Proposal 1, and why you should vote for it

Sad....

This is one of the least informed articles I've seen posted here.

A few simple items:

1) Financial insolvency: This piece is written as if mayors and councilmembers put their cities into insolvency all by themselves. You fail to take into account cuts to critical funds local governments depend on, such as revenue sharing and K-12 education funding. The state, through these types of policies, has had more to do with the financial crises facing local governments than local mayors or councils have. Another example is the repeal of the Personal Property Tax, which we may see happen after the election, in which no replacement funds have been identified... yet another cut to funds local governments depend on for police and fire protection, etc.

2) Detroit Public Schools: DPS was in the black before the state takeover in 1999. Once given back to local control, there was an insurmountable budget deficit.

3) Track record of EFMs and EMs. The EM in Pontiac sold the Silverdome for $500,000, drastically under market value. Robert Bobb, as EFM of DPS, ballooned the budget by over $200 million under his watch. Many other examples exist.

4) The hypocrisy of the law's application. As Eclectablog pointed out, in a very well-researched and informed piece, majority white communities have been spared under PA 4 while predominantly minority communities have had their local governments dissolved: http://www.eclectablog.com/201...

5) Principles: It should go against every true American's principles to usurp elected leaders' power based upon another elected leader's definition of "emergency." It's just a bad precedent and is not in line with American values.  

---

by: MIChange @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 16:57:36 PM UTC

American values...

1. None of the places that are in current fiscal emergencies had artificial emergencies foisted on them by cuts in revenue sharing. And, at least one place -- Allen Park -- went into a fiscal emergency because it invested badly.

2. The Detroit Public Schools were originally taken over because it was failing to educate children. That's the same as a city that can't get the garbage picked up. It wasn't a decision made for no reason.

3. The Silverdome was sold for the best price that anyone was willing to pay for it. I'm very sorry, but if no one is going to buy your asset and you need to sell it -- and there's no need for a city to own a stadium that isn't used -- then you need to take what you can get for it.

4. Arguing that P.A. 4 is racist in nature waters down all legitimate issues of concern involving race. It's like insisting that a law that applies to criminal behavior statistically more likely in urban areas is racist because the people imprisoned under it are statistically more likely to be African Americans.

5. There is nothing inherently unAmerican in firing people who don't do their jobs properly. There is nothing inherently unAmerican about removing from power corrupt, stupid, or incompetent public officials. In fact, there is a very long list of low-level public officials who've been removed over the years by governors across the country. In fact, Rick Snyder is empowered to remove local officials himself.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 17:56:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

unAmerican

Firing people may not be unAmerican but it is inappropriate for elected officials.  That's what recalls and elections are for.  If a Financial Manager (existing law) were appointed to my City to clean up their mess I would vote them out as soon as possible.  Prop 1 is unnecessary.

---

by: alec.therien @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 18:25:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Elected officials get removed from office all the time

And, it's not just members of local governments, but legislators and Congresspeople. Just a few years ago, the Senate booted David Jaye from office. Based on this argument, that should have been left to his constituents.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 18:34:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

unAmerican

Firing people may not be unAmerican but it is inappropriate for elected officials.  That's what recalls and elections are for.  If a Financial Manager (existing law) were appointed to my City to clean up their mess I would vote them out as soon as possible.  Prop 1 is unnecessary.

---

by: alec.therien @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 18:25:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not true.

1) Actually, nearly all of them have. The revenue sharing problem isn't new, it's been going on for years, particularly with regard to the City of Detroit (consent agreement).

2) Regardless, when it was handed back to the locals, the deficit had been run up by the state. To say the deficit in following years was because of local incompetence is disingenuous at best.

3) No.

4) Wrong again. I can legitimately claim that there is institutionally racist elements in the "War on Drugs" - just as many others do - and not diminish concerns involving race. As laid out in the article I posted above, and as seen in practice, PA 4 is used with impunity in minority cities, but special legislative changes are used to cover up similar financial distress in majority white cities.

5) Wrong again (there's a theme developing). This isn't about "firing people." This is about removing duly elected officials, unilaterally breaking contracts, and more. I'll stick with the elected officials, since that's what my original comment was addressing. The David Jaye example does not hold water - he was removed from a body of government by a majority of members of that body of government (the State Senate voted to oust him). Apples/oranges in comparison with a Governor having the ability to take over cities and school districts. Aside from the "un-American-ness" of unilaterally removing elected officials, I defy to you to deny that it is un-American to have an unelected, unaccountable person in charge of all decisions for a city or school district. Voters did not put him/her there and they have no way (via an election or recall) to remove him/her. It just doesn't fit in with our way of life.

---

by: MIChange @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 19:06:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

'Tis true

1. Revenue sharing and school funding affect local governments across the board. If revenue sharing were responsible, every Michigan city and school district would be in terrible financial straits. They aren't.

2. No, not regardless.  Detroit Schools were failing before the state took them over. Also, they were managed back under the old emergency financial manager law, which wasn't working.

3. Yes.

4. There is nothing inherently racist in the emergency manager law.

5. It is about firing people. That's what happens when you elect someone to office. You hire them to do a job. If you fail to do the job, you get fired. And, there is nothing unAmerican about appointing people who are unaccountable to a vote of the people to run things. Look up "territorial governor" on the Google machine. Also, again, the governor is empowered to remove elected officials. All the EM law does is delegate that authority to a designee of the governor's choosing. And, an EM is accountable to voters. If a city's voters don't like the way an EM is fixing things, they can vote out of office the EM's boss. New EM boss, new EM.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 19:51:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh?

Wow, I thought this was Michigan Liberal.

1) It is one of the reasons why urban communities are suffering. Other reasons include the financial crash, foreclosures, auto industry struggles. None are significantly impacted by "mismanagement" to the degree that such drastic measures as prescribed in PA 4 should be used.

2) Yes, regardless. We are talking about fiscal solvency. The fact is that when the state took over, DPS was financially sound. When they dumped it back to local control, it was hundreds of millions in debt. Yep, let's then take it back over under the guise of "fiscal mismanagement."

3) No. A $20 million deal was on the table less than a year before the $500,000 sale.

4) As explained above in my post and by Eclectablog, its application has been inherently racist. Claiming otherwise does not make the evidence go away.

5) One city can't vote out a governor. How is it okay that the ballot box is okay with you to remove a governor, but not okay with you to remove local electeds. Should the President be able to appoint an Emergency Governor to a state that is not operating in a way he or she sees fit? Laughable - almost as much as the territorial governor reference. We aren't governed by a King here anymore, either.

Liberals and those who value democracy will be voting NO on Proposal 1. We can certainly address ways to make sure our cities and school districts are financial sustainable without giving up our (or anybody's) right to vote and without handing unprecedented power to one unaccountable official... let's not even get started on the corruption made possible via EMs!  

---

by: MIChange @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 19:59:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Liberal doesn't mean condoning bad government

Good government is good government. Bad government is what happens when a city goes insolvent.

1. True, and looted pension funds aren't because of fat cat union workers. However, an unwillingness to address lost value in public assets and pension funds, and an unwillingness to bring governance into line with available resources is incompetence. Hundreds of Michigan governments have navigated the decline in resources without going insolvent.

2. Not when it comes to school districts. A failing city is one that isn't picking up the garbage. A failing school district is one that is failing to educate students. The roots of the problem may be in poor use of money, or it might be managerial incompetence.

3. Yes, and the deal fell through and upkeep was killing the city of Pontiac. So, they sold it to the highest bidder available with the money. What happened is the exact same thing that happens when you sell something on eBay that in previous auctions had brought in $200, but only nets you $100.

4. No, I'm sorry, but there isn't anything inherently racist with the way the law has been applied. Allen Park. Also, Eclectablog is the guy who once howled, "Treason!" because the House gaveled a bunch of shit into Immediate Effect when in fact it's common procedure. Also, people said it was a racist law before anyone even tried to implement it. They said it was a racist law, and lo and behold, later found evidence that they were right all along.  Sorry, doesn't wash.

5. The governor is empowered by the constitution to remove elected officials. A lot of people, in fact, said that Jennifer Granholm should have removed Kwame Kilpatrick from office using her powers. So, there isn't anything inherently unAmerican in a chief executive removing people elected to office. PA4 delegates that authority from a governor to a representative of the governor's choosing. The point about territorial governors is that there isn't anything inherent about people being appointed to run the affairs of towns and cities, because territorial governors used to be political appointees. The scale is different, certainly, but not the practice itself.

It is possible to still appreciate democracy and vote in favor of Proposal 1. There is nothing liberal about enabling bad government or incompetent officials.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 20:25:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suppose we can stop w/the #s

I'll refrain from the numbered format for this response. We can go back and forth on #1, 2 and 3 indefinitely, I guess.

On removing Kilpatrick, that is another apples to oranges comparison. The Detroit City Council formally asked Granholm to intervene and remove Kilpatrick while providing reason of a breach of public trust (the handling of the whistle-blower suit). There was also a hearings process that was eventually halted due to the plea deal Kilpatrick entered into that required his resignation. Another difference is that had Granholm removed Kilpatrick, the mayor would not have been replaced by an individual of her choosing, but the normal line of succession would have been used (Council President becomes Mayor). The Emergency Manager Law is nowhere near this situation in practice nor in spirit.

And with regard to the racially-biased application of the law, I am not trying to stir up any blogger-vs-blogger animosity, I am merely pointing to the article that shined some light on the practice we all knew was happening anyway. It's not even so much a case of where EMs have been appointed, but the lengths to which Republicans from majority-white areas will go to avoid having their own EMs, and that similar measures would not be taken to spare cities populated mostly with folks of a different hue.

A policy does not have to be overtly racist to be inherently (or institutionally) racist. To use the War on Drugs example, I do not believe that policy was conceived as a way of oppressing minorities. I do believe, however, that in practice it has absolutely done just that. Therefore, I reject the policy until it is either done away with or refashioned in a way that does not put an undue burden on one segment of the population.

So, do I think Rick Snyder woke up and wondered about how to disenfranchise minorities? No. Do I think that the effect of the policy that he implemented has done that? Yes.

And, at best, assuming there is no racial implications of the application of PA 4, there is an electoral one. Citizens in those municipalities affected by PA 4 are disenfranchised from voting.

It is similar to Terri Lynn Land's plans to close Secretary of State branch offices. Sure, that makes sense, save money. And then about 22 out of 26 (or somewhere along those lines) of the closures were in Democratic districts.  

---

by: MIChange @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 20:49:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vote Yes on Proposal 1

Public Act 4 is an overreach and to achieve the reform of the law you say you desire can only be accomplished via its repeal.  There is no other way to get there.  

---

by: LiberalBubba @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 17:14:11 PM UTC

To get rid of PA4, we need to vote No on 1

Since it's a referendum, voting Yes would keep the law on the books. Voting No would scrap it from the books.

Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott

---

by: ScottyUrb @ Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:08:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for clarifying that, Scott.

Because I'd actually heard it both ways.  I thought a "yes" vote is for repeal, but it seems that the actual question asks if you'd like to keep the law.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:14:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree

Well, I agree in the sense that I will be voting for this repeal. lol  This was really quite sad to read.  You don't take a cleaver to a surgery when you need a scalpel, plain and simple.  There was absolutely no need for the expanded powers.  The previous law "didn't work" because either the governor in charge was afraid to really use the existing poweres (Granholm) or the states' economy wasn't in a free-fall (Engler).  The difference for cities was the recession and years or a decline in state-funding, not how cities are being run.

Honestly, this doesn't make sense.  There is an existing law already in place if this is repealed, so, yeah, it'd VERY MUCH make sense to repeal this existing law in whole and then have the legislature work to beef up previous law if you feel it isn't adequate.

God, this is crazy.  Simply crazy.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 21:26:04 PM UTC

We had these arguments 18-20 months ago on this very site

Such as:

14 February 2011:
http://www.michiganliberal.com...

Here's me on 21 February 2011:

Don't forget the "other shoe" -- The likelihood for sweeping changes to laws governing Emergency Financial Managers.

Once Gov. Snyder and the Republican-controlled Legislature impose their austerity measures, school districts and municipalities will try cutting, try millages, try to merge services as Snyder demands -- perhaps in an effort to win some of the "grant" money that will be made available in place of lost revenue sharing.

There's a bit of a Thunderdome aspect to the competitive "grants" -- since we don't really know how winners will be chosen, we're likely to see "reforms" at the local level that exceed what's coming out of Lansing, as local units fight each other to show they're "worthy" of the state handout.

But in any event, there will be hundreds of school districts, towns and cities that fail (as "failure" gets redefined)...and these will get the "other shoe" as the Legislature imposes an EFM on them.

EFMs under the proposed changes will have powers that dwarf what Robert Bobb has in the Detroit Public Schools. A new-era EFM can potentially void contracts, decertify collective bargaining agreements, privatize services, eliminate departments, issue mass layoffs, sell assets and control academic curriculums -- all with reduced oversight or rights to appeal.

Hey, look, you and I went 'round and 'round on this topic back on 25 April 2011:
http://www.michiganliberal.com...

The Problem isn't that there are EMs or a need for them -- The problem is that the law was entirely ghost-written by the Mackinac Center and ALEC, with Al Pscholka serving as the ventriloquist's dummy.

The speed was astounding -- it took just over two months from Gov. Snyder's first mention of strengthening EFMs at his State of the State message to the day he signed the new law granting absolute power with minimal accountability -- and dominant Republicans swatted aside every Democratic attempt to add accountability or limit the power.

There are no limits on EM pay, benefits or authority (either for themselves or anyone THEY hire to help them); no requirements that they hold public meetings or solicit voter input before making decisions; no rules on conflicts of interest or recusals; they don't even have to put new contracts up for competitive bids or seek the best possible price when they sell community or district assets (such as beachfront property or school buildings - such as the Pontiac Silverdome). [bolded statement and new italicized text added]

These are the problems. Focusing on Benton Harbor or DPS allows proponents to point at just how bad things are with those places, and remind us that Harris and Bobb were appointed by Governor Granholm.

I expect that the large majority of the coming wave of EM Czars will at least try to take their job seriously; they will have credentials far exceeding the laughably minimal requirements set forth in the law; and thety'll focus on being in power just long enough to resolve the financial emergency (among the powers granted is the ability to set up millages to raise revenues).

But it will only take one or two to read the LETTER of the law, realize that there's NOTHING preventing all manner of corruption, and get busy.

Pointing out the possibility of a worst-case scenario is our duty. Then, when it happens, it'll be our job to make it public and hang that corruption around Republicans' necks like beads at Mardi Gras. "Willie Horton"-ize it, if you will.

Check the comments under your 23 April 2011 post: http://www.michiganliberal.com...

It's not wild supposition to extrapolate worst-case scenarios.

Republicans and Tea Partiers did it RELENTLESSLY during the health care debate, seeing "death panels" in their reading of the bills while they were still being finalized.

The EM law, as written, is an all-you-can-eat buffet of things NOT stated that the new crop fo EMs will be able to exploit.

To not point out the possibilities for corruption -- while questioning why Republicans were in such a HURRY to pass the thing without even considering the many common-sense and good-governance amendments offered by Democrats -- is to hand victory to Snyder and the Mackinac Center.

and, later in the thread on 3 May 2011:

Appointed EM Czars serve at the Governor's whim. They can also be impeached by the Legislature, like other public officials.

So, possibly, appealing to the Governor could have an impact -- especially if Snyder sees that his EM Czar is giving him bad publicity by his or her actions.

But it's the things that happen behind closed doors -- and with EM Czars, EVERYTHING THEY DO can be done behind closed doors! -- that could truly put the screws to local citizens.

Raising holy hell AFTER your professional fire department is merged with the neighboring town's all-volunteer FD, or AFTER City Hall is sold to a developer (with the City committed to paying rent for the next 99 years), or AFTER that protected wetland is sold to Walmart, isn't really going to help much, even if the EM Czar gets fired.

Shall I go on? Public Act 4 is BAD LAW -- poorly-written and hastily-passed. It needs to be thrown out so the Legislature can try again in 2013...hopefully with Democrats in control of the House so their voices can finally be heard.

Vote NO on Proposal 1.

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." ~ Harlan Ellison

---

by: helzapoppn @ Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 14:58:07 PM UTC

Brilliant

Thank you for this, especially this:

they don't even have to put new contracts up for competitive bids or seek the best possible price when they sell community or district assets.

This was never about "good government," at least for the drafters of the law, even if we take Snyder to be benelovent (I don't).  I mean, Prop 1 is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.  It's one of the shittiest pieces of legislation to cross the governor's desk.  It's a gross over-reach that doesn't actually address the preceived problem.

Here's the thing.  This isn't even a liberal-conservative divide.  This is about cronyism plain and simple.  There is nothing conservative about selling the Silverdome for pennies on the dollar, that's for damned sure.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 00:40:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed

And the track record of Robert Bobb and Roy Roberts in Detroit is proof positive of the cronyism and corruption that EMs bring.

The law also misses the point. These cities, in the vast majority of cases, were not driven to fiscal insolvency purely through local mismanagement. The state is to blame at least as much as the locals.

---

by: MIChange @ Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 14:43:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you AVOIDING me here, Eric?

Interesting how our Moderator decided to submit an entirely new article, restating his Yes on 1 arguments YET AGAIN, rather than reply to my post here.

Do you even care that the EM Czars assigned to the Muskegon Heights and Highland Park school districts came up with the same "solution" -- hand over day-to-day control of the schools (buildings, students, teachers, all of it) to out-of-state for-profit charter school management corporations, and leave the "District" a shell that does nothing but collect property taxes and pay down the debt?

If Proposal 1 passes, those plans will be implemented, and Michelle Rhee will be turning handsprings with glee as the State of Michigan creeps closer to handing public education over to private-industry, special-interest profiteers.

Does it matter that the single biggest objective of the forces swirling around the City of Detroit is the chance to privatize the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department? If you think water rates are high now in all the communities DWSD serves, just wait until a for-profit utility takes over.

The core of my argument is based off your last paragraph above:

Opposition to the enhanced emergency manager powers is understandable, and there are things in the law [that] should be fixed. Ultimately, citizens ought to have some say in what is being done to them, for instance.

This is the heart of my argument AGAINST PA4 and Prop. 1 -- it's a bad law, passed in haste with no input from Democrats or the Citizens of Michigan.

But, you don't get that by repealing the law outright. Outright repeal only enables the people who created financial crises in the first place. It doesn't fix anything.

Here, you're completely off-base. What will happen if Proposal 1 passes and PA4 is repealed is that in 2013 the Legislature will start the process AGAIN. Only this time the PEOPLE will be paying attention, and we WILL have the EXPERIENCE of PA4 to work from -- plus, if we're lucky Democrats will control the House -- so the result will likely be a law you and I can BOTH agree on.

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." ~ Harlan Ellison

---

by: helzapoppn @ Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 14:45:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not a trained poodle, I don't respond on command

That is all.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 16:08:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, and here I thought you simply didn't have a response

Not fun being proven wrong on your own site, is it?

Right about now is where some mods would reach out for their trusty Banhammer.

Don't be like some mods.

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." ~ Harlan Ellison

---

by: helzapoppn @ Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 21:08:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

helzapoppn

I like you, and largely agree with your opinion on this as you can read above.  BUT, calling out a mod like that in a days old thread is borderline trolling.  He made his argument and you made yours.  He can choose whether he wants to respond to it or not.  Don't let your rudeness step over your legitimate opinion.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 00:33:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]