The People

THAT CONTENTIOUS CITCOM MEETING
Does the fact that Commissioners Drinkwine and Ginotti, at different times, walked out of the 17 Sep CITCOM meeting mean we are in for long-term tension and animosity? Has a "cancer" set in?

On its own, that debate about a debate (see column at right) wouldn't generate as much irritation and anger as was displayed that night. It wasn't the issue. It was the people, especially resident Alex Shnaider and Commissioner Stephen Miller. Both men manifest an intensity which draws admiration and resentment.

Alex is well known for his years as "vibration man" and for his leading role in an anti-school tax drive. At one time during that drive, his home was vandalized. At the city hall lectern, Shnaider speaks slowly, even haltingly, and with an accent. Alex often seems to be complaining about one thing or another and he is perceived by some as being less-than-straightforward when pursuing civic goals.

So, when confusion arose over whether he really had allies wanting that debate, suspicion quickly followed that he was/is a front for Brian James, candidate for mayor. Even without Drinkwine's irritated exchange with Shnaider, followed later by Drinkwine's departure from the meeting, Shnaider's request for city support in mounting a candidates debate had no chance.

Stephen Miller has long been CITCOM's bulldog about budget matters. Currently, he is being praised for" finding" $1-plus million which will be transferred, sooner or later, from the Court Facilities Fund to the city's General Fund. He is criticized by some voters and resented by some of his commission colleagues for insisting that budget discussion be on the agenda for every CITCOM meeting.

Commissioner Andrzejak has said of Steve that  he needs "to develop people skills.," in reference to the fact that people react negatively to Miller's demeanor and miss or ignore his positive contributions. I have said of Steve that he would be challenged after saying, "God is good."

At The Table, Miller's colleagues' reaction to his style is to bristle now and then, but it seldom keeps commission business from being properly addressed. And for this meeting, Miller delivered two occasions for irritation or resentment: the budget and the debate about the debate.

For Drinkwine, Miller's request to put the candidate debate issue on the agenda was his first irritant. Alex Shnaider's appearance at the lectern was the second irritant. So, Terry's vehemence toward Alex, followed, later, by his leaving the room were generated as much as by irritation toward Miller and Shnaider as by the merits and demerits of the request for a debate.

That may explain the flare-up during Public Comment, but what contributed to the Miller-Ginotti confrontation at the end of the meeting?

There has for some time been personal animosity between them. Each acknowledges the animosity and has describe the reasons to me, as each sees them. It doesn't matter what those reasons are. What matters is that the accumulation of irritations caused by Miller's insistence on pursuing the two unpopular items he had placed on the agenda: budget talk and challenging City Manager Hoover's decision not to cooperate with the group seeking to sponsor the candidates debate.

It is possible that Miller's shouting was oratorical vehemence rather than actual anger, but Ginotti  was truly mad when he left the room.

To answer the questions at the top of this column: I don't expect there will be long-term repercussions. These guys and gal have vigorously debated before and have gone on to conduct city business responsibly. I mentioned to one commissioner that a handful of observers fear that "a cancer" has been started and may spread. The commissioner's reply: "If that was a cancer, it has been excised."

My suggestion is that although Drinkwine's and Ginotti's irritation is understandable, walking out was unseemly and a discourtesy, not necessarily to Miller but to the City they serve. A seemly response would be for them to apologize at the next CITCOM meeting.

IMPACT ON THE CAMPAIGN
Did Drinkwine's walkout hurt his campaign? Well, there were immediate sounds of "unprofessionalism" and "He's still acting like a cop" from his detractors. But, as I said when Terry was first running, his bulldog persona is both his strength and his weakness. His changed relationships over the years with people as different and Ginotti and Police Chief Quisenberry give a clue to his willingness and ability to focus on issues.

Miller has hinted that he won't run for re-election. In the meantime, I expect him to maintain what I call his CPA mindset and demeanor, and I expect he and his colleagues will return to debating issues without permitting irritation to morph into anger. Although not openly involved in anyone's campaign, Steve will be watched at The Table for any sign of leaning toward the anti-Ellison camp.

Ellison's campaign has been so quiet that the speculation ranges from "He's so well-known and so well-liked that he doesn't have to worry" to "He's trying to figure out how to sell his pro-millage stance without losing too many votes."

Semchena, with his years of access to the goings-on in City Hall and in the Court, is being watched to see if he uses any of that insider's knowledge improperly in the campaign. Chuck's friends say that is unthinkable. His enemies -- those who once tried to remove him from office -- expect it to happen.

James has already shown a tendency to personalize  debate, and Chuck's and Brian's entry into the campaign assure that attention to personalities will play a more significant role than usual in the 2007 election.

The Issues

CANDIDATES DEBATE
Should there be more than one large-audience candidates event? Sure, there should be.

Should the format of any candidates event other than that of the League of Women Voters be less structured? Definitely yes.

My wife is a past co-president of the former Royal Oak League of Women Voters. I have attended a dozen or two of those LWV forums and have moderated two or three over the years. Frankly, the LWV events are most useful for those citizens who have not till then paid attention.  Attendees see the candidates, perhaps for the first time, and hear answers to questions which have already been asked many times in many venues. Just because the format is necessarily so structured, there is seldom opportunity for voters to watch candidates react to the completely unexpected question or challenge.

A fairly moderated dialogue/debate/town hall reveals much about a candidate's competence and personality.

As this is written a 1-hour taping of a mayoral candidates event seems scheduled for October 4. Won't be a large-audience affair, but it helps.

Should the City cooperate or support in any way with the mounting of a candidates event besides the LWV/Chamber one" Depends.

If the proposed event which has led to all the debate had  been sought by a clearly identified group of neighborhood associations, I would have been disappointed had the city begged off. An event remains nonpartisan if every eligible candidate is offered the opportunity to participates As it was, because it quickly became fuzzy rather than clear about who was asking for the event, City Hall was justified in refusing to participate.

Relatedly, one of the Senior/Community Centers should be the site if the expected audience exceeds XXX. The sponsoring group can be charged the full cost for bringing the television equipment to the site, or the cost can be subsidized, or the service can be offered free, depending on several factors.

CITY BUDGET/TAX/MILLAGE
Discussion about the city budget already dominates the, until now, rather subdued campaigning. The reason is that one cannot discuss budget without having to give thought to tax increases, cutting city services to the bone, selling city assets, quality-of-life vs. core governmental services.

Two incumbents, Ellison and Drinkwine, have suggested that there is a need for a tax increase, although in a coffee conversation the latter said, not until the voters make it plain that they will accept no further cuts in services.

Most of the other candidates seem to be promising no tax increase, ever. And in a strange coupling of positions though not a slate, former City Attorney Semchena and one of his former employees, Brian James, are suggesting that pro-tax advocates will begin to make their case soon after the November election. Some of their supporters charge that Ellison's campaign silence till now is caused by his campaign's need to overcome his pro-tax image.

The anti-tax candidates can expect to be asked to do more than issue general statements about cost-cutting and living within the city's means. I recommend that voters force specificity by asking such direct questions as, Will you consider closing the M&M Senior Center? . . . Can the city justify maintaining a Recreation Department? . . . Have you done the math about the difference between outsourcing the Assessor's straightforward duties and outsourcing something as convoluted as Information Services? . . . Forced to choose between subsidizing quality-of-life services and further reduction in Police staffing, what would you do? . . . Even at today's lower real estate prices, will you consider selling the city's golf courses?

The dialogue should make clear that "outsourcing" may mean privatizing or moving the duties to another governmental entity, such as the County, or actually terminating some current city functions.

CHARTER AMENDMENTS
On the face of it, amending the city charter to bring it up to date is non-partisan and non-political. And the fact that CITCOM, unanimously, and the Administration requested the Charter Review Committee (on which I serve) to develop ballot language for what are essentially housekeeping changes.

Suspicion about government in general and reluctance to change a founding document like a city charter combine to generate objections to any proposed amendment, and the CRC has produced an informational document which addresses those objections. In addition, members of the committee are available to address service clubs, church groups, civic organizations, and home gatherings.

VETERANS WAR MEMORIAL PLAZA ORDINANCE
Also on the ballot will be an ordinance designed to protect in perpetuity the property to which Royal Oak's War Memorials have been moved. The CRC advised letting the voters approve an ordinance which can only be reversed by another vote of the people, rather than addressing the issue through a proposed charter amendment. No objections have been raised to the proposed ordinance.

[ALSO SEE]

Readers comment on issues, candidates

If the City Attorney Office becomes an issue

Campaign Impressions