FreepOpinion live candidate chats continue today

Live chats with Detroit City Council and charter commission candidates continue today, Wednesday and Thursday at FreepOpinion.com, the digital home of the Detroit Free Press editorial board.

Up at noon: David J. Cross, a developer who says Detroit needs capable, competent and honest leaders who have a vision for Detroit's future and an understanding of what public service means.
His chat will take place here: http://www.freep.com/article/2009091...David-J.-Cross

At 12:30 p.m.: Reginald "Reg" Davis, a radio personality and founder of CeaseFire, an initiative he began after his brother was killed, says poor record keeping of city funds makes the city ripe for abuse.
His chat will take place here: http://www.freep.com/article/2009091...e-Reggie-Davis

David J. Cross City Council chat starting in 10 minutes.. Noon!

For anyone who missed it. David Cross couldn't figure out how to do a web-chat so he never answered anything; Reggie Reg Davis had no idea what a Charter Commission is suppose to do, had no details on plans he wants to see implimented, is qwerty handicapped, and had a couple of name calling melt downs. He does believe in God though.

Nice synopsis, gnome!
One of the great things about doing these chats, I'm learning, is what they indirectly say or don't say about the candidates. Has sometimes been as revealing as their answers!

Stephen, sorry if I got a little short with Mr. Davis, but I see this man as the poster child for a "name recognition" candidate. No details, all platitudes, no understanding of any issue and contempt for voters. Just the fact that he made the current cut, makes him a very possible chair-holder on the Charter Commission. He may even be Chairperson.

When Mr. Davis gets on the Commission, his personality and lack of understanding of the issues may change that process to a never ending tail chase. You might get a small group of obstructionists on that Commission. It could end in conflict and stalemate.

On Mildred's show this morning you said that you are against this fall's Charter by District proposal. You do know that there is no guarantee that the new Charter Commission will recommend any changes to the current charter. Let alone District voting.

The Charter Commission has a 3 year run. Whatever they decide, if they decide on anything, might not appear on a ballot until the 2014 election. Moreover, it will not be until 2019 until another Charter is scheduled to be formed. The 2019 Charter Commission will also have 3 years to re-write the Charter. Hence, we might not be able to vote on Charter by District until 2021.

That is what you are risking by coming out against this fall's Charter by District vote.

2021.

Good points, gnome..

On charter commission: I hear you, but I think there are a few safeguards we can count on...
1) Of course there are no guarantees with any sort of democratic process, but this is about as close as you'll get. We didn't endorse anyone who stood against council-by-district. 8 of our nine picks made it out of the primary, five of them in the top 9. If the top 9 holds through the general, we're guaranteed a majority who favor council by district, at minimum. Some other candidates we saw but didn't endorse also support the idea, and they're finalists too. So I don't think the issue will be WHETHER we have council by district. It'll be HOW that's achieved, and under what structure.

2) I'd caution against the favoring of guaranteed outcomes over "messy" democratic processes. The reason I disfavor the ballot initiative is that it promises a simple fix to a very complicated problem. I've never seen those deliver meaningful change. We need to have a thorough discussion of council-by-district and all its potential permutations [[number, size, geographic distribution, how the council president is elected, staggering of terms) before we can decide what course is best. that's the whole idea of a charter commission. A ballot initiative robs us of that process and presents us with an either/or choice; vote it up or down... the details matter, though, and you can't get into it through the ballot initiative. It's just sloppy lawmaking, and I fear that especially in Detroit, that will lead to sloppy results.

Stephen, love the points and they are certainly well-reasoned; however, you seem to be under the impression that the New Charter Commission is somehow bound, or obligated, to follow any of the other charter amendments that have been passed through the years.

They're not. Tabla rassa.

They don't have to include any thing at all. zip, nada, bupkis.

There is an impression that the District Proposal will bind the Commissioner's hands and thereby take away rights from voters. It doesn't. The New Charter Commission could suggest anything from the status quo, to a City Manager style of government. They will have a blank slate to work with.

If current polls are any indication, our friend Reggie Reg will be writing on that blank slate . You are fine with that? Think that is a good idea? You want him to decide - or even have a hand in forming - the governance that will control your grandchildren's' access to power?

Don't believe me? We are reaping the rewards of 1919. The men that wrote that doc are impacting you and me today. 1919. That is a long time, a lot of water under that bridge; when Mr. Davis - Mr. Name Recognition - is elected to the Charter Commission he will have his fingerprints all over your grandchildren and their children just as the men of 1919 impact us today.

You have a major pulpit, can pour out digital ink by the barrel, and as such you have a major say in whether or not the District Proposal becomes reality. Before you come out in opposition answer me this:

Will you be ok if the Charter Commission decides not to offer District Voting?

hmmmm. Am I okay with a charter process that fails to produce council by district?

Not an easy question to answer, because I guess I have more than one.
From a policy perspective, I am NOT okay with a charter commission that leaves council the way it is. I agree that's absolutely crazy, and will set the city back [[in terms of council effectiveness, etc.) terribly.

But from a process perspective, I guess I have a different answer. If, after we have voted to create a charter commission, and voted to elect charter commissioners, and then gone through the process of charter revision [[which should be very open and transparent and full of debate about the issues) and the result is a decision that council-by-district shouldn't be part of the charter, then I gotta say that IS ok. That's democracy. It's messy. And it doesn't always produce the results we want. But in any good republic, the integrity of the process has to matter more than the outcome, right?

As a matter of principle, I have a hard time with failsafe-type legislation that prevents the democratic process from reaching a result that's considered "undesirable." [[See, for example, our long-standing opposition to term-limits.) The process is the best way to get the desired result; and the easy way isn't an acceptable substitute..

Of course, the Freep editorial board will fight like hell to make sure the second scenario you laid out doesn't happen. And I certainly don't think we'll be alone. Seriously, who besides the current councilmembers is even on the fence about council-by-district?

Then again, anything's possible... and this IS Detroit, where it seems any crazy thing happens.