July - December 2005 City Commission Meetings
Commission meetings are often boring, sometimes interesting, occasionally  irritating, and rarely exciting, but attending them or watching them on television offers insight into issues and personalities which would be difficult to achieve any other way. That's transparency. Below, occasional observations and impressions. 

Some readers confuse two similar terms: Public Comment is that time early in the meeting during which individuals are offered up to 5 minutes each to talk about almost anything. A Public Hearing is the discussion period focused on a specific agenda item like a lot-split or an alley vacation. See Does Public Comment serve democracy?

Check out the city's excellent website: www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us. It's thorough, has an excellent search capability, and staff actually responds to communication. (also see Civics 101) 

2004 meetings     January-June 2005 meetings     

19 December 2005

A long and productive meeting.
Backs to the wall, the Royal Oak City Commission created a committee to examine the 17 bids from developers interested in the Normandy Oak Golf Course site. And they responsibly addressed items as wide-ranging as fence ordinances and term limits for volunteers. The two newbies, Lelito and Miller, participated appropriately. Now, the details.

Fighting off a stalling tactic by Commissioner Drinkwine and -- after much agonizing -- brought back in focus by Mayor Ellison, the commission voted to establish a committee to explore the Normandy Oaks bids. Drinkwine either repeatedly didn't hear or chose to ignore remarks by Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Capello that Drinkwine's desire to research the environmental status of the site and the review of the bids could proceed simultaneously. The agonizing took the form of finding twelve ways to remind the public that they were being forced to consider the bids. Coincidentally or not, Ellison brought the issue of forming a committee to a vote soon after Planning Director Thwing repeated orally a statement which appears in the packet the commissioners had received:

Conversely, should it be the Commission's desire not to sell Normandy Oaks Golf Course, it may wish to adopt a resolution rejecting all proposals.

Ellison, Miller, and Andrzejak are the Normandy Oaks Committee. (Normandy Oaks was the second-last item on the night's agenda. Almost everything else mentioned in this VersagiVoice summary occurred before the fate of the golf course was addressed.)

Finally replying to repeated complaints by Commissioner Andrzejak that the work of the Service Delivery committees and of the Budget Committee was not being recorded in minutes or even summarized for the full commission, City Manager Hoover -- handling three pages -- read a long list of the latter committee's recommendations, most of which have been implemented. Andrzejak had added the matter to the agenda; he acknowledged the report and thanked Hoover.

Hoover had earlier come under fire by Commissioner Ginotti for seeming to offer diverse options over the weeks concerning layoffs, actually layoff notices. Ginotti, who maintained his sharp comments were not "throwing rocks", was joined by Andrzejak, who suggested the commission has seemed almost "bi-polar" in its handling of budget matters. Drinkwine and Ellison defended Hoover, who politely parried the attacks, if they were attacks, without criticizing the commissioners for their months of unwillingness or inability to make decisions based on information supplied by the administration.

The commission voted 6-1 (Miller voting No) to accept Hoover's recommendations re the reassignment of some DPS employees and the cancellation of any layoff notices

Commissioner Lelito asked that two matters be removed from the Consent Agenda, so they could be discussed at the table: Adoption of the Fence Ordinance and Sale of the Frentz Hardware parking lot. That city-owned lot was offered for purchase to Frentz, at $19 per square foot; the company's counteroffer was $14, and the discussion began.

There was confusion among commissioners: Some had thought the lot being discussed was the nearby Harper Furniture parking lot . . .  Others acknowledged never realizing that the Frentz parking lot was not owned by Frentz . . .   Some wanted the city to make a counteroffer to Frentz's counteroffer . . . There was concern that the city might sell the property at too low a price; then Frentz could sell it at a higher price to whoever purchases the Harper property . . . Thwing described the lot as one with "encumbrances" . . . All that led to Frentz, who was in attendance, being asked if he intended to remain in business or might sell out, should the purchaser of the Harper property also want the Frentz property.

Frentz quietly and politely described how his company, not the city, had maintained the lot for decades. . . . That he had been asked by the city to purchase the lot and to make a counteroffer. . . . That although he has no intention of leaving the hardware business or his present location, there is always the possibility of receiving "an offer you can't refuse."

The commission accepted Frentz's counteroffer.

About the Fence Ordinance, two speakers expressed unhappiness with (a) the unavaiablity of the revised language until only hours before the commission was to act on a Second Reading and (b) some of the specific language in the revisions which had been suggested during the First Reading. See the 21 November minutes, below.

At Andrzejak's request, the report of the Appointments Committee was removed from the Consent Agenda so that the issue of term limits could be addressed publicly. Apparently, an Appointments Ordinance permits leaving a volunteer in-place for sufficient reason, and Capello wanted to retain Gordon Bibby and Elizabeth Hollow on the Crime Prevention Council and Zoning Board of Appeals, respectively. Acting on the advice of Interim City Attorney David Gillam, the commissioned approved separate resolutions to extend both terms.

Deliberation re the Fence Ordinance was postponed.

Purchase of a K-9 replacement vehicle was approved, after Police Chief Quisenberry explained when and where Drug Forfeiture funds may and may not be used.

The commission approved Finance Director Johnson's request to advertise for bids on a Bond Issue intended to reduce the city's debt service costs. Johnson stressed that the commission was being asked merely to approve the advertising. Any substantive action re the actual bond has to come before the commission.

The commission approved the Traffic Committee recommendation to put an end to further South End Traffic Studies for the time being.

The budget resolution, revised by Johnson to provide further detail requested by Capello, was approved.

Public Comment
Once again, the commission permitted a speaker to exceed the 5-minute time limit, to finish reading from or referring to a long document. VersagiVoice suggests this leniency (a) makes the 5-minute rule unenforceable, because every long-winded presenter can cite more and more precedent or charge favoritism/discrimination, if denied more time; and (2) is unfair to those prepared speakers who rehearse enough to stay within the time limit.

Of 15 speakers, a couple urged the commission not to sell, or even to consider selling, Normandy Oaks; one speaker suggested the city "has no choice but to sell" the golf course. One of the anti-speakers urged the city to initiate "a moratorium on all construction," complaining that some owners are willing to let their houses go into disrepair, so they can justify tearing them down and building bigger houses. Opposed, another speaker suggested that a "no development" mindset has hurt many communities.

One speaker complained that a patrol car ignored obvious speeders and red light-crashers and just kept going. Coincidentally, Chief Quisenberry was asked the same or a similar question while talking recently to a meeting of neighborhoo0d leaders. [See]

A couple of speakers addressed the perennial problem of the impact on Lincoln Avenue of the proposed I-75 widening and creation of an exit ramp in the residential neighborhood.

05 December 2005

Except for the pleasant ritual of thanking outgoing commissioners and installing new ones and for approving a routine Consent Agenda, this was a do-nothing meeting.

Once again the commission used nit-picking to avoid making hard decisions concerning the budget. Once again the commission seemed to have trouble focusing on or understanding pretty simple issues:

What a disappointing performance by the incumbents. Newcomers Lelito and Miller were appropriately attentive and generally quiet for this, their first official meeting. 

28 November 2005

In a somber special meeting, competently and quietly guided by Interim City Attorney David Gillam, the city commission voted to approve a consent agreement under which Easter Seals can open its clubhouse for Mentally Ill in on Catalpa. Warned by Mayor Ellison before Public Comment began, 10 residents bit their tongues not to make legally actionable attacks on Easter Seals; then, back at the table, most of  the commissioners strained to restrain their words as they made it clear how distasteful is this legal defeat at the hands of a "power-hungry and ego-driven nonprofit group backed by governmental support." [My words]

The defeat will cost the city roughly half a million dollars, an amount which might have risen to millions had the city persisted and still lost. Summarizing:

Easter Seals-Michigan, after being rejected through several steps and appeals by Royal Oak's Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, took to the courts. On one pretext or another -- violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, constitutional grounds, civil rights complaints -- the tax-supported group filed in federal, circuit, and district courts. Seals obtained support from Michigan's State Attorney's Office and from the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as from an advocacy group or two. Apparently, two of the judges have made it clear that Royal Oak's position is legally untenable. The city's insurer has put a cap on what it would cover, should Royal Oak continue the fight and lose.

Wisely letting all 10 speakers comment or ask questions during Public Comment, but holding replies until all 10 had spoken, Ellison then asked Gillam to address the questions and comments. Highlights:

Obvious skepticism already has been expressed about the independence and effectiveness of the proposed "Dreams Unlimited Clubhouse Community Advisory Board." Three of the five proposed members of that board will come from Seals or the clubhouse, one from the city, and one from the neighborhood.

 21 November 2005

Except for being scolded by three of the six speakers during Public Comment, the 42nd Royal Oak City Commission had a quiet last meeting before the 43rd commission takes over, December 5. The nearest thing to vigorous dialogue was caused by resident Owen Perkins's challenge concerning proposed amendments to a fence ordinance. [See]

Attempting to resolve a problem related to neighbors placing fences too close to each other's property, the commissioners had asked Staff to propose appropriate language to address the problem. Using terms like "over-reach," the commissioners agreed with Perkins's objection to a flat ban on any front yard fences, citing the impingement of property rights. To a layman, the objections -- except for a caveat by  Capello -- made it clear the commissioners wanted the ordinance sent back to Staff for reworking, but for procedural reasons the commissioners, Ginotti dissenting, moved the undesirable proposed ordinance through its "First Reading," instructing Staff to make the language more in keeping with the commission's intentions before the "Second Reading."

Commissioner Andrzejak seemed a bit irritated, and challenged, rather than simply questioned City Manager Hoover about why Royal Oak wasn't named a Super Bowl City, as were a handful of cities in the area. Answers came from Planning Director Thwing, Police Chief Quisenberry, and Chamber of Commerce Past President Alan Kroll. Essentially, the National Football League's requirements and restrictions would deny a city of the ability to display any local character. The dialogue made clear that Royal Oak had been a part of the loop but was among the cities which opted not to go official-NFL. Royal Oak is expected to be one of the hot spots during Super Bowl week, and police forces are planning regional cooperation. The commission unanimously approved placing Super Bowl banners on downtown poles.

Andrzejak pulled from the Consent Agenda the proposed appointment of out-going Commissioner Hallock to the Plan Commission, so his colleagues could address the suggestion during Public Comment that Hallock not be appointed -- in the interest of "getting new blood" in the city's several policy-making and -enforcing agencies. Mayor Ellison joined Andrzejak in praising Hallock's years of service and knowledge about city affairs before the commission unanimously adopted Ellison's appointment of Hallock. This issue of experience versus new blood has been around a while. [See]

Resident Bill Shaw abused the leniency granted him by Ellison and repeatedly exceeded time-limits as he offered suggestions and criticism concerning budget matters. Shaw, always outspoken, [See] was so determined to present his arguments that he failed to recognize or ignored that he was being rude to his fellow-citizens who were waiting for their 5 minutes at the lectern. Happily, only four others wanted to speak, but VersagiVoice repeats its suggestion that the commission be supplied with one of those vaudeville hooks for yanking performers off the stage!

A bright spot during Public Comment was the presentation by the Police Officers Association of a $5,000 check to the Royal Oak Memorial Society's project to relocate the War Memorials.

14 November 2005

A lot of lively dialogue but no substantive decisions characterized this commission meeting -- understandable inaction considering that the 42nd commission will soon be passing the baton to the 43rd.

Apparently unable to understand City Manager Hoover's or Finance Director Johnson's definitions of and the import of terms like "budgeted vacancies" and "authorized positions," the commissioners continued their previous unsuccessful efforts to convert those terms into understandable dollars. No luck. Instead we had Commissioner Capello -- after pointing out that "People out there don't believe us" -- emphasizing that having empty positions as line items seems to suggest a "wish list" of positions which are intended to be filled in the future, when that may not be a realistic wish. We had Commissioner Drinkwine reminding his colleagues that the position of Second Deputy Police Chief was formerly called Commander or Captain or Inspector. Whatever the title, it reflects work which needs to be done, he contended, just before  the commission voted to remove that title and that of Deputy City Assessor from the table of organization.

Interesting conversation, too, about the -- surprising to some -- request from the Chamber of Commerce to relocate its annual garage sale from the Center Street parking structure to the Lafayette parking structure. This matter would not have been discussed had not Commissioner Capello pulled it from the Consent Agenda, where it would have approved with other routine items which usually don't require item-by-item attention. Concern about the impact on the neighborhood was the focus of most of the dialogue. (I found myself wondering about the impact on the nearby Kinsey-Garrett Funeral Home.) Almost all the commissioners volunteer during the garage sale, so there was no outright opposition, although Capello also requested Hoover to come up with a clearer picture of city-assumed costs which the Chamber regularly reimburses.

When the proposed letters of notification concerning layoffs was discussed, Mayor Ellison obtained consensus to remove language which went beyond layoff to mention abandoning positions.

Newly elected Gary Lelito sat in on the meeting; Steve Miller was unable to attend . . . . Outgoing Commissioner Prentice urged the commission to look seriously at the bids to purchase Normandy Oaks Golf Course  . . . Ellison alerted his colleagues that he would be recommending the appointment of outgoing Commissioner Hallock to the Plan Commission . . . Commissioner Ginotti would like to see a procedure put in place which enables city workers to make budget-cutting suggestions directly to the commission without having to go through their supervisors . . . Hallock reported that the city seems to have lost its hope of preventing the Lincoln Avenue Bridge from being an integrated part of the I-75 re-do . . . Drinkwine, I think it was, said the bridge has to be integrated to serve emergency-service needs, especially if any regionalization is accomplished . . . Somebody praised Finance Director Johnson for being much easier to comprehend than his predecessor . . . And so it went.

Public Comment
"Normandy Oaks is an eyesore. Get rid of it." . . .  "I don't golf, but I live nearby, and it's a lovely green space." 

If there was a common thread to the comments of 13 speakers it was to be judicious in reducing the workforce . . . There were suggestions that the DPS is always picked on, that the city has targeted only 3 of its 8 unions.

Among other topics: Begin the process to implement a sin tax . . . DPS did a prompt and professional job of removing a hazardous tree . . . A perceived lack of fairness in Farmers Market management . . . Uncontrolled placing of newspaper boxes on corners needs to be addressed . . . Royal Oak stands to benefit greatly from being chosen as one of several pilot cities for Wireless Oakland.

17 October 2005

The 42nd Royal Oak City Commission seems to be making a lateral pass to the 43rd City Commission, leaving tough budget decisions to be made by at least two, perhaps as many as four, newcomers. At this meeting, the commission decided (1) not to decide about potential layoffs and (2) not even to look at the 16 bids for Normandy Oaks Golf Course.

It would be exaggerating to say the mood of the meeting was "ugly." Closer to the truth is to label the session "testy," with the now expected Drinkwine/Ginotti exchanges, and the right side of the table continuing to take shots at City Manager Hoover, and with generally even-tempered Mayor Ellison having to remind Prentice, "Let me finish," and with Prentice/Drinkine contentious banter. (Capello and Hallock were absent.)

Still speaking in human terms, new Finance Director Don Johnson followed up his "class act" (see 03 Oct) with an impressive first performance interacting with the commission. Johnson gave 1-word answers -- "yes," "no" -- to those questions which didn't require a 2-paragraph reply. Asked how long it would take him to develop a requested report, he thought for a moment and answered, simply, "About six weeks."

Once again, though, discussion of dollars -- how many, where they belong or don't belong among the budget's line items -- proved confusing when the issue of the dollar-value of existing job vacancies was addressed. Even Ellison's ability to bring focus to rambling discussion didn't quite succeed.

Hoover was challenged, less than politely, after he said that if the proposed millage fails, a reduction-in-force (RIF) will be unavoidable. He explained that any list of prospective layoffs must be do-able in terms of collective bargaining agreements, some of which require 30-day notices. The online minutes of this meeting state simply that looking at Hoover's proposed layoff notices was "postponed until next meeting."

Prentice contended that Hoover was using scare tactics, especially since the city manager included Police and Fire in the proposed RIF.  (Pretend- candidate Versagi agrees with Hoover. Prentice also reminded the commission that "Nothing has gone anywhere" in terms of specific hard decisions which have been brought forward during all the months of budget discussion.

The commission successfully moved through routine matters, like liquor licenses, rodent control, war memorials, DDA appointments, sidewalks, traffic committee. (They spent more time talking about a dispute over the placement of No Parking signs than about the Normandy Oaks bids.)

We have here a city commission on "hold," deferring decisions until at least after the election and, more likely, until the 43rd City Commission is sworn in. In fairness, there are those who contend that this commission shouldn't saddle the incoming commission with controversial commitments.

Public Comment, except for one union member who admitted having difficulty controlling his anger, was sad and quiet, as orange-shirted workers from DPS expressed their concern over the fact that layoffs were on the evening's agenda.

A bright note was the donation by the Restaurant Association (what great corporate citizens they are!) of $10,000 for the Animal Shelter. Another was Market Manager Gwen Ross's announcement of the groundbreaking ceremony for the Farmer's Market.

A handful of the 19 speakers voiced opposition to selling Normandy Oaks Golf Club, including one man who said the new golf course management firm has done "a lousy job" of maintaining the courses. His message seemed to be, don't sell the course if you can avoid it, then get a another management firm for both of the city's golf courses.

One speaker sharply criticized an anti-tax/anti-bond piece of literature, both for its style and its substance, and expressed disappointment that a former city commissioner's address was identified as the home of the flyer.

03 October 2005

The 03 October 2005 city commission meeting was solid and productive. One may disagree with some of the decisions, but they made decisions. Well, here and there they danced around a bit, but here's a summary.

Don Johnson was sworn in as Finance Director by Mayor Ellison. In what has to be considered a class act for his first public appearance in Royal Oak, Johnson briefly thanked officials for the opportunity, made no speech, then took a couple of minutes to walk quietly around the commission table, shaking every hand.

The Planning Department has received 16 bids for the Normandy Oaks Golf Course, the bids varying from $4 million to over $18 million. Commissioner Prentice made clear his intention that the public will be kept in the loop, about substance and procedure. Most of the others seemed to go to great lengths to assure the public that Normandy Oaks isn't really up for sale, you know. It's just in case . . . 

Despite Public Comment arguments from Library supporters, the commission voted not to approve hiring a full time librarian. After discussion, the commission deferred to City Manager Hoover's advice not to approve a hire while he is engaged in collective bargaining to establish a 2-tier compensation structure. The resolution by Drinkwine and Capello to approve the hire was defeated 2-5.

The renovation contract for the Farmer's Market was approved, and its cash reserves protected from being used to help balance the budget. Even Hoover, who had at first contended that no non-general fund reserves should be considered sacred, agreed that it makes sense to upgrade the one city-owned facility which consistently operates at a profit. During the Public Comment which preceded the commission deliberations, Market Manager Gwen Ross (whom VersagiVoice suggests should be paid  twice her current compensation) helped make the case by offering specific estimates about increased revenue which will result from renovating the structure.

Deputy City Attorney Jim Marcinkowsi and Commissioner Drinkwine had a bit of a tiff while trying to come to a mutual understanding about cab licenses and temporary medallions during Super Bowl Week and vehicle towing policy. The commission directed Marcinkowski  to come back with a memo summarizing his understanding of Drinkwine's questions and offering recommendations.

The commission approved City Assessor Jim Geiermann's proposal to contract out to the Oakland County Assessor's office the field work needed to establish assessed value for commercial and industry properties. Commissioner Andrzejak complained that he had suggested such a "hybrid" approach five months ago. Then the commission spent more time discussing this $13,000 project than analyzing the short-term and long-term impact of the millions of dollars from the possible sale of Normandy Oaks.

Once more demonstrating the apparently unavoidable absence of clarity in governmental accounting practices, the commission had to spend almost 20 minutes coming to understand Commissioner Capello's simple request to Hoover to provide a list of current vacancies on the city payroll. Capello suggested that applying this year's and next year's compensation numbers to those vacancies would help establish what the city's actual debt would be (the oft-cited $6.4 million is increasingly being challenged).

Just before adjournment, Commissioner Hallock -- after reminding everyone that he is not seeking re-election, wondered aloud whether the Fire Department has marked those fire hydrants which are served by undersized water mains.

Public Comment
Only 10 speakers, whose comments ran the gamut:

19 September 2005

Although no formal motion was passed, the city commission essentially left the city's financial problems for the next commission to solve. Commissioner Andrzejak's tabulation of gross numbers is easier to understand than City Manager Hoover's more complex scenarios, but by stating that "this will get us to November 8th" [Election Day], Andrzejak acknowledged that this commission is giving up on making any tough decisions about restructuring government or about selling city assets.

Actually, there were two meetings in one. Quietly cordial decision-making about routine matters was followed by sourly contentious dialogue about budget matters, which ended with Commissioner Prentice charging that Hoover's call for two Town Hall meetings to "explain" the 1.75 millage is really "an illegal sales job" by city government.

The tone of the budget discussion: Commissioner Capello scolded Prentice for being too aggressive in making his point . . . Commissioner Ginotti took pot shots at City Manager Hoover's characterization of the city's financial situation, comparing Hoover's unfavorably with the happier "face" Andrzejak puts on the situation . . . Hoover countered that all of the data in Andrzejak's tabulation, except the Blue Cross surprise bonus, appear in several Administration documents . . . Commissioner Drinkwine accused Ginotti of being "unfair" to Hoover . . . Someone expressed surprise that the concept of selling-then-leasing City Hall was on the agenda . . . Mayor Ellison and City Manager Hoover reminded everyone that the concept has been mentioned several times before, even during then-applicant-Hoover's interviews . . . and so it went.

Returning for the moment to routine business:

Back to the budget dialogue

Hoover's request for permission to mount two Town Hall meetings to explain the need for the 1.75 millage elicited Prentice's challenge that such advocacy by a city government is illegal under state law. Prentice's parliamentary attempt to table the motion to grant Hoover the permission he sought was defeated 5-1, and Prentice suggested he might take up the battle personally, concluding by saying that at the very least, the Town Halls should provide equal time to opponents of the millage.

Part of the vigorous back-and-forthing which characterized this debate was an attempt to define the line between permissible "informing" the public and illegal efforts to "sell" an issue.

Public Comment was enough to make lovers of democracy wonder if there is such an entity as an informed electorate. One or two speakers, who said they had only just now learned about a couple of budget items on the agenda, went so far as to accuse the commission of hiding its intentions from the voters. To which Commissioner Drinkwine suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that perhaps the commissioners should "go door-to-door" to explain to every citizen every item on every agenda. And to which VersagiVoice again refers readers to Civics 101.

For the rest, only 9 speakers, but the mood was sour:
A long-time civic activist, misunderstanding the implications of the sell city hall exploration, unhappily suggested that the War Monuments Committee had been lied to . . . Don't, don't, don't sell any city property . . . Renegotiate wages and fringes . . . The commission is not doing its job . . . Voters are angry and frustrated . . . You don't listen to us . . . Developers never get enough.

12 September 2005
VersagiVoice stopped watching at 12:45, after 4 hours. According to the online minutes, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m.

Mayor Ellison gets an A for conducting the marathon meeting. He would have earned an A-plus had he exercised his authority to cut off long-winded Public Comment. The Commission as a whole gets an A for behavior but a C for substance.

To expand on that opening paragraph:
One suspects that all the participants had agreed, during that confidential session which precedes each commission meeting, that there would be no angry outbursts, and except for Commissioner Hallock's tirade against a specific developer, the dialogue -- even when they finally got to the budget -- was quiet and reasoned. Here, though, Commissioner Andrzejak expressed his pique -- about which, more later.

Highlights from the marathon session (not necessarily in agenda-order), from monitoring the telecast, reading the online minutes, and chats with a few people:

That led to Commissioner Capello's pulling her second to Drinkwine's motion, so his motion died for lack of a second. Then Commissioner Ginotti suggested that there is "too much we don't know" about such matters as the appropriateness of having a union member made Interim Attorney (Royal Oak's City Attorney's office is unionized), about whether all or part of that office should be privatized,  He said there is no rush and recommended that the "status quo" be maintained, that no changes be made until other, more pressing city matters are attended to. Ginotti's motion was approved 4-2, with Drinkwine and Capello voting no. Prentice had left the meeting at 12:15.

First, led by an irritated Andrzejak, a couple of the commissioners seemed to suggest that city manager Hoover is being evasive, even devious, by continuing to use $6.4 million as the debt-figure and by not showing the net effect of the deputy-savings on the spreadsheet he had distributed. They didn't appear convinced by his explanation. Observers, in and out of city hall, point to Ellison, Drinkwine, and Hoover as jointly dancing around the numbers as the three work to push the millage.

Second, both Drinkwine and Andrzejak -- apparently willing to go still another year without addressing long-term budget problems -- enthused, paraphrasing: "Hey, we've just found $1 million, which reduces the $6.4 million loss to only $5.4 million. The 1.75 millage will bring in enough to to make it possible for us to balance the 2006 budget by drawing on our enterprise funds." 

Third, the commission -- which has so far only nibbled at restructuring city government -- is applying the same weak approach to selling city property, bravely deciding to put a few small uncontroversial parcels on the market.

Drinkwine and Prentice have proved the most courageous of the city's elected officials. Drinkwine, even when he apparently reversed himself about asking for a millage in November, has been logically consistent in promoting his philosophy which can be summarized as, "We must  maintain Royal Oak's quality of life, and we have to be willing to pay for it." Prentice has been the only commissioner who consistently proposed taking up-or-down votes on specific restructuring proposals. One need not agree with which departments he focused on; the point is that Prentice has focused. [Actually, even sharper focus is available in the worst case scenario which Hoover previously presented, even though that presentation was dubbed as scare-mongering by at least one commissioner and by VersagiVoice.]

Public Comment
31 Speakers. Thank God they didn't all take their allotted 5 minutes. 

They talk too much!
Those who read well-written position papers are the worst offenders. Apparently because they seem to have put time and effort into preparing their remarks, the mayor seems reluctant to shut them off at 5 minutes.

Five minutes? Speaking at the average 125 words per minute, two double-spaced typewritten pages will fill that time.

How about limiting Public Comment speakers to 3 minutes? The well-prepared can make strong cases in that time. For those who watch the clock and keep talking until their time is up, it won't matter.

Whatever the time limit, cut the speaker off, Mr. Mayor. Place a control at your side and switch off the microphone.

A couple of the speakers, including the recently announced new candidate for mayor, took pot shots at the commission for its "failure" to handle the city's finances competently. One speaker wonders if "the same group which permitted the city to reach its crisis-mode" can be expected to improve matters.

As stated above, "sidewalk people" were the most numerous speakers, all quietly courteous, including the lone supporter of sidewalks. For the rest, the speakers touched on . . . fences . . . collective bargaining . . . putting muzzles on dogs being walked downtown . . . being stonewalled by city hall when attempting to resolve an issue . . . Section 8 housing vouchers.

15 August 2005

In what was probably a lull before a storm, the commission conducted a quietly business-like meeting during which it:

To expand a bit:

Semchena announced, "This is my last commission meeting." Several of the commissioners praised his service; the audience gave him a standing ovation, and Tuesday morning the speculations began about the cause of the unexpected retirement. Street talk has long held that the City Attorney's office was a logical starting point in any restructuring. VersagiVoice will deal at greater length with this matter in future updates.

Mayor Ellison, punch-drunk from a very long day and from the collective bargaining session which preceded the commission meeting, repeatedly forgot Commissioner Ginotti's name, and six or seven times during the long meeting fumbled his phrases. He and his colleagues maintained their good humor, though -- a welcome respite after the tense and sometimes angry special meeting, four days earlier.

As they continued their review of the city's budget, the commissioners asked about relatively trivial costs, such as for sign-making, the city's two electricians, the zoo. Although the small amounts involved are equivalent to the savings a business would realize by hoarding paperclips, such scrutiny is proper at this time, if not carried to excess. A related benefit is that commissioners and citizens learn some of the details of city operations, like the fact that other cities buy signs from Royal Oak's sign shop.

About forcing property owners to pay for city-mandated sidewalks -- as about the need to ask for a millage increase -- two extreme positions and a middle are readily identified. At one end, "When the overwhelming majority of residents don't want sidewalks, don't insist on installing them." At the other end, "We said we want a walk able city, let's not grant any exemptions." In the middle, "Let's exercise a little judgment here." Not all of the same commissioners lined up at both the sidewalk- and millage-extreme!

No ordinance requires the commission to hold a hearing about lot-splits after the city staff has determined that all zoning-related requirements have been met and has recommended approval. Yes, a hearing gives objecting neighbors a chance to vent, if they haven't already done so in other city venues, and the commissioners can demonstrate that they are willing to listen to their constituents, but what a waste of time -- especially when there is a long and serious agenda.

The commissioners didn't overdo it, but again in dealing with the request to vacate an alley -- which the Police and Fire departments had recommended be denied and about which staff had presented an appropriate resolution -- they insisted on nibbling around the edges for a few minutes before passing the resolution. What's puzzling is that the commissioners' comments were such that one could identify no operating philosophy, just idle chatter. Again, a waste of time on a long night.

The sale or not of city assets deserves the kind of appropriate micromanaging  mentioned above, so the commissioners did the right thing in holding discussion over till a less crowded agenda.

No matter which approach Commissioner Prentice took in attempting to get started toward approaching Lansing about enabling cities to ask their voters for authority to enact a sin tax, the mayor and the other commissioners chose to avoid committing -- by withdrawing their "seconds," a legitimate-enough parliamentary procedure but seemingly dodging the issue. At this moment, VersagiVoice opposes an entertainment tax, but the issue and the commission's attitude toward it need more attention. The focus should not be viewed as a downtown-only or restaurant/bar-only matter.

During the discussion of staff's proposal to re-activate the Economic Development Committee and use the EDC's reserves to fund demolition of the deteriorating Water Works Building, Commissioner Andrzejak bristled a bit when he learned that some Library property has been stored there. DPS director Greg Rassell smoothed the waters by pointing out that the DPS was well on its way to emptying the building when interference from historic preservationists got the State involved. (May block grant funds be used to pay for the demolition, seems to be the point of contention.) It made sense, he said, to use the empty space for temporary storage of the Library's shelving and racks, so long as the building was available.

Andrzejak was right to be momentarily miffed when he thought staff had gone against the commission's direction. In normal times, though, it would be the worst kind of micromanaging for the commissioners to expect staff to seek the commission's approval to use empty city space to store city property.

Coming off that very tough 11 August meeting, it is understandable that the commissioners needed a breather in terms of seriously attending to budget problems. This meeting provided that breather, and they accomplished what a commission should accomplish.

  1. In that 11 August meeting, the commission took tangible action toward asking for a Headlee override.

  2. In this 15 August meeting, they mentioned and agreed to discuss later some specific proposal concerning the sale of city assets. From the looks of the fat packet that contained their subject matter, one senses that the discussion of assets will be specific enough to permit individual yeses and noes -- as was done concerning sidewalk exemptions.

  3. Except to nibble at the edges of expenditures, the commission has yet to clearly address possible restructuring of city operations. The need is to discuss several what-if scenarios to accept or reject after due deliberation, because the cutting or combining or outsourcing or consolidating of one department or service is likely to affect other departments or services.

Public Comment
I'm a resident, but I find it hard not to fall asleep or to become inattentive after the 51st repetition of each idea or complaint.
Really, about the budget, everything which needs to be said has been said.
Those poor elected officials!

11 August 2005
Special Meeting re: Millage Proposal

Several of us city commission watchers had bet that this special meeting would end with a 4-3 vote -- either to place or not to place the 3-mill/5- year proposal on the November ballot -- with all of us agreeing that Commissioner Capello would provide the swing vote.

After some serious and delightfully vigorous exchanges, the commission approved a modified resolution to ask for 1.75 mills for 3 years. The vote was 5-2, with Commissioners Prentice and Ginotti keeping their repeated pledge to vote against any millage proposal, and the remaining commissioners and the mayor hoping for a unanimous vote, so the voters could be presented with a consensual decision by the entire commission.

The dynamics of the dialogue were interesting and instructive.
To begin, it was obvious that every participant in the discussion was operating from conviction, but those convictions are based on different premises. Commissioners Drinkwine and Ginotti, who engaged in a couple of their now-expected shouting matches, made the choices clear. Paraphrasing:

The discussion began after Public Comment, with City Manager Hoover presenting his description of each of the three scenarios requested by Commissioner Andrzejak. As he described what he sees happening if the 3-mill/5-year millage isn't passed, I wrote "scare technique" and "draconian" in the notes I was taking. (Hoover, himself, used "draconian" in his later comments.) And I wrote "gratuitous" when he added that the Animal Shelter might well be saved if the millage were approved, because I didn't find that point in the written report he had provided the commissioners two days before the meeting and had posted on the city's website.

Ginotti commented that Hoover's tough scenario was well-designed to "scare everybody in the city" and suggested that Hoover had adopted the same tactics the Fire Department used when it successfully convinced the voters to amend the city charter. Ginotti challenged Hoover to be more specific about what the city would do to get permanently in good financial shape during the "good" years should the millage be approved.

Commissioner Hallock and Mayor Ellison and Hoover maintained that Ginotti was in error and insisted that the city has been cutting expenses for years.

In one order or another, commissioners Andrzejak, Capello, and Hallock moved the dialogue in the direction of compromise -- a lower millage for fewer years. Hoover, Ellison, and Drinkwine insisted that the 3-mill/5-year proposal was needed to give the city time to implement any "other options," including the sale of city property and restructuring. Ginotti returned to his argument that now is the time to begin implementing, "not just talking about,"  those other options. Andrzejak chided those who focus on maintaining Royal Oak's great quality-of-life services by pointing out that "We continue to lose population," so obviously our quality-of-life isn't attracting newcomers.

Prentice waved several pages which he said contained past city manager Baldridge's worst-case scenario and which Prentice said was remarkably like Hoover's, "yet the city didn't fall apart or die." Both Prentice and Ginotti responded to  Drinkwine's complaint that no one had suggested specific cuts, by recalling several requests which had been made. Ginotti again made the clearest case. Paraphrasing: "We asked you [Hoover] to check with the collective bargaining units about concessions. Let me tell you how I think it went. You went to them, told them you had been ordered to ask if they would consider concessions. They said 'no.' You came back and told us they said 'no.'"

Hoover reminded the commission that collective bargaining representatives, many of whom are also residents, have been sitting the the city commission and town hall audiences and are aware of the gathering problems. Someone else brought up state-mandated arbitration in collective bargain with police and fire departments.

Drinkwine, at another moment, reminded everybody that the real world is moving away from defined benefit pensions to defined contribution plans, but he warned that it would take time to implement that kind of change in the city's collective bargaining structure.

Hallock spoke directly to the collective bargaining representatives, telling them taxpayers are being asked to sacrifice and that the employees must match that sacrifice if they wish to avoid massive layoffs.

After Andrzejak and Hallock successfully moved the dialogue away from the 3-mill/5-year proposal, Capello used her persuasive powers as the perceived swing vote by announcing she had herself been thinking of 3 years and of a lower-than-3-mill increase.

Tension was high throughout the meeting. Even mild-mannered Capello flashed a bit of irritation when clarification she was seeking didn't seem to come clearly from Interim Finance Director Jan Hunt. As the time came to vote, Mayor Ellison testily reminded Commissioner Hallock that Hallock had "called the question" before Ellison had had his turn to comment.

During Public Comment

Two or three of the 15 or so speakers said they are willing to pay an increased millage; one suggested the city should ask for 5 mills, rather than 3. 

At the other end, former commissioner Laura Harrison announced that an anti-millage group called Truth, Not Taxes [TNT] has been formed, "and I'm the treasurer."

One suggested that every department be made to "cut 20%." [That is a copout, because it permits the officials again to avoid making real restructuring decisions by spreading the pain "fairly."]

Another resident proposed that a city income tax would be fairer.

And the 25-cent per drink "sin tax" came from another speaker. 

One woman suggested that a millage should be passed to avoid giving developers opportunities to erect more "clusters of cloned homes."

Repeating: Everything has been said.
With its compromise resolution, the city commission has taken a first step toward responsible decision-making. What is needed now is for citizens to let the commissioners have at each other as they address the sale of city property and restructuring. 'Twas an excellent meeting.

01 August 2005

Because both the School District and the City are expected to ask for millage on the November 2005 ballot, Animal Shelter supporters have decided not to pursue their quest for a dedicated millage at this time. Dan Godek made the announcement for the group during Public Comment at the 01 August City Commission meeting. Although the first reaction was one of praise for the animal lovers, it didn't take long for conspiracy buffs to suggest (a) the group was forced to withdraw by behind-the-scenes pressure, or (b) Godek made the move because he may be running for city commissioner, and he wants to look statesmanlike.

Most of the remaining 30 Public Comments dealt with three topics: (1) We don't want sidewalks; (2) Protect the Lincoln Neighborhood from the adverse impact of MDOT's wish to put a freeway exit in the area; (3) Don't sell Normandy Oaks Golf Club or any parks. Praise and concern for city staff were expressed; one speaker suggested that micromanaging by the commission might be adding to the lowered morale of staff caused by the city's financial plight and the resultant chatter about restructuring, outsourcing, privatizing.

Apparently reacting to the great press Ferndale is receiving for being progressive, Commissioner Hallock had arranged for a presentation about a futuristic concept for mass transit along Woodward and along I-75. Solar, hydrogen, fiber optics -- all the buzzwords were used to describe the general idea. Ferndale, considered the California of Michigan by some, has received permission from MDOT to apply for something to do with the first fabrication phase of the project. (Only in government does one need written permission before one may apply for something.)

The commission: (Commissioners Ginotti and Prentice were absent)
Granted some sidewalk exemptions, denied others . . . Maintained its policy of no advertising on city property for commercial entities, by denying a business the privilege of mounting a banner over Main Street . .  . Engaged in limited dialogue about Traffic Committee matters and postponed action until the next meeting  . . . Approved going ahead with issuing the Request For Proposal for the sale and redevelopment of Normandy Oaks Golf Club, after assuring everyone that the actual sale would be v-e-r-y reluctantly made if absolutely necessary . . . Issued a resolution to MDOT expressing its concerns especially about rebuilding the Lincoln Bridge . . . Postponed discussion of Commissioner Prentice's proposed resolution re a city alcohol tax . . . Heard that two candidates for Finance Director have withdrawn from consideration . . . Agreed to schedule a Special Commission meeting to discuss the proposed millage. The meeting -- 11 August 2005 at 6 p.m. -- will be televised live.

18 July 2005

Thirty of the 35 individuals who addressed the city commission were objecting to the planned installation of new sidewalks in their neighborhood -- where there haven't been sidewalks for decades. The objectors cited everything from fewer kids (Emerson School has been shut down) to the breathing benefit of trees, as they courteously made their points and as the commission patiently listened. In what is becoming an annual bus tour, the commissioners agreed to visit the affected homes and neighborhoods before making a decision -- several decisions.

As VersagiVoice has commented before (Civics 101), city officials are caught in the middle when dealing with situations like this: if they insist on following rules and procedures, they are criticized for being nit-picking bureaucrats; if they exercise judgment and grant a variance, they are accused of favoritism.

A couple of residents weren't so courteous when they took shots at City Engineer Danielson, about whom they made complaints similar to those made by business owners, that he and his department are more than occasionally arbitrary and discourteous. For residents, especially if they are voters, petitioning the city commission is an effective method of appealing against perceived unfair or unwise decisions. Business owners are reluctant to exercise that avenue of appeal, because they are more likely than residents to have to deal repeatedly with the same city officials. Danielson handled the overall exchange professionally.

The commissioners voted to follow the recommendation of the Charter Review Committee to let the voters decide whether to have the city's Finance Director report to the City Manager, as is done in most cities, or to continue having the director report to the commission. At issue are diverse interpretations of "checks and balances" between the legislative branch (a city's commission or council, a township's trustees) and the executive branch (the appointed and hired employees). As one commissioner commented, not quite in passing, several of the financial surprises which have complicated the city's current budget mess occurred while the finance director was reporting to the city commission. The proposed charter amendment will appear on the November ballot.

About budget-related matters, the commission:

11 July 2005

To the degree that there are factions on the City Commission, their composition is shifting a bit during the current intense budget dialogue. Watching this meeting, one would not recognize that some of the commissioners siding with Mayor Ellison had -- seemingly deviously -- undercut his attempts, when he first took office, at organizing goal-setting and outlining procedural approaches to problem-solving.

The meeting, which lasted till 11:50 p.m., followed a 1-hour training session about ordinances and half-an-hour devoted to closed session topics like collective bargaining and litigation. Despite their obvious fatigue, everyone performed professionally even during a couple of shouting matches. City Manager Hoover seemed more tentative than usual (he used "ugh" more times in this meeting than in all previous meetings combined). Ellison interrupted and over-spoke others more than he usually does. For the most part, the body was successful in dispensing of other-than-budget business without lengthy discussion, although they spent considerable time taking up Hoover's multi-item resolution one item at a time.

There was great back-and-forth debate about about permitting commercial advertising on the city's website, in parking structure, on poles, on city vehicles. Memorable comments: "We don't want a police car being mistaken for a pizza delivery vehicle," and Mayor Ellison's "I want to know how much my distaste [for objectionable advertising content] will cost us."

Commissioner Prentice generated a cluster of contentious comments with his list of budget-related items that he intends to bring up over the next few weeks. Announcing that he will not run to continue in office, Prentice quickly read his major points, and made it clear that he is opposed to asking for a tax increase before restructuring city government and selling off some city assets have been actually studied, not just talked about. 

Commissioner Andrzejak forced a detailed discussion about the lack of transparency concerning the deliberations of the Budget Committee, on which two commissioners and the mayor sit. Andrzejak had several times in previous months asked about the committee's work, complaining mildly that the four non-committee members were unaware of what was being discussed. Finally, he formally requested minutes from the meetings via an email to City Manager Hoover. During the 11 July meeting, Andrzejak suggested that the commissioners and mayor who sit on the Budge Committee seem more in tune with seeking a tax increase than do the remaining four commissioners.

As VersagiVoice comments in Part Two of our 3-part series proposing a 4-year financial turnaround program, it is short-term thinking to push for placing a millage proposal on the November 2005 ballot, although the commission approved Hoover's recommendation to schedule two town hall meetings in time to get the language written by the end of August. [As this is written, VersagiVoice has learned that Hoover has proposed 20 July and 03 August for the meetings, at the M&M Senior Community Center and the Salter Community Center, respectively.]

Public Comment
Public Comment again included negative vibes about the commission itself. Thirteen individuals spoke.