VersagiVoice’s repeated complaints about CITCOM’s micromanaging are “unfair criticism.” . . . Relationships with others, in or out of government – including a few “obligatory beers” or equivalent – are an indispensable part of civic/political dialogue. . .  . For anyone who cares, “the pace of government is a frustration.” . . . About the current Miller-initiated budget dialogue, “the atta-boys outnumber the criticisms.” . . . Newly elected officials “at first tend to blindly follow the lead of the Administration.”

That’s Commissioner Mike Andrzejak talking, in a wide open exchange which, momentarily forgetting he is an incumbent seeking re-election, I sought from a man I consider the Dean of  the current city commission. The threads of such conversations are best thought of as interlocked fingers, and the arbitrary breakout into named segments here is simply for convenience.

CITCOM relations with the Administration
I have more than once pointed out that – in any city – there inevitably exists dynamic tension between an Administration and elected officials. For one thing, employed Staff are generally in place through multiple changes in commissioners or councilmen, so it is hard for the Administration not to consider itself a group of professionals having to deal with an ever-changing group of amateurs. Consider that context as you read Andrzejak’s  thoughts.

Mike’s counterattack to my “micromanaging” complaints is straightforward: “Who if not the commissioners will hold the city manager and the department heads accountable? How else do elected officials serve as the voters’ protection against self-serving or unwise operational decisions and policies?” He mentions problems over management of the golf courses and of the ice arena as recent examples but says the need for such oversight was there in previous Administrations, even during the time that then-city manager Larry Doyle “was pretty much a rubber stamp for strong mayor Dennis Cowan.”

Elected officials have to guard against the understandable tendency of the Administration to spin information it presents to CITCOM to reflect the Administration’s preferences, he says, and against the truism that “bureaucrats will always run to the taxpayer,” wanting increased millages. One responsible tactic to insure accountability is for the legislative branch to demand timely minutes from meetings or to call for regular audits. “The Total Soccer operation  situation needs attention and oversight,” Mike cited as an example.

Though not excessively, personalities come into play now and then, as when the agenda published on a Thursday included selling Normandy Oaks, but that item was absent from the agenda included in the commission’s Friday Packet.  “Those of us on the committee who studied the proposals had narrowed the field to Pulte‘s and decided that Normandy Oaks should be on the agenda. We were told later that one commissioner had voiced objection to having it on the agenda. To this day, I maintain that that was an improper action, to have one commissioner remove an agenda without even making the request in writing. Three commissioners, or less, do not a majority make.”

That led me to comment that City Manager Tom Hoover is so good that some city hall observers wonder about his behind-the-scenes maneuverings. I asked Mike simply, “Do you think Hoover carries his appropriate maneuverings to the point of deviousness or dishonesty?” Andrzejak’s’ reply was an immediate “No,” and he went on to repeat that what some consider sneaky away-from-The-Table deal-making is simply necessary exploration of positions and options. Such working conversations help the participants learn where each is coming from.

Agreeing that there are pluses and minuses to every management and operational style, Andrzejak remembered that Doyle operated by treating with department heads separately, keeping them from talking too much to each other. Hoover holds regular staff meetings to exchange information among the departments. As is true of every executive, in either the public or private sector, “there are a couple of department heads who don’t like him.” To which I added “and some who didn’t like Doyle or Baldridge before Doyle.”

Ranking the elected officials
When appropriate, I ask my interlocutors to rank their colleagues, so I can compare their ranking with mine. Mike humored me to the extent of listing the current CITCOM from 1 to 7 in terms of effective performance, but – having seen so many elected officials come and go -- what he really wanted to talk about was characteristic types, only some of which can be identified among his present legislative partners.

• Newbies (he calls them “greenhorns”) tend to follow the lead of the Administration. As they grow in knowledge and confidence they become more independent. "There is a 6 – 12 month learning curve, before a newly elected official sprouts his/her wings."
• Senior members will offer to mentor, tutor, the newbies – with partisan politics making up only a small part of that tutoring. “Certainly, Ellison would be the likely tutor for Lelito, a fellow Democrat, as I would be for Miller.”
• Now and then, a newbie will display early independence by refusing to be mentored. “In my experience, these types are slow to learn how to effectively move an idea forward through the system.”
• There have been elected officials who do no homework before each CITCOM meeting. Worse, some don’t open their Friday Packet until they get to The Table. “This is a serious failing, because the materials in the packet are seldom in the same order as items on the agenda, so the materials have to be re-arranged. Worse, some packets will contain sealed envelopes which should be opened and reviewed prior to a meeting.”
• Most elected officials grow in office. Others, for any of several possible reasons, “essentially retire but remain at The Table.”
• Competent or not, knowledgeable or not, a lack of people-skills greatly reduces an official’s effectiveness, both at The Table and behind the scenes. "Never make the debate personal."
• "Serving on the Commission is like being in a marriage without the option of a divorce."                                                                       
• Mike agreed with me that Jim Ellison is “too nice,” but he made the point  differently, by comparing Ellison’s chairing of CITCOM meetings with Cowan’s. In attempting to be fair and objective, Mike surmises, Jim seldom samples the commissioners before important meetings. A mayor sometimes needs to “shepherd an idea through the commission, but Jim mostly lets the discussion happen, rather than guiding it. Although my philosophies sometimes differ from Jim’s, I think he is an honest man.”

Budget Matters
Currently, Andrzejak is being praised and criticized for his role in helping Commissioner Miller introduce serious budget considerations. not long after the latest budget was adopted.  “Did you see anyone else come up with anything substantial?” Mike asked. As only one example of the benefits from Miller’s aggressiveness, “There is logic to investigating the District Court’s Building Fund when its $1.8 million cannot possibly be needed for yearly maintenance and such.”

As he sees it, the Administration dawdled during deliberations earlier this year, and in the past three years. He recalls offering Hoover “10 or 12” suggestions, about such matters as regulating parking at the Farmers Market, dropping  the deputy city manager, dropping one of the two deputy police chiefs, amending parking enforcement hours later into the late evening, outsourcing the assessing duties to the County, etc. The Administration’s reaction? “Hoover wrote a memo opposing every single suggestion.” although, over time, action was taken on most of  Mike’s suggestions. “It frustrates me that it took two or three budget cycles to adopt some of these ideas."

As does almost everyone, Mike praises new Finance Director Don Johnson. Even so, Mike is among those whose suspicion is aroused every time money is “found” here or there. Andrzejak couldn’t resist calling attention to the $6-plus million shortfall which diminished rapidly when the right questions were asked. Mike can understand that voters get suspicious when money to raze the Water Works Building is found in an EDC fund which almost no one had heard about. (The Economic Development Corporation was created by the CITCOM sitting in 1980. Spending any of the money it accumulates must be approved by both the EDC and CITCOM.)

“Slush funds” or padding the budget is suspected, Mike says. And the lack of rigorous auditing of so-called enterprise funds bothers him. Then there is plain misunderstanding which can only be cleared up by detailed discussion (“not micromanaging”). For example, that statement that there has already been attrition of 60 positions. “Not really. There has been attrition of 25 or so. The other 30-40 were vacant but were being budgeted for.” The surprise discovery of the Water Department/General Fund I.O.U. transaction raised red flags for both elected officials and voters.

The dynamic tension which exists between any Administration and Legislature greatly affects budget consideration simply because, Mike repeats, "The bureaucratic mindset automatically thinks of increasing taxes."

The coming election
On the one hand, because he is a candidate for re-election, Andrzejak and I avoided talking about the upcoming election. On the other hand, I wanted Mike’s first impressions re the possible impact of retired City Attorney Brain James’s decision to run for mayor. Because Andrzejak is up for re-election, this part of our discussion was short.

• If James uses “dirt” in his campaign, “He knows where the dirt is,” but any attempt to label opposing judgments as dirt will backfire on James. “The City Attorney and City Clerk offices are two places which learn about everything that goes on at city hall.” If James runs a campaign on the issues, he will be a viable candidate, because his positions will be in clear contrast to the mayor's. Not taking a position as his choice for mayor, Mike does think “it’s a good thing to offer the citizens a choice.”
• “Although I don’t expect a millage request to be on November’s ballot, I do think this November’s race is turning into a classic pro millage/anti tax increase match up. For my part, I will not support asking for additional taxes until we get current employees paying a portion of their healthcare benefits (currently only about 5 employees out of 350+ pay towards their healthcare), and until the Retirement System is reformed. I cannot ask taxpayers to pay more to maintain benefits that are not available in the private sector.”

In a separate and unrelated conversation with me, Mayor Ellison acknowledged that being an incumbent and a candidate will call for some difficult judgments about whether and how to respond to any campaign attacks. “I will need to separate defending  commission decisions from counterattacking challenges to my personal performance.” 

44^th District Court
Our discussion about Court/City relationships and operations can also be summarized in bulleted capsules.

• Re the Court’s Building Fund, which Miller wants examined, “It makes sense to ask whether the current 80-20 split is still valid and to wonder whether there is any justification simply to let that fund grow."
• The City Attorney office, in essence, supplies the Prosecutor for the Court, “I still have a great problem when our prosecuting attorney pleads 12 DUI charges down to non-alcohol related offenses without the authorization of then-Interim City Attorney Gillam.” He points out that even pleading one DUI to a non-alcohol offense is grounds for immediate termination at the County.
• In City/Court interactions, personality-driven cozy relationships and institutional animosity have both occurred.

Mini-Bio
Michael Andrzejak, age 45, is an entrepreneur insurance broker with his office located in Royal Oak. He is divorced with no children. A lifelong resident of Royal Oak, Mike furthered his education at CMU from 1980-1985. He is a longtime board member of the Boys & Girls Club of SOC. Past President of the Royal Oak Prevention Coalition. He currently serves as Chair of the city’s LCC committee, and chairman of the board of the Royal Oak Employee’s Retirement System.

He co-chaired the campaign to sell the former senior center, that allowed a new and 33% larger M&M Center to be built at no cost to the taxpayers. He, along with former Commissioner Laura Harrison conceived, and spearheaded the renovation and expansion of the Salter Community Center, also done with no, or little, cost to the General Fund. He also made every motion to buy the Farmers Market from the County to preserve it from being lost to redevelopment.

Mike’s interest in politics began early. He recalls deeply being involved with 20 campaigns for others, including former mayors Cowan and Stocker, before making his first run for office. Of the 20, “We won 17.” He served 1995-1999 as commissioner, and mayor pro tem from 1997-1999, was unsuccessful in two runs for mayor (two of the closest mayoral races in the city’s history), and was top vote-getter again as commissioner in 2003. He is currently serving his second stint as mayor pro tem, since 2005.

Inevitably, because I have several times chided Mike for being a Puritan re alcohol, he addressed his votes for and against granting liquor licenses, mentioned elsewhere in this piece.  About himself, he acknowledged youthful drinking, occasionally to excess, concluding, “These days, a 6-pack in my refrigerator can last six weeks or more.” And about liquor licenses: “I prefer five-100 seat bistros over one 500-seat venue” and “I welcome only venues which won’t need a bouncer.”

List of Coffee Conversations