WTF is Council Thinking...Snyder says Financial Advisory Board will meet as is.

**corktownyuppie** · May-29-12, 09:18 PM

MACKINAC ISLAND -- Gov. Rick Snyder this afternoon said Detroit's financial advisory board should begin immediately meeting to shape the city's fiscal future -- with or without input from Detroit City Council.

Snyder said the city-state consent agreement does not require that all members of the nine-person board be appointed before they begin meetings, nor that City Council appoint its members by a required time.

"The board can meet anytime the board wants to meet," Snyder said. "I really encourage the City Council to make their appointments, but if they decide they don't want to appoint people to the board that's not a reason they shouldn't meet. The board's got work to do."

Wait, seriously? The council isn't even going to appoint their two seats while the courts work this all out?

Wow. You've been given 2 seats the table. You should probably take them while they're there.

**313WX** · May-29-12, 09:20 PM

The financial advisory board still can't make a decision on anything until the council appoints their 2 members, and approve the Bing-Snyder appointee.

**corktownyuppie** · May-29-12, 09:41 PM

How so? Quorum is defined as a majority, and there are now 6 board members with full voting rights.

**313WX** · May-29-12, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

How so? Quorum is defined as a majority, and there are now 6 board members with full voting rights.

Per the agreement [[which says the board is to have 9 members), they can't.

That's why Snyder carefully said they can have DISCUSSIONS.

I could be wrong though, I'm not a lawyer.

**SWMAP** · May-29-12, 10:01 PM

A quorum will be either a simple majority or 2/3 of the sitting members. At any time, due to retirements, resignations, etc., seats may be vacated. The business of the board would still have to go on and so the quorum is established to come from those seats that are filled.
I am not sure what this legislation says is the quorum, but say it is 2/3 of the currently occupied seats- if six are filled, then the quorum is four attending, and if four meet, legal business can be accomplished. When all the seats are filled, six would have to attend.

**corktownyuppie** · May-29-12, 10:07 PM

Quorum and Voting. A majority of the members of the Financial Advisory Board appointed and serving shall constitute quorum. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Financial Advisory Board may act by a majority vote of its Members present and voting, provided that a declaration of a default under Section 6.2 of this Agreement or of a Reform Default under Section 6.4 of this Agreement shall require a majority vote of all Members then in office

The actual agreement text.

**Hypestyles** · May-29-12, 11:10 PM

why has it taken so long for the council to nominate/appoint people to the board..

**313WX** · May-29-12, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

The actual agreement text.

This part is key in that...

provided that a declaration of a default under Section 6.2 of this Agreement or of a Reform Default under Section 6.4 of this Agreement shall require a majority vote of all Members then in office.

What exactly constitutes a "declaration of default" [[which from what I understand, is the only way, pr this agreement, the board can apply the Quorum).

Also, they better handle these meetings carefully. It says clear as day in Section 1.7 that the Financial Advisory Board must comply with the Open Meetings Act.

**Vic01** · May-30-12, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Also, they better handle these meetings carefully. It says clear as day in Section 1.7 that the Financial Advisory Board must comply with the Open Meetings Act.

I thought that the Court just ruled the Open Meetings Act did not apply here?

**313WX** · May-30-12, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Vic01

I thought that the Court just ruled the Open Meetings Act did not apply here?

The exact text...

1.7 Meetings. The Financial Advisory Board shall be subject to and comply

with Act 267, Public Acts of Michigan, 1976, as amended, the Open Meetings Act.

I understand ultimately it's a court of law and you must respect the judgements, but I'm convinced the Appeals courts is filled with right-wing activist judges.

Their last decision on this was really QUITe a stretch at best.

It's posible the stuff happening in Michigan with Snyder's policies will eventually end up being worked out at the federal level, one way or another.

While focusing so much on the financial side of things, the Michigan government seems to be ignoring the legal side of things [[which is just as important).

**corktownyuppie** · May-30-12, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

The exact text...

I understand ultimately it's a court of law and you must respect the judgements, but I'm convinced the Appeals courts is filled with right-wing activist judges.

Their last decision on this was really QUITe a stretch at best.

It's posible the stuff happening in Michigan with Snyder's policies will eventually end up being worked out at the federal level, one way or another.

While focusing so much on the financial side of things, the Michigan government seems to be ignoring the legal side of things [[which is just as important).

I might be mixed up on all this, but here's my understanding:

[[1) The Financial Advisory Board whose existence was a result of the consent decree agreed to by the state and the city is subject to the open meetings act -- note that this board's findings are binding.

[[2) The state-appointed financial review teams whose job was to examine the books and make a recommendation to the governor was not subject to the open meetings act -- note that this board's findings are non-binding recommendations.

**SWMAP** · May-30-12, 06:34 AM

The quorum is the prescribed demographic of appointed and qualified members of the Board necessary to be present and vote for a measure to pass. These prescriptions have si much precedent that they are virtually unarguable. This Board must have a simple majority of those present and voting to pass measures. If only six seats are filled then four must pass a measure. If one person declines to vote [[only five present and voting) then the measure would need a majority of three yes votes to pass.
As corktown notes, the Council is dumb to hold out like this. Get your stake in early not late.

**313WX** · May-30-12, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I might be mixed up on all this, but here's my understanding:

[[1) The Financial Advisory Board whose existence was a result of the consent decree agreed to by the state and the city is subject to the open meetings act -- note that this board's findings are binding.

[[2) The state-appointed financial review teams whose job was to examine the books and make a recommendation to the governor was not subject to the open meetings act -- note that this board's findings are non-binding recommendations.

The exact text from the OMA...

7) This act does not apply to the following public bodies only when deliberating the merits of a case:

[[c) The state tenure commission created under Act No. 4 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1937, as amended, being sections 38.71 to 38.191 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, when acting as a board of review from the decision of a controlling board.

IMO, any body that makes a decision regarding the handling of taxpayer dollars should abide by the OMA, which is why I said their decision was a strtch.

But in any event, that decision is neither here nor there at this point. The fact of the matter is, if they want to avoid anymore lawsuits, the FAB must hold open meetings to the citizens of Detroit, as if they were council themselves.

**Wesley Mouch** · May-30-12, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

The exact text from the OMA...

IMO, any body that makes a decision regarding the handling of taxpayer dollars should abide by the OMA, which is why I said their decision was a strtch.

But in any event, that decision is neither here nor there at this point. The fact of the matter is, if they want to avoid anymore lawsuits, the FAB must hold open meetings to the citizens of Detroit, as if they were council themselves.

As a matter of principal, I am in favor of governmental transparency. Its one of the only things keeping government from going all 'Allen Park' on us.

But with that said, the tone of this discussion seems to suggest that the 'board' needs to protect itself against lawsuits, when the party needing protection here is the City of Detroit. If it doesn't achieve financial stability, or there are lawsuits, then its the City that will not get the benefit of improving financial health.

The City isn't appointing anyone because it is politically expedient to cloak yourself in the appearance of support for 'democratic home rule' -- a cloak itself that someone conveys resistance to Lansing. I am assuming now that the goal is to delay, delay, and delay in the hopes of some magical salvation, perhaps from the federal level that makes the pain of austerity go away.

**Richard** · May-30-12, 09:42 AM

I think they are being kinda like politicians in election years,they know their time is limited so they just kinda fill the space waiting,which kinda has the city in a limbo state.

It was kinda nice seeing posts here and there on peoples opinions on who they feel should be or would be good in place to help move the city forward.

CTY you forgot about your 2013 campaign based on "its all my fault" ?

**corktownyuppie** · May-30-12, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

CTY you forgot about your 2013 campaign based on "its all my fault" ?

Yeah...I had to scrap my original plan of forging signatures to get on the primary. Damn you, McCotter!!!

**Scottathew** · May-30-12, 10:09 AM

Detroit City Council is so stupid. They can't even appoint two people to help save the city from receivership\EFM.

**Richard** · May-30-12, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

Detroit City Council is so stupid. They can't even appoint two people to help save the city from receivership\EFM.

or on the flip side of the coin maybe it is their way of saying to bring on the EFM without anyone having the finger pointed at them.

I do not think they are stupid more so maybe showing just who really is in charge in their minds,they have managed to run their little fiefdoms for sometime now while the city burned,but yet it was allowed by whom?

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-30-12, 03:46 PM

I endorse the appointment of General Douglas MacArthur as EFM for Detroit. He got a bombed out Japan rebuilt, modernized, holding democratic elections and turning into an economic powerhouse in 6 years. Yes, I know he's dead, but he was that good.

**corktownyuppie** · May-30-12, 03:57 PM

Here's my question. Understanding that the Consent Decree could possibly be altered or voided in court, why doesn't the City Council cover their bases and appoint the two people anyway. At least that way if the courts kick out the case, they'll have done their job and made some progress.

City Council has few chips in the bank right now. Picking their two voices and getting them on this council is one of few things they can do to alter their future. JUST DO IT ALREADY.

**Wheels** · May-30-12, 04:35 PM

In the Clowncil's feeble minds this is their way of doing whatever it takes to make sure CA doesn't work.

**drjeff** · May-31-12, 10:00 AM

I haven't read the agreement but I'd be kind of shocked if there weren't some kind of mandatory timeline included.

**drjeff** · May-31-12, 11:23 AM

From the Freep today:

The City Council has refused to appoint its two members of the financial advisory board because the city's top lawyer is expected to file a legal challenge of the consent agreement.

**Wesley Mouch** · May-31-12, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Here's my question. Understanding that the Consent Decree could possibly be altered or voided in court, why doesn't the City Council cover their bases and appoint the two people anyway. At least that way if the courts kick out the case, they'll have done their job and made some progress.

City Council has few chips in the bank right now. Picking their two voices and getting them on this council is one of few things they can do to alter their future. JUST DO IT ALREADY.

Resisting 'by any means necessary' to protect what they believe are their rights.

**webband1** · May-31-12, 01:14 PM

Freep website says council will appoint their members and vote on approving Synder/Bing's appointee as soon as next week, even with the lawsuit moving forward.