Discuss Detroit DISCUSS DETROIT! Cockrel to hold news conference today on Cobo Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 81
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 2:11 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Top of pageBottom of page

Staticstate
Member
Username: Staticstate

Post Number: 26
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 3:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 9542
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 3:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gdub
Member
Username: Gdub

Post Number: 271
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 3:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just after they roll out of bed and get a hair appointment in. You know, priorities.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug

Post Number: 787
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 4:31 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think it's safe to say that Mayor Cockrel doesn't waste a whole heckuva lot of taxpayer time & money on hair care..
:-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gdub
Member
Username: Gdub

Post Number: 272
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 4:34 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

He just gets a wax job, I would guess.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1601
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 4:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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)
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 82
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 4:38 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

401don
Member
Username: 401don

Post Number: 941
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 4:43 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And once again lawyers on both sides are toasting to the idiocy that is Detroit politics.
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 1388
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 4:43 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsideal
Member
Username: Eastsideal

Post Number: 370
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 5:03 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cockrel will veto the Council's action. Now the fight begins over whether he actually has the power to do this.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1184
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 5:09 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1603
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 5:09 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We really need to revise the City Charter.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1604
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 5:15 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Brg
Member
Username: Brg

Post Number: 34
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 6:03 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rbdetsport
Member
Username: Rbdetsport

Post Number: 506
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 6:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bosch
Member
Username: Bosch

Post Number: 63
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 7:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lets see, if you veto a no vote, that makes the project approved? I think not.

The absurdity.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 83
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 7:42 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

7miledog
Member
Username: 7miledog

Post Number: 79
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 8:27 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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).
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 920
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 8:50 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsideal
Member
Username: Eastsideal

Post Number: 371
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 10:55 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4217
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 10:58 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1185
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 11:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1855
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 11:58 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsideal
Member
Username: Eastsideal

Post Number: 372
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 12:25 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4220
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 1:40 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BTW, the council like most other legislative bodies, can reverse a mayoral veto with a two-thirds majority.
Top of pageBottom of page

Waymooreland
Member
Username: Waymooreland

Post Number: 125
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 8:06 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 86
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 8:13 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4540
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 8:18 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1608
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 9:52 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Special Council meeting today at 5:00 PM to override Mayor Cockrel's veto.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 87
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 9:54 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well,that action alone should tell you something. I guess that the veto is valid after all. Otherwise why would one schedule a vote?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1611
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 9:58 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

According to the News, the charter would only allow a vote to overturn a veto at a regular council meeting.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1612
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 10:03 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 88
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 10:07 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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?
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 89
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 10:09 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1860
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 10:30 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 90
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 10:50 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Leland_palmer
Member
Username: Leland_palmer

Post Number: 537
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 1:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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!
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1865
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 1:08 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, Leland, it doesn't count here on Earth. But on City Council Planet, it might count.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1616
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 1:10 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey, if MC's charged with some sort of violation, perhaps this could be our ticket to get her out of office...
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1866
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 1:21 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger

Post Number: 1617
Registered: 05-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 1:27 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Baselinepunk
Member
Username: Baselinepunk

Post Number: 131
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 2:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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!
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 734
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 3:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Originally posted by Waymooreland:

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



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!
Top of pageBottom of page

Stosh
Member
Username: Stosh

Post Number: 92
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 3:27 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Huh?

One can't vote if they aren't attending.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1869
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 3:28 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 735
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 3:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Originally posted by Stosh:

Huh?

One can't vote if they aren't attending.



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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1870
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 3:46 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Assuming the veto is upheld, Council can't do anything next Tuesday because the deadline will have passed. Maybe.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsideal
Member
Username: Eastsideal

Post Number: 378
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 4:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1191
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 4:57 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AG's opinion.

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opin ion/datafiles/1970s/op05354.ht m
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1872
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 5:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1192
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 5:41 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 739
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 10:45 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Top of pageBottom of page

Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug

Post Number: 811
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 11:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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..
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 740
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 11:06 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug

Post Number: 812
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 11:31 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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..
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 1214
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 12:51 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.