Judge tosses detroit consent agreement lawsuit

**cla1945** · June-13-12, 10:59 AM

Now, the Mayor needs to terminate Crittendon immediately.
Hopefully, this will end all the nonsense and Detroit can move forward. An amazing amount of money has been wasted because of this lawsuit already.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

**Novine** · June-13-12, 11:19 AM

An amazing amount? Not really when it comes to Detroit.

**corktownyuppie** · June-13-12, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

An amazing amount? Not really when it comes to Detroit.

One thing we sure as hell have wasted is goodwill. I'm excited when the financial advisory board is finally created. I can't wait to hear what it's like when grownups who actually know what they're talking about sit around a table and try to find solutions to our complex problems.

**Danny** · June-13-12, 11:22 AM

Mayor KING BING will fire Crittendon faster than Snyder can reinstate the 80 million dollar revenue sharing. She has violated the Detroit City Charter and its chain of command from the Office of the Mayor of Detroit Dave Bing.

**kraig** · June-13-12, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by cla1945

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120613/METRO/206130392/Judge-tosses-Detroit-consent-agreement-lawsuit?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|FRONTPAGE

Now, the Mayor needs to terminate Crittendon immediately.
Hopefully, this will end all the nonsense and Detroit can move forward. An amazing amount of money has been wasted because of this lawsuit already.

Why fire her for doing what she was told to do by the Mayor and City Council in a closed session? They used her to try and get out of the consent agreement while having an out if things didn't work to their advantage.

**Meddle** · June-13-12, 11:33 AM

Any reason a new thread was started?

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...-or-lose-funds

**Danny** · June-13-12, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by kraig

Why fire her for doing what she was told to do by the Mayor and City Council in a closed session? They used her to try and get out of the consent agreement while having an out if things didn't work to their advantage.

Read This!

Sec. 7.5-203. Civil Litigation.
The Corporation Counsel shall defend all actions or proceedings against the City.
The Corporation Counsel shall prosecute all actions or proceedings to which the City is a party or in which the City has a legal interest, when directed to do so by the Mayor.
Upon request, the Corporation Counsel may represent any officer or employee of the city in any action or proceeding involving official duties.
No civil litigation of the city may be settled without the consent of the City Council.

That's why!

Notice that word 'when do so by the mayor'. Bing did not authorize a lawsuit to the Michigan State Government about the consent agreement being unconsitutional. Crittendon violated the chain of command of filing a particular lawsuit without the consent from Mayor of Detroit [[Bing) so resignation of Crittendon must be done.

**skyl4rk** · June-13-12, 11:43 AM

Crittendon and the COD have a valid complaint with the State of Michigan regarding revenue sharing.

The state has been reducing revenue sharing every year, and absorbing the funds into its Bloatocracy®.

The state is using a "set em up to knock em down" strategy. Just at the time when municipals are hurting due to reduced property values and reduced property tax income, the state shuts off the revenue sharing dollars as well. Luckily there is an Emergency Financial Manager law in place to help the cities that are financially weaker.

This chart is from the City of Grand Haven. Detroit's numbers will be different but the proportions will be similar. It shows how the state is taking revenue sharing from the locals and sucking it in to increase the state budget.

This is why many people believe that the current financial crisis in Detroit and other financially weak cities was "engineered in Lansing".

Just as a point of reference, roughly one half of local government revenues go to provide public safety services [[police, fire, ambulance). If you want to know where your police and fire services funding went to, it went to Lansing to feed the Bloatocracy®.

**313WX** · June-13-12, 12:03 PM

From the City Charter...

Sec. 7.5-209. Enforcement of Charter.

The Corporation Counsel shall be responsible for enforcing compliance with the Charter. Corporation Counsel shall document in writing any violation of the Charter by the executive or legislative branches, Office of City Clerk, elected official or other persons subject to compliance with the Charter. This written notice shall contain the nature of the violation, including the Charter section[[s) violated, direct the necessary action to be taken to remedy the violation, and date by which the remedial action must be taken. The time for taking the required remedial action shall not exceed fourteen [[14) calendar days. The notice of Charter violation shall be presented to the offending body or individual, with a copy provided to the Mayor, City Council and City Clerk.

In the event the offending body or individual fails to remedy the Charter violation within the time frame and manner required in the written notice, Corporation Counsel shall take all reasonable actions to secure compliance, including, but not limited to, judicial action.

Nothing in this section is meant to waive any right to attorney-client privilege.

**townonenorth** · June-13-12, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

From the City Charter...

[B]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Where has the city Charter been violated?

**Wesley Mouch** · June-13-12, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

From the City Charter...

So if she can prove that there's a debt owed, then she might have an obligation to address it.

She put the horse before the cart.

You can't therefore allege violation of the CA without a finding of debt, right? Its just an allegation about actions of previous adminstrations right now.

This does not show that Corp Counsel can go rogue, accept an accusation about something as true without proof, and then use it to hold up her bosses initiatives.

I continue to content that the biggest problem is that she could have spent her energy finding the right legal way to make the CA enforceable -- she choose to torpedo it instea.

Insubordination. bye bye, there you go with no doubt a great fat pensions and benefits for life.

**SWMAP** · June-13-12, 12:36 PM

There's a lot of problems in the new Charter. I thought it was ill-advised and did not vote for it.
I think the Judge in Mason was alluding to a major problem in the Charter: the Mayor continues to be the Chief Executive. If the Mayor doesn't authorize something, is in fact opposed to an executive action, it just, in common-sense terms, cannot go forward. Shall we have an unelected official running the City or the elected executive?

I think the Charter will come under more scrutiny in the future and be revised. It was poor form to write in so much that was reactionary.

Also, having the police commissioners elected by the residents is going to be very troublesome. What if a felon is elected? This was already a point of contention when the Mayor wanted to appoint a person with a felony record - a record acquired in Detroit, I think. Should the police officers have to report to and be judged by the very people they have arrested and who have been convicted. I think its nonsense - just as you forfeit the right to vote when convicted of a felony, so should you forfeit the right to advise and sit in judgment of police work - because you may have a public or secret ax to grind.

Yet the Charter may allow this scenario to occur in the future - unless revised.

**313WX** · June-13-12, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

So if she can prove that there's a debt owed, then she might have an obligation to address it.

She put the horse before the cart.

You can't therefore allege violation of the CA without a finding of debt, right? Its just an allegation about actions of previous adminstrations right now.

This does not show that Corp Counsel can go rogue, accept an accusation about something as true without proof, and then use it to hold up her bosses initiatives.

I continue to content that the biggest problem is that she could have spent her energy finding the right legal way to make the CA enforceable -- she choose to torpedo it instea.

Insubordination. bye bye, there you go with no doubt a great fat pensions and benefits for life.

Keep in mind Collette didn't actually address the merit of the case. He ruled on who should file the lawsuit [[which is still questionable based on Section 7.5-209 of the Charter). If she failed anywhere, it's that she may not have provided a copy of the Charter violation to the Mayor, all of the City Council AND the City Clerk.

The charter doesn't specify a specific amount of debt that had to be in default. even if you ignore the revenue sharing and water bills, there's still the question of the other debts she included.

I don't think Ms. Crittendon is hardly incompetent when it comes to the law either, as she graduated from U of M's Law School, the same Law School our Governor and Judge Collette graduated from.

A person on the Detroit Free Press comment section who graduated fom Harvard's Law School had a pretty good analysis what happened in the court today.

Bottom line, how this played out in the end, especially given Collette's previous decisons in all of this and how fast this decision was made, seems fishy.

But it is what it is. If the city appeals, fine, if it doesn't, a decision, regardless of how suspect, was made by a court. Most of you, which has been demonstrated for the past 1.5 years, are just concerned with getting the finances in order, everything else, including the law, be damned.

**313WX** · June-13-12, 01:01 PM

And also, if not go after the state, per that section she should have went after everyone on Council and Mayor Bing for agreeing to the Consent Agreement, as they themselves violated the Charter by doing so.

**Novine** · June-13-12, 01:33 PM

By your logic, she should be going after everyone who's held elected office in the city for the past number of years since the revenue sharing payments were cut. By your logic, all were in violation of the charter. For that to have happened, the Law Department would have had to point out this violation of the charter when it first happened. Let me go out on a limb here and say that Ms. Crittendon and the Law Department only discovered these violations in the last couple of months, if that. Which shows that they are incompetent or corrupt.

**Novine** · June-13-12, 01:34 PM

"I'm excited when the financial advisory board is finally created. I can't wait to hear what it's like when grownups who actually know what they're talking about sit around a table and try to find solutions to our complex problems."

Were you signing this tune when Bing was elected? We heard a lot about how "the grownups" would finally be running the city. How has that worked out?

**Scottathew** · June-13-12, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by skyl4rk

This is why many people believe that the current financial crisis in Detroit and other financially weak cities was "engineered in Lansing".

Huh? Revenue sharing is only part of the issue. The main issue is revenues from taxes based on property values.

My city taxes have dropped over 35% since I moved into my house in 2006.

**jj84** · June-13-12, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

Huh? Revenue sharing is only part of the issue. The main issue is revenues from taxes based on property values.

My city taxes have dropped over 35% since I moved into my house in 2006.

Its both, tax collection is down from property tax revenue, state revenue sharing is almost to constitutional minimums. Now you have the State mandating the EVIP to get additional funds, which no one knows on the future of and the work to go into EVIP in the future might not be worth the pay back and then you have the elephant in the room. The personal property tax removal. But even with all this you have cities still paying 100K plus to fire and police personal and giving ridiculous pensions.

**corktownyuppie** · June-13-12, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

But it is what it is. If the city appeals, fine, if it doesn't, a decision, regardless of how suspect, was made by a court. Most of you, which has been demonstrated for the past 1.5 years, are just concerned with getting the finances in order, everything else, including the law, be damned.

I'm less angry about the fact this went to court and more angry about how and when it was done. First thing is that even though I'm no legal scholar, it's clear that whether or not the State owed the city money is undecided. And, remember, it's only enough to get us through another 6 months anyway. But nonetheless, because it was undecided, the appropriate thing to do for people wanting to be pragmatic was to get some legal opinions on whether or not the city was really owed the money. And that process should've happened 8 years ago. Not 8 months ago or 8 days ago.

The fact that it is showing up right now would be like you and me negotiating a real estate transaction for the last 9 months. And just as we get to the closing table, I threaten to void the transaction because I contest that both you and I were not of sound mind and free of duress at the point where we made the deal.

I mean, sure, it's a fair legal question. And it definitely needs to be decided. But if I was so concerned about our states of mind for the last 9 months, then WHY the hell am I waiting until now to say something??

===

Lastly, a word about democracy. Democracy exists in a whole spectrum and range. Sometimes more democracy is good. Sometimes less is good. I will not comment on that, other than to say it's worth debating. For example, Moroun's "Let the People Decide" campaign is a way to force the bridge debate to a referendum...which is technically, more democratic than having our legislature seal the deal. Or have our legislature give the the Governor the authority to seal the deal on his own.

How much democracy is good? At what point is too much democracy bad?

I was involved in a real estate transaction whose negotiating process took over 3 years because it was with a church. And the church's bylaws stated that 100% consensus of the congregation needed to be reached about the entire contract before they would enter into it. As you can imagine, this was not a slow process. We would make an offer on Monday, have to wait til next Sunday service, and then maybe on Monday we'd get a yes or a no.

[[We'd never get a counteroffer, because that would mean that the congregation would have had to argue among themselves and unanimously agree.)

So what finally pushed it through? They finally hired a real estate agent whom they trusted. Then 3 months later they added a real estate attorney. Then their agent and attorney set up a series of 4 meetings face to face with our committee and we hashed out a deal.

I'm not saying everything else including the law be damned. But our situation is dire. We elected a City Council. We elected a mayor. The two bodies voted to enter into this consent agreement. Our people are appointing experts to a board who can be sheltered from the politics....our voices will be heard at the table.

That's democracy.

The other version of democracy? The one where everyone's voice needs to be heard. And where the loudest voices are also the least informed and most ignorant? That shit just needs to end.

**Novine** · June-13-12, 10:12 PM

One thing that seems to have been glossed over is that Pugh and company are claiming that they simply wanted the judge to rule on the legality of the consent agreement. But that didn't happen. The judge tossed out the suit based on standing. He didn't rule on the merits of the legal challenge. Even though I think those are baseless, it's clear that Pugh and Bing and the others who raised the question of legality of the agreement as the basis for allowing the suit to go forward have been struck with amnesia with why this went forward in the first place.

**Thames** · June-13-12, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by cla1945

Now, the Mayor needs to terminate Crittendon immediately.
Hopefully, this will end all the nonsense and Detroit can move forward. An amazing amount of money has been wasted because of this lawsuit already.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Crittendon did her due diligence. When the bottom falls out [[again), it will be harder to make her the scape goat.

Good move on her part, IMO.

**jcole** · June-14-12, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Thames

Crittendon did her due diligence. When the bottom falls out [[again), it will be harder to make her the scape goat.

Good move on her part, IMO.

If she had done her due diligence, she wouldn't have filed the lawsuit; she would have realized that the Mayor needed to do it.

**corktownyuppie** · June-14-12, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

One thing that seems to have been glossed over is that Pugh and company are claiming that they simply wanted the judge to rule on the legality of the consent agreement. But that didn't happen. The judge tossed out the suit based on standing. He didn't rule on the merits of the legal challenge. Even though I think those are baseless, it's clear that Pugh and Bing and the others who raised the question of legality of the agreement as the basis for allowing the suit to go forward have been struck with amnesia with why this went forward in the first place.

Youre absolutely right. Judge is basically saying, "If you want me to rule on the merits of the case, get the Mayor and Council to approve your action."

This is just about the councilmen lacking the political cover to ask for help from outside. Now they can claim "well, we tried" when they didnt even really swing at the ball.

If this was really about $240MM, they would just sue the state for $240MM. Technically its not too late to do that.

**Scottathew** · June-14-12, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

If this was really about $240MM, they would just sue the state for $240MM. Technically its not too late to do that.

Yup. And suing the state for the $240M would not interfere with the consent agreement. Even if the judge ruled in favor of the City a payment arrangement would be made and the state would pay Detroit.

The state wouldn't even be in default to Detroit unless they didn't make the payment as agreed. And even if the state did default on paying back the $240M, it would mean that they couldn't enter into new contracts, it would not void already valid contracts such as the consent agreement.

However, Crittendon's goal was only to obstruct, delay, and create chaos. Kind of reminds me of republicans in Washington DC, who only have the goal of obstructing and making Obama look bad.