Mayor Dave Bing Asks for Corp Counsel's Resignation

[SWMAP]

Re: the strategy of going to Council when does not "have the votes:" don't you think probably something else is going on entirely?

[SWMAP]

Mam: the key is to read what Minutes MUST contain.

of course, Minutes are taken. But, as I said earlier, those Minutes are very, very basic. Read what is required and you will see that verbatim comments are not required.

[Danny]

Mayor Dave Bing on proposed resignation of Detroit City Attorney Crittendon:

"I strongly want the city council to decide on Crittendon's resignation. She violated city charter and chain of commands and other legal procedures of addressing certian lawsuits without my consent. This must be done as soon as possible."

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
For example, I'm still trying to figure out what the whole lawsuit was about. Everyone said it was about the money. Ok, then...

[[1) If it's about the money, then why aren't they going forward with the suit, and
[[2) Even if it's about the money, what will we do when the money is gone in 6 months?

I agree with your conclusion that Bing is in over his head. So now the question is why? Is it an indication of his failings as a politician? Or is it because there are forces on City Council that are against doing things that need to be done?

It was never about money -- it was about power. That's been clear. The idea that the State was 'withholding' money was what those in power want as the focus of discussion -- not their failings to manage city finances well -- which btw would include their failure to pursue this before 11:59pm.

Bing may be over his head -- but so would almost anyone else who tries to 'reform'. Resistance against the State is rewarded in Detroit. Sadly -- and to her own detriment.

[Locke09]

There are some things wrong with the new charter, but this issue isn't one of them.

The intent of the two supposedly conflicting passages is clear to me:

1. The Corporation Council is responsible for taking legal actions whenever the Council and/or Mayor direct the Corporation Council to do so.

2. In matters regarding a possible charter violation, the Corporation Council can act independently, not requiring the consent or direction of Council or Mayor, because they would be the ones violating the charter in the first place.

Not conflicting or contradictory.I think both the charter language, and the Corporation Council should remain.

[313WX]

There are some things wrong with the new charter, but this issue isn't one of them.


The intent of the two supposedly conflicting passages is clear to me:sss


1. The Corporation Council is responsible for taking legal actions whenever the Council and/or Mayor direct the Corporation Council to do so.


2. In matters regarding a possible charter violation, the Corporation Council can act independently, not requiring the consent or direction of Council or Mayor, because they would be the ones violating the charter in the first place.


Not conflicting or contradictory.I think both the charter language, and the Corporation Council should remain.

That's how I understood it as well, which is why Crittendon should appeal the decision to at least get a judgement on the merit of her case.


Furthermore, lets say we forget about all of the alleged debts the city claims the state owes it. There's still the possibility that...


1. Bing consulted with an outside firm without Crittendon's approval for the signing of the Consent Agreement. That alone may nullify the Agreement altogther.


2. Crittendon can file seperate sanctions against City Council [[the members who voted in favor of the Agreement) and Bing for supporting an Agreement that violated the charter in the first place and possibly request for their recall and removal.


But this is the problem you run into when you have two businssmn [[who both presided over failed ventures remind you) who think they're still CeOs and can circumvent basic law and procedures to save time and money while avoiding blame at the same time.


Bankruptcy is still the best option, regardless of how much kicking and screaming the citizens of Michigan and the leaders in Lansing will do. If we all truly want to improve Detroit, we should all have in its pain during the process without all the political and legal drama

[mam2009]

Mam , there won't be a "transcript" of a closed door meeting.

Again, I say, what makes you think there will not be a transcript of the meeting? There is nothing in the legislation to support your declarative statement of "fact". The legislation does not bar transcripts from being included in the minutes. I just outlines what is minimally required to be in the minutes and that access to those minutes can only be made available to "the public" if required in a civil action.

[mam2009]

That's how I understood it as well, which is why Crittendon should appeal the decision to at least get a judgement on the merit of her case.


Furthermore, lets say we forget about all of the alleged debts the city claims the state owes it. There's still the possibility that...


1. Bing consulted with an outside firm without Crittendon's approval for the signing of the Consent Agreement. That alone may nullify the Agreement altogther.


2. Crittendon can file seperate sanctions against City Council [[the members who voted in favor of the Agreement) and Bing for supporting an Agreement that violated the charter in the first place and possibly request for their recall and removal.


But this is the problem you run into when you have two businssmn [[who both presided over failed ventures remind you) who think they're still CeOs and can circumvent basic law and procedures to save time and money while avoiding blame at the same time.


Bankruptcy is still the best option, regardless of how much kicking and screaming the citizens of Michigan and the leaders in Lansing will do. If we all truly want to improve Detroit, we should all have in its pain during the process without all the political and legal drama

Ditto to all of what you said except the last paragraph. And I only exclude the last paragraph, because I still believe that a consent agreement can be effective -- just not the one drafted in THIS case. A little more time and effort could have yielded an effective [[and legal) document.

[mam2009]

For all of those who disregard the legality of the consent agreement, I ask do Detroit's finances and management need reform at ANY cost? Would it be ok if, say, the State required that Detroit's [[or even all residents' and businesses' of the State) tax rates be raised without conforming to the requirements of the State Constitution? What if our Constitution required that all tax increases be approved by the Legislature or by the voters each time there is an increase? Would it be ok for the Governor and the Treasurer to just illegally decide on their own to raise taxes?

Would it be any more legal if the Legislature signed an agreement that said, no, Mr. Governor, you can raise our taxes whenever you feel like it [[because we are in a financial crisis), even though the Constitution says the Legislature MUST vote on each tax increase? If it wasn't legal for the Legislature to give the Governor permission to raise taxes whenever he wanted without coming to them first for approval, wouldn't that mean the tax hikes made after that agreement was signed weren't legal and, therefore, unenforceable?

[SWMAP]

Mam, the exact scenario you describe above - a unilaterally- promulgated tax increase - was perpetrated on Detroit residents by our then-Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick when he added a $300 special services fee to our property tax bill to pay for garbage pick-up. He raised our taxes just like that and with no ballot.

So I guess its already been done and not by this Governor.

[mam2009]

Mam, the exact scenario you describe above - a unilaterally- promulgated tax increase - was perpetrated on Detroit residents by our then-Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick when he added a $300 special services fee to our property tax bill to pay for garbage pick-up. He raised our taxes just like that and with no ballot.

So I guess its already been done and not by this Governor.

Nope. That's not a tax. Its a fee. Two different things.

[SWMAP]

I KNOW its a "fee" - but in this case, its really a tax in disguise. If I could opt-out from the fee [[by taking care of my garbage another way)then it would be a fee. But I can't. This un-balloted fee is included on my property tax bill [[just like the millages that were voted on by the citizenry) and must be paid annually.

I used to get my garbage collection included in the property tax. Now its extra.

[mam2009]

I KNOW its a "fee" - but in this case, its really a tax in disguise. If I could opt-out from the fee [[by taking care of my garbage another way)then it would be a fee. But I can't. This un-balloted fee is included on my property tax bill [[just like the millages that were voted on by the citizenry) and must be paid annually.

I used to get my garbage collection included in the property tax. Now its extra.

Well my scenario deals with a tax. Your scenario deals with a fee that has already been judicially determined to be a fee in accordance with State law. It would be nice if our consent agreement had received a similar judicial review.

[trotwood]

http://m.freep.com/localnews/article...0619069&f=1232

Somebody should ask for HIS resignation.

ICAM!!
mtsmtsmtsmtsmts

[jerrytimes]

http://m.freep.com/localnews/article...0619069&f=1232

Somebody should ask for HIS resignation.

Yeah. All of Detroits problems are totally his fault.

[firstandten]

Yeah. All of Detroits problems are totally his fault.

Absolutely not ! but he sure isn't the answer to what ails us.

[Novine]

"Well my scenario deals with a tax. Your scenario deals with a fee that has already been judicially determined to be a fee in accordance with State law. It would be nice if our consent agreement had received a similar judicial review."

You must not be familiar with judicially ordered and enforced repayments of judgments against municipalities. It's happened in several SE Michigan municipalities. There's nothing in the State Constitution that would block that.

[mam2009]

"Well my scenario deals with a tax. Your scenario deals with a fee that has already been judicially determined to be a fee in accordance with State law. It would be nice if our consent agreement had received a similar judicial review."

You must not be familiar with judicially ordered and enforced repayments of judgments against municipalities. It's happened in several SE Michigan municipalities. There's nothing in the State Constitution that would block that.

No, I am not. But I imagine that that matter, too, has been subject to a judicial review to determine whether or not it is legally permissible -- unlike our consent agreement. I think you and SWMAP are making my point. When there is a question as to whether government actions, contracts, legislation, etc are legally permissible, the parties do tend to seek clarification from the court system. All I'm saying is that our consent agreement should receive similar scrutiny.

[SWMAP]

This excerpt discussing Crittendon's actions is from a blog by an experienced litigator. I do not know that his is the definitive word - but he makes some important points [[The Wizard of Laws 06-12-12) about whether Crittendon has any sort of mandate in this matter. And the Judge must have agreed. He stated that Crittendon has no standing to bring such a suit:

She filed on her own, claiming that the city Charter imposes on her not only the responsibility, but the obligation to do so. This line -- that the Charter gives her not just the authority to file but makes her file -- has been repeated in the press, but is it true?

Section 204 appears to provide independent authorization for Crittendon to act on her own and to command her to act -- "The Corporation Counsel . . . shall institute and conduct. . ." But section 204 expressly relates to "Penal Matters," meaning criminal violations of city ordinances or charter provisions. Black's Law Dictionary defines "penal" as "punishable; inflicting a punishment; containing a penalty, or relating to a penalty." An action seeking a judgment declaring whether a contract is enforceable is not "penal" and, therefore, not a proper subject for unilateral action by the city's counsel.


Section 209 comes the closest to justifying Crittendon's position, but it falls short because it is obviously written to permit the city's counsel to enforce charter compliance internally, within the city government. It could be argued that, since the city council approved the consent agreement, allegedly in violation of the charter, Crittendon is doing nothing more than securing the council's compliance. The case, however, is City of Detroit vs. Michigan Treasury Department. If the case was really all about forcing council to comply, it would be captioned Corporation Counsel vs. City Council, or something similar. Section 209 does not apply to external entities.


Even if an arguable case can be made for Crittendon's actions, how can she square her lawsuit with section 210:

Sec. 7.5-210. Claim Reduction.
Corporation Counsel shall advise City departments, agencies and entities on risk reduction strategies that are necessary to limit or eliminate the City’s exposure to liability.

By filing this lawsuit, not only has Crittendon not acted to "limit or eliminate the City's exposure to liability," she has increased exponentially the possibility of an even greater financial crisis than currently exists.

Gilligan had a good heart, but when he tried to help his fellow castaways, he often made things worse. That seems to be the case here as well, on Crittendon's island

[mam2009]

All she was seeking was clarification as a matter of law as to whether the City had the authority to enter into the contract with the State so that the question of Charter violations could be put to rest. The State invented a consequence that had not been articulated by the State prior to Ms. Crittendon's filing. The State made it a crisis when they made the threat to withhold money that would've allowed the City to remain solvent for the remaining few weeks of the fiscal year.

Besides all that, the Mayor is quoted in the newspaper as saying he was in support of Crittendon and that he didnt want to cause any delays in moving forward with the agreement. At no time did Ms. Crittendon file any restraining order or anything of the like. She was NOT attempting to delay anything. She just wanted a judicial answer to a legal question. Her client wanted to know if he was breaking the law , but changed his mind along the way after the train had already left the station. But her other clients still wanted to know the answer. And her third client, the citizens, approved the Charter that gave her the independent authority to enforce the Charter and to hold all elected City leaders responsible for obeying the Charter. If the Mayor had committed.a CLEAR violation of the Charter, would she need his permission to sanction him? Would she still be considered a ”foolish” ”rogue”.

[mam2009]

By the way, I wish the mainstream journalists, columnists, editorialists, etc would do a better job of presenting both sides of this matter. Everything I'm saying is stuff that I get just from listening to the Council meetings myself. Its not secret information.

[Zacha341]

Bing has really stepped in it, knee deep!! Further, since he's placed himself full-out in this without thinking it thru [[or recalling his earlier position), the stuff hitting the fan is going to get him right in the face!

[mam2009]

The Mayor of the City of Detroit just said, according to Jim Kertzner's report on WDIV that he felt "set up" by the Council at the Special Session that HE [[the Mayor) called for this afternoon at 2pm. Why? Because whenever City Council has a public meeting, they must have a portion set aside for Public Comment? The Mayor didn't forsee that this matter would attract MANY public commenters? And since he had a "conference call with D.C." to attend [[presumably for 2:30 pm), he didn't feel the need to share that with the Council President [[once he saw ALL the people who were there to give public comment) that he needed to leave in thirty minutes -- so as not to give the impression that he really just left because he didn't want to hear what the people had to say?

Again, I say, this mayor is looking more and more pitiful by the week.

[townonenorth]

The Mayor of the City of Detroit just said, according to Jim Kertzner's report on WDIV that he felt "set up" by the Council at the Special Session that HE [[the Mayor) called for this afternoon at 2pm. Why? Because whenever City Council has a public meeting, they must have a portion set aside for Public Comment? The Mayor didn't forsee that this matter would attract MANY public commenters? And since he had a "conference call with D.C." to attend [[presumably for 2:30 pm), he didn't feel the need to share that with the Council President [[once he saw ALL the people who were there to give public comment) that he needed to leave in thirty minutes -- so as not to give the impression that he really just left because he didn't want to hear what the people had to say?

Again, I say, this mayor is looking more and more pitiful by the week.

You can't run a city by mob rule. The vast majority of the attendees at the meeting are misinformed, and lied to for the most part. It's unbelievable that city council can't conduct business without hearing from the audience. If they want to grandstand, maybe they should use the larger meeting space, to allow EVERYONE that wants to speak to attend. That way, they can just have prattling on about the SAME THING all day long, and get zero done. Expect an EM soon. Or better yet, PRAY for an EM.

[313WX]

You can't run a city by mob rule. The vast majority of the attendees at the meeting are misinformed, and lied to for the most part. It's unbelievable that city council can't conduct business without hearing from the audience. If they want to grandstand, maybe they should use the larger meeting space, to allow EVERYONE that wants to speak to attend. That way, they can just have prattling on about the SAME THING all day long, and get zero done. Expect an EM soon. Or better yet, PRAY for an EM.

I'm praying for a federal bankruptcy judge myself. everyone involved needs a reality check from a third party, none of them get it.

Just like with Ray LaHood and the Trolley to nowhere.