Proposal:In his first official act, the EMF makes the City Council position part-time

**TheUsualSuspect** · March-14-13, 12:51 PM

...or even better, unpaid. He removes the chauffers, assistants, and all the financial perks associated with the office.

The current council are immune to the change, as they were elected under the current business arrangement.

But for all future elections, the rules change.

No chauffeur, no assistants, no perks.

Winning a council seat brings would bring with it a certain level of social status and voting power, but no paycheck.

Who, of the current council, would you imagine would re-run, and how would this change the dynamics of the running of the city?

Genius or catastrophic?

**Detroitnerd** · March-14-13, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect

...or even better, unpaid. He removes the chauffers, assistants, and all the financial perks associated with the office.

The current council are immune to the change, as they were elected under the current business arrangement.

But for all future elections, the rules change.

No chauffeur, no assistants, no perks.

Winning a council seat brings would bring with it a certain level of social status and voting power, but no paycheck.

Who, of the current council, would you imagine would re-run, and how would this change the dynamics of the running of the city?

Genius or catastrophic?

Yeah, that's a great idea...

... right up there with bringing back STRESS, having the National Guard patrol Detroit and forming vigilante mobs to fight crime.

**Detroitnerd** · March-14-13, 01:16 PM

I keep hearing voices that say Detroiters are all paranoid, overstating fears that an Emergency Manager is anything but a fair, impartial person who will bring fiscal sense to Detroit. That the issue at hand is not Republican white outstate Lansing wresting democratic control from a Democratic urban black stronghold. No, far be it from the truth. Nobody is after Detroit's jewels or out to humiliate its democratically elected leaders.

And, after hearing this, then you look at this message board and some of the postings on the Freep site and get quite another view: There is very clearly a multitude of white Republican outstate and suburban ax-grinders licking their salivating chops at the idea of humiliating Detroit's elected leaders and socking it to their old political enemies, be they blacks, unions, the public sector itself. How can you interpret some of these posts as anything but the product of a mob of chauvinistic foes sensing the kill is near, closing in and ready to glory in goring somebody else's ox and then gloating about it.

Not only is it disgusting, it's stupid. It's stupid because even as you're drooling all over this opportunity to settle the city's hash but for good, in the morning you're still going to blame the residents of Detroit for being suspicious of your motives. Uh ... duh ...

**Eber Brock Ward** · March-14-13, 01:41 PM

In Detroit, there is no more "humiliating" of "Detroit's elected leaders" to be done. They and the city have been humiliated out long before this day.

Personally, I don't care if its Martians or God or anything else taking over so long as they're effective and put protections in place so we can't go back to the same old stuff like some kind of junkie.

**TexasT** · March-14-13, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I keep hearing voices that say Detroiters are all paranoid, overstating fears that an Emergency Manager is anything but a fair, impartial person who will bring fiscal sense to Detroit. That the issue at hand is not Republican white outstate Lansing wresting democratic control from a Democratic urban black stronghold. No, far be it from the truth. Nobody is after Detroit's jewels or out to humiliate its democratically elected leaders.

And, after hearing this, then you look at this message board and some of the postings on the Freep site and get quite another view: There is very clearly a multitude of white Republican outstate and suburban ax-grinders licking their salivating chops at the idea of humiliating Detroit's elected leaders and socking it to their old political enemies, be they blacks, unions, the public sector itself. How can you interpret some of these posts as anything but the product of a mob of chauvinistic foes sensing the kill is near, closing in and ready to glory in goring somebody else's ox and then gloating about it.

Not only is it disgusting, it's stupid. It's stupid because even as you're drooling all over this opportunity to settle the city's hash but for good, in the morning you're still going to blame the residents of Detroit for being suspicious of your motives. Uh ... duh ...

I don't see how this is attempting to humiliate Detroit - he's say leave the status quo for current members so it's not about punishing them. It's about removing as many external reasons to run for council other than for the good of the city. It's a pretty sweet gig right now - remove those perks and see who runs.

**Detroitnerd** · March-14-13, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by TexasT

I don't see how this is attempting to humiliate Detroit - he's say leave the status quo for current members so it's not about punishing them. It's about removing as many external reasons to run for council other than for the good of the city. It's a pretty sweet gig right now - remove those perks and see who runs.

Members of City Council needs assistants to work for constituents and review legislation. This is really just more "shrink the beast" rhetoric, AFAIC.

**iheartthed** · March-14-13, 01:52 PM

So does this still happen?

Because of complex financial transactions Detroit undertook, significant changes in its financial status, which could include a credit downgrade or appointment of an emergency manager, could force the city to terminate certain debt deals at a cost of $280 million to $400 million, the report said.

http://www.freep.com/article/20111222/NEWS01/112220519/Detroit-s-debt-crisis-even-worse-than-thought-state-s-review-reveals

**TexasT** · March-14-13, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Members of City Council needs assistants to work for constituents and review legislation. This is really just more "shrink the beast" rhetoric, AFAIC.

Ok, so that's an argument in favor of assistants but 1) I still don't think the purpose is humiliation and 2) I still think there's a good argument for removing other unnecessary perks.

Why do council members need a chauffeur?

**bailey** · March-14-13, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Members of City Council needs assistants to work for constituents and review legislation. This is really just more "shrink the beast" rhetoric, AFAIC.

San Antonio at 1.5 million has a part time mayor and part time city council. major cities have part time councils. Only four of the ten largest U.S. cities have full-time councils: L.A., Philadelphia, San Diego, and San Jose. You're saying Detroit can't figure it out?

P.S. the Pew center in 2011 found Detroit spends the highest percentage of the overall city budget on its own operations.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFil...jor_cities.pdf

**MidTownMs** · March-14-13, 02:03 PM

The Detroit City Council job isn't part-time??? I thought the only thing full-time about the job was the pay.

**Honky Tonk** · March-14-13, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward

In Detroit, there is no more "humiliating" of "Detroit's elected leaders" to be done. They and the city have been humiliated out long before this day.

Personally, I don't care if its Martians or God or anything else taking over so long as they're effective and put protections in place so we can't go back to the same old stuff like some kind of junkie.

Right as rain.

**Honky Tonk** · March-14-13, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by TexasT

Why do council members need a chauffeur?

You really don't expect someone of that stature to drive themselves, do you?

**Detroitnerd** · March-14-13, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by TexasT

Ok, so that's an argument in favor of assistants but 1) I still don't think the purpose is humiliation and 2) I still think there's a good argument for removing other unnecessary perks.

Why do council members need a chauffeur?

That is beside the point [[for the record, I don't think any city official needs a chauffeur and a car -- ride the bus). The point is the obvious ax-grinding of the initial post and many other posts who clearly see this as a chance to hurt their political enemies -- all while other voices say that this simply isn't the case.

**Honky Tonk** · March-14-13, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by MidTownMs

The Detroit City Council job isn't part-time??? I thought the only thing full-time about the job was the pay.

[[snare drum)

**Detroitnerd** · March-14-13, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

San Antonio at 1.5 million has a part time mayor and part time city council. Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, and Dallas. also have part time councils. Only four of the ten largest U.S. cities have full-time councils: L.A., Philadelphia, San Diego, and San Jose. You're saying Detroit can't figure it out?

P.S. the Pew center in 2011 found Detroit spends the highest percentage of the overall city budget on its own operations.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFil...jor_cities.pdf

I think the constituents' needs do justify robust staffing levels, yes. And legislation needs to be analyzed.

Perhaps one day in the future all legislative assemblies will simply be part-time meetings where citizens are allotted two seconds each to speak before the latest legislation from ALEC is rubber-stamped. Until then, I'm going to argue for staff for City Council.

**swingline** · March-14-13, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by MidTownMs

The Detroit City Council job isn't part-time??? I thought the only thing full-time about the job was the pay.

City council salary is not exorbitant. They make about as much as an experienced teacher or a middle manager in a medium sized company. They have taken a 10% pay cut recently. They do not have chauffeurs. The cost of the legislative branch is an insignificant part of the total city budget.

They are over-staffed though. The duties of the job could be performed with fewer than the 5-7 staffers each member maintains. And the automobile perk should have ended long ago even though this benefit is relatively modest and only provides members with mid-size non-luxury models. Trimming staff and cars would annually save about $3 million total. This is not a game-changing amount, but council should have made these cuts on its own years ago.

**casscorridor** · March-14-13, 02:43 PM

THE EM IS GOING TO HELP DETROIT, JUST LIKE IT HELPED DPS.... OH WAIT. DAMN.

a decade of state control of DPS and still no balanced budget, and over a hundred schools shuttered and a corporate takeover of our education system.... yeah, reallllyyyyyy great for Detroit

**Detroitnerd** · March-14-13, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

THE EM IS GOING TO HELP DETROIT, JUST LIKE IT HELPED DPS.... OH WAIT. DAMN.

a decade of state control of DPS and still no balanced budget, and over a hundred schools shuttered and a corporate takeover of our education system.... yeah, reallllyyyyyy great for Detroit

Shhhhh, casscorridor. There are certain things you can't do with a democratically elected government. But if you remove democratic rule, then we can do all KINDS of crazy things. And nobody will care because, after all, we had to do something. We said so!

**Eber Brock Ward** · March-14-13, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by swingline

The cost of the legislative branch is an insignificant part of the total city budget.

Bull. It was over 1% of the budget, or $13,232,197, in FY11. Median among other major cities is about 0.46%. Just cut that amount in half and we'd still be above the median in spending but we'd save over $6.5 million dollars per year there alone.

I will agree, though, that councilperson salary isn't the major issue with that overspending. The three key issues are [[1) staff, [[2) benefits, and [[3) perks.

**Jason** · March-14-13, 03:27 PM

They need staff to analyze issues and to interact with [[go to community meetings, respond to e-mails) their constituents. imo, considering the wide range and intensity of problems in the city, a handful of fulltime staffers wouldn't even be enough if they were really trying to tackle all of the problems.

And everyone involved needs to be legitimately well compensated.

For most politicians Detroit is a dead end job. The stuff you have to do to appeal to many of the citizens in Detroit is stuff that would disqualify you anywhere outside the city. And because the city is failing it's extremely easy for an opponent to find examples of how incompetent everyone was under your leadership. So the normal incentives that our political system have don't really apply to Detroit. If you're at a job where you can't get "promoted" no matter what you do, but at the same time it's hard to get fired over saying dumb stuff or having scandals, there's no incentive to do a good job.

And they need to get paid good money so that qualified competent candidates, who are usually reasonably well to do, can run for the job without making big adjustments to their income or lifestyle.

If there are no legitimate incentives, the only incentives left are the illegitimate ones, and you end up with people like Kwame Kilpatrick running for electio.

**TheUsualSuspect** · March-14-13, 03:33 PM

I don't have an ax to grind with the city. I think the citizens deserve much better than they have received. At the same time, they're the ones who pulled the voting lever.

I'd like to find a way to attract a better population of candidates. The DCC has been an embarassment and a circus for as long as I can remember.

It's really not the monetary compensation that Detroit can't afford, it's the damn decision-making and tom-foolery that seems to go on election after election.

**East Detroit** · March-14-13, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect

The current council are immune to the change, as they were elected under the current business arrangement.

How about current council are NOT immune to the change.

The city employees who will have their contracts nullified won't be immune to the change, so why should the inept City Council be immune?

**TheUsualSuspect** · March-14-13, 03:44 PM

[[shrug)

I was trying to be a little compassionate and reasonable.

But I see your point.

Shollin · March-14-13, 04:23 PM

Meanwhile, the EFM is getting a 275k salary

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ts-275K-salary

**Mark Smiles** · March-14-13, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Shhhhh, casscorridor. There are certain things you can't do with a democratically elected government. But if you remove democratic rule, then we can do all KINDS of crazy things. And nobody will care because, after all, we had to do something. We said so!

Democratically elected to what?

A government instituted and controlled by State Law perhaps?

Any way I think it is great the way Detroit voters figure out who their political enemies outside of Detroit would like to see elected, and then elect someone else, simply to spite their political enemies.

You act like Detroiters are simply innocent victims, but they are not, life is a two way street.