Pontiac's EFM Makes the National Media

[Anonymous]

Oddly enough, as someone that lives in another state with no dog in this fight, I have often read and wondered why people don't think that an EFM is "democratic" or, more misleadingly, argue that an EFM is affirmatively "undemocractic." More accurately, these people might want to say that it's not "local democracy."

Aren't the governor, the legislators, etc. democratically elected? Of course.

And didn't that democratically elected legislature and democratically elected governor pass and sign the law[[s) that make the EFM a real possibility? Yes.

So the issue isn't whether or not it is "democractic", but rather that a group of folks in Pontiac, Detroit, etc. aren't, generally, okay with state government's role locally. Which is an entirely different issue more along the lines of complaining about a smoking ban, or having to register your local car with the secretary of state, or follow state DNR rules, or whatever else the state does that affects your life.

Fact is, the Pontiacans[[?), Detroiters, etc. were part of the *Michigan electorate* that democratically voted in the legislature and governor, and who passed and signed the EFM laws. It was, of course, a local democratic process that led to municipalities that have or will have EFMs getting in such bad shape. And it will be a state democratic process that has or will emplace those EFMs. In each instance, though, make no mistake about it, the process is "democratic."

As someone mentioned earlier, municipalities are all creatures of the state in which they reside and can, in fact, be dissolved by the state unless protected by the state constitution or something like that. EFM sure beats the dissolution of Detroit and Wayne County/township governance, doesn't it?

All in all, I'm a big fan of Detroit and would one day like to move there. It's truly a special place, but it's sad to see people peddling misinformation calling things "undemocractic" when that's truly not the case. Complain about the law, heckle your legislatures, win the PR battle, and do whatever else it takes, but don't try to mislead people in the middle on the issue by lying to them and claiming that the prospect of an EFM is "undemocratic."

[Detroitnerd]

Did you vote for your local leadership? Yes.

Did another government take away your duly elected leaders? Yes.

Is that democratic? No.

Next...

[Detroitnerd]

Check out these Grosse Pointe residents' reactions to losing their ability to make their own democratic decisions:

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...hool-of-choice

[Anonymous]

Did you vote for your local leadership? Yes.

Did another government take away your duly elected leaders? Yes.

Is that democratic? No.

Next...

Not sure if you're serious...

You did vote for that "other", superior, government, right?

[Detroitnerd]

Not sure if you're serious...

You did vote for that "other", superior, government, right?

Dude, when an unelected political appointee can come in, take over your government, dismiss your elected officials and dissolve your unit of government, that is undemocratic. Your sophistry is not working. These are the droids we're looking for.

[corktownyuppie]

Dude, when an unelected political appointee can come in, take over your government, dismiss your elected officials and dissolve your unit of government, that is undemocratic.

Interesting. I hadn't given any serious consideration to a municipal bankruptcy as an alternative, as I've always considered the financial consequences to actually be *worse*.

But I'm open to hearing it out. Screw the EFM for a moment. How would a municipal bankruptcy play out in your mind? Would it be more democratic? And do you think the process could get the books to balance? I seriously shudder at the thought of pensioners not getting paid and for paychecks not to clear.

[bailey]

Check out these Grosse Pointe residents' reactions to losing their ability to make their own democratic decisions:

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...hool-of-choice

that boys and girls, is what we call the false equilency fallacy. Generally, this occurs when someone falsely equates an act by one party as being equally egregious to that of another while ignoring the underlying differences which make the comparison patently invalid.

[Novine]

In Michigan, the constitutional foundation for our local governments is based on the concept of home rule. That means that while local governments are creatures of the state, the state legislature isn't supposed to micro-manage the affairs of local government. It also means that all local governments and their residents are supposed to be treated equally by the state. When the state usurps the locally elected officials and substitutes an unelected and locally unaccountable official, that's contrary to the language and intent of our state constitution.

[JBMcB]

But I'm open to hearing it out. Screw the EFM for a moment. How would a municipal bankruptcy play out in your mind? Would it be more democratic? And do you think the process could get the books to balance? I seriously shudder at the thought of pensioners not getting paid and for paychecks not to clear.

Chapter 9: Union contracts are cancelled. Probably large chunks of the city and it's services are sold off to cover debt. Most importantly, when the city emerges from bankruptcy protection, it will have a snowball's chance in hell of selling any more bonds. It will be on perpetual life support from the state for at least a decade or two, assuming it keeps it's house in order.

[fryar]

I have often read and wondered why people don't think that an EFM is "democratic" or, more misleadingly, argue that an EFM is affirmatively "undemocractic." More accurately, these people might want to say that it's not "local democracy."

Anonymous, I think you have probably nailed this one in a lot of ways. Done and done. This thread's one for the history books, folks.

In Michigan, the constitutional foundation for our local governments is based on the concept of home rule. That means that while local governments are creatures of the state, the state legislature isn't supposed to micro-manage the affairs of local government. It also means that all local governments and their residents are supposed to be treated equally by the state. When the state usurps the locally elected officials and substitutes an unelected and locally unaccountable official, that's contrary to the language and intent of our state constitution.

Dangit!

[Dexlin]

I already said part of my piece on this. But, I did see something on the last page that bothered me, and that was the quote of the "man on the street" saying his police service was better. It was said that Mussolini made the trains run on time, too. And, apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show? The point is that if you're going to support the idea of an EM, I would hope it'd not be because your services are better. There are plenty of dictators and despots the world and history over that were competent enough to deliver particular services more efficiently than they had been in the past. Empirically, democracy is far from the most efficient form of government, but we take it for its faults. Democracy can be messy as hell, but we don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Ultimately, I think most courts in the country would find this law fully or mostly within bounds, given that at the end of the day, local government is ultimately subordinate to state government. Ultimately, the only government constitutionally required is that of the federal government, for sure, and I'd think many courts would also state government so long as it is not in rebellion to the feds [[see: Civil War). But, let's not pretend that this is something other than what it is. And, that said, people that want to change the constitution are fully within their right to put this on the ballot, and it looks like they are going to do just that. I think if the Republicans hadn't rammed this through in literally a few months, there probably wouldn't be the push to overturn the entire thing. Truth is, that people were begrudingly abiding by the previous law. When you try to take a nuke to a fly, it's nothing more than overkill.

[Anonymous]

Dude, when an unelected political appointee can come in, take over your government, dismiss your elected officials and dissolve your unit of government, that is undemocratic. Your sophistry is not working. These are the droids we're looking for.

Still not sure if you're serious[[?).

Try re-reading my post. As an analogy one political level down, this is not unlike voting for a city charter that allows the mayor to replace aldermen if they are utter failures in some way or another, voting for a mayor, and then being upset that it's not democratic when that mayor ousts a failure of an alderman.

In this case, we have a state Constitution, a voted-in legislature, and a voted-in mayor, all of which were ostensibly democratically set into place. And all of those democratically elected things set into place a regime under which an utterly failing city can be assigned an EFM, not unlike removing the utterly failing alderman in the analogy above.

Each are the results of the democratic process. I think your issue may be that you mistakenly believe that the city -- or any city, for that matter -- exists on something more than the whim of the state [[unless, of course, there is some sort of constitutional charter for Detroit).

[Anonymous]

But I'm open to hearing it out. Screw the EFM for a moment. How would a municipal bankruptcy play out in your mind? Would it be more democratic? And do you think the process could get the books to balance? I seriously shudder at the thought of pensioners not getting paid and for paychecks not to clear.

Prior to leaving for my current position, I spent years as a municipal finance and constitutional attorney, and I have a bit of background here. Here are my thoughts...

It all comes back to the state, whether it's through the imposition of an EFM or declaring bankruptcy. That cannot be stressed enough. No doubt the EFM horse has been beaten since well past its death, but I haven't seen noted here that most states require municipalities to seek permission to declare Chapter 9, and Michigan is no exception. Indeed, about a year ago the state denied Hamtramck permission to declare bankruptcy. Here's a link to some background on that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/us...pagewanted=all

By way of analogy, try looking at the relationship between the state and a constituent unit of local government as being one of a parent and a 12-year old. Contrast this with the federal-state relationship where each is sovereign in its own way. In Michigan, while there are a couple references to what amounts to home rule in the MI Constitution, in each case they can be restricted by law or something to that effect, meaning that the state has basically taken a position something along the lines of "you have home rule until we say you don't."

So just as a 12-year old has authority to play army men and direct his little green troops into battle, all of that authority arises from the permission of the parent who wields more or less absolute power over the child and ground the kid or can take away the army men. And so just as a city has authority to emplace streetlights, run busses, and so on and so forth, all of that authority is at the whim of the state who wields more or less absolute power over that city and can take the same away.

Really, people who cry "home rule" or "local self control" are making the mistake of arguing for what they believe should be rather than what is. That is an important distinction, and I think the guy who disagrees with me above is arguing more what should be with regard to democratic processes and the state/local relationship rather than what is.

So in either case, it all comes down to state sovereignty over its constituent units of local government, including Detroit. The state can exercise its power quite directly, by putting an EFM in place [[among other things), or it can exercise it more indirectly, by denying a petition for bankruptcy until certain terms and conditions are met [[among other things). Those terms and conditions would, no doubt, more or less mirror what an EFM would put in place anyway, so it's more a question of whether you like it gentle or rough, because there's a lot of crap that comes with Chapter 9, some of which was touched on above by JBMcB.

I, for one, prefer it gentle when it comes to states exercising their power, and a bit rougher in other places. But all that's neither here nor there, and between my wife and me.

[Anonymous]

when the city emerges from bankruptcy protection, it will have a snowball's chance in hell of selling any more bonds.

Not entirely true, JB. One of the more famous municipal bankruptcies in history was Orange County, California. I think they declared around '95 or so. They've been able to finance with limited success since then.

http://emma.msrb.org/IssuerView/Issu...x?cusip=684201

[Anonymous]

In Michigan, the constitutional foundation for our local governments is based on the concept of home rule. That means that while local governments are creatures of the state, the state legislature isn't supposed to micro-manage the affairs of local government. It also means that all local governments and their residents are supposed to be treated equally by the state. When the state usurps the locally elected officials and substitutes an unelected and locally unaccountable official, that's contrary to the language and intent of our state constitution.

I think you're mistaken, but it's a common mistake in Michigan. Here are the two constitutional provisions that give rise to home rule authority:

§ 22 Charters, resolutions, ordinances; enumeration of powers.
Sec. 22.
Under general laws the electors of each city and village shall have the power and authority to frame, adopt and amend its charter, and to amend an existing charter of the city or village heretofore granted or enacted by the legislature for the government of the city or village. Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law. No enumeration of powers granted to cities and villages in this constitution shall limit or restrict the general grant of authority conferred by this section.

And...

§ 34 Construction of constitution and law concerning counties, townships, cities, villages.
Sec. 34.
The provisions of this constitution and law concerning counties, townships, cities and villages shall be liberally construed in their favor. Powers granted to counties and townships by this constitution and by law shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution.

Each from Article VII of the 1963 Constitution. See the paragraph right under my link to the NY Times article in my longer post a few posts ago. Basically this means that the state can, by law [[i.e., through the legislature), limit or control the home rule powers of its constituent units of local government.

The EFM statute is a good example of this.

[JBMcB]

Not entirely true, JB. One of the more famous municipal bankruptcies in history was Orange County, California. I think they declared around '95 or so. They've been able to finance with limited success since then.

True, though it's comparing apples and oranges a bit [[HAH!)

Orange county's problems were mostly due to bad investments and mismanagement. It still had a comparatively rapidly growing population, high property values and a huge tax base. Compare that with Detroit's situation. Even if you fix the fraud and mismanagement, Detroit still has fundamental revenue problems.

[Detroitnerd]

I am very concerned about emergency managers. You all characterize the state as beneficent. Yet we've seen examples of the state completely not looking out for municipalities' best interests. Take, as a case in point, the takeover of Detroit Public Schools. When the state took DPS over in 1999, there was a budget surplus and test scores were rising. After gobbling up the recently passed bond issue, the state left the district with a deficit of tens of millions of dollars. Then, the most recent emergency manager, was basically getting kickbacks from privatization advocates while running up larger deficits and debts. And what could anybody do about that? No accountability; legalized graft.

This is the brave new world we are headed for? I vote no.

[Scottathew]

I am very concerned about emergency managers. You all characterize the state as beneficent.

Your concern is certainly warranted.

However, I would be more afraid of Bing and Council running Detroit than the manager. They knew this crisis was coming, and yet did very little to avoid ending up where we are at today.

[Detroitnerd]

But if the evidence shows that, in the past, EMs have wreaked worse havoc than the people democratically elected ... [[!!!)

[antongast]

Your concern is certainly warranted.

However, I would be more afraid of Bing and Council running Detroit than the manager. They knew this crisis was coming, and yet did very little to avoid ending up where we are at today.

I think the reason people are more concerned about an EM than about Bing and Council is that Bing and Council are relatively easy to vote out and replace if we don't like what they're doing. The EM might be better than Bing and Council, or they might be worse, but we have no way of knowing who Snyder is going to appoint, and very little recourse if they turn out to be incompetent or corrupt.