Brian James
is 'no force for positive change'
Thank you for posting the information from Brian James. It has confirmed
my opinion of him.
Jim Ellison is a good mayor. Not only is he steering our city through
tough times, he manages to do it without a lot of grandstanding and
pursuit of personal vendettas.
Brian James is rather obviously pursuing his own personal revenge
against city hall. I know very little about his personal grievances,
but in my opinion the city is poorly served when people use political
campaigns to wreak revenge. Brian James has no ideas and represents no
force for positive change. His campaign is completely based on personal
dislike of Jim. He has no notion of political office as public service.
If Brian James thinks he can keep throwing mud at Jim without getting
dirty himself he is sadly mistaken. Jim probably will not respond, it's
not his nature, but other people will, and I predict that Brian James
will get much worse than he gives. -- Tom Regan -- 29 Aug 07
Incumbent Commissioners
comment
After the occasionally contentious 17 September CITCOM
meeting, I asked Commissioners Andrzejak and Drinkwine when the mood had begun
to sour, thinking there may have been some serious disagreement during the
pre-meeting closed session. Both, who are running for re-election, pointed out
that there was no pre-meeting that night. I teased Drinkwine that what I
described as his "leaving the room" was labeled "storming out of the meeting" in
a newspaper report. -- FJV
Drinkwine's
comment
Frank,
I took exception to "stormed out", I left the
way I came in, not in a huff yelling and screaming. There was no closed
session. The mood was set when Miller put the [candidates debate] item on the agenda.
Alex has been sending emails and operating
behind the scene like he does. I believe he's fronting for Semchena and
James, so is Miller. The issue for me is not the debate, but the insistence
that Hoover follow instructions and make it happen for Alex just because he
wills it under the guise of a nonexistent institution except when he wants to
drag it out for credibility. I thought I was clear with him; have the debate
but he needs to make it happen not the city and staff. Our side of the table
and especially the manager ought to be apolitical.
I left because I wanted to make the point
Miller trying to make the city follow Alex's directions was not the proper
thing do. It had nothing to do with whether I like the format or not nor
whether I would participate.
Terry -- published 24 Sep
Andrzejak's reply
Thank you, Frank. Surprisingly, we did
not have a Closed Session before Monday's meeting. There were no
preliminaries. We convened at 7:30 pm. Everyone was "fresh", and presumably,
un-aggravated.
Mike -- 24 Sep
Miller replies
to Drinkwine
Frank,
I read Commissioner Drinkwine's letter and I was struck at
how self-serving it was for him. I realize that this is his election year
and he needs to put a favorable spin on things but he is flat out wrong and
I am compelled to point this out.
First,
I put the agenda item on for the CITCOM meeting last Monday because when I
questioned City Manager Hoover (via e-mail) as to why he rejected a city
wide homeowners association, a non- partisan group, from using city
facilities for a debate Hoover responded to me that he had made this
decision after consulting with Mayor Ellison and Commissioner Drinkwine.
To me, it seemed horribly unfair to have two elected
officials seemingly influencing the City Managers decision to block the
Royal Oak neighborhood groups' debate . Especially when both are running for
re-election this fall. I thought that this seemingly unfair use of power
needed to be discussed in an open forum. That's all.
When I discussed this confluence of events last Monday
evening I did not mention Ellison or Drinkwine by name at any time.
Maybe Commissioner Drinkwine thought I would and that is why he stormed out.
Only he can answer that. Commissioner Ginotti also stormed out. I've always
taken that to mean that the person who storms out has simply run out of
ideas or things to say, or simply knows that they did something wrong and
are hoping to not get caught.
Second,
Commissioner Drinkwine states in his letter that I had political
motivations and that he just knows that I am fronting for this candidate or
that candidate. Well, not once has he asked me about my intentions about
that agenda item but, I've already explained what they were above. I have
only gone on record as supporting Chuck Semchena for the open seat on the
Commission. I have done so because of his Masters Degree in Accounting and
his many years of municipal financial experience. I need his help to
convince the others that the millions of dollars I have found these past 18
months and the restrictive financial policies I authored are a step in the
right direction of balancing Royal Oaks budget without needlessly raising
everyone's property taxes.
Lastly,
Commissioner Drinkwine likes to bully our public speakers whenever he does
not agree with them. He does this by berating them when we are suppose to be
quite and let them speak for their allotted 5 minutes. His getting up and
storming out was just a continuation of this bully like attitude. He has done
this to me and others at the table but we all have the ability to defend
ourselves so he is less successful when he pulls that on us.
I will say that he clearly stepped over the line though last
Monday evening when he made fun of my health. I have suffered with two
intestinal diseases for these past 9 years. I rarely talk about this and am
embarrassed to do so publicly at this time but he has ridiculed and made fun
of me both in public and in private, as though what I suffer with daily is
there for his amusement. These diseases are debilitating and very painful on
a daily basis and may yet prove to be fatal and yet his boorish behavior
about my health seems to give him great pleasure. I just wish he'd stop with
the personal stuff and stick with the issues.
Frank, thank you for allowing me the space to explain what
my true intentions were and are.
Stephen F. Miller -- 25 Sep
ROCC
|
Drinkwine's comment re his leaving the CITCOM meeting
Miller's
response to Drinkwine
VersagiVoice Comment
02 Sep 07
Besides budget concerns, Royal
Oak's chattering classes at the moment seem focused on Downtown
development, or not. Quickly, then, they revert to NIMBY issues
like the condition of this or that park or the granting or not of
a zoning variance. Awareness of and opinions about candidates is
for the most part superficial. The "big picture" is not yet in the
public's mind.
16 Sep 07
The reluctance of some readers to be
identified -- not for negative reasons but mostly for reasons like, "I'd
rather that Friend A doesn't know that I'm favoring Friend B" --
suggested the need to begin a Campaign
Impressions page. That page, on which I will make clear when it is I
speaking, provides the opportunity to present voter-thinking about issues
and personalities.
25 Sep 07
|
