or county officials in Michigan will not have full power to oversee public works. It's having Hitler, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussien and Pol Pot running Detroit like an iron fist; oppressing its people until they die. Please vote yes to appeal Public Act IV.
Whatever it takes.
I wouldn't care if they cut the city up into smaller pieces and made a bunch of smaller towns. Let the State or the Feds have the vacant areas for parks. EPA could SuperFund certain areas and handle the cleanup and restoration to greenspace.
The city as it was in the heyday decades is dead, so we may as well surgically remove the gangreenous tissue and bury it.
I have a strong feeling that 70% of Michiganders will vote yes to appeal Public Act IV because all Michigan cities don't some EM dictator running government.
The Michigan legisture will not end the old bankruptcy law! Folks and political city and counity gov't officials been borrowing cash to either pay its debt or keep its public services and utilities on. If they can't pay, they can't borrow, their credit rating drops and go to bankruptcy. And hope for the better when city-county gov't officials or any citizens clear their debts towards society. You can't borrow money if you can't pay it off in time. Just like the Bible "If anyone borrows money and can't pay it off, then its stealing!"
I don't buy the corruption excuse. The whole EFM debacle is just another naked example of disaster capitalism.
You're probably right. The anti-EFM crowd has attached themselves to the idea that this is a 'dictatorship'. Its a brilliant political move. Quite misleading. A lot of government is indirect and run by the unelected. So what.
This whole anti-EFM is just part of a political game, and those against don't realize they're pawns of another 1% -- the current dysfunctional administrations and labor who seek to protect their status quo at all costs.
The EFM wasn't a dictatorship. People were perfectly fine with PA 72, which all states have some form of.
However, the EM had powers not even the federal government has, and that's what makes it a dictatorship. A Federal Bankruptcy judge can't toss out elected official for whatever reason [[despite being the supreme level of government) without legal due process, nor they can sell off municipal assets without the approval of the government's leaders and its citizens, nor can they impose contracts on unions if they don't like collectively bargaining with them.
An EM doesn't have to remove the city officials. He merely has to take the city checkbook out of their hands. They can continue to meet and pass city ordinances. They just don't have the power of the city fisc.
Of course, the EM can fire their staffs, take away their city cars, drivers, and security, and move them to less palatial office space. He could also change their compensation to $50.00 per council meeting. He is not removing them from office.
The point is, the EM had the power to do so if they felt it was necessary.
Not even the Federal Government/Federal Bankruptcy judge has that power.
As far as taking the checkbook out of the city official's hands, isn't that what the EFM was supposed to do? If the fiscal problems were too deep for the EFM to handle, as broke or not the law still applies, that's what Chapter 9 Bankruptcy was put in place for by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
One essential distinction between a 'dictator' and an EFM is that they cannot perpetuate their own position. In fact, their position is designed to be eliminated if:
1) The elected official who appoints them so desires,
2) The public changes the law,
3) The city has enough money to pay money to those to whom it has promised.
Thus, I think the term 'dictator' is misleading and pejorative. Real 'dictators' are not subject to the whims of elected officials and voters [[at the state level) to continue in their position.
Dont' forget, the best way to avoid a 'dictatorial' EFM is to avoid getting into a financial emergency.