January-June
|
|
2010 Commission
Meetings January-June |
| 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 and How to watch a commission meeting and City Hall news & comment. For the official minutes, go to the city's website. |
|
04 January 2010 CITCOM meeting
The 25 January 2010 meeting ended at 11:37: There were three hours of solid debate and decision-making following the opening rituals and 15 Public Comment speakers. The commission cast four unanimous and four split votes. The most noteworthy happening was a 4-3 vote, with the unlikely trio of Commissioners, Andrzejak, Rasor, and Semchena casting No-votes. Something to watch: Newbie Rasor was also twice the lone No-vote. Unanimously, CITCOM:
On split votes, CITCOM:
Took No Action:
CITCOM holds housekeeping
meeting Most of the time in this meeting was spent making available to the public the information presented and the decisions made during the Strategic Planning retreat during which the Commission and the Administration established goals and objectives. Finance Director Julie Rudd repeated the Economic and Budget Update she had presented during the retreat. Commissioners Rasor and Semchena asked questions and made comments. Semchena asked City Attorney David Gillam to provide some information and context about what is involved when a city goes into Receivership. City Manager Don Johnson offered explanatory omment as he projected the Power Point summary of the retreat created by Brett Tillander, who facilitated the retreat. The request by Rasor to refer to commercial as well as residential property on a couple of pages brought forth differing memories of what was discussed about that during the strategic planning. The various memories strayed onto other topics until Mayor Ellison refocused the dialogue. The decision was made to include reference to commercial properties. A 30-day state-imposed deadline re Construction and Recreation Funds and Budget Amendments brought forth the "I don't like it" comments from Andrzejak, Semchena, and -- I think -- Poulton. Rudd explained that to meet the deadline it is necessary to make transfers out of the General Fund. Then the discussion became confused and roamed over one-time transfers vs. annual transfers . . . whether to permanently deal with just the golf course lease or with other enterprise funds . . . how the transfer of staff from one construction-related department to another affects things. . . . overtime pay. We can expect this overall issue to be revisited. Semchena asked that "further analysis" be provided.
CITCOM earns a Gold Star It was the most impressive demonstration of responsible public leadership that I remember observing at CITCOM meetings. Unanimously praising Johnson, the mayor and the commissioners presented principled reasoning for their stance. Commissioner Capello read a lengthy paper to reveal the context behind her vote. In favor were Ellison, Andrzejak, Semchena, and Rasor. Opposed were Capello, Drinkwine, and Poulton. The fundamental disagreement was about justifying a pay package which does not conform with decisions taken during the latest collective bargaining for other city employees. Here, the three No-voters, whatever their words, were arguing for "no exceptions." The Yes-voters argued that given Johnson's performance as Finance Director, then Finance Director and Interim City Manager, now City Manager, it would be unfair and unreasonable to hold to the "no exceptions" mindset. City Hall observers will want to compare the composition of this 4-3 vote with the two others so far coming out of this commission. See Split Votes. The agreement developed with Johnson by Ellison, Andrzejak, and former commissioner Ginotti can be found attached to the agenda on the City's Website.Johnson had to sit through this open discussion as one of the prices of public sector employment. The awkwardness was shared for a few minutes by Drinkwine and Semchena, both retirees from city employment, when Capello attacked the provision in the city's employment contracts which enables a city employee to buy years of employment, retire early, then collect generous benefits for a lifetime. Capello is a retiree from private sector employment. Earlier in the meeting, CITCOM:
The commission defeated, by lack of a Second to Rasor's proposed motion, any amendment to the Open Burning Ordinance to allow open burning in approved devices. The thrust of the discussion was: The existing ordinance bans all open burning. . . . People violate the ban all the time . . . If a neighbor complains, the city follows up. . . . Neighbors almost never complain, sometimes join in the fun. . . . Rasor's proposed amendment would change none of that. . . The argument that possible smoke-caused health problems should trump fire safety as a concern went nowhere. There is uncertainty at The Table -- and perhaps disagreement between some on the commission and the City Attorney -- about how to count one of the Bistro licenses, whose request generated commission action in 2009. The Bistro ordinance grants an unlimited number of licenses in 2009, for a 1-year test period. Only two bistro licenses may be granted in 2010. It seems that intrusive across-the-table questions and rebuttals are now to limited to one question-and-answer. Good idea, especially since the practice of permitting extensive comments both before and after a motion is on the table does little to accomplish much more than camera face-time for the two debaters. Especially troublesome when both the debaters are lawyers. The entire 15 February 2010 meeting deserves an A+. Short, compact CITCOM meeting[Readers will benefit from reading the Report Card, above, to expand the human dimension in this meeting summary. That report was written the weekend preceding the meeting.] If commissioners Pat Capello and David Poulton hadn't pulled five items off the Consent Agenda, this meeting would have ended ten minutes after the last of only five Public Comment speakers finished. Both those who admire or dislike Pat would find justification for their feelings as she explained the significance of the dollar numbers involved in the Pension System Actuarial Report. She did seem to assume Steve Miller's role by citing enough numbers to begin putting listeners to sleep as she made her point: assets are dropping, costs and contributions are rising. Capello's approach to her second pulled item resulted in removing a punitive paragraph re ticketing parked cars on the route of the M.O.M.'s 5k Race on 01 May. Poulton seemed to come out the shell implied in his report card. He pulled two Consent Agenda items. Speaking more forcefully than previously and looking up more from his papers, Dave did some lawyerly sequential questioning concerning the Contract Bid Award for repairing the DPS North Service Entrance. He then sought financial and operational justification for the City Clerk's decision to acquire something called an Electronic Poll Book. Jim Rasor, described as "buoyant and boisterous" in his report card, was quiet most of the night. The only vibrant part of the meeting had to do, as always, with liquor licenses. Commissioner Mike Andrzejak wanted to revisit the city's policy about recommending non-renewal for those establishments which are in arrears on taxes or water bills. The conversation seemed to stray a bit and required City Attorney Dave Gillam to explain several legal or procedural distinctions. Mike's concern was that LCC recommendations to allow more time and installment-like payment of tardy fees for some owners might appear as arbitrary or show favoritism. All decisions this night were made unanimously (6-0, since Chuck Semchena was absent). During Public Comment, Commissioner Terry Drinkwine incredulously asked Staff, "A business really needs city permission to float balloons?" And veteran commentator Bill Shaw took less than five minutes to commiserate with the officials over the difficult decisions they need to make re budget. At the same time, he urged them to assure transparency throughout their deliberations. A transformational CITCOM meeting It took only 20 minutes for CITCOM to authorize City Manager Don Johnson to notify collective bargaining units that layoff notices will be issued for scores of city workers. Obviously having decided before the meeting to deliver a unanimous decision approving the recommendations in Johnson's 45-page report, each member of the commission gave a short comment expressing gut-wrenching sadness. Mayor Ellison revealed that he was recently terminated from his job, so his 'I feel your pain" added weight to the somber mood. Johnson was repeatedly praised for his efforts and for the comprehensiveness of his report, which offers seven recommendations:
Johnson provided context for the public with a brief summary of the opening pages of his 45-page Budget Strategy report, then asked for CITCOM to approve his "suggested resolution" which reads:
This, wisely, was the last item on the agenda; it was followed immediately by adjournment; and I would hope that at least some of the officials gathered for a drink or cup of coffee. Certainly their debriefing session would include most of the same reactions as have, since then, been voiced by residents -- city hall watchers or not. Those first reactions are treated elsewhere in VersagiVoice. Despite the presence of Detroit TV cameras, no one at The Table postured or sought excessive time on camera, either during the budget discussion or in the early part of the meeting. So normal was their overall demeanor that the single split vote was accompanied by the usual display of the strained institutional relationship between CITCOM and the Downtown Development Authority. That split vote (4-3), with Capello, Drinkwine, and Poulton voting No, came after some procedural jockeying over tabling, or not, DDA's request to spend money on streetscaping. Another DDA item, the Authority's allocation for Arts, Beats & Eats was approved as part of the Consent Agenda. Unanimously, CITCOM directed Staff to require RFP's for a couple of Change Orders which had been removed from the Consent Agenda. . . . Approved a change in a money-saving modification in the administration of the city's Health Plan . . . Approved an amended plan of operation and a license for Rock on Third. . . . About RFP's, City Engineer Elden Danielson commented (1) that on something like HVAC maintenance, a new contractor would have to learn the location and condition of all the city-owned heating-cooling systems and equipment, and (2) 'the bidding process is costly." During Public Comment which preceded formal CITCOM deliberations, one resident expressed concern over threatened long response time from the Fire Department and reduced police presence both downtown and in the neighborhood. A fireman, speaking for himself and not his union, offered full cooperation in working through the problems which will result from proposed cuts in personnel. One vendor who is frozen out of bidding on some routine Change Orders, pointed out that prices have dropped for some services and urged the city to issue RFP's instead of extending existing contracts. And activist Bill Shaw, as usual being granted extended time for his researched comments, opined that the combination of State laws affecting city revenues has deprived local governing bodies of the ability to address real-world budget problems. The Newbies, 3 months later In conversations around town, I have requested patience from those readers who too quickly wanted a "report card" on the 2-1/2 new commissioners. Two-and-a-half, because former commissioner Pat Capello is being recycled. Here, mostly paraphrased, are the opinions being exchanged after three months.
[Readers will benefit from reading the Report Card, above, to expand the human dimension in this meeting summary. That report was written the weekend preceding the meeting.] If commissioners Pat Capello and David Poulton hadn't pulled five items off the Consent Agenda, this meeting would have ended ten minutes after the last of only five Public Comment speakers finished. Both those who admire or dislike Pat would find justification for their feelings as she explained the significance of the dollar numbers involved in the Pension System Actuarial Report. She did seem to assume Steve Miller's role by citing enough numbers to begin putting listeners to sleep as she made her point: assets are dropping, costs and contributions are rising. Capello's approach to her second pulled item resulted in removing a punitive paragraph re ticketing parked cars on the route of the M.O.M.'s 5k Race on 01 May. Poulton seemed to come out the shell implied in his report card. He pulled two Consent Agenda items. Speaking more forcefully than previously and looking up more from his papers, Dave did some lawyerly sequential questioning concerning the Contract Bid Award for repairing the DPS North Service Entrance. He then sought financial and operational justification for the City Clerk's decision to acquire something called an Electronic Poll Book. Jim Rasor, described as "buoyant and boisterous" in his report card, was quiet most of the night. The only vibrant part of the meeting had to do, as always, with liquor licenses. Commissioner Mike Andrzejak wanted to revisit the city's policy about recommending non-renewal for those establishments which are in arrears on taxes or water bills. The conversation seemed to stray a bit and required City Attorney Dave Gillam to explain several legal or procedural distinctions. Mike's concern was that LCC recommendations to allow more time and installment-like payment of tardy fees for some owners might appear as arbitrary or show favoritism. All decisions this night were made unanimously (6-0, since Chuck Semchena was absent). During Public Comment, Commissioner Terry Drinkwine incredulously asked Staff, "A business really needs city permission to float balloons?" And veteran commentator Bill Shaw took less than five minutes to commiserate with the officials over the difficult decisions they need to make re budget. At the same time, he urged them to assure transparency throughout their deliberations. 05 April 10 CITCOM moves to limit DDA's power Opponents of the amendment hope for a higher level legal opinion which will challenge the validity of the change or at least the method of change. The DDA's $300,000 arrangement re the Emagine Project served as a focal point for the majority. That arrangement was repeatedly cited, even on the separate issue of the DDA's second request for approval of its $170,000 final phase streetscaping repair. Those commissioners who favor the ordinance revision insisted on tying all DDA matters to their intention to cut the Authority's power. The tone of the deliberations was emotional but subdued. Both the anger and the sadness were expressed quietly. Mayor Ellison and Commissioner Rasor were The Two. Commissioners Andrzejak Capello, Drinkwine, Poulton, and Semchena were The Five. Their fundamental points: The Five
The Two
The Rest of the Story
CITCOM moves to limit DDA's power This recent bout began in the DDA's March meeting. VersagiVoice's report out of that meeting began:
Within a few days, the DDA held a Special Meeting at which it discussed budget and conducted an orientation for its three new directors. About the same time, CITCOM counterattacked by adding a proposed amendment to the DDA Ordinance to the commission's agenda for the commission's first meeting in April. I commented that my mixed reaction to that announcement was (1) CITCOM insists on micromanaging everything and would soon be debating "which species of tree should be planted on Fourth Street." (2) "This hopefully is the first step toward ultimately dissolving the Downtown Development Authority." I concluded, "Let's see what happens Monday." What happened was a 5-2 vote approving the First Reading of the amendment which I maintain is intended to "emasculate the Downtown Development Authority." And, indeed, there was discussion about the color of bricks used in streetscaping. VersagiVoice's first report [LINK]out of that CITCOM meeting summarized the basic debating points stressed by each member of the commission: The Five: Andrzejak, Capello, Drinkwine, Poulton, and Semchena. The Two: Ellison and Rasor. Somehow, the DDA's $300,000 deal with Emagine became the reference point for much of the debate. Jim Rasor has submitted a Guest Column addressing that point. Although I supported the Emagine project from the beginning, I would have voted against the deal were I serving on the DDA. The tone of CITCOM's deliberations was emotional but subdued. Both the anger and the sadness were expressed quietly. The sadness first showed during Public Comment. Jim Domanski, newly elected DDA Chair and co-owner of the popular Pronto! restaurant, wondered why the DDA hadn't been notified about CITCOM's intention to place an amendment to the DDA Ordinance on the agenda. His disappointment obvious, Jim used such language as (paraphrased), "All of you know me . . . We've known each other for 20 years . . . You know where I live, where I work . . . No one called me . . . I heard not one word." The DDA Chair said downtown merchants are "scared." He repeated a long-time DDA complaint that CITCOM, now complaining of unacceptable response from DDA, has not responded to the Authority's repeated requests for a joint meeting. He urged CITCOM, "Talk to me. We don't need a line drawn in the sand." Later in the meeting, Andrzejak, alluding to the DDA's past complaints of not being kept informed about matters affecting downtown, said, in effect, "This is a role reversal." Also during Public Comment, Vice Chair Bill Harrison showed both disappointment and anger, as he described the financial advantage that the DDA provides to the City and detailed several major transactions and developments over the years. He urged CITCOM , "Do not take flexibility away from the DDA." Harrison suggested that Planning Director Tim Thwing, mandated to serve as the DDA's ceo, is occasionally put into situations where his dual duties pose a conflict-of-interest. Harrison coined the phrase "Three Horsemen" to describe DDA's cooperation with the City with payments toward (1) Court debt, (2) Parking Structure Debt, and (3) for three police officers dedicated to downtown. His shorthand term was used several times during the formal debate. (The 07 April Royal Oak Review has published an informative review of those payments.) Commissioner Semchena led the charge against the DDA's independence. Chuck began the attack during consideration of the DDA's return-request for approval of a $170,000 Change Order needed to complete the last phase of a multi-phase streetscaping plan. Leaning forward and scowling much of the time, he spoke quietly as he sought to connect the Emagine decision to that long-budgeted streetscaping cost. Making his case to tie together long-range financial decisions of the Authority and the City, Semchena spoke at great length and with quiet fervor. As a matter of procedure, Mayor Ellison tried to bring Semchena back to the streetscaping issue, but the commissioner continued to talk for several minutes. I infer that Ellison, aware that the coming vote on the DDA Ordinance would go against his preference, wanted to avoid any suspicion that he was trying to shut down the proponents in advance. I also infer that Semchena is skilled enough in debate procedures to recognize and take advantage of Ellison's hesitation.
Last week's VersagiVoice report out of this meeting reported the substance of each voter's position. What I've written here adds my interpretation of the flavor of the debate as inferred from tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language. It is almost certain that there will be two or three opportunities for either side to initiate or respond to legal challenges, as is true about Health Care Reform. However that works out, Royal Oak governance is faced with the possibility that this specific DDA/CITCOM brouhaha will destroy collegial institutional and personal relationships between between CITCOM and the DDA --and between CITCOM and other city panels. At this same meeting 05 April 2010 meeting, CITCOM:
Public Comment § Resident Pat Franz charged that the city is too accommodating to developers. About the now famous/notorious Emagine Theatre and Bowling Alley, she complained the city seems to be "begging for 1,700 more drinkers on weekends." That led Franz to advise CITCOM to "get a handle on that DDA money." See Several years of DDA News for related news and opinion. Don't do as I do. Do as I say. The City Commission has recently been complaining about an alleged absence of due diligence by the DDA, re the $300,000 tax abatement to Emagine. That same CITCOM has:
If you own a business anywhere in the proposed Extended Festival Zone sought by ABE, get to City Hall fast to lobby against the proposal to declare the entire area between Woodward & Campbell and 696 & Twelve Mile a dead zone. Dead in the sense that no business in that extended zone would be permitted to schedule any promotional event during the ABE's 4-day festival and two days previous. Whatever one's thoughts about the decisions reached, the meeting was an example of an effective local legislature at work, despite several expressions of dissatisfaction with Staff. The meeting lasted till 10:51, but it wasn't the elected officials' fault. There were 20 speakers during Public Comment, about half of them respectfully promoting the "Eleven Mile has It All" effort. Next week, VersagiVoice will do its usual detailed report out of this long and productive meeting. For now, I should mention that Commissioner David Poulton came alive. He used his lawyerly skills to list several points which seem to scream for rejecting, or at least reconsidering, such one-sided language. 19 April CITCOM (Part 2)
That was how I concluded Part 1of my short report about the 19 April CITCOM meeting. Taking off from there: It was "the night of the lawyers" at The Table,
especially during debate over the legality of CITCOM's move to limit the DDA's
power. That's a
description, not a complaint. Even the "civilians" played lawyer: Andrzejak asked Planning Director Tim Thwing a series of questions in the tone of "What did you know? When did you know it? . . . Drinkwine went at it from two perspectives: (1) He chuckled in agreement with the "Philadelphia lawyers" who took 10 minutes of detailed comment to make a point he had made in 90 seconds, and (2) He directly asked Gillam whether CITCOM's move to limit the DDA's powers is legal. Gillam cited a couple other cities which have successfully made similar moves and said the move is legal. . . . Civilian Mayor Ellison disagreed with Gillam, almost using the phrase "case law" when he said the the cases Gillam cited have not "been published". . . . Commissioner Capello didn't "go-legal" but she insistently challenged Thwing about procedure, which is what lawyers do a lot of. Capello's exchanges with Thwing provide a good spot for me to characterize CITCOM as being especially unhappy with the Administration that night. Because Tim also serves as the ceo of the DDA, his work-product on other matters, like Arts, Beats & Eats, seemed to receive more than the usual scrutiny and criticism. Decision about several agenda items was postponed:
The reasons for postponing? Need to have the ABE promoter come before CITCOM . . . Additional information needed from Staff . . . Return the issue to the appropriate committee, which had not been informed . . . "Last minute" postings of meetings . . . Less-than-informative memos from Staff. An example of how that uneasiness about a perceived lack of enough information affects practical matters: The commission was obviously in favor of devoting some block grant funds to the "Eleven Mile Has It All" effort. Staff's dependence on a reference to a 2004 decision to dedicate such funds to an 11-Mile district was not enough for the commission. Fairly or not, Thwing's dual positions -- DDA exec and City Planning Director -- cause some observers to ask how they can know when he is speaking for the Authority or for the City when there is disagreement between the two institutions. (Two days later, the DDA meeting was a more comfortable venue for Tim.) [See] City Manager Johnson has been directed to prepare a report about how and over what time-span the DDA reached its decision re the Emagine deal. There have been other CITCOM requests for reports of one kind or another. Have we ever received the one explaining how Receivership works? The commission approved:
Yes, the meeting lasted until 10:51, but keep in mind that Public Comment didn't end until 8:30.
CITCOM made one very bad and one
very good decision Very Bad The mayor and the remaining commissioners -- except Rasor, who was absent -- get an F, for their obsequious support for expanding the festival's "zone," then praising ABE for reducing its original request after its time-worn bargaining technique of asking for the moon, hoping you'll come off looking like a good guy when you settle for less. The Administration gets a D in all this, because the behaviors of the city manager, city attorney, and police chief are just puzzling enough to suggest that they may be acting under orders, or some form of political pressure, rather than on principle. VersagiVoice will expand and comment on the entire Arts, Beats & Eats farce next week. Very Good One reason the meeting ran to 10:50 pm is that there were 19 Public Comment speakers, the majority of them speaking in opposition to charging for parking in the Central Business District on Sunday. The commissioners and Staff then returned to Room 309 to continue their Closed Session. VersagiVoice will report next week on some of the more routine business conducted during the open meeting. Last week's Part 1 focused primarily on CITCOM's decisions re (1) Arts, Beats & Eats and (2) 11 Mile Has It All. Now, the rest of the story.
It was getting late, so Pat Capello humanely postponed her request to discuss a name change for the Royal Oak Acorn Foundation.
These guys & gals are tired After that 90-plus minute session they faced 16 Public Comment speakers pleading with them not to cut Public Safety staff. One of the speakers all but called city officials liars, maintaining they have no real intention of making those cuts but are just trying to scare people into approving a millage. About that, a handful of speakers expressed a willingness to approve a millage to save Public Safety. Two or three said that a reduced Fire Department will result in increased insurance premiums for homeowners. City Manager Don Johnson gave a quiet, well-reasoned defense, taking less than two minutes to remind all that the city has been working on the budget for months; that although most of the unions have so far refused to agree to concessions, negotiations continue; and that without substantial concessions, the announced cuts will have to be made. Then -- for the most part containing their sour mood -- CITCOM went on till 11:19 to accomplish not much other than routine stuff but to make clear the commissions continuing unhappiness with the Administration, especially about budget matters. Commissioners complained about the format of the report presented that night and about number-changes which present the commission with a "moving target." About too-sharp a drop in some fund balance. Finance Director Julie Rudd wasn't quite successful in controlling her facial expression when she answered a request for "line items" behind her report by citing the pdf page containing that information already in the commission's possession CITCOM spent half an hour quibbling about parking for the Emagine project, their major concern being to safeguard the needs of the Farmer's Market . Somewhere in there, Staff was asked what a market visitor should do if the lot was already full and replied, "They'll have to park somewhere else." A measure of the impact of irritation and fatigue was that mild-mannered Mayor Jim Ellison twice snapped at Jim Rasor and that even milder-mannered David Poulton at one point raised his voice slightly and glowered at Ellison. All by way of saying all these guys need a rest. Leave them alone for a couple of weeks. No emails, no phone calls. They've heard it all. CITCOM Budget Work Session produces
results The most positive move was to adopt and modify Pat Capello's rather complex plan which makes it possible to save nine jobs for one year: 6 cops and 3 firefighters, or equivalent. Pat did it by re-allocating several budget items. There was unanimity that this is a helpful, one-time "robbing Peter to pay Paul" move. About increasing parking revenue, CITCOM decided (1) to increase downtown enforcement hours which will now run from 11 a.m. to midnight and (2) not to charge for parking on Sunday. The longer enforcement time was approved unanimously; the Sunday decision was done informally without a vote -- which would have been 5-2, with Rasor and Semchena opposed. Andrzejak's proposal to increase the fee for parking in the Center Street deck from $3 to $5 was unanimously approved. About taxes there wasn't much movement, although they spent a lot of time talking about increasing revenue, including Poulton's suggestion that an income tax be looked at. Drinkwine took several minutes to ask again that City Manager Johnson prepare a detailed report which defines which services must be maintained, what staffing would be required to maintain them, the cost, and what millage increase would be needed. The guesses were many, with the group wanting to make sure than any millage increase didn't result in simply returning to today's troubled status two or three years from now. There the discussion became rambling, with all the old ideas being rehashed and with Semchena getting into a shouting match with Ellison over Chuck's insistence on giving long speeches about the impact of too many alcohol-serving establishments on the budget. Chuck also took a couple of shots at what he maintained was Rasor's use of clichés to provide words, rather than actions. Jim had introduced a list of nine revenue-enhancing ideas. Tension was reduced when Drinkwine commented quietly about how difficult it is to work with three lawyers in the room and City Attorney Dave Gillam drew friendly laughter when he shouted, "Hey, I'm an attorney, too!" Drinkwine corrected his lawyer-count to "four." Most of the 12 speakers during Public Comment said they would favor a millage increase, if city officials make clear the need and put a time limit on it. Bad times always end, and the concern is to avoid keeping the increased millage in place and growing fat again. To that end, Drinkwine repeatedly stressed his preference for using "dollars" instead of "mills" during discussions about revenues. There were gingerly references to the public relations drive by Police and Fire to scare and divide the public. Interestingly, none of the "no taxes-ever" crowd spoke during Public Comment. (See "The people are finally paying attention" elsewhere on this page.) Observers of this CITCOM meeting had reason to be a bit confused, because the officials crossed and re-crossed the line separating long-term revenue issues from budget decisions which must be made Monday, June 7.
Give that gang a raise Last night's marathon meeting, following five Budget Meetings over 3-plus weeks, means that Royal Oak's elected officials have just completed a political triathlon. Successfully, given the economic environment in which they are operating. To understand what city officials, elected and appointed, have gone through intellectually and emotionally, residents should read -- or at least skim -- the minutes of those budget meetings. Minutes are on the City's Website. The results of those deliberations are (a) the unpopular proposed cuts in staff levels, including Police and Fire, and (b) the reduction of General Fund Reserves by about $4 million, to about $5 million. The, long, parade of Public Comment speakers was another marathon. Sincere and heartfelt support for Police and Fire, but no understanding of the impossibility of attaining their wishes. [More about that another time.] Many of the speakers suggested they could live with a millage increase dedicated to Public Safety. [Dumb idea. More about that another time.] CITCOM approved the proposed 2-year budget for 2010/11 and 2011/12. The commission acted on other items:
The Sound of Music at CITCOM
meeting The Liquor Control Committee had
already decided to require a Public Hearing about the Memphis
Smoke/Diablo matter. And former commissioner Jeanne Sarnacki,
during Public Comment, cited lower permitted sound-levels in nearby
communities than are in Royal Oak's proposed amendments. The
proposed amendments were pulled from the agenda. City Manager Don Johnson announced a collective bargaining agreement with Professional and Technical Employees. The 1-year agreement makes unnecessary the planned layoff of two employees and results in 17-18% savings in salary and benefits. Johnson praised the union and its members for "working with us" in these difficult economic times. The commission unanimously approved the agreement. Also unanimously, CITCOM:
Three agenda items were passed with split-votes. (Andrzejak was absent)
It's been six
months Six months provides enough shake-down time for the newbies to settle in and for the newbies and oldies to establish friendly, neutral, or adversarial attitudes toward each other. Some mix of those attitudes is humanly impossible to avoid. The measurement of their professionalism is how The Seven learn, or not, to conduct city business despite any personal likes and dislikes and despite basic philosophical differences. So, six months later: One commissioner surprised me by describing the philosophical mix as "two liberals and five conservatives" -- Ellison, Rasor and Andrzejak, Capello, Drinkwine, Poulton, Semchena. In my mind, the individuals on this team -- certain issues aside -- properly bounce all over the philosophical map when dealing with most local issues. In terms of political party, most of them behave most of the time as Independents, not as Republicans or Democrats. After all, elections to local office are nonpartisan. So, lets go around The Table from left to right, as seen from the public seats. Jim Rasor has settled down noticeably but is still unable to completely control his showboating. In his first meetings, Jim seemed compelled to comment on every agenda item, whether or not he had something useful to say. He doesn't do very much of that these days, except when he can't resist taking a shot at Semchena. Happily, his voting is not nearly as predictable as some had feared, although he needs to stop finding ways to allude to his Democratic connections in Lansing. By the end of his first year as commissioner, Jim Rasor looks to develop into a solid presence. Pat Capello was a known quantity when she ran again, and since she had no need to go through a learning curve, it's as though she was never gone. So, we have this occasionally nit-picking but usually gentle woman praising or criticizing Staff as she deems necessary. Pat applies the same issue- or procedure-focused mindset when she agrees or disagrees with her colleagues. Seldom do Pat's questions or comments drift off-topic. Feminists and sexists will fume, but Pat's womanly approach does sometimes help reduce tension in room. Terry Drinkwine continues to be the most talked-about commissioner on the left side of The Table. He is much admired and as much disliked. His strength, his weakness, is that he apparently doesn't know how not to be simultaneously blunt and brusque whether he's arguing in favor of or in opposition to an issue. Observers comment in puzzlement, though, that this "tough former cop" is also a bit thin-skinned. Terry is effective. His brusqueness often cuts through a lot of rambling discussion and forces the issue back into focus. Jim Ellison gets three grades when city hall observers comment about his performance as mayor. He gets . . . a B on general attitude and deportment . . . an A on his ability to frame complicated matters in an understandable way . . . and a C on his skills as chairman of the meeting. Meetings would be smoother and shorter (a) if he applied the parliamentary rights of the chair and (b) if he called individuals out-of-order and threatened expulsion from the meeting when speaking privileges are abused. (The language here is mine, but it reflects the majority opinion of city hall observers who have at length discussed Jim with me.) To the degree that "Ellison fatigue" exists, it is based on Jim's perceived weakness as chair caused by his "nice guy" persona. Mike Andrzejak irritates viewers by repeatedly rocking back in his chair and staring glassy-eyed at the ceiling. "It seems like he'd rather be somewhere else." He pleases people with his technique of drawing out details from Staff, which might not otherwise be available to the public. He irritates with what seems like an unrelieved distrust of the Administration. He pleases with the same characteristic. Both those who like and dislike Mike acknowledge his grasp of detail about substance and procedure. About Mike there are two, related puzzles. First, "Why is he never seen at civic events?" Second, given that he is rarely seen in public, how does he continue to pull the highest number of votes each time he runs for commissioner?" Chuck Semchena rouses more unfavorable reaction than any other elected official by his demeanor at The Table. That phenomenon contrasts with the admiration he generated as city attorney. Watch Chuck closely, and one observes much positive participation in deliberations. But the overall impression he leaves is negative: always wanting more information than provided; occasional shots at Rasor; tunnel-visioned about selective issues like the Emagine Theatre and the city-sponsored Parking Study; almost automatic opposition to alcohol-serving establishments; too often speaking at excessive length. It is about Chuck that VersagiVoice readers have commented that he is a much nicer guy away from The Table, and the guessing has begun that he has found he dislikes being a commissioner and won't run again. David Poulton has improved from a weak start, but he has not come far enough to generate enthusiasm from observers who had hoped for more impact from both younger newbies. Dave approaches most matters with his professional, lawyerly, mindset, which is often read by laymen as off-target. His eyes are on the papers before him most of the time he speaks, a characteristic which is just as disconcerting as that of his colleague's staring at the ceiling. So far, many of the points he raises, though based on thorough research, strike observers as being more procedural than substantive. Thus the charge of nit-picking. Dave is a different person away from The Table. One former commissioner describes Dave as a serious young man who has not yet found his comfort zone in elected office. Returning to the group as a whole One can wonder how some of those who consider themselves conservatives find so many occasions to come across as anti-business, leaving it to a self-proclaimed leftie to defend entrepreneurship. One can hope that a short agenda leads to a short meeting at least once in a while. But when one reads that city councils in other Oakland County cities refuse to cut their pay (which is in the tens of thousands of dollars), then remembers our elected officials get, what?, 20-30 bucks a meeting for doing the same job . . . . . . the proper response is respect-and-gratitude, not unthinking and abusive anonymous posts. |
03 June 2010 _________________ What can we expect from CITCOM in 2009?
|
||||||||||