Hamtramck Star

Fred Zajdel to return, again?

Let's cross our fingers that Crawford knows better than to play Solidarity styled politics. I'm hoping Majewski is better than this, but, we'll see...

Douglas, solidarity (aka team zych) styled politics (regarding this and other issues) is being/has been played out on the internet, with e-mail communications among their inner-circle.

A number of former officials advise/direct/manipulate the group.

The cast attending the "ground-breaking" ceremony for the Grand Haven/Dyar/Dequindre project should give you a clue. I understand it was attended by former mayor zych, as well as former councilman sztrzalka. I heard that Barnett's and Kenelly's dismissals were hot topics of discussion at the event; as was klein's vying to be appointed mayor pro tem, before the newly elected council assumes power.

The e-mail communications would be interesting pieces for the Historical Commission to retrieve. All e-mail communication to and from city officials, regarding city affairs, are public record, and should be compiled for the benefit of the public's right to know. It'd be a shame for them to be lost, deleted, etc., as were the computerized financial records, under zych's misadministration.

Councilman Cirgenski should be readying his records to be turned over to his successor, in compliance with the requirements of the new charter. His e-mail communications, especially regarding the DDA, might be of particular interest to some, as would any e-mail discussions leading up to this action against Barnett. Barnett spoke against giving taxing authority to the DDA, which this council is taking official action to approve.

There were some really in-depth e-mail discussions, even including some quite frank political strategizing, among former charter commissioners, surrounding the development of the new charter. Klein argued with Commissioner Wiitala about the political disadvantage of going against gary and/or phil, while Wiitala objected to corruption, citing his inability to go along with wrongdoing rendering him unable to run for further public office (or something to that effect-paraphrasing from memory of reading floating copies). Current e-mails regarding Barnett's suspension (that fit the legal description for public records) would likely contain revelations that are just as interesting.

Hillary, have you seen any documents regarding Barnett's suspension? (i.e. official notification from the CM, as well as the letter from Barnett, mentioned above, or e-mails to or from city officials?).

Who called in the news crews about it? Anyone know? Why was he escorted out by police? How long is his suspension?

I heard Kennely was fired and rehired. What's his status?

Zych used to talk about the "big picture", and is still involved. Follow the money trail and connect the dots, to see how the "connections" zych used to brag about factor into current events. (The current project mgr. for Hamtramck's building project was part of a county administration still under federal grand jury investigation for illegal contracting, and was named in a Detroit News expose' for mismanaging millions of HUD building funds).

Our former labor attorney, (who's firm lost our arbitration case with the PD, and received big bucks in overbudget expenditures from our city coffers under zych), is now chief labor attorney for the state. Barnett helped negotiate their outstanding bill, under Schimmel.

How's Crawford going to handle it all? Is he going to bring in his own acquaintances, search for unbiased professionals, or cow-tow to solidarity?

A lot's going to depend on the new council. It'll be a lengthy on the job training experience for Algazali and Nowakowski, which may be overwhelming. All indications point to the mayor-elect taking the easy road to go along with her solidarity cronies, rather than fulfill her duty to the people.

Zych used to talk about the "big picture". Current events in Hamtramck are linked to party politics at the state level, with a lot of our money going for political patronage appointments and contracts.

For all you doubters, it's not any stranger than the national news reporting on Bush's appointments to FEMA, and the ineptitude (at all government levels) resulting in the deaths of New Orleans residents. It's SOP (standard operating practice).

It's all relative to the issue at hand.

Thanks for consideration of my perspective.

Oh dear lord - Julie's done it again. Someone please limit the number of words that one person can post in a single post.

...and stay on topic ;)

Sorry, Jules - we love you, but you tend to ramble.

Well, Douglas, that's how this nonsense perpetuates itself, at all government levels--ADD.

Too few have the attention span, patience, or concern for relevant details. The result is ineffective corrupt government.

BTW Douglas, you posted some lengthy comments under another topic of apparent interest to you.

I haven't seen anything, Julie. Just what was on the news.

I know they've been trying to get rid of Barnett and Kennelly for awhile. It looked like the Council and Manager were going to terminate them as redundant, which I would support. I hope they have not decided to terminate them in a faster but illegal way instead. I'd rather pay severance than lawyers.

Sec. 5-01(h) of the new charter gives Crawford the authority to remove the controller without assigning cause, unless prohibited by state law.

I'm not familiar with the terms of Barnett's contract.

Schimmel's authority may figure into Barnett's status, as well.

There's also the chance that charter authority may be superceded by some relevant federal law, too. The deputy director of housing was recently re-instated after suing under the whistle-blower's protection act, after being fired by solidarity's most valued campaign worker, former housing director Zajdel (who was removed by the feds for financial mismanagement).

I apologize for the length of my posts, but the deceptive doings are difficult to discern, unless details are divulged.

"I apologize for the length of my posts, but the deceptive doings are difficult to discern, unless details are divulged."

Julie - it's not necessarily the length, it's the way you go about it. A great deal of what you is lost because it starts to ramble on without much point.

Trust me, the truths you speak are appreciated - it's simply the manner you go about it. I apologize for the manner in which I replied initially - but, I think I speak for many when I say that you need to relax a bit and focus a bit more when you post.

Back to topic: my first post in this thread mentioned that this could be the first step in the Solidarity cronies bringing in Zajdel.

I've also learned that Klein was instrumental in the removal of Barnett. Now, I do think Barnett never had the best interests of Hamtramck at heart - he is a Schimmel appointee and I'll bite my tongue at the rest.

I have no first hand knowledge of this being the seeds of returning Zajdel to a city position - it's merely speculative. I just hope that Majewski has enough sense, that no matter how many signs Fred put up - the man does not belong in a city position again.

Douglas, I'm sorry if you missed the point. If you need further clarification on something that seems pointless to you, let me know. I assure you, none of it is.

I don't disagree with your speculation about Fred. He was removed by the feds, from a $100,000/yr job, which he landed by campaigning for solidarity to begin with, after being removed by the state from a city job he was appointed to by zych, also in return for campaign activities, and other acts of blind loyalty. (Per a FOIA request, all resumes for the initial job were released--there was no resume for Zajdel, that I recall).

He drove around, on election day, in a truck with Majewski/solidarity slate signs, and a loudspeaker, I believe, urging solidarity support. Was he paid by Karen's campaign, or their PAC? It should be public record.

The list of contributors might be interesting.

You also said, "I've also learned that Klein was instrumental in the removal of Barnett."

How so? Please elaborate.

I too want to know how much Klein had to do with it and how 'instrumental' he was? If this is a political decision, it stinks. Removing Kennelly to put in a new political appointee a few weeks later is wrong if indeed that is true. I'm not saying that I like Bill Barnett. He was nothing more than a Schimmel holdover and having all the Schimmel appointees gone soon is good, but when their contracts are up, that is unless of course they are ripping the city off or costing us tons of money with unnecessary decisons (Hint: like the Schimmel appointee police chief).

Julie: I think Douglas was trying to help you get your message out. People see a big comment and it's daunting. A lot of readers skip right over long comments. And please leave the Historical Commission out of politics. It is not a political organization.

I thought that the City Controller, and whatever Kennelley's position was, were supposed to be replaced by the City Manager. And does Barnett have a valid contract? I thought there was some question as to whether or not it was valid.

Hillary, good question on the contract,,,maybe it IS up??? Well if it is then good bye Schimmel Appointee #1.

Hillary, I do acknowledge your points.

Regarding the Historical Commission, I beg to differ. Numerous displays showcased by the Historical Commission contain(ed) political campaign materials, let alone the preservation of documentation of our political history.

The collection of historically relevant documents (which includes e-mails of current officials strategizing city affairs) is an important function of the commission, as well as the preservation of other types of memorabilia.

While I agree that the work of city commissions should be unbiased politically, the fact remains that all city commissioners (not only historical commissioners) are political appointees, many (if not most) of whom are quite involved in campaign politics.

Many of the decisions made by the various commissions are are political decisions, just as the commissions are public bodies, empowered via the political process.

Regarding the e-mails on this topic, passing to and from city officials: They're public records, which the public has a right to see, and preserve.

Transparency in government furthers the best interests of the community, while government secrecy hinders the democratic process, and fosters corruption and ineptitude.

That's my opinion. Thanks for your consideration of my perspective.

Regarding the CM's authority over the controller: the charter is clear.

The cm can remove the controller without assigning cause, unless he's prohibited by state law.

There was discussion on council regarding Clark's opinion on the transition to to a cm/council form of govt., under the new charter, and the contracts with current appointees.

While the charter doesn't speak to it, any federal laws protecting employees supercede the charter, as we saw with the reinstatement of Whittie and Evans.

Schimmel is still the EFM, albeit with a modified contract. He has the authority to retain Barnett, if he chooses, to fulfill the purpose of his authority as EFM, just like he kept Sobota on the city payroll, after council eliminated Sobota's position as Director of Operations. If Barnett gets fired by Crawford, and Schimmel chooses to retain him, we'll have to pay Barnett for his services to fulfill Schimmel's requirements, along with whomever Crawford appoints to replace Barnett as controller.

That is, unless the governor declares that our financial emergency is over (which she hasn't), and Schimmel's relieved of his duties, per Act 72 of 1990.

I'm sure there's plenty of politicking going on in that regard, behind the scenes.

These blog discussions barely scratch the surface of what's really going on among government officials to affect the outcome of this issue and others. The e-mail and phone records of our government officials on the subject (which are public records), would prove interesting, I'm sure.

How would one get those records Julie?

Submit a written request, pursuant to the Freedom Of Information Act. Cite in your written request that you're requesting the info "pursuant to the Freedom Of Information Act".

I suggest addressing your request to the council and CM. The city is required by law to designate a FOIA officer. It used to be Sobota, who resigned, and then the council delegated the responsibility to Barnett, who's been suspended, and isn't the appropriate officer to handle that anyway. It all falls under the authority of the CM, so I'd suggest submitting it to him AND the council, to be cc'd to the current FOIA officer.

By law, I believe they have 5 days to comply, or respond in writing why they can't.

You can read the Freedom Of Information Act online. There may be a link to it, as well as the OMA (Open Meetings Act) on the city's website. Anyway, those are two of the "Sunshine Laws", passed in the spirit of the public's right to know, and are easy to access on the state's website also.

Be as specific as possible, regarding what kind of records you're looking for, as well as dates or periods of time you'd like to cover, and what topics and offices you're seeking info about. Otherwise, they may try to give you the runaround.

You might obtain a copy of council's recent request for HUD's e-mail and phone records (of Zajdel's and the former housing commission's dismissal) from the city clerk's office. That should be a sufficient template for a request for their own e-mails about Barnett's or Kennelly's dismissal.

Tom, I'd like to correct an earlier statement. I said that "all" e-mail communications of public officials are public record. That all-encompasing description is too broad. There are exemptions, specified in the FOIA.

When documents contain both public record AND exempted material, it must be sorted so that the non-exempted material is made available.

There are gray areas, with the burden of proof on the public body to show that their reason for denying some information, outweighs the interest of the public and it's right to know.

There are numerous AG opinions on the matter, and precedent setting court cases, as well.

For instance, the cm's evaluation hearing may be held in closed session, but the evaluation form becomes a public document, subject to disclosure.

As I suggested earlier, using council's own FOIA request for HUD records, as a template for a FOIA request of their's, seems reasonable to me.

Just wondering why the escort from police was necessary? If anyone knows.

Julie: We've sumbitted 2 FOIA's regarding the taser policy from the Police Department. The first was denied in it's entirety, the second was ignored. Others have filed FOIAs that were also ignored. Under the law, we will have to file a lawsuit to get the records, and could possibly win a $5000 judgement against the city. We don't really want to do that, but apparently that's what it's going to take.

Tom: Barnett said he was asked to leave by the police when visiting the Water Department, so I'm not sure how acurate the word "escorted" is in this situation. The counter at the Police Departmet is at the front door, so I think you can walk almost to the front door from Public Services and still be returning to the Police Department. Though if Barnett totally lost his cool, I can't blame anyone for having him escorted him out.

Hillary,

Didn't someone at the PD respond to Steven's initial FOIA, to which Steven submitted a modified request to Barnett?

The council named Barnett as FOIA officer, after Sobota resigned, in a seemingly capricious move to deliberately overburden his office. The financial controller's office is not the appropriate office for handling FOIAs.
If I'm not mistaken, Crawford was hired after council delegated that responsibility to the CFO.

There are other ways of obtaining the response you seek, other than a lawsuit.

You may inquire privately, or at an open public meeting of the council, who are ultimately responsible, as our representatives, with oversight responsibility. The CM is also the CAO, responsible for supervising whomever is delegated with seeing that FOIA requests are honored, in accordance with the law.

Rather than risk being prosecuted (or publicly embarrassed) themselves, for condoning government secrecy in opposition to our "Sunshine Laws", public pressure may just inspire them to follow up on the matter. It's their job.

I'm not surprised that the council has ignored the problem, even though we know at least Karen, Rob, and Scott were avid readers of your weblog during that period. If I'm not mistaken, your FOIA's were never directed or cc'd to the council or CM. It's obvious those council members (including the mayor-elect) have chosen to take no action to resolve the issue. Why should they care if you have to be aggravated with an unneccessary runaround, in your attempts to seek public information? Perhaps that's their intent, so you just give up. That seems to be SOP.

I suggest all FOIA's be addressed directly to them AND the CM, and cc'd to the city attorney, to be forwarded, by them, to the current FOIA officer. Then your bases are covered, facilitating more expedient accountability.

Note: One person, who faxed a FOIA request from his place of employment, was blackmailed with losing his job, and so coerced to allow his FOIA request regarding payouts in the mayor's office to be dismissed, after it was submitted to council, under zych's misadministration. Phil Kwik condoned it, by refusing to object, after receiving the FOIA, and being made aware of the coercion. That's solidarity for you.

It is clearly not the responsiblity of the FOIA filer to cc the entire city and fight for them to fill his request. I've followed the FOIA procedure as outlined in the Michigan Act 442. The City has failed to comply with the law and maybe a Judge needs to sort it out -- section 15.235:

(1) Except as provided in section 3, a person desiring to inspect or receive a copy of a public record shall make a written request for the public record to the FOIA coordinator of a public body. A written request made by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic transmission is not received by a public body's FOIA coordinator until 1 business day after the electronic transmission is made.

(2) Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the person making the request, a public body shall respond to a request for a public record within 5 business days after the public body receives the request by doing 1 of the following:

(a) Granting the request.

(b) Issuing a written notice to the requesting person denying the request.

(c) Granting the request in part and issuing a written notice to the requesting person denying the request in part.

(d) Issuing a notice extending for not more than 10 business days the period during which the public body shall respond to the request. A public body shall not issue more than 1 notice of extension for a particular request.

(3) Failure to respond to a request pursuant to subsection (2) constitutes a public body's final determination to deny the request. In a circuit court action to compel a public body's disclosure of a public record under section 10, the circuit court shall assess damages against the public body pursuant to section 10(8) if the circuit court has done both of the following:

(a) Determined that the public body has not complied with subsection (2).

Steven, I know it's not the responsibility of the filer.

My point was that rather than submit to being stonewalled (with little recourse other than court action, which few have the inclination or tenacity to pursue), one may find it easier and more expedient to pursue the matter with our elected representatives, prior to seeking relief in the courts (which Hillary stated you didn't really want to do).

Julie makes a good point. Our city is already broke. Why not try and talk to the council first, and see where you get. Then maybe take court action.

Besides, Steven, seeing you have to go through all that may discourage others, who may wish to obtain public records. It has a "chilling effect". It's human nature to take the path of least resistance.

If the council doesn't deal with it as a policy issue, then the law is circumvented as standard practice, because those who deliberately offend realize that they're likely to get away with it.

It's up to us to demand of our officials that the spirit of our "sunshine laws" is adhered to, in an atmosphere where it flourishes.

I'm already being stonewalled but perhaps I'll take your advice and issue letters to the Mayor, CM, and Council. I suppose it couldn't hurt.

Even if you sue, Steven, and win, it doesn't really solve the problem.

No one publishes all the payouts they negotiate in clossed sessions. Even when they take action in open session to authorize the payment of court settlements (which the law requires), they're rarely discussed. The underlying cause of the problems, many times, are left unremedied, until the next payout.

That's how things are hushed up, and ineptitude and corruption in government are perpetuated.

Comment from: George Julie makes a good point. Our city is already broke. Why not try and talk to the council first, and see where you get. Then maybe take court action.

The reason our city is already broke is from poor decisions being made again and again, just like this one. Maybe folks would understand that it is our officials faults we are broke. If Steven does sue we have the following to blame: Don Crawford, Bill Barnett, and the council if they continue to ignore the FOIAs.

Rob Cedar, pay attention, what happened with Steven's FOIA? I see you commented on another thread so please let us know what you doing about the city ignoring the FOIA?

First of all....Mr. Barnett was NOT fired..he was suspended with pay until further notice...Until I guess Crawford decides how LEGAL his decision is....Enough trashing Mr. Shimmel....after all, according to the OLD council (meaning former zychites) and the then mayor (gary zych), Shimmel was suppose to be the Hamtramck Savior....remember THEY brought shimmel in.....I don't know if EVERYTHING shimmel did was good, BUT he did rescue us financially, and balance the budget, something the council couldn't do!!!INEPT....is that the word? How is it that when Whittie's firing came about, Crawford consulted with Mr. shimmel and John Clark....curious if the same applied with Mr. kenelly and Mr. barnett? And has anyone heard about scott klein's plan to change the position of Mayor-Pro_Tem to be chosen by the council rather than the top vote getter......There may be some plan there.....No way do I want Scott Klein representing our city in Karen's absence EVER!!!!!!! And let's not forget the complicated issue regarding appointments to the DDA....which by the way our venerable council passed unanimously without even the common courtesy of notifying the DDA or Ms. Bino-Savage???????Let's get off Mr. Shimmel..that's old news.....pay attention to current happenings.....those issues are what's going to build Hamtramck's FUTURE!!!!Does anyone like the direction we're headed?

There's nothing to change, Mayor Pro Tem is selected by Council:

Sec. 7-03 Meetings; presiding officer; determination; clerk; appointive officers; attendance, duty
The regular meetings of the city council shall be presided over by the mayor,
who along with the city manager shall establish the agenda for the meetings, or in case of his absence or disability, by the mayor pro tem. The mayor pro tem shall be that councilperson who is selected by the council at their first regular meeting after the effective date of taking office following a general election. The city clerk shall be the clerk of the council.

Who is Crawford consulting then if not John Clark to make sure Barnett being fired in the future would be legal?

Hopefully Allen, Gold or Hollowell from Allen Brothers, the City Attorney.

Saw in the Citizen that Barnett is being kept on only to complete the audit. Hell, if I were him I'd just resign and say screw it. It seems that Crawford needs Barnett, but then wants to throw him out later. Barnett actually has the upper hand here, if he quits now Crawford doesn't know the budget well enough for the audit and would be in a jam without Barnett.