  Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 81 Registered: 01-2009 |
Interesting showdown about to take place. Monica will attend! http://freep.com/article/20090 304/NEWS01/90304060/Cockrel+to +hold+news+conference+today+on +Cobo | ||
Staticstate Member Username: Staticstate Post Number: 26 Registered: 07-2008 |
just out of curiousity - is there any reason this stuff all goes down at 4:00 pm? seems like everything (deadlines, statements, etc) seem to happen at 4:00 pm. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9542 Registered: 10-2003 |
Question: Why is it Detroit is never clear on what the charter does or does not allow? Why is it always a mystery? They don't know if the mayor can veto the council? This has has never come up before in the governance of Detroit? They didn't know if the council could oust the mayor? Is it written in Aramaic? | ||
Gdub Member Username: Gdub Post Number: 271 Registered: 10-2003 |
Just after they roll out of bed and get a hair appointment in. You know, priorities. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 787 Registered: 03-2008 |
I think it's safe to say that Mayor Cockrel doesn't waste a whole heckuva lot of taxpayer time & money on hair care..  | ||
Gdub Member Username: Gdub Post Number: 272 Registered: 10-2003 |
He just gets a wax job, I would guess. | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1601 Registered: 05-2008 |
I'm waiting for MC to launch a scud at KC before the night is over. Or, at least before the 6:00 PM news... (Message edited by lodgedodger on March 04, 2009) | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 82 Registered: 01-2009 |
It's all in the judicious use of cold cream for that shiny look, at least so I hear. No wax involved. Shaving the head would be tedious, I'd imagine. Easier just to wear a hat. | ||
401don Member Username: 401don Post Number: 941 Registered: 11-2007 |
And once again lawyers on both sides are toasting to the idiocy that is Detroit politics. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1388 Registered: 11-2003 |
4:00 PM is enough time for the announcement to made and for the TV news reporters to put together the story (interviews, what they're going to say, etc) in time for the 5pm news. It's also not too late for the print reporters, although with the web-focused nature of things, that's part is becoming less and less important. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 370 Registered: 10-2007 |
Cockrel will veto the Council's action. Now the fight begins over whether he actually has the power to do this. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1184 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Why is it Detroit is never clear on what the charter does or does not allow?" Blame Lansing lawmakers. They wrote the law to give the Council, not the mayor, the option to reject the transfer of Cobo. The legislation seems pretty straight forward. State law trumps the city charter. | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1603 Registered: 05-2008 |
We really need to revise the City Charter. | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1604 Registered: 05-2008 |
Monica just held a press conference in front of the Spirit of Detroit statue. She just used the phrase, "Spirit of cooperation". I'm going to throw up now. One of the reporters asked her about a $100 million dollar debt. MC replied it was fictitious. Anyone catch that? To which debt was the reporter referring? IMHO, I don't believe Mayor Cockrel has the authority (referencing the Charter here) to veto the vote. I also believe the no one should give in to the Gang of Five's demands. | ||
Brg Member Username: Brg Post Number: 34 Registered: 02-2009 |
I believe Cockrel is playing a losing hand. A veto is used when you as the chief executive can kill a bill that you are not in favor of. The City Council voted down the deal. End of story. The mayor can't force them to vote again to pass it. I don't understand what Cockrel is vetoing. The powers to be just have to craft a new agreement and hope that Queen Bee likes it. | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 506 Registered: 11-2005 |
So in other words, you are saying that a legislative body can just keep passing laws to vote down a deal from an upperbody. So your saying that a veto can't go against a legilative body killing a deal. Either way, what city council votes on is a resolution or bill or whatever you would like to call it. In no way does the cobo bill say that normal politics can not work. It says that there will be no deal if city council chooses, but anything city council does must be validated by the mayor. This is the way it is in any city, township, town, or county with an executive. The mayor of Detroit has the legal right to veto this resolution passed by city council and inorder to move the cobo expansion forward. | ||
Bosch Member Username: Bosch Post Number: 63 Registered: 11-2008 |
Lets see, if you veto a no vote, that makes the project approved? I think not. The absurdity. | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 83 Registered: 01-2009 |
From what I've read in the charter, ANY council action, save the appointment of council staff, is open to a veto. This is how the strong mayor system works. Same as the State and National government's relationship with Governor/President to their respective legislatures. | ||
7miledog Member Username: 7miledog Post Number: 79 Registered: 03-2008 |
A couple of points: 1) Sorry, I don't have my city charter handy, but, procedurally, the state legislation required Council to disapprove the deal by date certain. Council did that by resolution. The Charter says a council resolution can be vetoed. That happened. This one is really a toss up and could go either way. 2) MonCon told the Teamsters rep at the council hearing that none of the workers setting up for the Auto Show looked like her. Doesn't Detroit currently own Cobo? Then why aren't ALL of the workers Black? Why don't any of the workers look like her if the Blackest city in the country determines who gets the contracts? So what will change if it goes to an authority? (Pss, the answer is that there are only so many contractors who can do the work). | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 920 Registered: 11-2003 |
Mr. Cockrel delivered some excellent remarks at his press conference. http://media.freep.com/pdf/030 4_cockrel_vote.pdf He spoke persuasively on why the Cobo deal is good for Detroit. He also called out those who would "cry 'wolf' on racism" to promote a political position as disrespecting those who fought true racism in the past. That was a good move. Detroiters who disagree with the empty claims of racism by Conyers/Collins/Watson need to stand up and challenge them publicly. The region and the state, Detroit's partners, need to know that not all Detroiters adhere to the destructive politics of these three wrongheaded leaders. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 371 Registered: 10-2007 |
This is the operative part of the Charter on the Mayor's veto power: "Sec. 4-119. Veto. Every ordinance or resolution of the City council, except quasi-judicial acts of the City council including any under section 9-302, appointments by the City council or action taken under section 2-107(2-3), 4-102, 4-105, 4-108, 4-109, 4-120, 4-121, 7-1006, or 12-110 of this Charter, shall be presented by the City clerk to the mayor within four (4) business days after adjournment of the meeting at which the ordinance or resolution is adopted. The mayor, within seven (7) days of receipt of an ordinance or resolution, shall return it to the City clerk with, or without approval, or with a veto and a written statement explaining the veto." The first problem here as I see it is that the Council did not in fact make an "ordinance or resolution", but instead turned one down. The mayor sounds like he's treating the "no" vote as itself a "resolution," but that seems to me like a mighty expedient redefinition of what happened. Can the Mayor actually override a non-action by the Council? Certainly at any higher level of government the executive (President, Governor) doesn't have this power. A further complication here is the involvement of the state, which expressly sent the matter to the Council for approval (or disapproval). Does the Mayor have the right to, in effect, overrule this directive? It also sounds like the Council's Research & Analysis people have told Conyers that a ruling by state A.G. Frank Kelley back in the '70s blunts the Mayor's veto power. Although that decision seems to address only the right of local executives to veto certain types of appointments, where the right to make those appointments is given to local legislative bodies by state law. Monica seems to think that this all will force the state to renegotiate the deal. But it will be very interesting to see if Monica and her friends are willing to take this all the way to the wall. Way back when I worked at the Council a somewhat similar situation arose concerning Mayor Young's actions, and after making a lot of noise the Council members who opposed his actions eventually shut up and let him have his way. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4217 Registered: 10-2003 |
7miledog, you gave a very good explanation about why this is a toss up. If the state hadn't been involved, Cockrel could have easily vetoed this and called it a day. That the state crafted this to give the council the power to break apart the deal is what brings into question Cockrel's power to veto this. I don't think the state of the mayor believed council would kill this. They thought it was a slam dunk. I guess this is just a lesson in never underestimating the unpredictability of the Detroit City Council. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1185 Registered: 07-2007 |
Here's the section of the state law that's under discussion: "Sec. 19. (1) Within 45 days of the effective date of this act or the date on which a metropolitan area becomes a qualified metropolitan area and prior to a transfer date, the legislative body of the qualified city in which a qualified convention facility is located may disapprove the transfer of the qualified convention facility to the authority by adopting a resolution disapproving the transfer. If the transfer is not disapproved, the qualified convention facility is transferred to the authority on the ninetieth day after the effective date of this act or the date on which a convention facility becomes a qualified convention facility." Contrary to what was posted above, the Council did have to adopt a resolution stating their disapproval. Based on what "Eastsideal" posted about the Mayor's ability to veto resolutions, I would revise my comments to say that it looks like that the Mayor can veto the resolution. His veto kills the resolution. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1855 Registered: 12-2006 |
Novine, that's clear to you and I, but we aren't the courts We'll have to see how this plays out in our vaunted legal system. If I'm the judge, which I am not, here's how my decision goes: the State gave the City Council the power to disapprove the transfer by resolution. That is in there exactly: "by adopting a resolution disapproving the transfer". The City Charter gives the Mayor the power to veto an ordinance or resolution of Council. That is also in there, explicitly. So since the Mayor can veto a resolution, his veto invalidates the resolution, thus the transfer is valid. Just in case someone appoints me judge. I'd be happy to do it, and for a very low fee. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 372 Registered: 10-2007 |
Ahhh, I missed the fact that the disapproval itself had to take the form of a resolution. That would indeed seem to tip the scales a bit more towards Cockrel. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4220 Registered: 10-2003 |
BTW, the council like most other legislative bodies, can reverse a mayoral veto with a two-thirds majority. | ||
Waymooreland Member Username: Waymooreland Post Number: 125 Registered: 11-2007 |
So, then, assuming that the three council members who voted in favor of the expansion don't change their votes (and they won't), that still puts the opposition just slightly short of a 2/3 majority, as 2/3 = 0.6666... and 5/8 = .625 | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 86 Registered: 01-2009 |
Which is why the council should always have a full compliment of members. Always having an odd number of council persons prevents this from happening. Of course I'm sure that no one could have forseen the domino effect from KK's ouster. I'd hope that the council observes the fallout and amends the charter to prevent situations like this, among others. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4540 Registered: 02-2004 |
YAY COCKREL! Fight your veto! Cobo Hall is in dire need of regionalization. But those Coleman A. Young folks want to Detroit to stay primative and kick out progess. | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1608 Registered: 05-2008 |
Special Council meeting today at 5:00 PM to override Mayor Cockrel's veto. | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 87 Registered: 01-2009 |
Well,that action alone should tell you something. I guess that the veto is valid after all. Otherwise why would one schedule a vote? | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1611 Registered: 05-2008 |
According to the News, the charter would only allow a vote to overturn a veto at a regular council meeting. | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1612 Registered: 05-2008 |
What I find interesting is State Law gave the Council a "say" in the matter. Council says Cockrel's veto isn't valid because he's following the Charter, not the State law. Add to that, the Council scheduling a meeting to override the veto. A meeting that shouldn't be taking place because Charter language states the override should take place at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 88 Registered: 01-2009 |
So now it's obvious that there's no legal way for them to do this. Obviously clueless on a number of points. First, the mathematical impossibility of a 2/3 vote without another defection from the 3 that voted yes for the resolution. Second, the regular council meeting thing. What part of this don't they get? | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 89 Registered: 01-2009 |
All it would really take to blow this all up. is for a bill to be passed in the State House and Senate modifying the requirements of the previous bill. I'd bet they could get the votes. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1860 Registered: 12-2006 |
I love the whole idea of a special meeting. Ms. Conyers found a way to take something that was as much of a mess as it could possibly be, and make it even more of a mess! It's like when children use the phrase "infinity plus one" when arguing. Just, wow. | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 90 Registered: 01-2009 |
If the TV stations would show the meeting live, that would be so special for the region to see and remember, don't you think? History in the making. | ||
Leland_palmer Member Username: Leland_palmer Post Number: 537 Registered: 08-2004 |
Not to mention the fact that they are breaking the open meetings act by not posting the meeting 18 hours before the meeting is to take place. Taping the notice on you office door at 11:00 pm in a locked building dosen't count! | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1865 Registered: 12-2006 |
Well, Leland, it doesn't count here on Earth. But on City Council Planet, it might count. | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1616 Registered: 05-2008 |
Hey, if MC's charged with some sort of violation, perhaps this could be our ticket to get her out of office... | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1866 Registered: 12-2006 |
She wouldn't be personally responsible. If the group (or a quorum thereof) meets in violation of the Open Meetings Act, then the group is responsible, but what that means - what effect it would have on anyone or anything - is open to question. On Earth, one thing that would be certain is that any decisions made at such a meeting are null and void. But how it works on City Council Planet I can't begin to imagine. | ||
Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1617 Registered: 05-2008 |
Well then...I'm getting ready to charge MC with noise pollution. How's that? Once that's been proven... Sorry, I know I'm being an idiot, but I never, ever thought things could get to be so bad in city government. | ||
Baselinepunk Member Username: Baselinepunk Post Number: 131 Registered: 03-2007 |
For some reason, I get the feeling Monica may not have thought all of this out before she started this whole ta-do ... lol. Perhaps now she was/is going for a "power move" by trying to hold a meeting where the other three would not attend (they didn't sign the paperwork when Monica brought it by their homes today), then get a majority vote from the attending members for override. I know it sounds more like a "voice vote" thing at the Federal level, but ... hey, is she getting some advice from someone?! lol! | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 734 Registered: 08-2007 |
quote: Actually, Kwame Kenyatta would probably vote to override Cockrel's veto. Source: http://www.freep.com/article/2 0090305/NEWS01/90305031/Conyer s++efforts+to+override+Cobo+ve to+may+be+illegal The COBO deal is officially defeated! | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 92 Registered: 01-2009 |
Huh? One can't vote if they aren't attending. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1869 Registered: 12-2006 |
Where do you get from that article that he would vote on a veto override resolution at all? That's not what I got out of it. Nothing is officially anything until the courts rule on it, in the current situation. What will be interesting to me is to see whether they use courts on Earth or the courts on City Council Planet. I'd also like to see the 1978 AG opinion that the papers keep referring to. I'm curious how much of that is relevant to the current situation. | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 735 Registered: 08-2007 |
quote: Well, all Monica has to do is bring the resolution up next Tuesday for a vote and then it is perfectly legal. Where do I get that Kwame Kenyatta would probably vote for overriding Cockrel's veto? In the article I posted. Kenyatta clearly stated he believes that Cockrel didn't have the right to veto. It's not Kenyatta changing his mind and opposing the COBO deal, it is Kenyatta saying the council has spoken. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1870 Registered: 12-2006 |
Assuming the veto is upheld, Council can't do anything next Tuesday because the deadline will have passed. Maybe. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 378 Registered: 10-2007 |
The pdf file from the Council's R&A division that's linked to the Free Press story posted by Crumbled_Pavement above is quite interesting. Basically their position is that the Council can't override in time, because the time for them to act under the state's Cobo act would have expired by the next scheduled meeting on Tuesday, and also that by voting to override they would tacitly acknowledge that the Mayor had a veto power over this matter. R&A recommends that they go to court to get a stay of the Mayor's action and to seek an injunction. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1191 Registered: 07-2007 |
AG's opinion. http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opin ion/datafiles/1970s/op05354.ht m | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1872 Registered: 12-2006 |
Thanks Novine! That opinion was narrowly tailored as to result: "Where a statute provides that the legislative body of a municipality shall make certain appointments, the mayor may not veto an action of the council concerning appointment or removal of appointees even though the home rule city charter gives the mayor veto power over all ordinances, resolutions and proceedings of the council." However, reading further in, the opinion was explained in such a way that would make it applicable to the current situation: "The term 'legislative body' has only one plain meaning and we are bound by that meaning." So if a court was to follow the logic of that opinion, they would find that Mayor Cockrel had no role in this issue, and that the Council's rejection stands. But we'll see. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1192 Registered: 07-2007 |
The court case they referenced seems quite on point for the current situation and it's fairly recent (1977). Someone in Lansing thought it was a good idea to give the Council the final say. In this case, it's backfired. Here's another AG opinion on the same topic that explores this issue in-depth. http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opin ion/datafiles/1980s/op06136.ht m | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 739 Registered: 08-2007 |
For those who thought I misunderstood where Kwame Kenyatta stands on things: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20090306/M ETRO/903060424 | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 811 Registered: 03-2008 |
Crumbled, I believe you're taking Kenyatta's words wrong..what he appears to have said is that he would go along with hiring special counsel, because otherwise this BS will continue to drag on. In other words, hire the lawyer, go to court, and let Ken beat MonCon's ass with the help of a judge, and the city can move on. If Kenyatta resisted the hiring of counsel, it'd drag on with no resolution while Monica and pals further embarrassed the city.. | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 740 Registered: 08-2007 |
No, Kenyatta specifically said he does not agree that Cockrel's veto is legal, period. He supports the COBO deal but it is the council that must approve it and the council didn't approve it. Read the first article I posted. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 812 Registered: 03-2008 |
I stand corrected, having read the first article. Looks like you're right, at least on the surface..I'd give anything to be able to read the councils collective minds (be a short story, in some cases) and figure out WTF is really going on.. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1214 Registered: 07-2007 |
Based on the AG opinions and the related Michigan Supreme Court cases, I would say that the Mayor's legal position is weak. Here's the section of the AG's opinion that lays out the legal case. "A recent case involving a discussion of the veto power of a mayor is The Raven, Inc v City of Southfield, 69 Mich App 696; 245 NW2d 370, rev, 399 Mich 853 (1977). The issue was whether a mayor, whose veto authority was almost identical to that contained in the Westland Charter, may veto the council approval of a liquor license. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the Mayor could not veto the City Council's approval of the license for the reasons stated by Chief Judge Danhof, in his dissenting opinion: 'It is axiomatic in the law that where statutory language is plain, certain and unambiguous, such language is not subject to construction by the courts. Nothing could be plainer than the term 'legislative body,' as employed in this context. To what purpose would the state Legislature add the modifier 'legislative' if they intended that the local executive should join in the approval process? The Legislature could have chosen to employ terms such as 'local unit of government' or 'local legislative body and executive', but did not do so. The term 'legislative body' has only one plain meaning and we are bound by that meaning.' 69 Mich App 696, 702-704; 245 NW2d 370, 373 (1976)" Here's the language from the law that's in question today: "Sec. 19. (1) Within 45 days of the effective date of this act or the date on which a metropolitan area becomes a qualified metropolitan area and prior to a transfer date, the legislative body of the qualified city in which a qualified convention facility is located may disapprove the transfer of the qualified convention facility to the authority by adopting a resolution disapproving the transfer. If the transfer is not disapproved, the qualified convention facility is transferred to the authority on the ninetieth day after the effective date of this act or the date on which a convention facility becomes a qualified convention facility." What the courts have said is if the legislature gives the legislative body (the Council) the power to decide an issue, any provisions in a city charter that allow a mayor to veto such a decision are nullified by the language of the state law. |
