4 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Michigan has gone the route of "emergency manager" law in several cities there
already.
So what's the big deal?

No mayor, no city council-in some areas, no city clerks; and as you know-
city clerks are the ones that count/validate election votes.

Got a grievance with the the mayor and a decision he/she made? Tough.
No mayor to complain to.
Got a grievance with the city council over streets, right of ways,
your small business-you name it?
Tough.
No city council to talk to.

One person rule.

If this stands, and forbid, if it catches on, this could be the norm for cities and
towns across America.
Like democracy? Tough.
Like having a vote. Tough.
Like having a voice? Tough.
These new laws are downright scary.
http://video.msnbc.m...06626/#45606626
http://maddowblog.ms...rican-americans

[tigerlily78]

I agree. When this proposal was first put out there I wondered how it could be constitutionally allowable. Appointing someone to be emergency manager seems to negate the democratic decisions of the local people.

Kind of surprising that Michigan is not in more of an uproar. This is scary stuff! Of course so is policemen beating peaceful protestors. Alas, these are the times we live in.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"Michigan this year replaced a previous financial emergency law, Public Act 72, with Public Act 4,
which made it easier for the state to intervene in a fiscally troubled government and beefed up the emergency manager's powers, including voiding contracts and collective bargaining agreements." (Union busting.)
http://www.wtvr.com/...0,2304095.story

[Pushhyarag2000]

This situation is analogous to the battle that has been going on in India too, culminating in the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which provides for the rights of local self governance to the third tier of governance. I have worked with the urban development department and have been able to study the conflicting facets of this dilemma. Although the municipalities have been given the right to deal with & decide on issues at the local level, the elected local council being the authority that is vested with the powers, local governance is failing people for a variety of reasons. And every now & then, when state [federal] government perceives things not in good order, the local elected council is superseded and replaced by an administrator. This happens as much for the big metro municipal corporations as for the next levels of municipal bodies as well.

The problem at least with most municipal bodies, at least in many Indian cities is that the perceived lack of capacity to handle development projects because of the limited techno commercial skills the municipal staff have [or do not have]. When large funds are allocated for development of municipal infrastructure and private companies win the bids, the in house competence in municipal bodies is woefully inadequate to deal with implementation issues and handle project management. State will have to hand hold but even this is resisted by local bodies leading to conflicts.

Even in other matters too, the ability of municipal bodies to manage their finances as well as certain complex legal issues prompts state government to intervene.

I am not too sure if such issues exist in the municipal bodies in US but I guess rampant corruption some times impedes program implementation. So the question as to whether allow the municipalities to function freely or ensure state welfare becomes tricky at times.

[artistry]

You would think that this procedure would be unconstitutional and against the democratic process of elections, but they appear to be gettibg away with it. Another in the roll over everything sensible and take control. Shameful.