 |
The Rasor/Bordine Affairs |
|
|
The Rasor/Bordine Affairs |
|
L'affaire
Bordine's CONTEXT: Last year, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted Bordine's a temporary variance, permitting the nursery to mount a sales area in a portion of the unoccupied industrial zone, best visualized as being north of Fourteen Mile and Coolidge. English Gardens took legal action seeking to prohibit setting up a nearby competitor. Circuit Court ruled in the ZBA's favor. This year, the ZBA refused to renew the temporary variance. Last week, VersagiVoice reported speculation that "the fix was in" to account for the reversal, and residents who agree with each other about most civic/political matters are at odds about this issue. NOW: Proponents for all sides (there are more than two) are claiming that because of a possible legal action they can't publicly say much that will explain it all when finally revealed. In the meantime, here's a sample of what's being tossed around:
There's more, but that's what I remember at the moment. Some of all this is funny; too much of it is ugly. Among the ugliness are political and legal repercussions and implications which need to be addressed in detail -- but slowly and responsibly. Friendships will end before this is over. -- 25 Mar 09
Bordine Nursery wins this round, but . . . I was for the renewal, but after reading that the company was hoping to use the variance for "as long as the industrial property remains vacant," I've lost respect for Bordine Nursery. Then there's CITCOM's attempt to get rid of ZBA member Jim Rasor, and the murky presence of Grand Sakwa in this affair, and the confused debate at CITCOM earlier about Grand Sakwa's development plans at Woodward and Thirteen Mile, and the involvement of former mayor, now counselor, Dennis Cowan. It ain't over. -- FJV: 15 Apr 09
From a CITCOM meeting Reader reaction was subdued this week. A quiet but dominant focus of concern can be expressed as, "What do we watch for as what you call 'the Jim Rasor Affair' proceeds?" I'll use this space to address that concern. Interest is both strong and widespread because city hall observers already have strong feelings, pro and con, about each of the two main players: ZBA member Jim Rasor, who is being threatened with expulsion from his volunteer-post; and City Attorney Dave Gillam, who has been assigned, in effect, the role of prosecutor in this legal hassle. Identified as supporting actors in the drama are Commissioners Stephen Miller and Carlo Ginotti, and we are sure to hear from others. Unfortunately, what should be a civic issue has become a political one.
What to watch for? In most such civic or political disputes, one can readily separate substance from procedure. In the Jim Rasor Affair, procedure is substance. From the limited information disclosed so far, Gillam will be contending that Rasor violated protocol somewhere in the process of distinguishing between his role as a ZBA director and as an attorney for Bordine Nursery. The back-and-forth of reaching the City's out-of-court settlement with Bordine might have been considered the substance of the debate, but it is unlikely that that legal settlement is significant at this point. Listening to arguments about procedure is second only to listening to budget talk in causing eyes to glaze over. So the problem for those attending or watching the forthcoming public hearing, if a hearing is actually held, will be not to pre-judge each esoteric argument based on one's feelings about the "sides." That's going to be tough, because I suspect many voters, even those who respect all the players, already know who they want to win this battle, and why. -- FJV: 29 Apr 09
Update re the Jim Rasor Affair Supporting language in the notice is divided into two detailed sections: "Conflict of Interest" and "Creation of Appearance of Impropriety." The notice lists documents which the City will present, and names four individuals who will "address the City Commission at this hearing: David W. Gillam, City Attorney; Mark O. Liss, Assistant City Attorney; Timothy E. Thwing, Planning Director; Douglas A. Hedges, City Planner." The notice, signed by Gillam, informs Rasor that he "may be represented by legal counsel, present evidence, and confront and cross-examine all individuals addressing the City Commission. Rasor is also informed that he must provide the City with "the name of any person who will address the Commission on your behalf, and a list of all documents that you will present. . . . by Friday, May 29, 2209." The hearing is Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at 7 p.m. -- 06 May 09 It ain't-over, Part III -- "It ain't over." -- 15 Apr 09 "It ain't over." -- 03 Jun 09 ONGOING And so the ripple effect of the Bordine/English Gardens fight continues. (1) The 2009 election will feel, has already felt, an impact. (2) The Zoning Board of Appeals will be seeing increased, and skeptical, attention, by residents as well as by the Sheriff's office. (3) Chronic disappointment and concern about CITCOM have been replaced by anger. (4) Party lines are being crossed on this one. Those city hall watchers who applauded the dismissal of charges against Jim Rasor include too many non-Democrats to validate any claim that this was a partisan attack against conservatives. Royal Oak politics may be approaching the clichéd "tipping point." In practical terms, the "off-with-all-their-heads" voices are contending that all the blame can't be leveled on one sub-group of commissioners. Equally to blame are the swing voters and the neutrals who -- once the swing vote is known -- say, "Well, let's make it unanimous." Hence, the rumbles about recalls. It ain't over III. -- 08 Jun 09
|
BULLETIN Charges of "conflict of interest" and "appearance of impropriety" against Zoning Board of Appeals member Jim Rasor have been dismissed. The 50-plus people attending the Administrative Hearing at city hall, characterized after the hearing as "a cross-section of Royal Oakers" by Mayor Ellison, applauded the decision. Ellison served as "judge" during the hearing. Co-Counsel for Rasor mentioned during the hearing that "three city commissioners" are being investigated, without naming the commissioners or the subject of the investigation. Before and after the hearing, members of the audience named the issue: Attempts by the three to influence ZBA votes during the Bordine/English Gardens controversy. And rumbles about, multiple, recalls were heard. And the series of related ZBA-related events will undoubtedly impact the November election. "Friendships will be broken before
this is over. -- VersagiVoice: 25 Mar 09 Next week's update will expand about all this. It ain't over. -- 03 Jun 09
What are city officials trying to hide? After very publicly revealing the then fuzzy complaint against Rasor (see 20 April CITCOM meeting), the City seems to be going to great lengths to avoid public awareness of the Administrative Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, 02 June. The City Hall posting of the notice was made late Friday, only after a citizen asked where it was.* Worse -- as this is written, the morning before tonight's CITCOM meeting -- the hearing will not be televised (or recorded?). One need neither like or dislike Jim Rasor nor have decided the merits of the charges against him to recognize that city officials are being unfair to the man and less than transparent to the public. Why? -- FJV: 01 Jun 09 * At 1:24 p.m., Monday, the following announcement appeared on the City's Website, if one thought to click Special Announcements in the list under General Information.
The Administrative Hearing was included in the announcements at the start of Monday's CITCOM meeting, and two Public Comment speakers addressed the matter. The commission, Ginotti absent, voted unanimously to conduct a Closed Session before the hearing. Former commissioner Jeanne Sarnacki invited civic activists to attend the hearing.
§ Frank,
How can you suggest the City is trying to hide anything on the administrative hearing? You have a detailed summary of the "missing" hearing notice on your own web site and you have had it there since May 6! I also don't understand why you would expect a hearing like this to be televised. This is not a normal Commission meeting. The proceedings will be closer akin to a court proceeding than to a regular Commission meeting. We don't televise court proceedings. We do televise all regular Commission meetings, Planning Commission meetings and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings. In addition, we do televise some but not all special City Commission meetings. We did, for example, televise the two special budget meetings last week. These also appear on our web site. Very few cities provide as many televised meetings as Royal Oak and far fewer provide meeting videos on their web sites. -- Donald E. Johnson, Interim City Manager and Director of Finance § I ask that you
join me tomorrow, Tuesday, 7 PM at Royal Oak City Hall for |
|
Summary of the Administrative Hearing As he had said he might, during Public Comment the night before, Jim Rasor's Counsel, Dennis Cowan, had the hearing videotaped. His informal comment, after the hearing, that he would offer the tape to WROK brought two reactions from those who heard him: (1) The city would probably not permit the channel to show the tape, and (2) "This will reignite the whole WROK 'he said/they said' argument." Now that the charges against Rasor have been dismissed, perhaps that becomes a non-issue. The hearing opened with a reading by Mayor Ellison of the charges against Rasor. Cowan, repeating the complaints he had voiced at CITCOM and maintaining the hearing would be "tainted" if Commissioner Miller sat on the panel, was unsuccessful in having the commissioner disqualified or forced to recuse himself. Co-Counsel David Gorcyca announced that an investigation was pending against three Royal Oak city commissioners by the Oakland County Sheriff's Office. Formally, he named neither the commissioners nor the reason for the investigation. Both before and after the hearing, discussion among attendees centered on inappropriate attempts to influence ZBA votes during the Bordine/English Gardens debate. The person who first raised the issue locally was in the audience. News reports have since named Dave Poulton as that person. See http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/2009/6-02-09/Royal-Oak-investigated.asp. There was some legalistic squabbling over memos, client/attorney privileges, and such following a request by Commissioner Ginotti for a ruling about whether Miller had a conflict of interest. Miller made no comment. He has since resigned from CITCOM. City Attorney Dave Gillam, in his role as a witness, read a statement into the record summarizing his professional résumé and the sequence of events which led to his recommending that a hearing be held. At the heart of his description of those events was the truthfulness of Rasor's statements about having received approval for returning to the ZBA table after recusing himself to speak as Bordine's attorney. Cowan, drawing on pertinent Michigan law which calls for charges to specify malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, moved to dismiss the charges because none of those terms was used. As a layman, I think I heard Cowan maintain that it was meaningful that Gillam frequently referred to Rasor as Bordine's attorney, not as a ZBA member, when Gillam described the actions he considered improper. There was legal and lay debate about the meaning of this or that exchange of memos. Somewhere in there, the question was asked whether a ZBA member who intends to run for city commissioner, as Rasor intends, must resign from the ZBA. The less-than-rigorous reply seemed to be that no one could find a law which mandates such a resignation. Such a ruling would affect two other prospective candidates for commissioner serving on the ZBA, Andrew Androff and David Poulton. Commissioner Ginotti asked, essentially, "Even if Mr. Rasor has done what has been charged, does that rise to the level of calling for removal from office?" Ginotti addressed his question to Gillam, who was still sitting in the witness chair. Cowan objected that Gillam, a witness, could not properly speak as an advocate, so Ginotti tried hard not to look at the witness as he pursued his line of thought. Ellison, in his role as
judge, ruled that the charges be dismissed. The 90-minute hearing was adjourned, and the audience of 50-some city hall
watchers applauded. Sampled,
they cited two reasons for the applause: (1) they agreed with the result and
(2) a potentially long drawn-out legal proceeding was avoided. |
BULLETIN Charges of "conflict of interest" and "appearance of impropriety" against Zoning Board of Appeals member Jim Rasor have been dismissed. The 50-plus people attending the Administrative Hearing at city hall, characterized after the hearing as "a cross-section of Royal Oakers" by Mayor Ellison, applauded the decision. Ellison served as "judge" during the hearing. Co-Counsel for Rasor mentioned during the hearing that "three city commissioners" are being investigated, without naming the commissioners or the subject of the investigation. Before and after the hearing, members of the audience named the issue: Attempts by the three to influence ZBA votes during the Bordine/English Gardens controversy. And rumbles about, multiple, recalls were heard. And the series of related ZBA-related events will undoubtedly impact the November election. "Friendships will be broken before
this is over. -- VersagiVoice: 25 Mar 09 It ain't over.
|