Does Detroit Council Need The Governor's Hubby Too

You are reading in this BLOG what you will NOT find elsewhere. Pass it on to your friends and colleagues who may want to understand what is happening in Detroit. It will explain what the vetoing and over-riding of the Mayor's veto really means

Here is a bit of information that might put into context for you the fun and games going on between the Detroit Mayor's Office and Council. Why it is getting so bad over there that the Governor's hubby may have to intervene as he did in Windsor to help make a dysfunctional Council function again. Just wait until you read what is being said below about Councillors in a Press Release! It makes the "in camera" fights amongst our Councillors seem tame by comparison. At least Detroiters and Windsorites have something in common: local Governments that seem to be fighting not governing.

I read an article about the power of a Detroit Mayor that states that

• "In the strong mayor form, the mayor is separately elected, may be removed only with great difficulty, and shares the executive power with no other elected official, or very few... city councils tend to act as oversight bodies and as checks on the executive, with relatively less emphasis on policy and program development."

Here are some views on the roles of the Mayor and Council.

1. It is the function of the Mayor to be the "executive" and it is the Mayor who "may propose a budget, plans, ordinances, contracts, appointments, and other policies or actions."
2. The Council "has the authority to delay, alter, or block such policies or actions."
3. "The City Council may have the responsibility for adopting the budget, but the Mayor has major responsibilities in preparation, amendment, administration, and financial reporting."
4. "Requests for the purchase or disposal of city property originate in the executive branch."
   
   

It is not all that different on our side in practice except for the concept of separation of powers. That is one reason that at the Joint Councils Meeting, our Mayor attended as a member of Council while the Detroit Mayor did not.

OK. Enough of Politcal Science 101, almost.

Here is what I read about the differences between ordinances and resolutions and this is essential to understanding what is going on and its effect:

• "An ordinance is passed to enact regulations of a general and permanent nature, enforceable as local law. A resolution is passed to express the opinion of the Council on some matter of a temporary or advisory nature, or to handle administrative business of the Council."

I give you this information so you will not be misled by what you might read about the veto and over-ride. Attached below is the Agenda of the Special Council meeting. You will note that "resolutions" are being passed ie "expressions of opinion" that cannot invalidate legally binding agreements. It is Council expressing their political disgust of what the "strong" Mayor's Office has done which is to act as the "executive." ie propose contracts.

It is a political fight between branches and not anything much more than that legally. Council's "resolution" cannot invalidate an agreement as this has been explained to me.

Naturally, the big focus is on the Bridge Co. because their deals were the ones for which the Deputy Mayor was being attacked. Be careful when you read what the legal effect of the resolutions are on their contracts too.

Take a look also below at the Press Release distributed by Councillor Sheila Cockrel where she does NOT attack the Bridge Co.! As you read it, you will note the internal fight amongst Councilors as well. It's not a pretty story.

Detroit City Council
Special Session

Thursday, August 10, 2006

MAYOR’S OFFICE

1. Submittal of Veto Statement of Resolution that the Detroit City Charter was not followed in the execution of the document entitled, “Agreement Relating To Springing Interest And Master Concession Agreement By And Between The City of Detroit And The Ambassador Port Company.” And the City is not bound by the “Master Concession Agreement between the Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority and the Ambassador Port Company” dated June 21, 2005; and that the City of Detroit is not bound by the “Agreement Relating To Springing Interest And Master Concession Agreement By And Between The City of Detroit And The Ambassador Port Company” dated July 7, 2005, and that the same has been declared void by this Honorable Body.

2. Submittal of Veto Statement of Resolution that the Deputy Mayor is put on notice that he is not to sign contracts to bind the City of Detroit and that prior to the negotiations of any contracts at which he is present, it must be made clear to all parties involved, that the Deputy Mayor does not have the authority to contractually bind the City of Detroit, unless authorized by the applicable provisions of the Detroit City Charter and that if such action by Deputy Mayor Anthony Adams persists, that City Council will invoke Section 2-107 of the Detroit City Charter, as amended and require the forefeiture of his position as Deputy Mayor.

RECONSIDERATIONS

3. Kenyatta, motion to reconsider the vote by which the resol. Relative to “Agreement Relating To Springing Interest And Master Concession Agreement By And Between The City of Detroit And The Ambassador Port Company” etc. was adopted. ROLL CALL


4. Kenyatta, motion to adopt the aforesaid resol. Notwithstanding the Veto of the Mayor. (SIX (6) VOTES REQUIRED TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO. A “YES” VOTE WOULD OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO. A “NO” WOULD SUSTAIN THE MAYOR’S VETO. ROLL CALL

5. Kenyatta, motion to reconsider the note by which the reso. Relative to the Deputy Mayor is put on notice that he is not to sign contracts purporting to bind the City of Detroit, etc. was adopted. ROLL CALL

6. Kenyatta, motion to adopt the aforesaid resol. Notwithstanding the Veto of the Mayor. (SIX (6) VOTES REQUIRED TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO. A “YES” VOTE WOULD OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO. A “NO” WOULD SUSTAIN THE MAYOR’S VETO. ROLL CALL

MOTIONS ON WAIVER OF RECONSIDERATION

1. Jones, motion to waive reconsideration on all resolutions and/or ordinances designated for waiver of reconsideration on this agenda.

2. Kenyatta, motion to suspend Rule 23.

3. Reeves, motion to postpone indefinitely the motion to waive reconsideration.

DETROIT CITY COUNCIL Sheila Cockrel, Councilwoman
STATEMENT RE: OVER-RIDE OF MAYORAL VETO OF PORT RELATED RESOLUTIONS

I have voted YES to over-ride the Mayoral veto of the two resolutions re: the Port Authority “Springing Interest Agreement” and the role of the Deputy Mayor in the signing of official documents.

First, the need to develop the City of Detroit Port cannot be underestimated. For many years, efforts to revitalize the Port have limped along without necessary resources from the City or County. A stronger commitment is necessary to take a dormant major regional economic development asset and make it a vital force in the state’s transportation system.

Second, the Kilpatrick administration has shown real leadership in understanding the significance of Port development in diversifying this City’s economic base.

Third, I voted for the assignment in the May 2005 because I believed that it was vital to the City’s long-term interest to keep public control of the Nicholson terminal and bring into the Port a mix of public and private participants who could speed up the redevelopment of our port.

Fourth, it is unfortunate that subsequent to the Mayor’s ill-advised and unnecessary veto, a barrage of misinformation has been generated in the Community that has confused the issue of Port development with Riverfront development. The Riverfront has not been “turned over to Mr. Matty Moroun. It is preposterous on its face to make such an assertion. It is disingenuous and only helps those whose agenda is to keep our Port non-competitive with the City of Windsor, Port Huron and other down river interests. I am not clear what the Mayors reason are for his veto. They were not articulated in his veto message. I am curious as to why the Mayor would veto a Council action that is consistent with the advice of the City’s Corporation Council.

Fifth, it is equally unfortunate that members of this Council have once again chosen to use misinformation to achieve their political agendas by urging people to call certain members of offices and “threaten” members about their vote on this override or the signing the call for a Special Session. Let me make myself crystal clear. This Council is on recess. I was not available to sign for a Special Session. I do not believe that any Council member should allow a staff member to sign their name for a Special Session or that any Council member should sign for a Special Session BEFORE the date and time have been determined. I did not sign for this Session because I was NOT able to provide my signature and there was NO date and time provided by the document that had the signatures of President Cockrel and Ms. Watson. It is not necessary for Ms. Watson to instruct her supporters to call me and threaten recall if I don’t vote to over-ride. I will follow my conscience and do what I know to be the appropriate legal action that conforms to the City Charter, the City Code and the laws of the state of Michigan. Furthermore, I will vote for what I believe to be the best public policy that serves the interests of the people of this City.

Finally, I wish to see a thorough review of the “Springing Interest Agreement” in September. This analysis should include the harmonizing of the May 6, 2005 Council resolution with the Master Concession Agreement, any actions by the Port of Detroit Corporation and the Springing Interest Agreement. This evaluation should take place prior to any consideration of any version of a “Springing Interest” agreement by this City Council.

It is for the above-mentioned reasons I have voted to override the Mayor’s vetoes. Dated August 10, 2006.