The following question was included in a short email sent to Incumbent Commissioner Drinkwine and to Candidates Chuck Semchena and Brian James.

Can city retirees really be expected to remain objective when CITCOM seriously addresses reducing fringe benefits or any collective bargaining matters?

Here is James's reply.

 

Mr. Versagi- Clearly you must be joking.

 

1. This “issue” you say was raised when you were at the LWVOA forum has appeared previously in your writing on your website.  It is obviously a question that arose in your own head, to posit this as a question posed to you is disingenuous.
2. You have previously demonstrated that you don’t understand a conflict of interest from first base.

1. You have written that I had a conflict of interest because I was in a union and negotiating with other unions on behalf of the City of Royal Oak.

i.                    This is an accusation that besmirches my professional reputation as an attorney and suggests that I would violate my oath as an attorney and abandon my client in favor of some alleged preferential treatment for other union members. Of this there is, and never has been, a shred of evidence, basis or truth.

ii.                  This alleged conflict of interest is an accusation that arose from Police Chief Quisenberry’s reaction when I advised him that the City would no longer pursue any grievance arbitrations involving such insipid items as a staff member refusing to say “Good night” to him. My conclusion was shared by the arbitrator who termed the entire subject matter of the arbitration of the discipline grievance as ludicrous and other strong language stating that the entire matter, costing in excess of $50,000 paid to privatized outsourced legal counsel, was a worthless and useless expenditure of resources and was totally unrelated to the overall operation of the police department.

3. You have never opined about a conflict of interest involving Commissioner Drinkwine sitting on the City’s LCC when his boss was involved with marketing real estate in the City with liquor licenses involved.  This involved Commissioner Drinkwine exercising authority over matters in which Commissioner Drinkwine had a direct financial interest i.e. the financial health of the organization that employs him.
4. I do not recall you writing about Commissioner Drinkwine having any conflict of interest:
   1. relative to his seat on the City Commission and his vested retirement benefits, or
   2. voting on, or influencing, police contracts when he is a retired police officer, or
   3. voting on, or influencing negotiations of contracts with the ROPOA when he served as a former President of the ROPOA for nearly a decade.
5. You do make note in your writing about who paid for lunch when you “interview” people, yet you make no note of your wife’s involvement with the Royal Oak Historical Society which has recently benefited from a sweetheart lease for a fire station at one dollar per year simultaneously with your endorsement of the current Mayor for re-election, quid pro quo?

a. You fail to note that the agreement regarding this sweetheart lease involves something your wife “has been eyeing for more than a decade” -Royal Oak Review 10/24/07.

b. You further fail to note that the sweetheart “lease” of a City asset has been in place for some time but was announced as a feel good item simultaneously with the Mayor’s re-election campaign.

c. You opine that a City should provide only basic services.

i. Acceptable:  Police, Fire, DPS and historical societies??????

ii. Unacceptable: Senior programs and parks and recreation

6. You fail to note that Mr. Semchena has a severance agreement that may or may not govern his future retirement benefits, you fail to note the I have a Settlement Agreement that may or may not impact my future retirement benefits or that Commissioner Drinkwine is a regular retiree whose benefits are defined by the pension ordinance which Commissioner Drinkwine may or may not have voted upon, or participated in discussions about, amendments to this year. 
7. If and when I am elected, and if and when the subject of retirement benefits arise you may be assured that I will follow the appropriate statutes, regulations, my oath as an attorney, common sense and good business practices when evaluating what, if anything, I need to do at that juncture. 

I can only conclude that your question is designed to imply that I am engaging in, or intending to engage in, some form of impropriety to enhance Jim Ellison’s re-election opportunities and to attempt thereby to enhance your position as one of the “insiders” who operate within this City as if it were a personal fiefdom.  In that sense you are not part of a solution to the current malaise but rather an ongoing contributor to the problem.  Perhaps if you wouldn’t judge others by your own standards you wouldn’t be having these issues.  As they say in the vernacular “Keep it real.” Mr. Versagi.

 

C. Brian James

 

You have my permission to publish ALL of this response or you may use NONE of this response to your inquiry. I trust I have met your imposed response deadline of Monday, October 29, 2007.

Position Paper

times change
Michigan is at a crossroads and that means Royal Oak is at a crossroads as well.  As a result of the long term downturn in the auto industry with the most recent loss of 100,000+ auto jobs, and the thousands and thousands of other jobs associated with the auto industry, incomes being earned and opportunities available in the State have changed fundamentally and forever.

the history
The Headlee Amendment (1978) and Proposal A (1994) altered fundamentally and forever the way local governments in Michigan received revenue.  Some cities adapted, some are still trying to operate under the old methods.

In Royal Oak from 1994-2000 economic times were so good and there was so much lard, gristle and fat in local government that the City was able to withstand the effects of Proposal A and still provide services within its budget.  It was, and has been, business as usual for your City government.  Because Mayor Ellison and his crew on the City Commission never realized the fundamental changes in Michigan’s economy and made no changes within City government to adapt to the new reality, City government began gushing red ink.

currently
Now, as residents of Royal Oak we hear every year that the budget for the City is in crisis. The City Commission asked the residents for a tax increase in 2005 that was defeated by a margin of 2-1.  Still, with Ellison as Mayor, no significant changes were made to the way Royal Oak manages its services or contains its costs. Now Ellison intends to ask for another request for a tax increase but only AFTER Ellison tries to get re-elected in November 2007.

a choice for the future
Brian James thinks the residents need a choice for their future.

Ellison represents the same way of operating that leads to constant demands for new taxes under the threat of massive reductions in protection and public services.

Brian James would redirect the City to forever reduce costs by fundamentally changing the way the city manages the delivery of its services.  One aspect of fundamental change would be to try to consolidate some of the management tasks with some of the 11 other communities that adjoin the City of Royal Oak. Can we continue to afford 11 Human Resource Directors, 11 Recreation Directors, 11 DPS Directors, 11 Police Chiefs, 11 Fire Chiefs etc., etc., etc in 11 square miles? They cost a lot, but do they add value or provide services or just needlessly increase the expenses charged to the residents?

Brian James would bring the City’s finances out into the light of the public view.  Every year that Ellison has been mayor the City has been bombarded with news of massive budget deficits which are miraculously healed by the discovery of huge caches of “unknown” funds. These huge amounts of money mysteriously appear (this year $1,700,000 in a mystery Court Facilities Fund) and then disappear when it is time to ask the residents to vote themselves more taxes or to negotiate with City employees about contracts.

Brian James would address the issue of city employee compensation from a different point of view than Ellison and his crew uses.  The employee compensation is NOT 100% of the problem but the employees (and this means essentially police and fire) are being asked to provide 100% of the solution. Consider that the City has about 350 employees.  The City has announced a budget deficit of more than $6,000,000.  If each employee gave back $10,000 (which they will never do and no arbitrator will ever order) that would amount to $3,500,000.  Ellison’s ONLY “solution” to the City’s budget woes CANNOT WORK. 

---

Brian James submitted the following statement to VersagiVoice on 30 July 2007.

Assuming that I am able to obtain the 500 signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot, I am running for Mayor of the City of Royal Oak.

The issue I will raise is leadership. It is not my belief that is a gimmick. It is my belief that the current Mayor is providing leadership, but in exactly the wrong direction, relative to taxes and to providing services to the residents of the City. Interested persons can view online the video of the City Commission meeting of June 4, 2007. Beginning at 1:31 minutes of that City Commission meeting the current Mayor states that the City needs to have additional tax increases (millage proposal(s)) but he isn't sure how much so the new tax increase cannot be voted upon during the same election as the Mayor's re-election try. The new taxes (millage increase approval) election can be set only after the Mayor seeks his own re-election in November 2007.

First of all, before there is ANY effort to increase your property tax, we, as residents, are owed real efforts to address cost reductions BEFORE any tax increase is considered. That hasn't happened during Jim Ellison's time in office.

Second of all, if you support a tax increase, basic forthrightness and common sense demand that you embrace it and allow it to be on the same ballot as your own name when running for office. Jim Ellison will not allow a tax increase vote on his ballot in November for the simple reason that he feels as if he would not be re-elected if the tax increase he wants is on the same ballot.

There is a different approach that must be tried before we go along down the tax and spend, tax and spend highway again. I will be discussing that alternative throughout this campaign. Lest you think this isn't important, find out what your property taxes will "pop up" to when you sell your home. One person I know bought a home a couple of years ago. The prior owner was paying $1700 (app.) in winter property taxes. Under the "pop-up" provision those same taxes are now a few bucks short of $7,000. See how that plays when you sell your house, and we are going to ADD TO THAT without trying everything else first?

Not on my watch.

---

September 13, 2007 

Mr. David L. Richards

Campaign Manager for James Ellison

RE:     Request from ROAN for televised debate

Dear Mr. Richards: 

            I have received, and accepted, an invitation from the Royal Oak Association of Neighborhoods (ROAN) to participate in a WROK televised debate with regard to the issues surrounding the 2007 Mayoral election in the City of Royal Oak.  As I understand the response to the ROAN request from the Ellison campaign, the campaign is questioning the bona fides of ROAN as a sponsor of the event.  I urge the Ellison campaign to participate for the following reasons: 

1. The event would allow all of the candidates an opportunity to inform the residents of their goals and intentions if elected and to contrast their differences in approach to the City’s issues.

2.  More information available to voters is better than less information available to voters.

3.  WROK is an ideal vehicle to produce and to broadcast this event which is similar to WROK broadcasting other civic events including the City Commission meetings, Planning Commission meetings and the like.

4.  The co-sponsors assembled for the proposed event, Ed Anderson, Coventry Park Condominium Association, Mary Ann Brown, Mohawk/Wyandotte Neighborhood Association, Gordon Bibby, Southpointe Neighborhood Association, Thomas December, Sky Lofts Royal Oak Condominium Association, Thomas Hallock, Upton Neighborhood Association, Ilene Lanfear, Wendland Park Neighborhood Association, Rodney Keteyian, West of West Neighborhood Association, Paula Lawson, Vinsetta  East Neighborhood Association, Alex Schnaider, Milt Hey Park Neighborhood Association and Mark Wonsil, West Beaumont Neighborhood Association very strongly suggest broad-based community interest in the proposed event.

5.  The League of Women Voters forum is scheduled for October 23^rd, just two (2) weeks prior to the election, limiting the exposure that the forum will receive simply by virtue of time available for the residents to find and view the event on WROK.

6.  There is no apparent good reason why the League of Women Voters forum would be approved for production by, and broadcast on, WROK while the ROAN request would be unacceptable for the same treatment.

7.  The reason advanced by the City Manager in denying the ROAN request, that the proposed event would “engender unstructured or partisan discussion”, is farcical and ludicrous on its face.  “Unstructured and partisan discussion” has been the basis for American democracy and elections since before 1776.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to protect our right to conduct such discussions in a free country. 

            I am told the City Manager reached his denial of ROAN’s request only after informal discussions with James Ellison and City Commissioner Terry Drinkwine to the exclusion of the other Commissioners. Therefore I urge: 

1.  That the ROAN proposal be placed upon the agenda of the City Commission meeting set for Monday, September 17, 2007.

2.  That Jim Ellison support the ROAN proposal and urge the Commission to do the same.

3.  That Jim Ellison participate in the proposed event.

4. That the event be produced and broadcast by WROK in the same manner and frequency as are the City Commission meetings through the end of the election cycle.  

            I reiterate that I would further be amenable to participate in such other voter education events as the Ellison campaign would suggest and I suggest that a presentation to the senior population prior to the distribution of the absentee ballots at the Leo Mahany / Harold Meininger Senior Community Center would also be appropriate and useful.   

May I expect the Ellison campaign to cooperate with my campaign in outlining, expressing, detailing and publicizing our positions so that the voters can make a well-informed vote on November 6^th?  I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

 

Very truly yours;

C. Brian James

 Cc:      City Commission
            Royal Oak Tribune, Mirror, & Review
            Interested parties       

 

I am 55 years old, married to the very lovely Rose and I have two step-children, Marceli (attending MSU) and Patrycja (attending University of Illinois-Chicago in their Honors College). I graduated from the University of Michigan 1969-1972 and from the Golden Gate University School of Law 1976-1979. I have two dogs Pokey, English Bulldog and Alibi, Doberman Pinscher.

Experience:
I have been practicing law since June 6, 1980. Since 1982 I have represented the City of Westland, Charter Township of Plymouth, City of Southgate, City of Royal Oak, Cities of Garden City, Dearborn Heights, Inkster, Wayne (Central Wayne County Sanitation Authority).

From 1995-2000 I represented the State of New Mexico as a Special Assistant Attorney General (Water Rights litigation) and Bernalillo County (Violent Crimes prosecutor).

While representing the Charter Township of Plymouth, in conjunction with the Charter Township of Canton, we accomplished by litigation removing a portion of both communities from the Detroit Water and Sewerage System and formed a municipal authority receiving water service from the Western Townships Utility Authority (WTUA). At that time, and perhaps even now, no other metro area communities had been released from the DWSD service area.

I have represented zoning boards, planning commissions and the Nankin Transit Authority, the latter providing bus transportation on demand for senior citizens in Garden City, Westland, Canton Township, Inkster and Wayne.

I have represented hundreds of businesses and private citizens in criminal matters, misdemeanors and felonies, divorce, personal injury, environmental issues, civil rights, land use and planning, business transactions and litigation, simple and complex.

I own, produce and co-host a progressive radio program (WKRK–FM 97.1 Detroit/Southfield) the Brian James Radio Program “Answer the Question”, currently we are on hiatus undertaking season three in the Fall of 2007. Video highlights of this program appear regularly on Community Media Network in Royal Oak and the other CMN communities and SWOC, Farmington and Farmington Hills.