So maintains Dave Richards, former Royal Oak city commissioner (1983-91) and general practitioner attorney. Although currently civically in the background, Richards retains an active interest in civic/political matters. All I had to do was suggest, for example, that this or that city official was or is a "rubber stamp," and he provided an overview of local politics from the time of Mayor Barbara Hallman and City Manager Bill Baldrige to the present.

Dave, 60, an active Democrat, grew up in Royal Oak, is married to Janet, has two children, Jennifer and Aaron, graduates of Royal Oak Schools. He has lived in Royal Oak 55 years. The other five years were spent in San Francisco, where his children were born and he went to law school. He taught school for two years before going to law school, and has been active with numerous city committees and boards, and is currently active with the Optimists and the Boys and Girls Club. His mother was a librarian in Royal Oak and his father was a long time school teacher and counselor in Hazel Park.

I commented that there must be something in Royal Oak’s water which generates anger during discussion of everything from school millages to condos. Richards agrees that "for at least 15 years there has been an almost tangible loss of civility when public issues are debated. He agrees, too, that it is difficult to identify causes for that loss of civility.

"But for the last two years, I would say that people are reacting to the bad economy locally, the Iraq war, and the polarization in Washington." The mood of the public is not optimistic, and some of the tensions over one concern "carries over into other areas." Unfortunately, Richards reports, "the same lessening of civility is also noticeable in the legal community."

About here in our conversation, Dave began quietly yet vehemently to make his case against the current President Bush, even while saying he was generally supportive of Father Bush and of Gerald Ford. I suggested he write those thoughts for possible non-conversation publication in VersagiVoice.

Returning to Royal Oak, the major change is the resurgence of a vibrant downtown since the early 80's after years when "downtown" meant "a handful of destination retailers and a larger number of second-hand stores." He sees the development as a good thing. "It’s active and its safe. Residents and visitors can come downtown for a movie, a play, music, entertainment, dinner."

As have I, Dave has friends and acquaintances who openly state they preferred the "quieter days."

The conversation turned to local politics. I mentioned that some current and past officials tell me I am naive when I contend that partisan politics plays almost no role in city government, that most local issues simply don’t have a Democrat/Republican dimension. He replied that party politics plays an "insignificant role" in conducting city business, even when – as now – most elected individuals can readily be identified with a political party. There is a partisan element, but it is secondary to officeholders’ outlook on city government. 

Dave chuckled when he offered, "During my two terms as a commissioner, and since, I found that the Democrats tended to be more sympathetic than the Republicans to the concerns of local business owners."

I have occasionally noticed a similar phenomenon, and I attribute it to the Republicans’ attempts to demonstrate that they are not unthinkingly pro-business. It’s a bit like the owner of a family-owned business who is extra-critical of his son’s work, to ward off charges of favoritism.

Despite disputes and disagreements, Royal Oak officials over the years in Richards’ eyes "have always been honest, never corrupt." However, Richards adds that it is impossible to ignore the "role of ego" when reviewing the performance or decisions of elected officials, so it is reasonable sometimes to suspect they are posturing.

"On the other hand," Dave reminded me, "on some issues a large number of people are going to disagree with decisions of elected officials no matter which position they take on a given issue. The city manager and the mayor, especially, are going to be targets of criticism or questioning because of the nature of their offices."

When I said that the late mayor Barbara Hallman is said to have initiated excessive oversight of staff, of "micromanaging," Dave rushed to correct that impression. In his memory, micromanaging became an issue in the early nineties with commissioners Phil Abraham and Tom Kuhn. "The Asset Management Committee was the primary vehicle used."

Asked if he considered former city manager Larry Doyle a rubber stamp for former mayor Dennis Cowan and his commissioner-colleagues, Richards observed that compared with prior city manager Bill Baldridge Doyle was more passive at commission meetings, "but he brought forward issues which needed attention and he voiced opposition to the commission on selected issues he seemed to feel were important. He was aware of the attitudes of his seven bosses and had to work within that climate."

When one of us remembered city manager Bill Baldrige – who was respected by most and strongly disliked by some – we recalled a strong city manager who by many was considered the city’s spokesman. Dave recalled that Baldrige avoided public conflict with the commission "by exercising control over which items appeared on the agenda, and by a lot of one-on-one conversations before each meeting. When he could see an initiative was not going to fly, he would either back off or modify the proposal to satisfy the objections, and the conflicts would not become a public issue."

In any case, Dave added, "Remember that any city manager has to please at least four members of the city commission to retain his position!"

For a while our conversation turned to attorneys and the issue of tort reform. Highlights:

• Huge tort recoveries are really rare, but because they are widely reported, the public has a mistaken impression about their scope and frequency. On the other side, when no compensation is obtained in claims that the general public would think are meritorious, it is never reported. If the McDonald’s scalding coffee case is an example of an overly generous jury, it has been reported at length. Deserving people not compensated is not considered news.
• Even then, the sensational reports don’t always present complete information, but are presented in edited form to promote a point of view.
• There are those cases where personalities and status trump issues - a la Feiger, O.J., Michael Jackson, which are totally unrepresentative of what happens in the real world for everyday people.
• Even though most businesses are honest and concerned about safety of customers, the tort system is a non-governmental way of encouraging safety and providing a sense of fairness for people where exceptions occur. And where exceptions to conscientious protection of the public occur, sanctions are required not just for the injured party, but also for the benefit of competitors who have not cut corners to save money.
• Replacing juries with 3-judge panels is not a good idea. The average person would tend to be more skeptical of an adverse decision coming from three professionals than from a lay-jurors, and respect for the law would be reduced.
• Getting a "jury of peers" is difficult, and perhaps not possible in an absolute sense, because of (a) the preponderance of retirees and (b) the ability of sophisticated individuals to get out of jury duty.
• No-fault insurance was a good "reform."
• Effective reform of the tort system is unlikely because of the strength of the special interests and prevalence of misinformation.

Despite Dave’s obvious interest in civic issues, he currently serves on no civic committee (he was "term limited" in the early nineties) and only occasionally watches city commission meetings. His involvement in politics has been to work in the background. Will he run again for political office? "Balancing family, work and politics requires the energy of youth," he answered, but when he leaves the practice of law, "I wouldn’t rule it out." -- Feb 2006