So much for elected local governments in MI

gimpy117 · 03-10-11, 12:22 PM

Michigan's New Governor Has just issued a bill that will allow appointed officials to actually supersede elected local officials if deemed "in a financial emergency". There is a crazy long list of things of things that can trigger a review even "The existence of other facts or circumstances that in the state treasurer's sole discretion for a municipal government are indicative of municipal financial stress". This review will generate a report. After receiving the report, the GOVERNOR, as far as I can tell, Has the power to declare the "financial emergency"...and then this happens:

Quote:

) Upon the confirmation of a finding of a financial
emergency, the governor shall declare the local government in receivership and shall appoint an emergency manager to act for and in the place and stead of the governing body and the office of chief administrative officer of the local government. The emergency manager shall have broad powers in receivership to rectify the financial emergency and to <<assure the fiscal accountability of the local government and>> the local government's capacity to provide <<or cause to be provided>> necessary governmental services essential to the public health, safety, and welfare. Upon the declaration of receivership and during the pendency of receivership, the governing body and the chief administrative officer of the local government may not exercise any of the powers of those offices except as may be specifically authorized in writing by the emergency manager and are subject to any conditions required by the emergency manager.

so basically, the government now has the power to review and state they want under their own discretion even if they "think" there might be financial stress, then the Governor gets to decide if its an emergency and then can appoint an unelected individual to control everything in that government. Furthermore, it disenfranchises the voter by allowing the possibility for entire governments to be dissolved

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBS-4214.pdf

by the way a link to the bill

TorpX · 03-10-11, 11:14 PM

First off, states are soveriegn entities. Local governments operate according to state law. It is up to the state to give powers to local authorities or not.

In my state, Chicago or other localities run their cities into the ground, then expect the state to bail them out. They also give their workers lavish pension deals, which must be paid for by the state. This is a recipe for disaster. I suspect this is what is going on in MI.

I don't see anything wrong with this. In fact it's long overdue.

gimpy117 · 03-10-11, 11:59 PM

what about the fact that it disenfranchises voters on the city level?

August · 03-11-11, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117

what about the fact that it disenfranchises voters on the city level?

You don't seem to have a problem with disenfranchising voters when it comes to public sector unions Gimpy. Why the outrage now?

gimpy117 · 03-11-11, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

You don't seem to have a problem with disenfranchising voters when it comes to public sector unions Gimpy. Why the outrage now?

Having a union is not the same thing of giving the power eliminate elected officials.

TorpX · 03-11-11, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117

what about the fact that it disenfranchises voters on the city level?

The voters who vote in city elections, can vote against the governor if they wish to. In Illinois we have extra levels of government. There are townships as well as local cities/villages. They are creatures of the state and must conforn to the laws of the state. The state of IL could dissolve them if it chose to. Frankly, we would be better off if they did.

gimpy117 · 03-11-11, 02:04 AM

but if the majority of people in a given area choose a person for an area choose people to run their affairs..they have to submit to somebody who is picked by somebody that was picked by many other people?

TorpX · 03-11-11, 04:37 AM

As I said since they can vote in state elections, they are not being disenfancised. In any case what is the alternative? If a city or county is run into the ground and becomes bankrupt, should the state simply let the schools close, and the police and fire depts cease to function? These are real possibilities nowadays. To have a state obligated to bail out municipalities, without any authority to correct the underlying problems is not an adequate answer. Municipalities that get into these situations have most likely done so due to longstanding overspending and/ or corruption issues.

gimpy117 · 03-11-11, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpX

As I said since they can vote in state elections, they are not being disenfancised. In any case what is the alternative? If a city or county is run into the ground and becomes bankrupt, should the state simply let the schools close, and the police and fire depts cease to function? These are real possibilities nowadays. To have a state obligated to bail out municipalities, without any authority to correct the underlying problems is not an adequate answer. Municipalities that get into these situations have most likely done so due to longstanding overspending and/ or corruption issues.

Firstly, hypothetically there could be a town who didn't vote for the governor as a rule. Also, Over our long tradition of law in this country, we set up our governmental system in this nation to make sure that no one man had too much power. This bill does just that. This isn't about who voted for who, this is about tyranny. This bill gives my governor the power to put cities and municipalities under Investigation, and then allows him to declare the town or city in a "financial Crisis" and place an Appointed puppet in complete control of an entire town, who can even dissolve the government if they see fit. And so far, Reading this bill, there is no maximum time an appointed official can stay there, allowing for some kind permanent puppet government, especially if this person in charge of the town is loyal to the governor and doesn't wanna give up his or her power.

That too me is far too much power to have for one man. Emergency powers and the most dangerous powers we can give out. Remember, when they gave Cesar total control of the government when Rome was in danger, he never gave those powers back.

Platapus · 03-11-11, 11:11 AM

I just read the 47 page PDF and frankly I see nothing to be concerned about.

This sounds like a well thought out emergency plan for what the state can/shall/can't/won't do if a local town or village defaults on its obligations.

Instead of the state simply giving the town/village money, this bill authorizes the state to form committee and advisory groups to go to the town/village to try to fix the problem.

I think this is commendable and I wish my state has such legislation. The Elected leadership here in my county spend money like a mad and when they are defaulting, they just ask the state for more money. Why would the state simply give money to elected officials who have demonstrated a problem handling money?

I am going to find a clean copy of this legislation and E-mail it to my State Senator. Probably won't do any good, but it may make me feel better.

mookiemookie · 03-11-11, 11:26 AM

Having one person unilaterally making the decision to dismiss elected officials is a terrible idea, no matter how altruistic the goals are.

Where's the Tea Party complaining about giving more power to big government on this one?

TorpX · 03-11-11, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Having one person unilaterally making the decision to dismiss elected officials is a terrible idea, no matter how altruistic the goals are.

Where's the Tea Party complaining about giving more power to big government on this one?

Judges in the nation's more liberal courts do this all the time. I don't hear the Dem party complaining about it.

mookiemookie · 03-11-11, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpX

Judges in the nation's more liberal courts do this all the time. I don't hear the Dem party complaining about it.

Bull.

03-11-11, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Having one person unilaterally making the decision to dismiss elected officials is a terrible idea, no matter how altruistic the goals are.

Agreed.
Democracy is being replaced by Socialism and Beaurocracy.

03-11-11, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpX

Judges in the nation's more liberal courts do this all the time. I don't hear the Dem party complaining about it.

When appointed judges dismiss elected judges, as happenned in Alabama, you have a big problem, no matter which party is driving.

03-10-11, 11:14 PM	#2
TorpX Silent Hunter Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,975 Downloads: 153 Uploads: 11	First off, states are soveriegn entities. Local governments operate according to state law. It is up to the state to give powers to local authorities or not. In my state, Chicago or other localities run their cities into the ground, then expect the state to bail them out. They also give their workers lavish pension deals, which must be paid for by the state. This is a recipe for disaster. I suspect this is what is going on in MI. I don't see anything wrong with this. In fact it's long overdue.

03-10-11, 11:59 PM	#3
gimpy117 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 3,243 Downloads: 108 Uploads: 0	what about the fact that it disenfranchises voters on the city level? __________________ Member of the Subsim Zombie Army

03-11-11, 02:04 AM	#7
gimpy117 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 3,243 Downloads: 108 Uploads: 0	but if the majority of people in a given area choose a person for an area choose people to run their affairs..they have to submit to somebody who is picked by somebody that was picked by many other people? __________________ Member of the Subsim Zombie Army

03-11-11, 11:11 AM	#10
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,361 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I just read the 47 page PDF and frankly I see nothing to be concerned about. This sounds like a well thought out emergency plan for what the state can/shall/can't/won't do if a local town or village defaults on its obligations. Instead of the state simply giving the town/village money, this bill authorizes the state to form committee and advisory groups to go to the town/village to try to fix the problem. I think this is commendable and I wish my state has such legislation. The Elected leadership here in my county spend money like a mad and when they are defaulting, they just ask the state for more money. Why would the state simply give money to elected officials who have demonstrated a problem handling money? I am going to find a clean copy of this legislation and E-mail it to my State Senator. Probably won't do any good, but it may make me feel better. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-11-11, 11:26 AM	#11
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	Having one person unilaterally making the decision to dismiss elected officials is a terrible idea, no matter how altruistic the goals are. Where's the Tea Party complaining about giving more power to big government on this one? __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

03-11-11, 04:37 AM	#8
TorpX Silent Hunter Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,975 Downloads: 153 Uploads: 11	As I said since they can vote in state elections, they are not being disenfancised. In any case what is the alternative? If a city or county is run into the ground and becomes bankrupt, should the state simply let the schools close, and the police and fire depts cease to function? These are real possibilities nowadays. To have a state obligated to bail out municipalities, without any authority to correct the underlying problems is not an adequate answer. Municipalities that get into these situations have most likely done so due to longstanding overspending and/ or corruption issues.