Tipping Point?

Declaring that a serious situation has reached its "tipping point" has become a cliché, but Royal Oak's Bordine/English Gardens/Jim Rasor imbroglio has brought CITCOM's relationship with the residents to that point. As this is written, residents have measurably moved, from disappointment and concern about CITCOM's performance, to anger.

Too often, the line between politics and governance is being erased by public figures from whom we expect better.

Probably until the 2009 Election, this page will gather reports and comments about the ripple effect of several interrelated civic and political developments: The Rasor Affair, The resignation of Commissioner Miller, and the on-again-off-again investigation into charges that city commissioners attempt to influence votes at the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ripple Effect? Tipping Point? It ain't over.
"I have a concern about the Miller resignation and the need to bring in the Oakland County Sheriffs Department. Is there something going on that we don't know about?" -- Gayle Chinn

Chinn's straightforward and brief question summarizes the broad range of citizens' concerns about the whole Bordine/English Gardens/Jim Rasor imbroglio.

Three almost simultaneous developments have muddied, and further soured, civic/political dialogue in Royal Oak: (1) The dismissal of charges against ZBA member Jim Rasor. (2) The resignation of City Commissioner Stephen Miller. (3) The possibility of a drawn-out investigation of three city commissioners relative to attempts to influence ZBA votes.

The reactions of VersagiVoice readers who learned here that three ZBA members are prospective candidates for city commissioner have already split into differing mindsets:

  • Why are you focusing so much on CITCOM? Shouldn't you be "monitoring" the ZBA?

  • About that meeting during which the ZBA reversed itself and refused to renew Bordine's variance and about which speculation immediately arose that "the fix was in": The fix was money under the table (from whom, through whom, and to whom draw varied responses) . . . No, it was simply a display of political power. . . . The decision had been made before the meeting. They just went through the motions.

  • The partisan composition of the ZBA is obvious. . . . Republicans dominate. . . . No, Democrats rule.

  • They should investigate ZBA members too, not just city commissioners.

  • Three commissioners are being investigated. "Everybody knows who they are." "Not really. You'll be surprised." "There really is no investigation."

Especially troubled are those residents who find themselves agreeing or disagreeing with public figures whom they like or dislike. The real world is not emotionally straightforward.

Where do we go from here? VersagiVoice will continue to monitor any ripple effect of the Bordine/English Gardens/Jim Rasor affair  -- especially as it might affect the 2009 Election -- but only so long as that watchfulness serves the public interest.-- 16 Jun 09

We can learn from the lawyers
Democrat defended by a Republican
I am among those who contended, and still contend, that the Rasor matter should never have reached the level of an Administrative Hearing. To grasp that the decision to go so far as to conduct a quasi-trial was fuzzily reached, one need only read the summary of {the 20 April 09 CITCOM meeting.

The hearing itself was conducted in a gentlemanly manner. Overt anger was suppressed. Differences were expressed with legalistic courtesies. When members of the large audience later compared notes, their laymen opinions about the event ranged from "boring" through "interesting" to "exciting" -- partisanship about the legitimacy of the charges aside. Speaking of partisanship, the attendees were heavily Democratic with a substantial minority of Republicans and Independents. However, it was clear that almost all the audience was pro-Rasor on this particular day.

The mixed group found it delightful that counsel for Democrat Rasor was Republican Dennis Cowan.

Perhaps we can learn from lawyers to separate facts from feelings when debating issues. After 90 minutes of vigorously contesting City Attorney Gillam,  Cowan approached him after hearing. The two shook hands and exchanged smiling comments, making it clear that their respective roles that day had not adversely affected their colleagueship. -- FJV

The impact of feelings on public debate
The "I don't like him/her/them" factor continues to distort civic dialogue in Royal Oak.

Disappointingly, the recent termination of the criminal investigation into the ZBA-related behavior of one or more city commissioners has not decreased the tendency of too many residents to judge the merits of an issue based on their  like or dislike of the principals in the debate.

True Story: After Memorial Day, VersagiVoice published a picture from the Historical Society's Pancake Breakfast showing three pancake-flippers holding or admiring a baby. The commissioners on duty happened to be Miller, Andrzejak, and Semchena. A small but disturbing number of readers have asked, "Why would you publish a flattering picture of three politicians you have labeled 'Puritans' and 'Taliban'? I thought you didn't like those guys." [More]

Engage in more than superficial conversation with strong dislikers, and one finds two attitudes: (1) Misunderstanding the substance of a debate because of one's favorable or unfavorable feelings about the speaker, and (2) An unwillingness even to try to separate fact from feeling. Applying those attitudes to the Bordine-caused Administrative Hearing against Rasor, we find:

  • Strong feelings for and against Bordine or English Gardens caused individuals who had never heard of attorney Rasor to like or dislike him because he represented Bordine.

  • Liking or disliking Rasor led to parallel feelings about City Attorney Gillam, mostly for those who didn't know who the city attorney was before then.

  • Confusion and some change of feelings about the commissioners and the mayor, to the degree that observers felt they could identify who was and who wasn't after Rasor. 

That confusion caused discomfort for a disliker when the conversation turned to the several issues in this Jim Rasor Affair. Feelings aside:

  • Was the ZBA wrong to grant Bordine a temporary variance one year and not the next?

  • Was Rasor out-of-line in some of his behavior, whether or not that behavior was technically legal.

  • Did Commissioner Miller cross an ethical line with his Rasor-related comments in newspapers and blogs?

  • Was Gillam unwillingly forced into the role of prosecutor-cum-witness?

  • If Rasor was guilty of inappropriate behavior, did that behavior deserve more than a reprimand?

  • Was the city unfair in not televising the Administrative Hearing, after the charges had been made at a televised CITCOM meeting?

  • Did the city unfairly deprive Miller of his seat after he attempted to rescind his resignation?

And that's the short list.

For some mindsets, it is difficult to believe or understand that although on occasion I have vigorously disagreed with the three commissioners in the baby  picture, that wouldn't dissuade me from visualizing a fun shot when I saw the baby and the three volunteering commissioners at the same civic/social event.

There's no need for an enemies list. I think it was Ben Franklin who advised, "Be civil to all, sociable to many, familiar with few, friend to one, enemy to none."

Codes of Ethics are rarely helpful
During decades of guiding businesses and nonprofits through restructuring, I frequently fought against codes of ethics. Successfully without exception, I implemented the concept that proper procedural policy, plus the Ten Commandments, makes a code of ethics redundant and unnecessary. Let's apply that approach to suggestions that the messy Bordine/ZBA/Rasor affair calls for revising Royal Oak's already long ethics ordinance.

What happened:
Jim Rasor, a director on the Zoning Board of Appeals, recused himself from the table while he acted as the attorney for Bordine Nursery in its appeal for a renewal of the variance which allowed it to set up a seasonal tent on Coolidge, close to across-the-street English Gardens. After the matter had been deliberated and the second variance was denied, Rasor returned to the table to participate in ZBA work about other matters.

Some consider his behavior a conflict-of-interest. I don't.
To label such dual function as unethical is a bit like attempting to prevent the exertion of influence by making lobbying illegal. Better to encourage lobbying but make full disclosure mandatory. Here, observers could quickly see what Rasor was doing and it differed not at all from a city commissioner recusing himself from a single vote, but remaining at the commission table to address remaining agenda items. In both cases the behavior was/is out in the open; it was/is transparency in government.

Coincidentally or not, the Bordine controversy also involved the alleged attempt by at least one city commissioner to influence the vote by offering help in the intensifying campaign for city commissioner. From that, Semchena suggests that the city needs a legal opinion about whether city commissioners can talk to board members (any board/committee member )?

It would be ill-advised to forbid or discourage city commissioners from passing along their knowledge and opinion to volunteer appointees. Nor  would it be wrong for a commissioner to explain why he wants some issue to pass or fail -- provided that the policy mandates that the volunteer must publicly mention that a commissioner has talked with him. If the commissioner insists that his communication be off-the-record, the volunteer should still be obligated to reveal the communication. Transparency again.

To attempt to "define how City Commissioners interact with Appointees," is a also ill-advised. Certainly it would be impractical to forbid commissioners  from chatting with each other away from The Table; to exchange information and opinions; even to attempt to persuade their colleagues to vote yea or nay on this or that issue -- so long as they don't reach a decision in violation of the Open Meetings Act.

It is also unwise to attempt to restrict conversations between elected officials and volunteers. Formally or informally, why shouldn't a volunteer be free to ask elected officials for their thoughts -- and vice versa? Frequently, such exchanges take place at civic and social gatherings. So long as there is no intimidation or quid pro quo arrangement, what's the problem? The debate at the 06 July 09 CITCOM meeting brought forth the logical argument that volunteers are likely to belong to more than one city panel or to be active in more than one nongovernmental organization which occasionally interfaces with government.

Can such appointees talk to each other? See how ridiculous conversational prohibition becomes?

Those volunteers who say that disagreeing with this or that elected official may jeopardize the volunteer's future prospects for future appointment probably should resign from any committee or board which might make controversial decisions. Any attempt to restrict free-flowing conversation among all those activists or between them and elected officials would freeze civic/political dialogue.

The devious, the dishonest will not be dissuaded by clichéd paragraphs in a code of ethics. But brief, clear policies and procedures can make it easier for the good guys to protect themselves and the public.

Anger, disappointment, sadness
Residents see personal agenda, name names
 "Some of all this is funny; too much of it is ugly. Among the ugliness are political and legal repercussions and implications which need to be addressed in detail -- but slowly and responsibly. Friendships will end before this is over. -- 25 Mar 09"

It has begun.
Citizens who for years have liked and worked well with their favorite elected officials are sending "How could you?" missives warning, in effect, "I don't think I can ever vote for you again." The mood is so sour that one "wrong" vote -- on the request for a liquor license transfer, for example -- is enough to overcome years of principled and collegial relationships.

And, the furor about ZBA/Bordine Affair-caused ethics dialogue (investigations, policies, ordinances)?
Whatever their position on the need, or not, to "do something," VersagiVoice readers are naming names in their comments and questions. And -- in anger, disappointment, and sadness -- they perceive personal/political agendas clouding the issues. Specifically, I'm told: "That first call for an ethics investigation was aimed directly at Miller, Semchena,  and Andrzejak by Ellison, Ginotti, and Lelito." And  "The [now dismissed] charges against Rasor were raised by that 'Threesome,' as you call it." For the moment, readers tell me, Drinkwine comes through as operating on principle for his stands on both those controversial issues.

And about the Zoning Board of Appeals itself?
"Okay, we've heard, sort of, from Poulton. And Harrison, Lapham, and Cochran have made statements [oral or written]. And we've heard from and about Rasor. What does it mean that we haven't heard a word from Androff, Remus, Anderson, or Muller?"

That last question leads to speculation about the degree to which appointed members on city panels fear offending this or that elected official, or cluster of officials -- and about the need, or not, for having elected officials serve on resident-staffed bodies.

Then there are those who say, "Calm down. Let's wait until the election. Maybe, there will be enough change to improve the mood in City Hall" [and, hopefully, on the streets]. -- 04 Aug 09

 

 		Ethics Codes seldom help

Impact of feelings on public debate

Learn from Lawyers?

Democrat defends Republican