On May 18th, Mayor Jankowski sent two letters; the first terminated Hamtramck City Attorney John C. Clark, the second hired James P. Allen for the position.
On the 19th, Hamtramck EFM Louis Schimmel responded by reinstating Mr. Clark as City Attorney citing his authority under Act 72, but by the 24th he had accepted Jankowski’s decision. The only caveat, Schimmel will retain Mr. Clark’s services for ongoing labor negotiations.
Hamtramck’s new City Attorney James P. Allen co-founded Allen Brothers, PLLC of Detroit, MI, with brother John M. Allen.
Hamtramck Star
Run out of Ypsilanti since 2005
What a coup!
If only the Mayor’s office would issue press releases.
If only they did not act in a vacuum.
Rob
Rob, when’s the meet-and-greet with the new guy?
Actaully the NEW FIRST TIME EVER City Manager won’t start until after the new charter takes effect on July 1 2005. We are currently talking contract details and will ask his input on how he wants to be presented to the City. My guess is we’ll have something immidiatly after July 1st. Maybe we can talk him into a parachute drop into Keyworth Stadium.
Any other more down-to-earth suggestions?
Rob
here’s a novel down-to-earth idea: how about if the new city manager just does the job for which he is getting paid $85,000 + benefits?
so was our new city manager actually fired as a city manager from three other cities on a 3-2 council vote? i thought that the yahoos on the charter commission who sold us this bill of goods claimed that the city manager form of government brings stability?
it is time for the council to seriously explore regional government and cooperation. it should start with a combined public safety dept in hamtramck working with other surrounding communities and the county.
The likely affect of “Combined” public safety is increaced response times. In places where cities have given up on maintaining their own police and gone with local townships or county coverage, the response times go up, the property values go down.
I suggest we take a hard look at this issue before we do something foolish and try to dissolve our police department or fire department.
Look at the choices, Wayne County, City of Detroit, Highland Park? I’ll stick with HPD thank you kindly.
Hamtramck
shouldshouldn’t combine Fire or Police with anyone.Perhaps, but instead of guessing at the likely effect, why don’t we actually look at the facts? Highland Park has been with the Wayne County Sheriff for a year or two now. Why don’t we look at that city’s crime statistics? Have they gone up or down under the County patrol? How do they compare with Hamtramck? If they have stayed the same at a budget savings, or reduced, then we need to seriously consider alternatives.
All I am asking is that we gather some facts.
What about it Council? Councilmember Rob brought up the point that the various pubic safety units in this City cost the tax payers 60 cents on a dollar.
Look at alternatives. The way Hamtramck does it today is expensive; it is the best way? This is certainly a long and tortuous discussion, but it needs to be raised.
Trying to use a rise or fall in crime statistics to make precise decisions is flawed. Since crime statistics only reflect reported crime, we can’t rely on them as indicators of actual crime.
When people know the police aren’t coming for at least 20 minutes many stop calling.
Some friends of mine were up in Highland Park in February photographing abandoned buildings when a County Patrol got out of their crusier to see what they were doing.
Both officers had their hands on their guns looking up into the windows of abandoned buildings with real looks of fear. “Do you know where you are?”, the officers asked them. Of course they don’t know HP or live anywhere near there. For whatever reason they’re afraid of it.
I’m all for looking at the impact of how integrating services affects communties. I personally don’t like the idea of paying police and fire officers that aren’t my neighbors.
Steven, did you mean “shouldn’t”?
If so, I agree.
I like bike trails and trees. However, Police and Fire response times are much higher on my list of priorities, when it comes to competing interests for our tax dollars.
There’ve been a rash of break-ins, on my block, the past few weeks, in broad daylight. Some of my neighbors and I have formed a loose watch group.
My intention, if I’m elected again, is to restore community policing. There may be grant opportunities to explore, to assist with funding.
Today, I still have both my parents, partly due to the quick response of the HFD.
Both the PD and the FD should be well-trained, and well-equipped. They are an integral and indispensable part of our community.
The primary purpose of municipal tax collection is to provide 3 basic services:
1. Police
2. Fire Protection
3. Sanitation
Just think what we could get for 61 cents on the dollar. More protection!
One point, Steve: Do you think Hamtramck Police and firefighters live in Hamtramck? By the large, the vast majority do not. In fact, it is just a handful on both forces.
But that is the first good statistic to gather: of the 68 or so police and firefighters in Hamtramck, how many live in the City? Councilmembers?
Do you think Hamtramck Police and firefighters live in Hamtramck?
I think they ought to.
State law says they do not have to live in the city they work in. This changed a while ago and is a big part of the problem. But thats also true with GM poletown and AM AX employees. They work here but take little personel interest in the city and then take thier (relative to Hamtramck) high wages and spend them out in the burbs where they do live.
But this is America and we can’t tell people where to live. We can entice them with a better community and we can tax them , but we can’t tell them to live in the city they work in.
We either have to compete with the burbs in the “quality of life areana” that in many ways is the dying myth of the American Dream, or we need to redefine the American dream, bring it more in line with reality and give people want they really want. (need?)
Rob
This thread seems to have gotten away from the fact that our Mayor has replaced our legal department with one of his choosing just 1 month before the City Manager is to “take charge” and will be appointing his own legal council. During the interviews (and discussions with others) there seemed to be a leaning toward not hiring a full legal firm but to have an in house attorney that takes care of routine legal matters and “jobs out” those cases needing special expertise.
This one month swicheroo goes against the concept of hiring a city manager to make these decisions.
Has anybody heard (or are willing to speculate) why the last minute short term switch?
Rob
Perhaps the divergence from the thread, Councilmember, is because people are more concerned about public safety issues and how to pay for them, rather than the latest pissing match between the Mayor, the Emergency Financial Manager, and the Council. Quite frankly, who cares about the attorney issue? How does it effect the quality of life in this community?
If I remember right, the Statewide residency requirement for fire and police was repealed by ballot proposition in 2000. Fire and Police in the rest of the State wanted it repealed because the service areas are much larger and most firemen are paid-on-call or volunteers and work other jobs. A large number were circumventing the requirement by renting an apartment or house in the City or using the address of a relative.
When we moved in, the wiring in our house looked like this. I shudder when I think about what’s going on in the empty houses next door to us. We need our fire department.
For the record, I care about what’s going on with our City Attorney. That’s why I took the time to write a post about it.
“why the last minute short term switch?”
why was Council in a hurry to sue Mr. Clark? Perhaps they have something to do with eachother.
Under current charter, the mayor has the power to appoint, as well as terminate, the city attorney, at his discretion.
What makes Rob think the new city manager won’t work with the attorney that the mayor’s appointing? According to the new charter, which gives the CM power of appointment, it also prohibits removal within the first 90 days of appointment, unless it’s for “cause”.
Does Rob already have “cause” to remove the new city attorney?
I would like to pose Rob’s own question, “why the last minute short term switch?”, to him.
Just yesterday, MEMORIAL DAY no less, the council held a “special meeting”, for the hiring of the CM. If the CM isn’t due to start until July 1st, why couldn’t those deliberations wait until tonight?
While the current charter gives the council or mayor power to call special meetings, it also provides for the council not to meet on holidays, and gives specific instructions regarding that.
What’s up with that?
Who called the secret meeting?
I think the council posted the required notice.
If I’m not mistaken, they hired a fellow named Donald Crawford, who recently moved to Grosse Pointe Park, from Illinois.
They did so without negotiating contract terms, and without a background investigation.
Since I posted my last entry, I heard they mentioned that one of the applicants wanted to know if he was selected by this morning, as their reason for calling the “special meeting” on Memorial Day.
Whether it was the applicant who was selected, another one, or none at all, is a mystery to me.
It does seem strange, almost like an ultimatum, if the info I received is accurate.
I think scheduling poorly-publicized meetings on National Holidays is shady.
Have to wonder if it’s the same Donald Crawford referred to in this document about City Managers in Illinois. There was a Donald Crawford that was city manager for DeKalb, Il but likely not the same person since that Donald Crawford was appointed in 1969.
If it’s the Donald Crawford from Streeter, IL The City of Novi already considered him.
Mr. Crawford stated he has a Bachelors Degree in Political Science, Economics and Public Address from Nebraska Wesleyan University. He went to Northern University and earned his Masters Degree in Public Administration and a second Masters Degree in Advanced Study. He has had numerous training courses and had taught at Oakland University in the Public Administration Program and at U of M Dearborn in the Public Administration Program.
Nebraska Wesleyan University!?
pkwik posted above:
“so was our new city manager actually fired as a city manager from three other cities on a 3-2 council vote?”
Phil’s pretty tight with the majority of this council, especially Rob & Scott. I don’t know where he got that info.
My understanding is that Mr. Crawford once worked for the city of Farmer, Illinois, as well as other places in the state. Farmer has a website, but it doesn’t seem to have archives of council minutes.
Hmmm, I studied Public Administration at U of M-D, 15 years ago.
Yup, this is our guy.
City Manager Donald Crawford says the property offers a lot of potential. And as a former city manager of DeKalb, Streator and Boca Raton, Fla., he has seen his share of development sites. — News-Gazette Online
Here’s a promising quote:
“Incentives for new businesses can also be unfair to current ones”, Crawford said.
Hamtramck sure as hell isn’t Farmer, DeKalb, or Boca Raton. I hope Mr. Crawford wants to work with us.
Cool quote. He applied for the job, didn’t he?
He’s coming in at a helluva time: in a hot election year, with a new charter, dealing with the state’s first municipal EFM, ever…
As Hill might say, whoo hoo!
I’ll be looking for her posting, about tonight’s meeting.
I’m off to work.
A couple of observations.
Yes, we should care about the city attorney issue and yes we should care about the public safety issue. That’s what elected officials (Rob) are for, to look out for us. So I do appreciate the fact that this issue is being discussed.
As for public safety, combining our police and fire in our urban-city setting would be a catastrophe (sp?). Our police and fire are busy enough. Could you imagine a house fire breaks out like the one last year that burned several houses. Our police (also firemen under combined program) are occupied with that. Meanwhile a car theft, or house break-in, a fight, or worse an assault is occuring and we have no one to send.
I think in Urban Settings seperate department’s are a good thing. I’m hoping that our candidates for local office feel the same way.
Secondly, I spoke to a Hamtramck Police Officer who explained residency to me like this. He stated he wouldn’t mind living in the city, however, the reason he chose not to was the fact that he had children in school. He feared that if he lived in our town that first, his family could become victim’s of retribution at their home and even worse he may have to arrest parents or his children’s classmates causing problems for his children.
We see already how many fights are breaking out at our high school over our different ethniticies. This even carries over to our parks after school hours. I must say I can understand his position.
Regardless of where they live (keep in mind they pay income taxes to our city too), as long as they are there to us during times of danger (which we have quite a few of those times in our great town).
A good example is this: I know that there are speeders everywhere in town, but when I personally spoke to another officer about running radar around Pulaski Park to catch these kids who shouldn’t have a license, he explained he would do so as long as he did not receive any other calls. He explained that we have like, I believe he said only 4 officers on the road at a time? and that it gets busy for the amount of officers they have out.
However, he did monitor the streets and did have to leave. But he returned several other times throughout the day (in between calls I believe) and wrote several citations to the reckless drivers up and down those streets. I still see him time to time trying to address the problem. I don’t care that he may not live in Hamtramck, I do appreciate his response to my neighborhood’s problem (ongoing as it may be).
Thanks for letting me post.
I agree completely that we need seperate departments for police and fire. They’re very different jobs and require very different types of people. Policemen spend years at the Police Academy; Firemen spend years in training and have to run drills constantly. I would rather have a professional fireman or policeman show up at my house than a hack. Right now, it’s about the only advantage to living in Hamtramck over Highland Park for people like Steve and myself.
Patrolling between calls is exactly how the police work. When there’s a call, patrolling stops. More than 2 calls at a time and the County or State Police help out.
The officer you spoke with isn’t the only one afraid to send their kids to Hamtramck schools. Many of the people we’ve met are moving or are trying to find alternatives. I think the fear of specific retribution is unfounded though. I’d like to know how often that happened before the requirement was scrapped. And you could always send your kids to another school.
“Many of the people we’ve met are moving or are trying to find alternatives. I think the fear of specific retribution is unfounded though.”
Is this the origin of the expression “cop out”?
Comment from: Hillary · http://hamtramckstar.com
“why the last minute short term switch?”
why was Council in a hurry to sue Mr. Clark? Perhaps they have something to do with eachother.
Hillary,
The difference between the councils consideration and decision NOT to sue Clark and Mayor Jankowskis abrupt dismissal of Clark Are several
The Council was not intending to sue Clark himself but felt it necessary to challenge Schimmels and the administrations Claim that because a department head had something to do with labor negotiations they did not have to respond to requests from the council. This came about when Schimmel stepped aside from the daily management of the city (Nov. 04) and limited himself to handling the union contracts. BUT in doing so he also declared that he still had full control over any person, that had anything to do with the labor negotiations. And that included just about everybody.
This put Barnett the controller, and Sabota the Operations director off limits to the council. Thus when we would ask for information they chose and picked what they would respond to. For example when we asked Barnet or Sobota to provide the revenue reports from the parking meters we were at first ignored, then given the run around with lame excuses including that the moneys went to the bank and the bank didnt report what was deposited (??) or that they collected monies on different days so never really knew how much was collected. Then when I learned that we did not have to rely on the bank to tell us what was collected from the Shopper world lot because the new system was computerized and provided its own report, we were told the entire shoppers world system had not worked since before Christmas but that it was too expensive to repair. And thats just one example of the administrations lack of cooperation. Another was when the police chief asked for more crossing guards and the council passed a resolution to hire them, we were ignored.
The lawsuit we were considering was to force schimmel to agree that while he could control all labor negotiations the Administration still had to respond to councils reasonable requests for non labor negotiation related items. It was limited and specific. Even then (about 2 months ago) we decided not to take any action because the new Carter and City Manager would be in place come July 1st and we would let the new CM establish procedure for department heads in this and other areas.
So the council was never intending to take action against Clark, other then the fact that he would represent Schimmel.
On the other hand the same week we hire a CM to be in position on July 1st, the Mayor fires Clarks firm and hires the firm of his choosing. Schimmel at first fights it but agrees to the new firm just as long as Clark continues with labor negotiations. This (to me) is a last moment attempt to undermine the new CM and even the charter itself. Also, I can not see the benefit (other than adding confusion) of hiring a new firm for only one or a few months. Clark may have not been our choice of Law firms (he was brought in by Schimmel) but while we may have disagreed with some of his opinions we knew he was working for Schimmel On the other hand I dont ever recall hearing anyone in the administration complain about Clarks work. Thus I have to conclude that this is a last ditch effort by a mayor who wants to make sure HIS lawfirm is in place when the CM starts. I say it was an unnecessary power grab that will only add confusion to what needs to be a smooth transition into the new era of the new charter.
I dont think we are questioning the Mayors right to appoint new council, I just say it was a very wrong thing to do and should have been left up to the new CM
Rob
Was Mayor Jankowski aware that Council didn’t intend to hire another lawyer?
The city should unload the parking lot at Shoppers World ASAP.
There are numerous ongoing legal matters, that need to be dealt with as we await the arrival of Mr. Crawford.
I don’t think it’s wise for the mayor not to utilize this upcoming month, in a way that he feels maximizes benefit for the community.
Mr. Crawford is not going to wave a magic wand, come July 1st. He’s going to have to “hit the ground running”, with a whole array of issues.
It’s Mayor Jankowski’s duty to prepare for the transition, in a way that facilitates mutual respect, and a good working relationship between himself and the CM.
Rob’s accusations should be viewed in light of the fact that he is determined to have Mayor Jankowski unseated, in the upcoming election. Rob’s politically loyal to his partisan “solidariy” slate member, who’s running against the mayor.
If I’m not mistaken, the solidarity slate has already held one fundraiser, at Rob’s home. Another is scheduled at the home of the former housing director, who was removed from that position by HUD, for financial wrongdoing.
He’s a valued member of this council’s political “team”, whose aproximately $80,000 job they protected, for as long as they could.
This council (aka the “solidarity slate”) refused to exercise their power to stop the mismanagement of housing funds, per the mayor’s recommendation, as called for in the city charter. They stalled to keep their political supporter on the taxpayer “gravy train”.
That, my fellow Hamtramckans, is CORRUPT.
I’ll close, in honor of Mark Felt (aka “deep throat”). It’s my opinion that his exposure of the extent of the corruption, regarding the cover-up of the Watergate break-in, was a courageous act of patriotism.
Julias accusations should be viewed in light of the fact that she is determined to get elected in the upcoming election. She is politically opposed to the “solidariy” slate because she wants to win.
Does she really beleive that the mayor has a lot of legal issues to work out before the CM takes office in 29 days?
I doubt she can name them.
And I have nothing against the Allan firm. Maybe he could have recomended them to Crawford and Crawford may have hired them but it should have been his doing not tom’s
Rob
Why shouldn’t the mayor exercise his power to appoint a city attorney?
Are you afraid he might catch you doing something wrong?
Like all those meetings outside the public meetings, that aren’t really “chance meetings” at social events?
A quorum of council, getting together for lunch or dinner, is NOT a chance meeting, per the Open Meetings Act.
So the only reason Julia can mention out of the “numerous ongoing legal matters” is to “catch the council doing something wrong” and she even presents that in an accusing and threatening tone. No wonder nothing got done while she was council president and the budget board of which she was a member failed to pass a budget during the two years she was president thus necessitating the State to take over.
She may try to blame others for not cooperating but I’m sure that every reader of this blog can see how it is impossible to work, or even hold a conversation with her.
So now its all clear, the mayor had to fire Clark’s legal firm and hire his own so that the new guy could investigate the council.
Or maybe they will spend the next month investigating my academic credentials, a subject julia seems to be a bit obsessed with.
Here’s a clue; it all started at an early age.
Rob Cedar
My day job has been draining much of my energies and I’ve had scarce time to keep up with this blog (right on Steven and Hillary) let alone post to it. As for updating my own blog? Slack, please.
But enough about me.
Thanks are due to Rob for hitting the nail on the head with his previous comment.
I know the following will be read by Julia as a personal attack on Julia, and I’m fully prepared to be lambasted as a member of a corrupt mob subject to elitist groupthink, blinded by ridiculous minsinformation, yet, guided by good intentions, but here goes:
Julia has a valuable point of view on many of the topics broached and discussed. However, any good Julia has to bring to the table as a student of government affairs, and any good she may conceivably bring to council should she win election, is completely undermined by her boundless obsession with the perceived machinations and motivations of her opponents.
Which leads, uncharacteristically directly, to my point:
One issue and one issue alone has plagued councils and mayors in Hamtramck: an inability to reach concensus.
Obviously there are myriad shadings, exceptions and complicated factors to any given issue, and as issues compound things can become infinitely charged and complex. But in the end, a common solution, informed by passionless examination of facts and sober estimations of the outcome, must be developed and accepted by all.
Consensus.
Bickering and battling, sometimes referred to as spirited debate, serves a purpose, assuming it all leads to consensus. Any official we elect must be capable of this.
And no, “consensus” is not the same as “groupthink”. Anybody in a hurry to confuse the two doesn’t deserve anybody’s vote.
One more time and again and again: I applaud Julia’s passion and insights.
Her consensus-building abilities?
Well…
Thank you Rob.
I’ve seen Julia in action and I think she’s certifiable!
Ish
Ad Hominem attacks do nothing to further debate Ish, they aren’t helpful.
Regarding mike’s comments about “perceived machinations”, I say look at the record, and follow the money trail. That’s something few have the time, or inclination to do. I had to. It was my job.
Mike also said, “But in the end, a common solution, informed by passionless examination of facts and sober estimations of the outcome, must be developed and accepted by all.”
I have to say that I agree with that statement, however that his friends on the “team” refused to do just that.
Mike mentioned “consensus”, which was arrived at by the “solidarity” slate. Their solution was to continue to spend us into near bankrupcy, under a plan which the state department of treasury said “did not contain the thoroughness or detail commensurate with a thoughtful consideration of the issues involved”.
Their “consensus” was to ignore the facts, and re-elect gary, who proclaimed “we’re as far from receivorship as we are from the UP”, as well as phil, who was assuring everyone “we’ve got plenty of money”, while accusing me of “spreading doom and gloom”.
Their “consensus” resulted in state takeover.
Regarding Rob’s comments that while I was President of the council, the budget board “of which she was a member failed to pass a budget during the two years she was president”.
That is absolutely UNTRUE! As a matter of fact, the last budget passed by the budget board was done when I was President of the Council. We did it without gary & phil, who deliberately absented themselves from the meetings, because the votes weren’t going their way. It’s public record, and on videotape.
When I was President of the council, I proposed a budget schedule, according to the timelines in the charter. Phil said that the start date I suggested was too early and we adopted the schedule he proposed, by resolution.
When the time came for the first meeting, according to Phil’s schedule, I called for a recess of the regular council meeting (which we were in the midst of), to convene as a budget board. Phil got up and left the room, leaving us without a quorum to conduct business.
It was clear that he didn’t want to have a budget board meeting in gary’s absence. I then got up, went into the hall (near the mayor’s office), to ask phil to come back for the council meeting, which he did.
It’s all on videotape, and the budget schedule is contained in the minutes, which should be available online. The fact that the budget board I sat did adopt a budget, contrary to what Rob posts, should be part of the record, available online, as well.
There were minutes of budget board meetings, which are also public record.
The 98-99 budget, passed by a quorum of members, working after hours, and on weekends, was hammered out by myself, former councilwoman Ellen Phillips, former councilman Mike Witkowski, and former clerk Ethel Fiddler. I’m not sure if councilman Wozniak worked with us throughout.
When the date came, for the public hearing on the budget we passed, which was held out for public review, former mayor zych pulled a switcheroo, and submitted a budget with inflated revenues, which was adopted by a council majority (Kwik, Phillips, and Wozniak), over my objections.
Mayor zych’s misadministration failed to stay within the budget prepared by his own office, and when that became apparent, the financial records were allegedly “lost” in a “software crash”. When I requested the back-up discs, I was told by the computer consultant, under the mayor’s direction, that the mayor wanted the back-up discs “recycled”. Only a few were retrieved.
Again, most of these facts are preserved on videotape.
With regard to Ish’s comments about me being “certifiable”, I’ll say that I have received numerous “certificates”, for completing MML courses in Parliamentary Procedure, Analyzing Municipal Financial Statements, the Legal Framework of Municipalities, Planning and Zoning, Governance Principles for Councils and Boards, as well as numerous others.
I did what was politically unpopular, to stop corrupt and inept officials from bankrupting our city.
I am proud of that success, which was a courageous and noble undertaking, albeit a lonely struggle.
So Mike, do you have anything to say about the false statements by Rob, other than “thank you”?
This morning’s budget board passage was not “consensus”, it was the “groupspeak” of the “solidarity” slate.
Have you ever bothered to check the records, to verify the facts?
Your denial is typical of a cult-like belief in the lies being spewed by your “leaders”.
I have nothing to say other than, by your own admission a few stops up this thread, that as council president you could not provide the leadership necessary to pass a balanced budget. You’ve only confirmed my original comment.
Thanks for checking in on me though. The ad hominem attacks were a bit much, but maybe you meant “Your denial is typical of a cult-like belief in the lies being spewed by your ‘leaders’” in a good way.
I’ll give you the benfit of the doubt.
Mike, you had said above:
“One issue and one issue alone has plagued councils and mayors in Hamtramck: an inability to reach concensus.”
My last year on council, zych and kwik refused to participate in the budget process, and worked feverishly to unseat me, under the false pretenses of “having plenty of money”.
You recommended, “examination of facts and sober estimations of the outcome”, which is exactly what I did. You have not once addressed any of the figures or documents I referred to, which are part of the public record, substantiating my claims.
That’s what convinces me of your blind loyalty to the politicians you’ve been duped by.
Please, just try with 1 item. Justify gary’s $18 million budget, against the $15 million anticipated revenues, if you can.
He was spending at that level, on a yearly basis.
When the new council came in, gary submitted a nearly $18 million general fund budget, which kwik and sztrzalka signed off on. They even displayed it in a glass case, on the wall, in city hall, showing the signitures.
“The Citizen” harped on the council majority, who could not co-sign zych’s budget, accusing them of not cooperating.
The fact is that zych’s budget had inflated revenues of nearly $3 million. Councilmen Witkowski, Cornwell, and Bator refused to rubber stamp a $3 million dollar deficit budget, and rightly so. They had just been elected, having to deal with nearly $18 million of expenditures by zych’s misadministration, from the year before, that were unauthorized.
What fiscally responsible official could go along with that? The city was in court for back payments to the police, Waste Management for gary’s “emergency” snow-removal contract, failure to make pension payments on time, and the judge had called all budget board members, as well as the controller and mayoral assistant, before her.
The testimony revealed that 1/2 a million dollars had been illegally transferred from the water fund, to the general fund.
Those are real issues. It was impossible to develop consensus, when gary was determined to spend at that level. He CONviNcED his groupies to rubber-stamp his fiscal recklessness.
I posted before, about the zych/kwik plan, which was submitted surreptitiously to the state treasury, as well as Headen’s response to it.
Have you ever seen either of those documents?
Neither Phill Kwik nor Gary Zych, Joe Strzalka, Mike Witkowski, Chris Cornwell, Bernie Bator or anybody else you’ve mentioned are running for office this time around (though I’m assuming Cornwell may have plans to continue on as deputy mayor).
Oddly, only one candidate involved in previous years’ budget failures is running for council this time around.
Ad Hominem attacks, even veiled ones, do nothing to further debate Mike, they aren’t helpful.
Sorry. Just trying to steer debate back to the larger issues facing voters, i.e. electing officials who are focused on the future and committed exercising the political will to move our city forward.
So far Julia has launched barrage after barrage of “Guilt By Association” attacks on the Solidarity slate. Nevertheless, giving Julia a taste of that medicine is still wrong, and I apologize to Julia and the blogmasters.
But before I end my participation in this thread, I’ll echo one more thought put out there by Rob: anybody who thinks Gary Zych and Phill Kwik are the puppet masters pulling council’s and solidarity’s strings is flat out wrong.
I think the casual observer can deduce that fact from the nature of the majority of comments made by Kwik on this site. As for Zych’s political role of late, look for the (other) bald guy with the red beard pushing a baby carriage and as ask him.
Thank you Steven and Hillary
It’s about the money, Mike.
Mike, we are still under a financial emergency, created under the “leadership” of gary & phil.
It is gary’s “solidarity slate”, currently holding every seat on council.
They are still protecting gary’s appointments on the housing commission, which has followed gary & phil’s lead for financial mismanagement, resulting in federal intervention to ldp the housing commissioners.
The state likewise had to intervene, stripping gary & phil of their power.
Good grief, it never ends,
Perhaps the fact that she has not commented on anything in this decade and has not adressed any of the curent administrations mis-deeds makes me think she must be part of some sort of hidden Jankowski backed propaganda mill.
I mean to attack someone and(along with anybody that knew them) from 10 years ago and to ignore todays current no bid no contract overspending shows she is not interested in todays problems and is only runing for office so she can have a platform to lych gary from.
Rob
“But before I end my participation in this thread, I’ll echo one more thought put out there by Rob: anybody who thinks Gary Zych and Phill Kwik are the puppet masters pulling council’s and solidarity’s strings is flat out wrong.”
Oh great. Thanks for telling me know.
Phill Kwik
“He CONviNcED his groupies….”
That is pretty clever, Julia. Maybe you should be on Council.
that should read “… now…”
Good grief Rob!
Those remarks are just ridiculous.
Apparently you weren’t reading well.
Where did you go to school, anyway?
Well enuf,
Rob
It is enough, Rob. You are totally evading the issue of your official action, this very week.
This council passed a resolution, saying that Mayor Jankowski’s appointments to the housing commission are void, because there was no vacancy to fill.
You are trying to protect the positions of zych’s appointees, still, one of whom is councilman Ahmed’s wife. Those commissiioners were ldp’d by HUD for financial mismanagement, and are prohibited from being involved in the expenditure of federal housing funds.
That’s the issue! Why are you trying to make me the issue, saying I want to “lych” zych, “(along with anyone that knew them) from ten years ago”?
My remarks are regarding CURRENT OFFICIAL ACTION BY THIS COUNCIL! Your response is to attack me, as if that justifies your action.
Can’t you address the issue?
Isn’t it true that the former director, who’s job you’re trying to reinstate, is hosting a fund raiser for members of your slate this very weekend?
He illegally did campaign work for Shahab out of city hall offices, back in ’99. Shahab’s wife voted to give him a several thousand dollar retro-active raise, not long before HUD took away their spending authority.
The chairman of the commission, even fabricated minutes of a meeting that never took place, noting a retro-active raise for Fred, which was reported in “The Citizen”.
Because of all the financial mismanagement, the mayor recommended that council remove the commissioners, which the council refused to do.
Subsequently, federal HUD authorities had to step in and prohibit their financial involvement, and the mayor replaced them.
Now this council is taking action, which contradicts HUD’s determination, by saying that those commissioners still hold their seats, because they were not removed; When for all practical purposes (like running our public housing with federal HUD funds), they were!
That’s the issue, not me! The fact is that this is all being perpetrated by the same “team” of zych appointees and political loyalists, following the same modus operandi, established by him, in collusion with phil.
That’s an accurate observation of the facts, which has nothing to do with me.
enuf, enuf, enuf!!!
It seems you do not understand that HUD said we did not need to remove them, that they would take the necessary action. Now HUD is being sued, we are not! Its better that way, even if it fails to meet your narrow cabal view of life.
rob
let me get this straight… Council would have removed the HHC members, but was told they didn’t need to. HUD LDP’d the commision members. Mayor Jankowski appointed replacements. Now Council is not recognizing the vacancies? Do LDP’s not create vacancies?
No they do not. Also one commissioner had her LDP removed and the Mayor’s “replacement” commision denied her her seat even though HUD agreed that her LDP was issued in error. So it was not the LDP that removed her but the Now that person is suing HUD (and or?) the commission.
The Council has tried to steer clear of the issue but will from time to time go “on record” that we did not remove the commissioners. If the Comms win there case against HUD, HUDs argument will be that they were only acting on the advice of the Mayor, who in turn will probably be sued for creating the whole problem. At that point we will ask that the City not be included because the council was never a party to the action and the Mayor was acting outside the authority of the council and should be separately responsible.
Only Julia would take this action as protecting anybody because they were our supporters. The reality is that because they were our supporters she says we must be protecting them. Obviously as we were elected more than half of this town could be considered supporters is she going to say we are protecting them all. I mean its truly between HUD and the Commissioners and a non issue from the citys side. The only reason Julia wants to try to make it an issue is because they were appointed by Zych. And remember she brought this up in response to my saying she was not interested in current issues like the no bid contracts or the Mayors signing one year contracts to prevent the new city manager from making his own appointments for til April of 06, or ten months after he takes office. Or the hiring of a new law firm 27 days before the new Charter takes effect.
Julia did comment on the law firm switch but only to defend the Mayor by saying it was his legal right to do so. And while I agree it may have been legal its hardly in the best interest of the city and works to undermine the new charter and new city manager. Also, if the council tries to negate those contracts we will have to go to a city attorney that the Mayor hired and they will obviously defend his actions and may even say that we have to pay someone for ten months in a position that was eliminated by the Charter. Leaving the council with the unpopular and absurd option of hiring a separate layer to act against the City Layers that the Mayor appointed to defend his actions.
Also, while I do not agree with the timing of the legal switch, I understand that they are our current legal team and will work with them on everyday legal issues. (The new company is coming in Monday to introduce themselves to the council.)
Julia knows she can not run on her record as a one term councilperson and has not bothered to understand the issues before us today so in her quest to vindicate her past failure she attacks the Solidarity Slate as being a remnant of when zych was mayor. And I understand that Jankowski won the election 2 years ago, but its not as if Zych was tainted or even under any sort of investigation or shadowed by scandal. All he did was not win the election. If Gary and his administration had actually done anything wrong you can bet Schimmel would have been all over it.
Rob
The only commissioner who was issued an LDP in error, was a Jankowski appointment.
I’m paying attention to what Rob said,
“If the Comms win there case against HUD, HUDs argument will be that they were only acting on the advice of the Mayor, who in turn will probably be sued for creating the whole problem.”
It’s totally ABSURD!
What about the multi-page reports of financial mismanagement?
Does ANYONE believe that statement by Rob?
He can attack me left and right, and assign motives for my questions. Even if anyone believes his comments about me, the issue has nothing to do with me.
It’s not right to try and bury the issue by “killing the messenger”, just because the conflicts of interest are exposed.
It’s a conflict of interest, when the ldp’d director, who’s salary and bennies totalling over $100,000.00, is hosting a political fundraiser for Rob and his running mates, this very weekend.
According to the charter, the wife of a councilman cannot be appointed to the commission. That’s another conflict.
Rob’s actions (along with his colleagues), as well as his reply, attacking me, are simply OUTRAGEOUS.
I didn’t do anything wrong, by bringing up those points. People have a right to know. It’s OUR business!
Rob, according to the charter, the council has the power to remove the commissioners, on the recommendation of the mayor.
Your statement that,
“I mean its truly between HUD and the Commissioners and a non issue from the citys side”
is untrue and misleading.
Please, just comment on this one aspect, without going into a personal tirade against me:
The chairman of the commission, even fabricated minutes of a meeting that never took place, noting a retro-active raise for Fred, which was reported in “The Citizen”.
And HUD was senting leters to the commision pointing out problem areas, giving six month windows for corection and saying they looked forward to working with the commision to clear up the problems. AND (for the last time) telling me that the Council did not need to take any action.
Yes, I heard the stories (rumors?) about the “lost minutes meeting” the corvett bribe, and even the secrete floor safe stuffed with cash. But in this town we hear lots of rumors and as HUD seemed to be on top of it so I did the prudent thing and let HUD take care of HUD’s bussiness.
Now let me ask you, How do you feel about Jankowski sighning one year contracts with people whoes job was to be eliminated in 2 Months. And then telling the Budget Board we had to pay them for 10 months after the new charter took effect and eliminated the positions. Then he fires our law firm and hires one of his own choosing only 1 month before the city manager is scheduled to come on line?
Rob
I think Jankowski’s offering of contracts just before the positions are to be eliminated appears not “above board.”
However, getting rid of City Attorney Law Firm was probably a good idea. It appears that that firm represented Schimmel and not the city.
I think the difference between the two is that the manager can easily undo one (city atty) but cannot undue the other (contracts for the political appointments)
Rob, it seems like you’re trying to cover up the fact that the chairman of the commission, fabricated minutes of a meeting that never took place, noting a retro-active raise for Fred, as reported in “The Citizen”.
I never said (or heard) anything about a “secret floor safe stuffed with cash”.
Why are you bringing in ridiculous rumors to confuse the issue? That’s an evasion tactic.
Are you trying to say that you don’t know anything about the fabricated minutes? Or the fact that Shahab’s wife wrote a letter, objecting to them? Of course she couldn’t vote to approve minutes of a meeting that never happened; She’s got her law license to protect.
The commission, did however, give Fred the retro-active raise, anyway. That was one of the reasons they were ldp’d.
Didn’t Fred host a fundraiser for you and your running mates, this weekend?
Why don’t you just give a straight answer to a direct question?
Your questioning me about the mayor’s activities is another evasion tactic.
Anyway, I don’t even know what you’re talking about, when you ask me:
“How do you feel about Jankowski signing one year contracts with people whose job was to be eliminated in 2 Months?”
That’s another matter, altogether. I’m not aware of any such contracts. Show me the copies, and I’ll give you my opinion, if you really want it.
Right now, I’d like some straight answers, regarding the issue I raised.
Rob, of all the things we “heard about” there’s actually evidence of the faked meeting minutes. I mean aren’t the minutes part of the public record?
Can’t we prove or disprove this?
Rob, in order to be responsive to your inquiry (which is not my job BTW, it’s yours), I did some research into the issue you questioned me about.
It’s my understanding that the mayor did execute some contracts, back in April, per the authority of the EFM, which supercedes the charter.
The mayor has not signed a contract, with the new city attorney. He appointed one, by authority of the current charter.
I hope that answers your questions to me (which I have no obligation to respond to, as I am not in public office).
Now, will you answer the questions I posted above, which you’ve consistently evaded? As an elected official, you’re accountable to the public, not the other way around.
Since the budget’s ready for primetime, I wouldn’t mind seeing these issues addressed.
The reason the commission chairman was caught fabricating minutes, was that when commission was asked to vote to approve them, at least one commissioner objected.
The phony minutes contained a vote to approve a retro-active raise for the director (the same supporter who I’m told hosted a fundraiser for Rob & co. this past weekend).
Shahab’s wife, Lisa McGuire-Ahmed, is a commissioner. She’s also an immigration attorney. She wrote a letter objecting to the minutes.
They held a subsequent meeting, at which they approved the retro-active raise, anyway. If I’m not mistaken, Lisa voted for it, as well.
I have a real problem with that, because Fred was zych’s appointee, in the DPW, when Shahab was a zych appointee. During that time, when they were both members of the same misadministration, Fred did campaign work for Shahab, coordinating Shahab’s signs for his council campaign, out of the DPW office, back in 1999. That’s illegal.
When Schimmel came in, Fred was out of city hall administration.
Zych’s appointees on the housing commission (including Shahab’s wife), then made Fred director of public housing.
Shahab’s wife has been rubber-stamping Fred’s financial mismanagement of federal HUD funds. She was also ldp’d by HUD, for her participation.
I’m sorry, but Fred’s retro-active raise, as well as other expenditures for his benefit, smack of political paybacks. It’s blatant graft and corruption, the way I see it.
The same goes for this entire council’s response to it. They deliberately turned a blind eye to the facts presented to them, and have taken official action to protect the commissioners’ positions, as well as Fred’s.
J, I think you’ve very clearly stated the murky water around the meeting that never happened. It puts Shahab Ahmed and Lisa McGuire-Ahmed in the middle of a tangle of alleged corruption.
Perhaps we can condense these issues and get them in front of candidates. I’d like to lay the facts out and ask everyone his or her opinion.
Yes I was aware there had been some confusion, maybe even misrepresentation, of the minutes of a meeting. My understanding was that it had been worked out to HUD’s satisfaction as the minutes in question were voided and the Comm granted the raise at the next meeting. But that was months, maybe a year before the LDP and certainly long before my discussion with HUD. If you want to take the time to document the actual details go right ahead but I remember hearing about it long after it happened and of course HUD was well aware of it.
Jankowski, started to ask us to remove the Comms even before taking office and once he was in office gave us out-of-context HUD quotes that upon closer look werent even warnings but a list of things to be corrected over a period of time. So with the Mayor having zero credibility on the issue I was not going to remove People that HUD said they would take care of if and when necessary. And It wasn’t that I was protecting the Comms or Fred. It was that removing someone from office especially when it would mean someone loosing his or her job is a very serious decision. Admittedly its more difficult when that person is a friend but its action I would have supported had I felt necessary. In short you are questioning my integrity and I do not like it nor do I have the time to endlessly defend myself when you have nothing to base it on..
Now about your not having to have an opinion on immediate issues because you are not an elected official and have “no obligation to respond”
I agree. And with that attitude you never will be.
So back to you, what do you think of the Mayor signing one year contracts in April with people whose jobs are eliminated on July 1st by the new charter. Or to protect others who the new city manager will have the right to replace in October, by saying we have to pay them for another 8 months.
And about my being accountable to the public and your not. When you accuse someone espeacailly me of any wrondoing you had better account for your statements.
Rob
Rob said: “In short you are questioning my integrity and I do not like it nor do I have the time to endlessly defend myself when you have nothing to base it on..”
I think, more accurately, she is questioning the integrity your political associates. I think she’s making the assertion that Mr. Zajdel is fundraising for your campaign and that reflects poorly on you.
I admit, if Mr. Zajdel did fake meeting minutes it would look pretty bad for he and his political friends.
Thank you Rob, for FINALLY acknowledging some of my points, after a multitude of postings of mine, asking the same questions over and over—To which you responded with numerous character assassinations against me.
You’ve assigned so many diabolical motives to me, just for asking pertinent questions, surrounding public business, that that fact should be an issue, itself.
My attitude has not been the problem here, it’s been your evasiveness and denial of the issue.
For chrissakes, Rob, you said I was against anyone who ever knew “them” (gary & phil perhaps? you didn’t specify) from ten years ago!
You finally admitted knowledge of the phony minutes, only after a few postings by the blog hosts.
Furthermore, Rob, I DID respond to your questions regarding the mayor’s signing those contracts, if you had bothered to read what I posted.
It’s also my understanding that Schimmel (who’s still the EFM, albeit with reduced responsibility), has determined that those contracts are necessary for him to carry out his duties.
As for the new city attorney, my understanding is that the mayor has NOT signed a contract for his services, and that the contract is before you for review.
I think state law regarding reducing salaries supercedes any charter provision, giving you authority to decrease the rate for the city attorney.
Scott was wrong about “past practice”. When I was on council, zych recommended numerous fat increases, for his appointees. They were generally not granted.
Besides, “past practice”, if it’s illegal, even if it goes unchallenged, does not “set precedence”, validating a wrong.
So, you want me to account for my statements regarding your rubber-stamping of wrongdoing?
Didn’t Fred host a political fundraiser for you, this past weekend?
Hasn’t he worked on all of your campaigns?
For approximately $100,000.00/yr in salary and bennies, I’d say you ought to be doing the explaining, not me.
Where’s his resume? I FOIA’d all the resumes from zych, I don’t recall ever seeing his.
What are his qualifications? That he hung signs for zych & the “team”?
Did he finish high school? Did you?
Did he go to college? Did you?
Are you saying that he was appointed for the good of the public service, without regard to political affilliation, as required by charter?
You already said that the ldp’s didn’t create vacancies on the commission. If that’s so, then just who’s supposed to be administering our public housing, if the ldp’d commissioners and director are prohibited by federal orders?
I’d say that federal ldp’s supercede the council’s charter powers to remove the commissioners, which council failed to do, as requested. That, Mr. Cedar, for all practical purposes, was a “removal” by HUD.
They acted because you refused, out of loyalty to your friends. HUD never challenged your power to remove the commissioners. They had to act, because you didn’t.
Again, this issue has NOTHING at all, to do with me, so don’t go off on another tirade against me. Stick to the issue.
Steven, it was Doug Rojek, chairman of the commission, who faked the minutes, giving Fred Zajdel a retro-active raise, according to “The Citizen” report.
I think they reported that Doug’s explanation was that it should’ve been within his “learning curve”.
I don’t know that Fred had anything to do with perpetrating the falsehood, although he may have.
Rob finally admitted that he’s a “friend” though. I’ll give him credit for that.
That doesn’t justify what he put me through, to get there.
Rob, Steven, Hillary, and whoever else cares to read this:
I’m going to say this for the first time, publicly.
Rob, you & some of your “team” have accused me of ill motives, for exposing corrupt acts perpetrated by the “solidarity” group, extending back to zych’s misadministration.
It’s not just your “friends” who were exposed, but some of my own past supporters.
I’m sure I knew Fred, long before Rob, Shahab, or Lisa. Fred supported my election in ’97. He drove around the city with only 2 signs posted on his van, Zych’s and mine.
Paul Odrobina, who was my brother’s prefect in high school, also pushed for votes for me.
Having had to expose their corrupt activities, when I was on council, hurt me deeply.
My father had painted political signs, years ago, for both Odrobina and former councilman Ed Rojek, Doug’s father, as well as other politicos.
My family goes way back with the Rojek’s. I went to high school with Doug’s brother, and I consider them “friends”.
I do not take lightly, posting such information, on the internet, no less.
When I ran for council in ’97, Paul Odrobina asked me to be part of his team, as did Gary Zych. I declined both offers, and opted for an independent candidacy. Former Mayor Kozaren did not ask anything of me.
Fomer councilman Odrobina, who’s a national officer, for the PAC, told me to follow my conscience, and I did.
When I was elected as President of the council, I solicited the advice of every living former Hamtramck Council President I could find. Most told me to follow my conscience, and to be myself.
Mr. Odrobina told me to study the charter, which I did. I regretted having to challenge his appointment as Superintendent of Building, a position which, according to the state Bureau of Construction Codes, he was unqualified for. It was a liability issue, for the city, and I was responsible to the people.
That appointment was obviously a political payback for Odrobina’s support of zych in the general election, after Paul was eliminated from the mayor’s race in the primary. Zych won by only 7 votes, I think.
Before standing my ground publicly, I privately approached both Zych and Odrobina, and requested that zych appoint him to a position for which he was qualified, if he felt Odrobina would be such an asset. I bent over backwards, to cooperate, but was scoffed at.
The city attorney opined, in writin, that Mr. Odrobina was not qualified to act as Supt. of Bldg. Zych subsequently appointed his wife as Chore Services Director, a part-time position for which she was given a salary and full city benefits.
So when you question my integrity, Rob, make sure you have a leg to stand on.
I’ve done what was politically unpopular, at great personal expense.
The popularity of this entire council, has been at the expense of others.
Rob
It just amazes me that Mr. Cedar tries to explain illegal meeting and misrepresentation. It is a PROVEN fact that the minutes to the meeting giving Mr. Zajdel a raise were fabricated and the goverement even has proof. He states that he didn’t know this or was not informed. But again Sahab’s wife first voted against the raise and voted for the raise. If everything that you say is suppose to be the truth way don’t you admit to this. You have protected Fred and the commissioners way too long and I still don’t understand why. What are you getting out of it. The governement removed the commissioners and Fred and you still protect them by saying it’s a legal matter. Yes it is a legal matter because Fred and the commmissioners are trying to say they were removed illegally. They are suing the United States government because they feel that they have been wronged. What kind of people would spend all of this money (approximately $1oo,ooo.oo) to get back a non-paying job. Where is all this money coming from. You blame the mayor, when you really should be blaming the people who put Hamtramck in this situation. Do you really believe that the U.S. governemtn would act on just the mayor of Hamtramck’s recommendation. You apparently give him way too much credit or you lack the common sense to realize that what has happened it wrong. Do you realize that no time in the history of the history of HUD has the government removed 6 people. WAKE UP Hamtramck and realize that there is a problem that affects 1,400 citizens with mis-spend government money. Today I heard that there is a possibility that the the city council is going to sue the housing commission. Right, lets spend good money after bad. The government is wrong and the city council is right. When are we going to wake up and admit our mistakes and move forward. Fred and the commissioners were at fault. Lets move forward and realize this instead of being concerned about our political supporters.
Rob,
Again furthermore, if the government told you not to act, then why are they defending their position in removing fred and the commissioners in federal court. Do you realize that the mayor is not defending his position the govenement is. It just doesn’t make sense to me. You repeatly state you worry about being sued and when it is such a blatant violation of governemtn regulations you make excuses. Can you explain that to me please. Please quit trying to apprear so unbiased and state the facts.
“”if the government told you not to act, then why are they defending their position in removing fred and the commissioners in federal court. Do you realize that the mayor is not defending his position the govenement is.”"
Exactly my point. The feds are defending themselves because they took the action. The council is not in court because they did not. And if admitting that someone is a friend is an admission of protecting that person then something is wrong with the conclusion.
And as to your hearing that the council is going to sue the housing commission I haven’t heard that rumor and I can’t imagine why we would.
What I can imagine is that a few people are such Jankowski supporters that they repeatedly refuse to question his actions of hiring a new law firm at this time and signing one year contracts with employees written out of new charter.
What I wonder is other then acknowledging the Mayor signed the contracts why nobody seems very upset let alone outraged at this obvious effort to protect current administrators at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. After all we are in the middle of a financial crises and are about to pass a new budget. Have you read last years Audit and cover letter? Do you think its ok that after 4 years of state control and with unlimited power Barnet could not produce a complete financial statement? That they could not tell us how much money was collected for water or parking meters. That after failing to respond to councils questions about parking meter revenues they finally admit (claim?) that the Shoppers World meter was broken causing us to loose (at least) 2,500 dollars a month. And that they used the excuse that it was too expensive to fix, but that after the story came out in the paper the person who was trying to collect the money fixed the machine? I think all of these are both current and important issues. Dont you?
Rob
I do, Rob. But those aren’t my questions to you.
After your questions to me, I called the mayor’s office to find out if he signed a contract with the attorney, and found he did NOT.
If I have a problem with Schimmel, I have Headen’s number, at the state treasury.
You’re still evading the issue by implying that if you took action to remove the commissioners, they’d sue the city. Are you saying that fabricating minutes of a meeting that never happened is not sufficient cause?
You have not addressed HUD’s findings regarding the financial mismanagement, which was attached to the mayor’s request for you to take action to remove them.
Are you saying there wasn’t sufficient cause?
Trying to use the excuse that the ldp’d commissioners would sue this council, is bull!
Like Lisa would sue her husband, for asking her to give up her seat on the commission. Yeah, right.
It’s about protecting Fred’s job.
Tell the truth, for once.
BTW, have any of the contractors, including the attorneys and their families, contributed to the “solidarity pac”? I know they helped gary, with his election activities.
Why don’t you divulge the conflict of interest? How much campaign work has Fred done for the “team”? Has he or his family contributed any money?
Has Lisa contributed monetarily to the Solidarity PAC?
They’re legitimate questions, Rob. It’s not an attack.
I heard that one of the ldp’d commissioners is claiming not to understand what’s going on. Is that true?
Besides Rob, the mayor explained his reasons for appointing a new attorney, at yesterday’s meeting.
This council regularly complained about Clark.
The mayor has discretionary power to appoint. Council approval is NOT required.
Here’s a quote from our new city attorney, Mr. Allen, as he said to you, at yesterday’s meeting:
“I am available to you. The mayor has made it very clear to me that he wants me to be accessible to council, as well as to the staff people.”
So what’s the problem? You said he should’ve consulted you. Why? For your “expert opinion”?
And yes, I’d like to see the audit. And yes, I agree that the controller should produce complete financial statements.
I think I’ve sufficiently answered your questions.
Again, what about your relationship with Fred, and Shahab’s conflict with Lisa, as well as his, and the rest of council’s close ties with Fred?
Let’s try FULL DISCLOSURE. It’s not an attack. It’s a demand for accountability.
“Tell the truth, for once”.
There you go again, it starts as a polite answer to your insistent questions and it ends up your calling me a liar and asking if I was a high school drop out.
As far as I’m concerned I’ve answered your questions and you have avoided mine.
If the mayor told you he did not have a signed contract then hen that was after he told us we did not have to approve the contract because it had the same terms of Clark’s contract. But we both know that with a new appointee comes a new contract. But you take Jankowski’s statement that no contract has been signed as some sort of solution. When in reality its a BIG problem. Did you also ask about him wanting to pay people another 10 months after they are eliminated by the new charter? And dont tell me he did it because of Schimel, he sure didnt worry about Schimmel when he fired Clark.
And as to the Mayor answering the reason of why he did it do you really buy that he did it because the council often complained about Clark? If he did it because of the council then he should have consulted with the council and brought us into the discussion. Sure he can appoint his own attorney but the Council has to approve the contract. Just like with the City Manager selection process. We did not have to involve Jankowski until July 1st but we specifically invited him to join us in the interview and selection process. He never participated but at least we offered. He could have shown us the same courtesy or even better held of for 27 days until the City Manager was on board.
Why arn’t you, as someone claiming to be independent and running for council outraged by this rip off of the public. Or maybe your not so independent.
And Julia, you don’t need to answer as I will not be answering you. Like mike R said “you have valuable viewpoints” but its impossible to carry on a decent conversation.
Rob
Rob,
At yesterdays council meeting it was asked if the new city attorney and the housing commission’s attorney were from the same office. He answered “yes”, then the statement was made again as to what would happen when later this year the city council sued the housing commission who would represent the city. You say that there is no truth in the city going to sue the housing commission but this is at least the third time in as many meetings as it has been stated that the city WAS going to sue the housing commission. WHY?
Julie, that’s twice in this thread you’ve taken pot-shots at Mr. Cedar’s education. Please realize this makes your argument sound less-credible.
You accused Cedar of personal attacks then you engage in personal attacks. I have to say officiating this debate is rather tedious.
Everyone, argue the argument not the person.
wittykits
I recall the exchange between the lawyer and Scott (or was it Chuck) but I assumed it was purely hypothetical to point out the possible conflict of interest. I know of no plan to sue the HC and Im certainly not interested in doing so but if youve heard it three times, maybe there is something to it. Ill ask.
Rob
Said I wouldn’t do it, but I’m jumping back into this thread (I really just want to see this thread hit 100 comments).
wittykits: It’s important to remember that several years ago Schimmel spun off the Housing Commission employees and operations from the city government proper. For most practical purposes the HHC is a separate entity from the city, and the two agencies–the City and the HHC–deal with each other in terms of contracts and agreements entered into between separate entities. As such, a conflict would present itself IF a contract dispute should arise.
For example, if you got into a dispute with your landlord over your lease, would you want the same lawyer to represent the two of you? I wouldn’t.
Now, it could be argued that should a future disagreement arise between the HHC and the City, one or the other could retain a different lawyer for that specific issue, but why leave the city and the HHC open to that quandry?
On one hand I applaud the mayor for recognizing the conflict inherrant to John Clark representing both the City AND the handsomely paid negotiator (Schimmel) hashing out the City employee contracts. On the other hand, I’m critical of how long it took to spot said conflict and act upon it.
Juila, Rob has stated that he’s answered your questions regarding the HUD appointments and fake meeting minutes.
Rob: As far as I’m concerned I’ve answered your questions and you have avoided mine.
Though I don’t see how Rob asking Juila questions has any merit in this discussion. I’m not sure how Julia answering Rob’s question is even germane.
I guess what I’m saying is that Rob’s stated that he’s answered the questions to his satisfaction.
Sum up and state your points everybody, we need to move on.
Mike said,
“For most practical purposes the HHC is a separate entity from the city, and the two agencies–the City and the HHC–deal with each other in terms of contracts and agreements entered into between separate entities. As such, a conflict would present itself IF a contract dispute should arise.”
That’s not accurate. Per our current charter, the commissioners are mayoral appointees. The council has authority to remove commissioners for cause, at the request of the mayor.
There are contracts being disputed, but they’re contracts awarded by the commissioners, not contracts between the city and the commission.
“Contracts” between the city administration and the public housing administration may exist in some form, such as when HUD funds are used for supplemental policing of the housing projects, for financial accounting purposes. However, the housing administration is still an arm of city government.
HUD has made a determination of financial mismanagement, and prohibited former mayor zych’s appointees, as well former director Fred Zajdel, from expending HUD funds.
Prior to HUD stepping in to ldp the commissioners, the mayor requested that council remove the commissioners, so HUD wouldn’t have to.
What’s absurd is that this council regularly attempts to use our tax dollars to challenge Schimmel’s authority, but yet they so readily relinquish their responsibility for oversight of public housing funds.
Why? I contend that it’s because of blatant graft and corruption, based on cronyism and nepotism, surrounding the “solidarity PAC”, their slate, and some supporters.
Julia quoted Mike “For most practical purposes the HHC is a separate entity from the city…”
I refer you to the quote you snipped, specifically, the words “..most practical purposes…”
I think this accurately covers my statements, and you are correct, the commissioners are appointed by the mayor and are sworn, albeit unpaid, officers seated to maintain oversight of housing affairs.
However, Housing funds, as well as the HHC property iself, is all Fed holdings and by law kept apart from the city’s general funds and holdings. While the HHC is, in Charter terms, a city agency, in practical terms, most, if not all nuts and bolts and dollars and cents affairs are separate. This arrangement understandably results in confusion. It gets really muddy when a state-appointed financial manager gets involved. Add local-political subtext to the picture? Light and get away.
“Per our current charter, the commissioners are mayoral appointees. The council has authority to remove commissioners for cause, at the request of the mayor.”
However, when it became clear to the council that the mayor was not sharing the complete HUD documentation he’d used to justify the removal of the officers, the Schimmel administration went to lengths to slow council’s FOIA requests for full documentation, at one point, I believe, submitting a bill to council for clerical costs.
“What’s absurd is that this council regularly attempts to use our tax dollars to challenge Schimmel’s authority…”
To find, surprise, that Schimmel overstepped his authority in removing the commissioners himself.
“…but yet they so readily relinquish their responsibility for oversight of public housing funds.”
Because, in lieu of complete documentation (see above), council was given assurances by HUD to hold tight. I’ve heard council being criticized for sloppy legal maneuvers before; how would removing commissioners without an airtight case have gone over? All the mayor had to do was provide complete documentation, but he didn’t, so: 1) council erred on the side of caution, 2) HUD acted, 3) commissioners were removed, 4) and the city avoided costly legal pecadillo.
“Why? I contend that it’s because of blatant graft and corruption, based on cronyism and nepotism, surrounding the ‘solidarity PAC’, their slate, and some supporters.”
Now there’s a familiar tune.
Are we at 100 comments yet?
“Now there’s a familiar tune.”
So since it’s familar it can’t be true? What do you take us for!?
Look it up yourself, frankly I’m sick of pointing out the faulty reasoning on this thread.
” I contend that it’s because of blatant graft and corruption, based on cronyism and nepotism, surrounding the “solidarity PAC”, their slate, and some supporters.”
Dear Blogmaster, Is there a button I can push to make Julia go away. Or maybe you could use your authority to block her all together.
I am the last to call for any form of censorship and I welcome open discussion but her endless attacks aimed at the Solidarity Slate and current council are simply lies that she keeps repeating in a desperate hope someone will believe them. For the most part it is ez to ignore such things but she continues to attack, and I feel that I must respond with an explanation..
This Blog deserves better and if not controlled will decay into the endless name calling common to other less enlightened blogs and media.
I want to use my limited time and this fine blog to discuss issues in a way that considers other viewpoints that influence my decisions on todays issue. I dont want to spend that time defending myself against Julias venom for all things zych.
Rob
Circumstantial Ad Hominem:
“Why? I contend that it’s because of blatant graft and corruption, based on cronyism and nepotism, surrounding the ‘solidarity PAC’, their slate, and some supporters.”
……………………..
Poisoning the Well:
“Now there’s a familiar tune.”
……………………..
Begging the question:
“So since it’s familar it can’t be true? What do you take us for!?”
……………………..
Can we go home now teacher?
I think to prove any cronyism or misdeeds by the “Solidarity PAC”, we would first have to define the “Solidarity PAC”.
Mike, so are numerous funds, seperate from the general fund (i.e. water fund, 911 funds, drug forfeiture funds, major and minor street funds, etc.).
When you say:
“when it became clear to the council that the mayor was not sharing the complete HUD documentation he’d used to justify the removal of the officers”,
you’re making an assumption that the mayor did not submit sufficient documentation to justify their removal.
I contend that he did. I saw the documentation.
It seems to me that you’re reiterating Rob’s arguments.
Mike, you are aware of close personal relationships between the ldp’d commissioners, Fred, and this council. You may not be aware of the extent of some of the goings on, which I referred to, in earlier postings.
When you spoke of the commissioners as “volunteers”, you did not mention the director’s approximately $100,000.00 salary + bennies. I questioned his qualifications, which you ignored.
I never heard anyone argue that HUD objected to council removing the commissioners. Rob has repeatedly stated that HUD told them they didn’t have to.
Federal HUD officials are not in the position of dictating what actions local elected officials should take. That would violate the principle of local self-government. They did, however, take the necessary action to ldp the commissioners and Fred.
Your reiteration of Rob’s remarks is, in my opinion, an empty argument.
I believe the facts reveal there was sufficient cause for removal, without instigating a lawsuit.
I believe Rob’s statements, that HUD officials said this council didn’t have to remove the commissioners, is misleading, and a poor excuse for failure to take swift, decisive action in the matter.
Steven, my contention is that it was wrong for this council to take last week’s action declaring Mayor Jankowksi’s appointments to the housing commission void, based on the assumption that since council had not removed the commissioners, the seats were not vacant.
That official resolution of council ignores the action taken by HUD, which effectively vacated the commission seats, as well as the position of the director of public housing.
The mayor had to fill those appointments, per his duty as the appointing authority.
Defining the “Solidarity PAC” is a good idea.
When Council President Majewski was asked, during the public participation portion of a regular council session, she responded that the solidarity PAC was the five of them (the entire council).
I believe all such PACs are required to register with the county clerk.
“I believe Rob’s statements, that HUD officials said this council didn’t have to remove the commissioners, is misleading, and a poor excuse for failure to take swift, decisive action in the matter.”
I disagree with you and you haven’t convinced me otherwise.
Good luck in your political endeavors, Julia.
May all of our leaders command the same laser-focus as you’ve applied to Rob and associated councilmembers, commissioners and candidates, and may God have mercy on their souls.
100 comments yet?
Basic concept with the seperation of the Housing Comm and the city is that if the HC gets sued the City does not have to pay. It may come out of “our” federal taxes but not out of our City’s.
On the other hand if the library, water department, DPW or administration gets sued WE get stuck paying. There is a big diiference between the legal structure of the HC then any other “department” in the city.
Rob
That’s not necessarily so, Rob. The city could very well be a party to a suit against members of the commission, being that they’re mayoral appointees.
Council has the power to remove, and that failure could very well result in liability for the city.
100!
Sorry.
Finally, former city attorney Clark’s written opinion was read, stating that the ldp’s issued against former mayor zych’s appointees on the housing commission, resulted in those seats being vacated.
Rob, or any member of the council could’ve obtained that opinion, sooner.
Now, they’re trying to compile information from HUD’s investigation, so they can help their ldp’d friends get ready for a lawsuit against the mayor, just in case the judge overturns their ldp’s?
How absurd! If that isn’t corruption based on nepotism and cronyism, someone will have to explain it to me.