Printable View
http://www.freep.com/article/2011011...blic-access-TV
curious.. I am not up to date on what this squabble is about. Can anyone elaborate on the history? This being announced just as the auto show starts is kind of bad timing.. I can see more bitter battles ahead.. I see a brief mention of the city charter-- hopefully this can be addressed in the revisions?
It means that the 2013 mayoral campaign is underway.
Mayor Bing wants to be able to showcase city services that he is providing.
Certain members of the City Council [[who will likely run against him) want to keep the cameras focused on themselves.
"In November, the council unanimously voted to give itself four appointments to the Cable Commission and three to the mayor. Prior to that, the mayor had four appointments, and the council had three, subject to the mayor's approval.Bing's office says the city charter requires the mayor's staff to oversee cable programming, so the council's action is illegal."
Does the Council ever consult their attorney before taking a vote on something like this?
From what I understand this all started because some City Council members were concerned that the Mayor was limiting citizens' access to their government by directing the Cable Commission to reduce the days that the City Council appears on the City's government access channel on Comcast. Rather than showing all of the City Council's daily meetings, only the Tuesday & Thursday meetings are shown now.
The Council was never formally notified of the permanent programming change, not were they ever provided an explanation for it that made sense. After unsuccessfully seeking a compromise from the Mayor on this matter, the Council consulted with its research staff and determined that it would change the Cable Commission ordinance. The Mayor vetoed the ordinance. Council overrode the veto. So now the Mayor is suing the Council.
Sad but true... council meetings just haven't been the same since Monica, Martha and Barbara Rose graced their mugs on the big screen...
Without the Bi-Polar, dim-witted, and bejweled tiara totting members... the Nielson's have gone downhill on the Clownsil Show.... :-[[ [[Sorry, but the new Emoticons are lame!)
This seems to be an unnecessary fight for the mayor. First of all transparency is good for democracy. Even though the entertainment value of council meetings has declined, they should still be available on cable. I really think the mayor ought to pick his battles more wisely. This has unnecessarily antagonized an entity that he has to work with.
I understand that today's obstructionist action regarding the renovation of the old MGM was motivated by council's displeasure with the cable situation.
Backwards and downwards. The city has so many real issues that need to be addressed. I really blame the mayor for this one.
Ditto........Quote:
Originally Posted by evergreen
I don't get it. As a kid watching public access [[real cool, I know) in Utica I seem to remember the mayor sitting in the middle with her council members surrounding her making decisions together??
With Detroit it seems like the council and mayor operate as two totally different and separate entities. Is this how it is suppose to go or is it just the constant squabbling that leads me to that impression? Seriously, this is a serious question.
The petty fights over turf are ridiculous. These guys are in a pissing match while the city
continues to circle the drain. What in the hell is wrong with these elected officials?
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddeeo
Totally agree. How in the hell does something like cable acess become politicized.Here in Ann Arbor the mayor nominates cable commission candidates and council approves if they like and they almost always like. This is hard to figure.
gistock "Sad but true... council meetings just haven't been the same since Monica, Martha and Barbara Rose graced their mugs on the big screen..."
funny...
Does anyone watch the city channel? I wonder what the the ratings are. Clearly not the same since the mental midgets got booted in the last election.
I think Detroit would be better served by saving on city cable costs and pay for a psychologist for the council members.
What are the taxpayers getting for their money? My guess is a poorly rated reality show.
Wow, I just thought of something. Detroit could make money off this.
Sell the rights to the Detroit city council to MTV.
Bring back the nutcases from the council to the show, have like a Jersey Shore freak show.
Promote it as crazy reality show, like a jerry springer, judge judy, etc.
This would help pay for all the social programs they want.
Can anyone provide ratings for this??? It is on cable so there HAS to be a number somewhere.
ps: maybe they could get the 41% tax credit from the state for production costs ! how ironic would that be, the city making money AND getting it paid for by the taxpayers, a perfect Detroit city business model.
Why would the Mayor antagonize the City's legislative body whom you are supposed to be working hand in hand with so unnecessarily? When I've turned to Channel 10 lately, all I've seen are scripted recordings of the Mayor being interviewed shown over and over and a static station ID screen. There doesn't seem to be any desirable alternative shown. So, again, why even bother. At least folks who want to see their tax dollars at work could do so by watching the Council -- and now without the drama that would occassionally flare up due to the unprofessional behavior of some.
The mayor needs to be told he is not running his house. This is a major city.
.... lol.... this lawsuit is about as childish as 2 kids fighting over the TV remote control....