The Debate about Ethics

How it all began
It's the ZBA's fault!
The ZBA/Bordine Affair began it all. Oversimplifying, during a 2009 debate about renewing a variance for Bordine Nursery, ZBA member Jim Rasor stepped away from table, made a presentation as Bordine's attorney, then returned to the table. After some confusion, Rasor was charged with improper behavior. The charges were dismissed at an Administrative Hearing.

During the same time frame, ZBA member David Poulton filed a complaint which led to then-Commissioner Stephen Miller being investigated for improperly attempting to influence Poulton's vote on  the Bordine matter. After the Oakland County Sheriff found that Miller's behavior did not reach the threshold of a crime and closed the investigation, some members of CITCOM began talking about conducting an internal ethics investigation. When that move seemed to be going nowhere, resident Frank Houston announced his intention to seek voter approval of an expanded ethics ordinance for Royal Oak.

This page will serve as the lead-in to information so long as the debate about ethics continues. Readers who want context for all this can click the links below. After I opposed Houston's effort to get an ordinance on the books, he provided the document which I have posted on a separate page so that readers can refer to it as the debate goes on.

Houston's proposed ethics ordinance . . . Zoning Board of Appeals . . . Bordine/English Gardens/Jim Rasor . . . "Tipping Point" . . . "Ripple Effect"

Ongoing dialogue is presented in chronological order.

Codes of Ethics are rarely necessary or useful
During decades of guiding businesses and nonprofits through restructuring, I almost always fought against codes of ethics. Successfully without exception, I implemented the concept that proper procedural policy, plus the Ten Commandments, makes a code of ethics redundant and unnecessary. Let's apply that approach to suggestions that the messy Bordine/ZBA/Rasor affair calls for revising Royal Oak's already long ethics ordinance.

What happened:
Jim Rasor, a director on the Zoning Board of Appeals, recused himself from the table while he acted as the attorney for Bordine Nursery in its appeal for a renewal of the variance which allowed it to set up a seasonal tent on Coolidge, close to across-the-street English Gardens. After the matter had been deliberated and the second variance was denied, Rasor returned to the table to participate in ZBA work about other matters.

Some consider his behavior a conflict-of-interest. I don't.
To label such dual function as unethical is a bit like attempting to prevent the exertion of influence by making lobbying illegal. Better to encourage lobbying but make full disclosure mandatory. Here, observers could quickly see what Rasor was doing and it differed not at all from a city commissioner recusing himself from a single vote, but remaining at the commission table to address remaining agenda items. In both cases the behavior was/is out in the open; it was/is transparency in government.

Coincidentally or not, the Bordine controversy also involved the alleged attempt by at least one city commissioner to influence the vote by offering help in the intensifying campaign for city commissioner. From that, Semchena suggests that the city needs a legal opinion about whether city commissioners can talk to board members (any board/committee member )?

It would be ill-advised to forbid or discourage city commissioners from passing along their knowledge and opinion to volunteer appointees. Nor would it be wrong for a commissioner to explain why he wants some issue to pass or fail -- provided that policy mandates that the volunteer publicly mentions that a commissioner has talked with him. If the commissioner insists that his communication be off-the-record, the volunteer should still be obligated to reveal the communication. Transparency again.

The devious, the dishonest, will not be dissuaded by clichéd paragraphs in a code of ethics. But clean, clear policies and procedures can make it easier for the good guys to protect themselves and the public.

No ethics investigation, please: II
Unless the suspected or accused commissioners demand it, the City of Royal Oak would do well to drop the idea of mounting an ethics-focused investigation.

I'm certain that the ripple effect of the ongoing ZBA/Bordine imbroglio will diminish and fade away if it is not kept alive by the elected officials.

The interest in all this by those officials and by fewer than 1,000 active city hall observers reflects an inside-the-beltway preoccupation not shared by the public-at-large.

Proof? After all that has gone on all these months -- which can be reviewed through old newspapers and the links elsewhere on this page -- activists are encountering residents who wonder what all the fuss is about. When told, most of them shrug it off as "just politicians fighting politicians" or "partisans scoring points." Even, "Who is this guy 'Poulton'?"

Remember that, except for one or two individuals, the scores of residents who attended the ill-advised Administrative Hearing about Jim Rasor's alleged improper behavior all know each other, are city hall observers, are from both major political parties.

Whether or not the investigation goes forward, I suspect that it will be impossible for the ripple effect of the ZBA/Bordine Affair* not to affect this year's campaigns for commissioner and mayor. It will be made worse if an ethics ordinance is put on the ballot.

*Why "ZBA/Bordine Affair"?
The cast of players is huge (individuals, companies, governmental agencies), so past reports were identified with tags like "Rasor Affair" or "L'Affaire Bordine's" or "ZBA/Rasor Affair" depending on the focus of the report. Since the issue doesn't seem ready to disappear into the sunset, I'll use "ZBA/Bordine Affair" as the catchall tag for ongoing developments. Readers with more than casual interest in the matter can refer to the links clustered in the column at right.

Cast of Players

CITCOM
ZBA
Bordine Nursery
English Gardens
 Oakland County Circuit Court
Royal Oak Police Dept.
Oakland County Sheriff's Office
 

Jim Rasor
Stephen Miller
Mike Andrzejak
Chuck Semchena
Jim Ellison
Dave Gillam
David Poulton

Related Coverage

ZBA News

Ethics code

"Tipping Point"

"Ripple Effect"

Even more ill-advised
 Resident wants voters to put an ethics ordinance on the ballot
 Imagine you are one of more than 200 volunteers who serve on city committees, boards, and commissions. (See who they are)  In the normal course of civic life, you frequently encounter fellow-volunteers (on your and other city panels), city commissioners, the mayor, the city manager, department heads, city hall employees -- at civic and political events, at church, in the supermarket, in restaurants, at school concerts, the Farmer's Market, local watering holes, at Stagecrafters, at the Main Theatre, in service clubs, at retirement parties.

During these encounters, also in the normal course of civic life, questions are asked, information is passed, opinions are exchanged about everything that's going on in the city. You may lobby someone or be lobbied by someone. So long as no quid pro quo deals are made, all this communication is ethically clean. During these conversations you may appropriately act in your professional mode, whatever that may be: master gardener or attorney, chief cook or bottle washer.

Now comes Frank Houston, a volunteer himself (Library Board) but apparently acting from his mindset as executive director of Michigan Common Cause, to seek an ethics ordinance which will restrict free speech by trying to set the rules by which such open discussions will be restricted to whatever the ordinance permits. And any attempt to regulate the interaction between elected or appointed officials and appointed volunteers would be deplorable. I've not read Frank's 26-page document, but I already agree with Commissioner Drinkwine's assessment: "It's overreacting and it's flyspecking. . . . We need some kind of simple, commons-sense policy . . . that says you don't steal, bribe or intimidate. You do nothing for personal monetary gain." The proposed ordinance would increase city bureaucracy and establish a board with investigative power.

Worse, -- even if the proposal itself were not controversial -- the campaigns to support or defeat this ill-advised ordinance will perpetuate the angry tone which already is poisoning Royal Oak's civic/political dialogue. Indeed, it didn't take long for someone to suggest that Houston's proposal is a way to avoid identifying those on CITCOM who favor such a move if mounting an investigation proves unpopular with the public.

Houston will be seeking signatures in August to put the issue on the November ballot. Unless you're among those who think that all those volunteers and commissioners and appointed officials are a bunch of dishonest and disreputable self-seekers, don't sign Frank's petition. More about all this later. -- FJV: 27 Jul 09 
Reaction to my opposition, last week, to a petition drive to enact Ethics Ordinance fell into three groups: (1) Agreement, (2) Disagreement, and (3) Ad hominem attacks on Frank Houston, who later provided VersagiVoice with a copy of his proposed ordinance.

§ Hi Frank.
Read your comments after I was advised by one local activist that you "ripped me a new one."

Actually, I appreciate your concerns about limiting "free speech" between City Commissioners and Appointees.  I actually agree. That's why in the draft ethics ordinance/referendum I've been circulating I didn't include a prohibition (which I think has questionable ability to be enforced let alone legal footing to stand on). >From an ethics perspective, I think it makes far more sense to go after the undesirable behavior - pay-to-play politics, conflict of interests, etc. - than make a blanket policy that limits healthy conversation.

As a library trustee in Royal Oak I've never felt "pressured" to act in a given way by elected officials any more than by residents, but I do think it's important that our elected officials are careful of how much "advice" they give the people they appoint.

There appears to be a growing sentiment that some of the Commissioners meddle in too many Boards and Commissions, let alone the day-to-day operations of the City that we've now entrusted Mr. Johnson to manage.

Also, I find it interesting in other places like Southfield, the response to me offering ideas and help was to sit down and hear my thoughts (even though I don't live there) and to come of with a proactive plan to deal with the challenges they are faced with, but in Royal Oak we have a set of folks who are quick to dismiss the idea of reform as being to complicated, political or unnecessary to deal with despite the obvious confusion and issues that have transpired over the last few months.

These issues aren't a result of just another local election, it's also a problem of an inadequate charter/ordinance to guide the generally well-intentioned elected and appointed officials of our City. We can and should do better.

I don't care if I'm cited or not.  I really just want the Commission to get this done already and get re-focused on a vision for our community and what they are going to do with a looming budget shortfall. Feel free to use these comments if needed.

Would love to grab coffee and catch up sometime soon.   Even if you just want to have a more background conversation about potential things Royal Oak may want to consider for the ordinance.

Hope you and Muriel are doing well. -- Frank Houston

How about an Ethics Policy, instead of an Ordinance?
These 5 paragraphs are all we need.

The actions and transactions which shall be avoided include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. Divulging or Using Confidential Information. The public official or employee who acquires information in the course of his or her official duties, which by law or policy is confidential, shall not divulge that information to an unauthorized person in advance of the time prescribed for its authorized release to the public, nor use the information to further the private interests of the public official or any third party. Information which is deemed exempt from disclosure under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, 1976 PA 442, or which is the subject of a duly called closed meeting held in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267 is confidential.
  2. Gifts, compensation or economic interest. No public official or employee shall solicit, accept, or offer, a gift, compensation or anything of an economic interest, or other things of value for the benefit of a person or organization which under any circumstances it can reasonably be inferred that that any of the foregoing is intended to influence a person in the performance of his or her official duties or is intended as reward for any official action on his or her part. This shall not otherwise preclude reportable campaign contributions pursuant to Michigan Law.
  3. The use or threats or intimidation. No public official or employee shall use actual or intimated threats or any form of intimidation which under any circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred the foregoing is intended to influence the manner in which another public official, or an employee performs his or her official duties;
  4. Use of public office for personal gain. No public official shall engage in a transaction, in which the public official, his or her immediate family members, or outside employer, may profit from his or her official position or authority or benefit financially from confidential information which the public official or employee has obtained or may obtain by reason of that position or authority;
  5. Illegal, unlawful or inappropriate behavior. The public official shall refrain from activities which are illegal, unlawful or behavior which otherwise tends to bring harm, shame or embarrassment or distress to the public office for which he or she holds;

These practical guidelines, from the Ginotti-initiated draft with which the city attorney is working, plus a brief informative introduction, might require 2 of the 5 pages in the commissioner's draft.  Frank Houston's proposal prints out at 18 pages.

Legal documents frequently try to do the impossible. Their authors hope that with enough words and descriptions all bases can be covered. No way. Just skimming Houston's piece, for example, I stopped counting after I had reached nine passages which scream for "interpretation." Conciseness breeds clarity.

The brouhaha  in Ferndale over locating SOS, for example, has opponents of the move challenging a councilman's right to vote on the issue because he had taken a position on it on the Plan Commission. That kind of nit-picking can be done no matter how tightly written the controlling language. The only solution is to address each problem as it arises.-- FJV: 10 Aug 09

 		§ Frank;
I respectfully disagree in regards to an ethics ordinance. A clear, well-defined ordinance could have avoided the Bordine's mess. It can also clarify what is and isn't appropriate behavior and interactions among elected/appointed officials and volunteers without casting aspersions or innuendos. And an ethics board, with clearly defined responsibilities and powers, could give said ordinance some teeth and provide impartial oversight. It would be preferable if it not have to come via the ballot box, but this CITCOM as constituted is dysfunctional and incapable of doing the right thing. -- Rob Moore

Frank Versagi, here
 Where do we go from here?
I will be meeting with both Rob Moore and Frank Houston. In the meantime . . .

Even if Houston's Proposed Ordinance were a perfect document, I would oppose trying to get it on the ballot, because the attempt, especially if successful, will increase the bad-feelings out there which will otherwise diminish. I judge the effort to be an overreaction to what has happened and what is suspected about the ZBA/Bordine Affair.

However, this space remains available to Houston and to readers who wish, responsibly, to oppose or defend Frank's effort.

§ I finally had an opportunity to read the ethics ordinance being proposed by Mr. Houston. I must say, I hope this does not end up on the ballot. The language in the proposed ordinance (at least as I see it) would cast questions of ethics violations on virtually aspect of governance within the city. While I am hopeful that CITCOM will adopt a more "common sense" ethics proposal in the near future, as the city needs clearer guidelines in this area, I hope everyone will take the time to read what is being proposed for the November ballot, understand the full ramifications, and politely decline signing it. I will say however, Mr. Houston's actions on this issue have clearly lit a fire under CITCOM's collective butts and for that I say ...."well done". -- Clyde Esbri