Get Rid of Ombudsman's Office?

[mam2009]

The Mayor has recommended to the Charter Revision Commission that the Ombudsman's Office be eliminated from the Charter. The Ombudsman is the non-political, neutral official who is charged with investigating citizen complaints regarding City service delivery & reporting findings to the Mayor and City Council.

I don't believe that resolving those complaints is actually a responsibility given the Ombudsman by the Charter, but the Office does resolve thousands of complaints annually. So why would the Mayor want to get rid of this function? If you've ever tried calling City offices to take care of your City business, you know how difficult it is to get anyone to answer the phone or return your calls. But if you call the Ombudsman's Office, they can normally assist you with your issue without you having to make a trip downtown, pay for parking, etc. I thought businessmen were supposed to be in tune to the importance of quality customer service.

[Chuck La Chez]

Do you have any more information on this? For example, his stated reasons for doing so?

[detroitbob]

Dureen Brown has been a true civil servant...she follows through on citizen concerns/complaints and has stayed above the political mess that has polluted Jefferson and Woodward. I hope the office is retained --- but Charter Revision doesn't mean intelligent changes. Remember the Common Council name was changed to City Council last time around...the title "common" seems more appropriate than ever.

[kraig]

The Mayor has recommended to the Charter Revision Commission that the Ombudsman's Office be eliminated from the Charter. The Ombudsman is the non-political, neutral official who is charged with investigating citizen complaints regarding City service delivery & reporting findings to the Mayor and City Council.

I don't believe that resolving those complaints is actually a responsibility given the Ombudsman by the Charter, but the Office does resolve thousands of complaints annually. So why would the Mayor want to get rid of this function? If you've ever tried calling City offices to take care of your City business, you know how difficult it is to get anyone to answer the phone or return your calls. But if you call the Ombudsman's Office, they can normally assist you with your issue without you having to make a trip downtown, pay for parking, etc. I thought businessmen were supposed to be in tune to the importance of quality customer service.

I've had to deal with the Ombudsman's Office a few times when administrative departments just wouldn't do the right thing and have been extremely impressed by Ms. Brown and her staff. It was pure idiocy by the City Council for cutting her staff. Which is another reason to never support Jenkins or Brown in the future.

Mayor Bing wants to get rid of the office probably because of its effectiveness. They end up putting a lot of his staff on the hotseat.

[Chuck La Chez]

Mayor Bing wants to get rid of the office probably because of its effectiveness. They end up putting a lot of his staff on the hotseat.

You might be right. It must be tough making real improvements when you're consistently redirecting resources to resolve petty complaining.

[MsChievous]

Here are the recommendations made by the Mayor's Office, City Council and the City Clerk

http://2009dcrc.org/MayorsCharterRecommendations.aspx

http://2009dcrc.org/CityCouncilRecommendations.aspx

http://2009dcrc.org/CityCouncilRecommendations.aspx

[kraig]

You might be right. It must be tough making real improvements when you're consistently redirecting resources to resolve petty complaining.

That depends on your definition of a petty complaint. Is a complaint about the city not doing anything about an abandoned house that has a few dead dogs stinking to high hell and water shooting out of the plumbing because some pipes are missing and the water department has not come out to turn off the water after being notified about the problems for weeks on end considered petty to you?

What about an abandoned car that was set on fire and left in the middle of the street and all of the neighbors had to drive the wrong way down a one way street in order to circle the block just to come and go?

Or are you one of those people that agree with Mayor Bing that Detroiters feel that they're "entitled" just because we want basic city services for our tax dollars?

[Chuck La Chez]

That depends on your definition of a petty complaint. Is a complaint about the city not doing anything about an abandoned house that has a few dead dogs stinking to high hell and water shooting out of the plumbing because some pipes are missing and the water department has not come out to turn off the water after being notified about the problems for weeks on end considered petty to you?

What about an abandoned car that was set on fire and left in the middle of the street and all of the neighbors had to drive the wrong way down a one way street in order to circle the block just to come and go?

I would define petty as anything that isn't worth one of the many news outlets coming to report on it because if no one will report it, then it's a common occurrence.

Or are you one of those people that agree with Mayor Bing that Detroiters feel that they're "entitled" just because we want basic city services for our tax dollars?

I think you people are severely over-paying for the services you receive. However, if you're committed to Detroit, then you have to figure out a way to fix the system rather than compete with other complainers for the limited resources.

It's hard to say much about the current state of affairs because Bing is doing so much and the districts are in the process of being drawn. If we were having this exchange ten years ago, I'd talk about the racially motivated change to at-large council and Detroiters perpetuating the disenfrachisement of all their citizens by continuing it. However, I think Detroit's at the cross-roads and so most conversation is moot.

My hope, however, is that all Detroiters who have complaints about abandoned-house-water-fountains that aren't severe enough to get news attention would redirect their energies from complaining to city departments that already know about the problems to participating in their political process.

[Big Dog]

Ombudsman are like politicians. When they are not bought off, they are good, but when they are, they do more harm, than good.

[kraig]

I would define petty as anything that isn't worth one of the many news outlets coming to report on it because if no one will report it, then it's a common occurrence.



I think you people are severely over-paying for the services you receive. However, if you're committed to Detroit, then you have to figure out a way to fix the system rather than compete with other complainers for the limited resources.

It's hard to say much about the current state of affairs because Bing is doing so much and the districts are in the process of being drawn. If we were having this exchange ten years ago, I'd talk about the racially motivated change to at-large council and Detroiters perpetuating the disenfrachisement of all their citizens by continuing it. However, I think Detroit's at the cross-roads and so most conversation is moot.

My hope, however, is that all Detroiters who have complaints about abandoned-house-water-fountains that aren't severe enough to get news attention would redirect their energies from complaining to city departments that already know about the problems to participating in their political process.

So in your opinion anything that's considered a common occurrence should be considered petty? That makes for a very interesting viewpoint.

[Chuck La Chez]

So in your opinion anything that's considered a common occurrence should be considered petty? That makes for a very interesting viewpoint.

Within context, yes.

[kraig]

Within context, yes.

One issue with that is it really lowers the expectations of what one views as acceptable. And if the City Officials and decision makers are of the same opinion as you, that really lowers the expectations of what is viewed as acceptable. Which leads the average citizen to think that the only way to get city services that are the norm elsewhere is to actually move elsewhere.

Of course, that citizen will more than likely have to just walk away from that house as they won't be able to sell it. Which leads to yet another abandoned building that will be stripped and have the geysers shooting out of it. But, that's okay because it's a common occurrence?

Nah, too much apathy for me.

[Chuck La Chez]

One issue with that is it really lowers the expectations of what one views as acceptable. And if the City Officials and decision makers are of the same opinion as you, that really lowers the expectations of what is viewed as acceptable.

Your personal standard for what's acceptable and the standard for the city government are two different things. I'm discussing what is acceptable to the city government at this moment.

If the city is unable or unwilling to remove carcasses to the degree that it's not unusual, that means that many citizens are affected. If that's the case, these citizens have the responsibility to participate in government to improve the state of affairs rather than complain.

If those citizens are not participating in the government to eliminate the cause of the trouble, then the actions of the government are acceptable by default.

[Pingu]

I would define petty as anything that isn't worth one of the many news outlets coming to report on it because if no one will report it, then it's a common occurrence.

Translation: If it don't pop up on the news out here in BFE then it ain't worth worrying about nohow.

[Chuck La Chez]

Translation: If it don't pop up on the news out here in BFE then it ain't worth worrying about nohow.

Not really because it's not worth me worrying about whether it makes the news or not.

I think my previous post articulates my position so that you can challenge my perspective reasonably and without getting personal. I invite you to do so.

[Pingu]

Not really because it's not worth me worrying about whether it makes the news or not.

I think my previous post articulates my position so that you can challenge my perspective reasonably and without getting personal. I invite you to do so.

Just like Denny McLain deliberately gave up Mickey Mantle's last home run in Tiger Stadium, I wanted to have the honor of getting you to 100 posts [[in as many hours, more or less).

The Ombudsman is like the Chaplain. If some organization is thinking about shit-canning the Chaplain, then something smells in River City.

[Chuck La Chez]

The Ombudsman is like the Chaplain. If some organization is thinking about ... the Chaplain, then something smells in River City.

Maybe the Chaplain smells.

[mam2009]

Maybe the Chaplain smells.

Just for clarification...Unless I'm mistaken [[perhaps, MsChievous can correct me if I am), changing the Charter to eliminate the office wouldn't effect the current Ombudsman because she was appointed to a ten year term in 2005. So I don't think the Mayor's recommendation is necessarily a commentary on her but rather on the necessity of the function.

The budget of the office is probably less than $1.5 million, while the City's general fund is like $3 billion, right? If I could use the loose change from the cupholder in my car to hire someone to analyze trends that could lead to me finding inefficiencies AND handle the things in my life that tend to fall through the cracks, but still NEED to be attended to, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

MsC: Is it even possible for the Charter Commission to write language that would give the Mayor & Council the ability to eliminate the Office prior to the end of the current Ombudsman's term in 2015? Or would the City be required legally to honor the current Charter language?

[Chuck La Chez]

The budget of the office is probably less than $1.5 million, while the City's general fund is like $3 billion, right? If I could use the loose change from the cupholder in my car to hire someone...

You're one of the bosses.

[mam2009]

I would define petty as anything that isn't worth one of the many news outlets coming to report on it because if no one will report it, then it's a common occurrence.

My hope, however, is that all Detroiters who have complaints about abandoned-house-water-fountains that aren't severe enough to get news attention would redirect their energies from complaining to city departments that already know about the problems to participating in their political process.

Chuck, I'm guessing that you don't live in Detroit if news media coverage is your definition of petty complaints. It is exactly that misperception that validates the need for the Ombudsman's Office. What you and the Mayor may perceive as an anomaly is actually just the tip of the iceberg. The Ombudsman is there to show that not only is there an iceberg, but how big it is and are you really steering the ship away from it or are you gonna ram into at full speed?

The news stories about iced over streets due to water main breaks, EMS and Police not showing up or showing up late, abandoned houses that are hazards to neighbors & school children who walk by them are all indicative of chronic problems. Remember, the Ombudsman is neutral. While the Mayor and City Council have incentive to sugarcoat or "spin" the extent of problems and their efforts to resolve them, the Ombudsman is supposed to give citizens the unbiased picture of the City's service delivery efforts. The whole point of paying taxes is to receive certain services. Shouldn't the people have a NEUTRAL party to help them determine how they should use their very valuable vote at election time?

[mam2009]

You're one of the bosses.

No, I'm not. You're one of the Mayors' staff.

[Chuck La Chez]

Chuck, I'm guessing that you don't live in Detroit if news media coverage is your definition of petty complaints. It is exactly that misperception that validates the need for the Ombudsman's Office. What you and the Mayor may perceive as an anomaly is actually just the tip of the iceberg. The Ombudsman is there to show that not only is there an iceberg, but how big it is and are you really steering the ship away from it or are you gonna ram into at full speed?

I think you and I have a miscommunication. If it's a sufficiently unique and serious problem to make it desirable to a news outlet, then it's more than petty.

If it's a tip of an iceberg, then the residents have a responsibility to organize as a political body and take their grievance to the city to negotiate a repair.

Shouldn't the people have a NEUTRAL party to help them determine how they should use their very valuable vote at election time?

I think the people should do whatever they see fit that is within the law. However, I consider it to be a despicable example of contracting out one's civil duties and akin to relying on a zoo keeper for one's well-being.

[Chuck La Chez]

No, I'm not. You're one of the Mayors' staff.

LOL. I am a cheerleader, for sure. I really think he's the man for the moment and want him, for the good of Detroit, to be successful.

[MsChievous]

[quote=mam2009;214048]Just for clarification...Unless I'm mistaken [[perhaps, MsChievous can correct me if I am), changing the Charter to eliminate the office wouldn't effect the current Ombudsman because she was appointed to a ten year term in 2005. [[I suppose the Charter Commission could stipulate an effective date but I think it makes more sense that IF the position were to be eliminated from the charter, that would be stipulated that it occur at the end of the current Ombudsman's term) JMO

MsC: Is it even possible for the Charter Commission to write language that would give the Mayor & Council the ability to eliminate the Office prior to the end of the current Ombudsman's term in 2015? Or would the City be required legally to honor the current Charter language?

[[That's likely a question for a legal mind [[& I will ask it) but we have tried to be very careful in our early deliberations and discussions, constantly reminding the public of the need to be in compliance with current law, constitution, etc. Our general counsel continues to discourage commissioners from knowingly adding language that would be in violation of the charter). There's no point in creating a legal challenge if we don't need to. Again, JMO

[Fnemecek]

The Mayor has recommended to the Charter Revision Commission that the Ombudsman's Office be eliminated from the Charter. The Ombudsman is the non-political, neutral official who is charged with investigating citizen complaints regarding City service delivery & reporting findings to the Mayor and City Council.

I concur with Mayor Bing on this one. The City Council really ought to be the ones doing these things, especially once we move to council by districts.