City Council Still Discussing Consent Agreement in CLOSED Sessions?!

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...n_another.html

Hmmmm...I wonder what the Council could be talking about in Closed Sessions with the City's Corporation Counsel that would cause them to delay making their appointments to the Financial Advisory Board? I think the Governor and/or the Treasurer still have more appointments to make also.

It sounds as if the Council just adjourned the Health Department budget hearing for yet another Closed Session [[the fourth, if the article is right) on the consent agreement [[I was only half paying attention to the live online feed). If it was just about Headlee Amendment challenges, why couldn't that conversation be made public UNLESS...the Council is considering a matter with more significant legal ramifications? Hmmmm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mam2009

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...n_another.html

Hmmmm...I wonder what the Council could be talking about in Closed Sessions with the City's Corporation Counsel that would cause them to delay making their appointments to the Financial Advisory Board? I think the Governor and/or the Treasurer still have more appointments to make also.

It sounds as if the Council just adjourned the Health Department budget hearing for yet another Closed Session [[the fourth, if the article is right) on the consent agreement [[I was only half paying attention to the live online feed). If it was just about Headlee Amendment challenges, why couldn't that conversation be made public UNLESS...the Council is considering a matter with more significant legal ramifications? Hmmmm...

---

Every single action of government needs to be transparent. I can accept delay in release if for an appropriate cause, say employee disciplinary action.

If there's one change in government that needs to be made, this is it.

No point in taking it to court.

IT was tried already with the Consent Agreement itself, and the State Appeals Court overturned the Circuit Court's decision that their session violated the Open Meetings Act [[for whatever legal reason).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

No point in taking it to court.

IT was tried already with the Consent Agreement itself, and the State Appeals Court overturned the Circuit Court's decision that their session violated the Open Meetings Act [[for whatever legal reason).

---

What kills me is that every day that they're still arguing this is a day that they're not doing something else that needs to be done. If the City pursues, my bet is that the EM is coming in.

what, if anything, still needs to be "discussed" about the agreement at this point?

and what's going on with the mayors proposal to cut the law department budget by 50%? what effect will that have?

Just nonsense! The same thing that goes on in DC: the government [[dems and repubs) spend millions on studies, to study the viability and relevance and feasilibilty about an existing or proposed study of the studies... rinse, repeat the cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

What kills me is that every day that they're still arguing this is a day that they're not doing something else that needs to be done. If the City pursues, my bet is that the EM is coming in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

what, if anything, still needs to be "discussed" about the agreement at this point?

and what's going on with the mayors proposal to cut the law department budget by 50%? what effect will that have?

---

http://www.freep.com/article/2012051...agreement-void

Quote:

---

Lawyer for City of Detroit calls consent agreement void

By Suzette Hackney and Matt Helms
Detroit Free Press Staff Writers

The letter, obtained by the Free Press, says that state law and the city charter prohibit the city from entering into any binding contract with entities that owe outstanding debts to the city. The letter says the state owes the city $4.75 million for a 2010 water bill and $224 million in state revenue sharing...

...In the letter, dated May 11, Crittendon says the consent agreement is "void and unenforceable" because under both Michigan law and Detroit's city charter, the city can't enter into contracts with the state or give official positions to anyone who is in default with the city...

...The council put off selecting candidates after it interviewed four people, and wouldn't explain the delay.

The allegation that the state reneged on its revenue sharing is not new. Bing and council members had been arguing for months that the state owed the city about $220 million in revenue sharing under a deal made with then-Gov. John Engler, in which the state would raise revenue sharing it paid to Detroit in exchange for the city rolling back its income tax from 3% to 2%...

...Crittendon's letter claims Treasurer Andy Dillon admitted on a local radio show that the state indeed owes the city the money. But in a letter sent Wednesday in response to Crittendon's letter, Dillon denied any unpaid debts or that allegations in the letter mean the consent agreement is unenforceable...

---

Well, even if the consent agreement were void, the EM law still exists, right? So Lansing could say, "Well, we'll let the courts figure it out. Until then, you're under EFM law. EFM's first order of business: Create a financial advisory board".

This is all bluster...the end result is still the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

This is all bluster...the end result is still the same.

---

Well not quite. I'm pretty good at examining the political side of things [[and it's nothing but political theatre at this point in the discussion).

What may be happening is folks in the city are trying to find some way to get out of the Consent Agreement now that the Appeals Court has accepted the Recall Petitioner's case, and thus they know Snyder won't be able to appoint a EFM if the Consent Agreement is voided and the Appeals court overturns the EFM law. The reason the city's administration likely agreed to the Consent Agreement in the first place is because they feared the recall petitioners wouldn't actually reach their goal, because their jobs would have then been on the line if enough signatures weren't gathered.

Of course then there's bankruptycy. But the problem there is the state knows a Detroit bankruptcy would drag down the financial health of every city in Michigan and the state itself, and they're trying to do everything to avoid that. According to their logic, they don't think everyone else in Michigan should be forced to suffer because of what's happening in Detroit, and they're certainly entitled to that line of logic.

So instead, what may end up happening is a situation similar to what we had with DPS and Bob Bobb before the EFM law came about, just a regular EM with only financial authority.

But you're right, at the end of the day either of the outcomes will still leave Detroiters worse off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

and what's going on with the mayors proposal to cut the law department budget by 50%? what effect will that have?

---

You think it might have something to do with the fact the new Charter has basically made the Corporation Counsel independent -- no longer under direction of the mayor. I would guess the Mayor is not too happy with her calling the consent agreement void. He really needs that agreement in place so he carry out his union busting.

Are Dave Bing's pants on fire? Perhaps, busting the unions won't solve all the City's problems? Does the Mayor have a case of buyer's remorse? That consent agreement isnt looking as attractive as it once did. Me thinks somebody just realized too late that making promises to the Governor to do things that require money the City just doesn't have was not so smart. Can you say, ”set up for failure?” That consent agreement is a joke.

DETROIT COUNCIL MEMBERS ON CONSENT AGREEMENT FLAP: MAYOR DAVE BING NOT TELLING THE TRUTH

Matt Helms & Suzette Hackney
Detroit Free Press

Despite his denials, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing supported sending a letter to the governor challenging the legality of the consent agreement that the city and state entered into last month, some City Council members said today.

Three council members who were at a meeting last week between the council, Bing and city lawyers said the mayor made it clear he approved of sending a letter from the Law Department challenging the consent deal that granted the state significant power over Detroit's finances -- and the conclusion by city Law Department chief Krystal Crittendon that the agreement violated Detroit's city charter and Michigan law.

"At one of the meetings, [[Bing) said, 'We got this agreement, and the state is giving us nothing,' " said one person who was at the meeting who would speak only on condition of not being named. " 'I'm with you 100%.' He said that."

But Bing insisted today that he never authorized Crittendon to send the letter to Gov. Rick Snyder that declared the April 4 consent agreement "void and unenforceable." Crittendon said the city could not enter into the agreement because the state owes $4.75 million to Detroit for water service to the state-owned Michigan State Fairgrounds and, more important, $224 million in state revenue sharing.

Bing's office issued a statement Thursday afternoon saying that he was aware of the letter, but he still insisted: "I did not authorize, nor do I entirely agree with, counsel's opinion of the validity of the financial stability agreement."

Bing's spokeswoman Naomi Patton declined to comment further beyond Bing's prepared statement.

But some council members responded to Bing distancing himself from the letter on Thursday, first at an event at Cobo Center, and later in his prepared statement.

Asked whether she thought Bing was being honest, Councilwoman Saunteel Jenkins said, "No."

"I will say it's unfortunate people are not always truthful about issues that are this serious," Jenkins told the Free Press on Thursday, declining to comment further.

Two other council members said they were flabbergasted to read Bing's reaction to a Free Press report Thursday that revealed the letter.

A council member who was at the closed sessions said Bing was much more supportive privately, and Bing's denial of that support could "change everything" in how the council works with the mayor on implementing the consent deal -- or potentially challenging it.

"I know what I heard with my own ears, and that's what makes me disappointed in the mayor's response," said the council person, who would speak only on the condition of not being named.

Another council person who was at the closed sessions said Bing's assertion contradicts what he said at the meeting.

"The mayor was in full support of sending that document and meeting with the governor to discuss it," said the council member, who also did not want to be named. "He sat right there with the council members and expressed his support. It's disingenuous to try to distance yourself from it when you were at least in line with sending the letter."

The fallout from the letter continued to grow Thursday. Representatives from the offices of Snyder and state Treasurer Andy Dillon said they don't believe Crittendon's missive will pose a serious challenge to the consent agreement, which was approved by Bing and a 5-4 vote of the City Council.

But some council members who spoke to the Free Press said the Law Department may go to court to seek summary judgment to determine whether Crittendon's concerns -- that the consent deal violates the city charter and state law by entering the city into contracts with a state government in serious arrears to the city -- are enough to invalidate the consent deal.

Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said the potential of a new city legal fight over the deal won't change Snyder's support for the agreement.

"We feel very strongly that it was entered into voluntarily by all parties," Wurfel said. "It is absolutely critical for being able to move forward for the city of Detroit and its residents."

Wurfel said Snyder prefers "to stay focused on moving forward" despite litigation she described as "rampant."

Councilman James Tate said that, while he is focused now on the budget and moving the city ahead, "I do think eventually it will play itself out in the courts."

Crittendon would not comment on whether Bing and the council agreed to send the letter to Snyder. She also would not disclose whether she will advise city officials to pursue further legal action based on her opinion that the consent agreement violates the city charter.

Crittendon told the Free Press on Wednesday that she drafted two letters -- a privileged and confidential document to her client, whom she would not identify, and a letter to state officials on May 11 -- challenging the legality of the consent agreement.

But Crittendon had weighed in on the legality of the agreement beforehand, at the request of the council.

Three days before the council voted to approve the consent agreement, Crittendon, in a confidential 10-page opinion, wrote to the council that the agreement could be tossed out if challenges to Public Act 4, the state's emergency manager law, are successful.

Crittendon's written opinion, obtained by the Free Press on Thursday, stated that the consent agreement curtails powers of the mayor and City Council, a clear violation of the city charter, and that the agreement likely wouldn't survive if Public Act 4 is repealed.

Members from Bing's administration -- namely Deputy Mayor Kirk Lewis and Chris Brown, Bing's chief operating officer -- negotiated the consent agreement on behalf of the city. Bing was hospitalized during much of the negotiations and appointed Lewis, who was his chief of staff, to deputy mayor.

Though Crittendon offered her legal opinion, the administration opted to hire outside attorneys to help ultimately reach a deal.

Contact Matt Helms: 313-222-1450 or mhelms@freepress.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mam2009

You think it might have something to do with the fact the new Charter has basically made the Corporation Counsel independent -- no longer under direction of the mayor. I would guess the Mayor is not too happy with her calling the consent agreement void. He really needs that agreement in place so he carry out his union busting.

---

My pal, union-busting Snyder is an evil genius. You missed the real union-busting -- bankruptcy.