Michigan to withhold $10M in aid to Detroit

[corktownyuppie]

The Council didn't have a problem with approving the Ernst & Young contract which was also part of this deal too. Why would they arbitrarily throw up an objection to the Miller Canfield contract?

Look, even if there were 100 rock solid, indisputable reasons for obstructing the deal...that doesn't put us in a better position to negotiate. For all practical purposes, City Council's role is to be a non-voting voice in the transformation of Detroit. City Council has spoken. And, as you say, they may even be speaking the truth on our behalf.

But that doesn't change the fact that we do not hold any cards. I'm not trying to make anyone suffer. I'm try facing the reality of the situation. We are out of money. No one wants to lend us anymore. One party is willing to co-sign a loan so we can get access to cash.

We have two choices:

- Accept their conditions to get the cash.
- Refuse their conditions and refuse the cash.

[mam2009]

I think you're misunderstanding the choice here, Corktown. The state didn't choose the law firm. The Mayor did. The Mayor DOES have a choice. Pick a different firm or show the invoices. This has been pending for months.

If he wanted Detroit to get its bond money released from the state, all he had to do was make one of those choices.

Its the Council's job to accept or reject that choice and they've been telling him all along what they need in order to accept his choice.

Why would we expect the Council to enable him to make a potentially ill-advised choice when there are so many other capable law firms who can provide the same service? Why is he willing to forgo our $10 million just so one vendor can get a contract? Again, that sounds very Kwamesque. And why wouldn't we be interested in knowing WHY?

[mam2009]

Does anyone know where to find this agreement, by the way? I have to admit, I'm just going off of what I heard Council members say on Wednesday while occassionally listening to their marathon meeting online and in some tv news interviews. I did look for it previously unsuccessfully. I have also unsuccessfully looked for any meeting minutes from the Financial Advisory Board meetings. A link to those would be nice.

[corktownyuppie]

I think you're misunderstanding the choice here, Corktown. The state didn't choose the law firm. The Mayor did. The Mayor DOES have a choice. Pick a different firm or show the invoices. This has been pending for months.

If he wanted Detroit to get its bond money released from the state, all he had to do was make one of those choices.

Its the Council's job to accept or reject that choice and they've been telling him all along what they need in order to accept his choice.

Why would we expect the Council to enable him to make a potentially ill-advised choice when there are so many other capable law firms who can provide the same service? Why is he willing to forgo our $10 million just so one vendor can get a contract? Again, that sounds very Kwamesque. And why wouldn't we be interested in knowing WHY?

I re-read what I wrote, and I acknowledge that I didn't flesh out my complete thought. The Mayor requires the consent of City Council. The City Council doesn't require the consent of the Mayor and can override the Mayor with a 2/3 vote.

So here's what I'm saying.

The Mayor already has his own deal that he negotiated with the governor. The City Council can approve it, or they can propose their own deal which would require:

- The Governor's approval
- The Mayor's approval...or 2/3 majority in lieu of the Mayor's approval.

So when you look at this, the Mayor holds all the cards, because City Council appears to be uninterested in negotiating their own deal with the Governor. If they'd like, they could propose their own deal, have the Mayor veto it, then override the veto...then hope the Governor agrees with it.

No matter how you look at it, the City Council is the chokepoint here. They can approval the current deal, or negotiate their own with the Governor. It appears that they are uninterested in doing either, and that's what's frustrating.

Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding the legislative process; admittedly, I'm not as familiar with the new City Charter as I should be.

[Wesley Mouch]

I re-read what I wrote, and I acknowledge that I didn't flesh out my complete thought. The Mayor requires the consent of City Council. The City Council doesn't require the consent of the Mayor and can override the Mayor with a 2/3 vote.

So here's what I'm saying.

The Mayor already has his own deal that he negotiated with the governor. The City Council can approve it, or they can propose their own deal which would require:

- The Governor's approval
- The Mayor's approval...or 2/3 majority in lieu of the Mayor's approval.

So when you look at this, the Mayor holds all the cards, because City Council appears to be uninterested in negotiating their own deal with the Governor. If they'd like, they could propose their own deal, have the Mayor veto it, then override the veto...then hope the Governor agrees with it.

No matter how you look at it, the City Council is the chokepoint here. They can approval the current deal, or negotiate their own with the Governor. It appears that they are uninterested in doing either, and that's what's frustrating.

Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding the legislative process; admittedly, I'm not as familiar with the new City Charter as I should be.

Very clear. And you're right.

Why don't they approve it? Because they get a boost from residents who have grievances against the world.

Why don't they approve it? Because they are not leaders.

Why don't they approve it? Because Bing's failure is their success.

They like things just as they are. They are the saviors of Detroit. See. We're needed now more than ever.

Repeat as necessary until re-elected.

[mam2009]

The Mayor already has his own deal that he negotiated with the governor. The City Council can approve it, or they can propose their own deal which would require:

- The Governor's approval
- The Mayor's approval...or 2/3 majority in lieu of the Mayor's approval.

So when you look at this, the Mayor holds all the cards, because City Council appears to be uninterested in negotiating their own deal with the Governor. If they'd like, they could propose their own deal, have the Mayor veto it, then override the veto...then hope the Governor agrees with it.

I think you're still misunderstanding. This isn't about approving a "deal". This is about approving a contract for legal services. This isn't about approving a "plan" to be offered to the Governor. The plan has already been approved.

This is about hiring a CONTRACTOR for legal services. The Ernst and Young contract was competitively bid just like all contracts over $25k are supposed to be. Why wasn't the Miller Canfield contract competitively bid? Why has the Mayor refused to show the Council the invoices?

And the agreement reached between the Mayor and the State does, in fact, state that City Council must "vote on" the Miller-Canfield contract. Not "approve" it. I suspect it reads that way because the State wouldn't want to be accused of any unethical behavior by demanding a City hire a particular contractor without a proper competitive bidding process.

I found it.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C41971481115.PDF

[corktownyuppie]

I think you're still misunderstanding. This isn't about approving a "deal". This is about approving a contract for legal services. This isn't about approving a "plan" to be offered to the Governor. The plan has already been approved.

This is about hiring a CONTRACTOR for legal services. And the agreement reached between the Mayor and the State does, in fact, state that City Council must "vote on" the Miller-Canfield contract. Not "approve" it.

I found it.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C41971481115.PDF

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure...

On Page 5, Paragraph 8, subsection [[a.) [[iii.)

....to be contingent on...The City Council having approved a 1-year extension of the Ernst & Young engagement on substantially the same terms as are present through December 31, 2012, and the pending Miller Canfield contract as detailed above.

So the way I read that is...if City Council approves the Ernst & Young contract, the Miller Canfield contract, as well as subsections [[a.) [[i.) and [[ii.)...then the state agrees to release the funds they co-signed for.

If City Council fails to approve the contracts, we don't get a dime.

The plan is approved. The contracts haven't. So tell them to approve the contract so that they'll receive the fund. Alternatively, could the City Council draft a contract that 2/3 of them can agree on to override the Mayor? Presuming, of course, that Miller Canfield agrees too?

If so, then get it done, damn it. Otherwise, approve the contract and get the funds released.

[mam2009]

I must admit that is how I first read that paragraph as well. The Law Department attorney stated at the Council meeting that their meerly voting on the contract was sufficient because a previous draft of the agreement did read "approve", but the final version specifically changed it to "vote on", showing a specific intent to distinguish between the two.

So it seems that the verb "approved" does not go with the clause following the comma. And the words, "as detailed above" reiterate that by specifically referencing the language in Milestone 7. None of the other conditions in Paragraph 8 have such language which shows further intent to mean "vote on", not approve.

The "and" in Paragraph 8 does tie the accomplishment of both milestones together, but, again, Milestone 7 only reads "vote on" not approve.

That legalese is something else.

[mam2009]

Alternatively, could the City Council draft a contract that 2/3 of them can agree on to override the Mayor? Presuming, of course, that Miller Canfield agrees too?

If so, then get it done, damn it. Otherwise, approve the contract and get the funds released.

Without knowing specifically, what ALL of the Council's objections are, its hard to say. Could five members agree to hiring Miller Canfield if certain conditions were met? Maybe.

Its been a while since I looked at the consent agreement, but I don't think there was ever a mechanism in it that allowed the Council the power to negotiate contracts with vendors which is the job of the Chief Executive of the City, the mayor. They could initiate certain actions relating specifically to budgetary matters that were reserved for the Mayor in the Charter. But since Public Act 4 was repealed I'm guessing the authority for them to take on any powers counter to the Charter is now extinguished since it was Public Act 4 that granted the Council the authority to violate the Charter in that manner. I'd love to hear what an attorney or judge had to say about that though.

[Wesley Mouch]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure...

On Page 5, Paragraph 8, subsection [[a.) [[iii.)

<snip>

No, you've got it right.

[erikd]

Because everyone else consists of folks who either live downtown where things appear to be slowly improving [[for the time being), seniors who simply want to enjoy the last days in a place [[home) they're familiar with minus the strife, people who are directly involved in the criminal elements and thus probably hate all types of government or law-abiding people who are quietly planning to leave the city/state and thus really don't give a fuck anymore.

Sad broad brush, but I know I'm mostly right. I doubt the Lion's Share of Detroit's citizens would say they're happy living in the city.

313, I disagree with your assessment.

First off, there are not that many people showing up to the meetings to rabble-rouse and complain. It's usually around 100 people or less, and there is usually quite a bit of media coverage, so 75 protesters with 25 media reporters jammed in a meeting winds up looking like a much bigger protest than it really is.

Secondly, most of these meetings take place in the middle of the workday when most people are at work, so many of the voices of reason simply can't show up because of the time.

Thirdly, most of the protesters are either union reps who get paid to show up to these meetings and complain about anything involving cuts, or professional rabble-rousers, like Malik Shabazz, who make a living by selling conspiracy theories to a small group of followers, or dottering old busybodies who have nothing better to do in their retirement than go to local government meetings and complain about how they don't like change because things were better back in the old days.

This type of turnout and comments are actually very common at local public government meetings.

I worked the board meetings for a local school district in a very affluent area for about 7-8 years, and my experiences were not much different than what you see at Detroit city council meetings. During most meetings, there would be a couple of the old busybodies who showed up regularly, and would frequently get up to make a rambling statement about how long they had lived the community, and that they didn't like whatever change was happening, because things were better 50 years ago, etc.

Whenever there was a big budget issue, such as outsourcing food service or janitorial contracts, there would be 75-100 extra people who would show up, mostly union reps and union employees, who loudly complained that it wasn't fair to be cutting union jobs because of budget constraints.

Whenever there was any discussion about residency requirements or becoming a "school of choice", there would be another 75-100 people who would show up to protest anything that would make it easier for "outsiders", "non-residents", or "Detroiters" to gain access to their schools or community venues.

There is a very vocal, but usually small, group of people in every community who will fight against any type of change, and are wary of people outside of their community. Too often, we mistake the vocal minority for the silent majority.

[DJ Tom T]

313, I disagree with your assessment.

First off, there are not that many people showing up to the meetings to rabble-rouse and complain. It's usually around 100 people or less, and there is usually quite a bit of media coverage, so 75 protesters with 25 media reporters jammed in a meeting winds up looking like a much bigger protest than it really is.

Secondly, most of these meetings take place in the middle of the workday when most people are at work, so many of the voices of reason simply can't show up because of the time.

Thirdly, most of the protesters are either union reps who get paid to show up to these meetings and complain about anything involving cuts, or professional rabble-rousers, like Malik Shabazz, who make a living by selling conspiracy theories to a small group of followers, or dottering old busybodies who have nothing better to do in their retirement than go to local government meetings and complain about how they don't like change because things were better back in the old days.

This type of turnout and comments are actually very common at local public government meetings.

I worked the board meetings for a local school district in a very affluent area for about 7-8 years, and my experiences were not much different than what you see at Detroit city council meetings. During most meetings, there would be a couple of the old busybodies who showed up regularly, and would frequently get up to make a rambling statement about how long they had lived the community, and that they didn't like whatever change was happening, because things were better 50 years ago, etc.

Whenever there was a big budget issue, such as outsourcing food service or janitorial contracts, there would be 75-100 extra people who would show up, mostly union reps and union employees, who loudly complained that it wasn't fair to be cutting union jobs because of budget constraints.

Whenever there was any discussion about residency requirements or becoming a "school of choice", there would be another 75-100 people who would show up to protest anything that would make it easier for "outsiders", "non-residents", or "Detroiters" to gain access to their schools or community venues.

There is a very vocal, but usually small, group of people in every community who will fight against any type of change, and are wary of people outside of their community. Too often, we mistake the vocal minority for the silent majority.

Honestly - while I am proud to live here, Detroit and its Metro is an ABSLOLUTE SHITHOLE!! We can't educate our children, therefore can't hire workers with hope of achieving higher standard of living, and appear to be OBLIVIOUS to everything going on around us.

**CAVEATS: I understand the nation as a whole is in economic decline. Also, I am a Lafayette Park resident and have been since 2000**

Our schools, affluent or not [[West Bloomfield comes to mind - affluent area with schools regarded as sub par by most) SUCK!! Have to get his corrected ASAP. Forget everything else.

The small progress that is made, is in spite of itself. The ENTIRE METRO needs to get its act together and get ahead of the 21st century. Can't afford not to.

Time for consolidation of government on a LARGE SCALE like Toronto did in the 90's. This is the only way to save our region without a massive amount of hurt.

[Gistok]

DJ TOM T... I have a brother and sister who are teachers [[in Utica and Fraser School districts respectively)... in the Utica district [[one of the largest in the state)... they do partnerships with area businesses for students to do CAD and CAM training in the classroom and in area businesses... and in Fraser, computer literacy is mandatory with computer labs.

More school districts need to partner up with area businesses to proved the job skills needed for the future...

[erikd]

Honestly - while I am proud to live here, Detroit and its Metro is an ABSLOLUTE SHITHOLE!! We can't educate our children, therefore can't hire workers with hope of achieving higher standard of living, and appear to be OBLIVIOUS to everything going on around us.

**CAVEATS: I understand the nation as a whole is in economic decline. Also, I am a Lafayette Park resident and have been since 2000**

Our schools, affluent or not [[West Bloomfield comes to mind - affluent area with schools regarded as sub par by most) SUCK!! Have to get his corrected ASAP. Forget everything else.

The small progress that is made, is in spite of itself. The ENTIRE METRO needs to get its act together and get ahead of the 21st century. Can't afford not to.

Time for consolidation of government on a LARGE SCALE like Toronto did in the 90's. This is the only way to save our region without a massive amount of hurt.

I agree. I am a big supporter of regional government.

My post was to simply illustrate that the majority of Detroiters do not agree with the radical anti-suburb/ anti-state mindset being championed by the rabble-rousers at the city council meetings, and that suburban communities have a similar small percentage of anti-city rabble-rousers.

During the election polling last month, two thirds of Detroiters said that they supported turning Belle Isle into a state park. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...RO01/210100358

Clearly, the shouty handful of people showing up and protesting at city council meetings do not represent the vast majority opinion of city residents.

[stasu1213]

This is extortion. I am surprised that the Feds are not looking into this. Kilpatrick and company are going through a federal crime for doing something similar to this.

[313WX]

This is extortion. I am surprised that the Feds are not looking into this. Kilpatrick and company are going through a federal crime for doing something similar to this.

Several petition have been sent to Eric Holder to investigate all of this, but of course since Washington has nothing to gain politically from delving into Detroit/Michigan's lunacy [[and yes, it's lunacy, see Ray LaHood's response to the 3-Mile choo-choo train down Woodward) they're not getting involved.

It will take someone in Detroit/Michigan with the will power to bring this up with the Federal Supreme Court before the Feds get involved. But of course, none of the cases have gotten further than the Michigan Supreme Court.

[Honky Tonk]

This is extortion. I am surprised that the Feds are not looking into this. Kilpatrick and company are going through a federal crime for doing something similar to this.

WHAT is "extortion"?

[stasu1213]

WHAT is "extortion"?

Go to wikipedia. It will give you a thorough explaination

[Wesley Mouch]

313, I disagree with your assessment.

First off, there are not that many people showing up to the meetings to rabble-rouse and complain. ...snip...
There is a very vocal, but usually small, group of people in every community who will fight against any type of change, and are wary of people outside of their community. Too often, we mistake the vocal minority for the silent majority.

So why do we all seem to think these 'community meetings' are useful? Does it make us feel better?

[Honky Tonk]

Go to wikipedia. It will give you a thorough explaination

As usual, you've misunderstood the question. What part of the above posts do you feel is extortion?

[corktownyuppie]

This is extortion. I am surprised that the Feds are not looking into this. Kilpatrick and company are going through a federal crime for doing something similar to this.

Big difference between Kilpatrick and company is the transparency. Everyone is clear that Bing has chosen and prefers to choose Miller Canfield as his attorney. It's within his right to do that. Kilpatrick, in contrast, required undocumented cash payments be made in secret to further his own personal monetary benefit.

If you want to argue that Bing is doing the same thing, you're missing one important element...Miller Canfield would have to be making undocumented cash payments that somehow make its way over to Bing or some entity controlled by Bing.

Not to mention, Miller Canfield is a highly respected law firm with specific expertise in municipal law. They've been retained by highly respected companies and organization all over the state and the region. Ferguson and Company, in contrast, does not quite have the positive reputation.

We can agree to disagree about the choice to contract Miller Canfield to do the legal work. We can even disagree about whether or not City Council should be approving the contract. But this notion that Kwame = Bing, Miller Canfield = Ferguson, and that these terms within the frame work of the consent agreement = racketeering and criminal organization is exactly the kind of short-sighted ignorance that makes Detroit and City Council look like fools in the public eye.

Of course, I will side with you the moment there is even a red flag that shows funds being funneled from Miller Canfield to Bing. Mind you, I'm not even asking for proof...just the appearance of impropriety. But right now, this just looks like sour grapes.

Every time I hear the argument that Detroit "did this to itself", I cringe. I know that the problem is far, far more complex than that. And it far precedes Kwame or Coleman A Young. But in order to kill that notion, it's up to Detroit leadership to get the easy decisions right.

Detroit needs 10 million dollars.
No one will lend it to Detroit other than the state.
The state has several strings attached to protect their own interest and that of many others.
One of those conditions is that the city approve a contract with Miller Canfield.
The Mayor has negotiated such a contract that theCity Council doesn't like.

Well, too f-ing bad.

Detroit doesn't get to make the rules here. So time to hold your nose and swallow. Or, alternatively, it's time to start the process of filing bankruptcy.

Whining, crying, obstructing, and doing nothing is not forward progress. Every time the Mayor and City Council take it to the brink, the City Council will be the first to blink. Why? Well, wait til the furlough days come in, and then you'll see who's really angry.

Just think how much we could get done if we could accelerate the progress and just fast forward to that point without all the adolescent drama in between.

Get ready. It's a New Detroit. And the old playbook is worthless.

[corktownyuppie]

On another note, I think all sides [[bondholders, pensioners, employees, citizens) would be better served if the State just cut them off until everyone could see how real this problem is. It's funny to hear City Council complaining about piddly details and dragging their feet, and boo-hoo Belle Isle is a Jewel, and Hantz is just a plantation master turning us into slaves.

It would be very interesting for the State to just cut Detroit off until the 3rd or 4th round of furloughs kicked in and then returned to the table and said, "Ok now, are we ready to talk like grownups?"

Or, of course, just let Detroit go bankrupt. Which might also get the whiny bondholders and pensioners to start acting like adults, too. Let's face it. It's time for the grand reckoning, and the fundamental problem is that each side is working with their own set of facts.

[SWMAP]

Miller Canfield has been described as a "silk-stocking" law firm. MC is old, established, Detroit born and bred, the firm of Detroit's historic investors and builders. MC has long and respected expertise in bond financing and municipal investments. They have probably been working pro Bono for the Mayor for some time and now deserve the contract on a matter that they are deeply involved in. Their guy Thomas Linn is SO Detroit. He worked for years to save Tiger Stadium.This is the legal counsel the Mayor wants. He has a right to choose his lawyers as any citizen does. Why should he have to choose for counsel any firm that City Council wants instead? City Counsel can't dictate who the Executive can choose. Talk about conflict of interest. I did not vote in favor of that crazy Chryer by the way. Most of the people on the Committee seemed either poorly educated or with odd agendas. History did not favor that effort coming so soon on the heels of the KK forced resignation and bail-outs. So much of the Charter was written with complicated checks and balances to keep another KK from happening. It's ruining City government in it's own complicated way. Better to have just tweaked what we had to cover the concerns that this twisted new document.

[Motor City Sam]

This is the legal counsel the Mayor wants. He has a right to choose his lawyers as any citizen does. Why should he have to choose for counsel any firm that City Council wants instead?

I think the other side would say he has the right to choose the lawyers he wants as long as he is paying for them out of his own pocket, like regular citizens do. Otherwise, if it's City funds, he needs to follow the process that is in place. And if there are questions about the contract, he needs to be transparent in his dealings with Council.

Again, I am not defending the City Council, which all too often does things that seem indefensible. I'm just pointing out that Bing needs to follow the process that is in place. It's already bad enough that his conflict with the City's Corporation Council has led him to spend some of the City's scant resources on an outside firm.

Also, lost in this story is that with John Johnson we already had a lawyer making decisions that were in the best interest of the Mayor to the real detriment of the City. I'd just like everything to be above board with this.

[313WX]

BTW, it's not just the questionable agenda of Miller Canfield that's the issue [[with the repeal of PA4 and the conflict of interest between the city/state).

Bing stated in the recent press conference that Miller Cnafield is his law firm and not the city's law firm [[Corporation Counsel is the city's legal representation) and thus he shouldn't have to provide any information he doesn't want to in regards to the contract. But if that's the case, Bing should pay for the law firm out of his own pockets and not the citizens of Detroit if he refuses to provide the necessary details within the contract beyond the rate.

As far as the extortion, I think stasu was referring to the fact that the Bing/Michigan is coercing the city into signing contracts for desperately needed money, which by definition is extortion. Extortion is a criminal offense, but it would take someone with enough balls/time/money to go through the proper channels to makes the charge [[which will mean it all ends up in the Federal Supreme Court).