Essay: Ousting the Mayor - 5/6/2008

Almost nobody familiar with the horrendous mess in Detroit thinks the mayor ought to stay in office. The ranks of his defenders have shrunken to paid stooges like Sharon McPhail, who used to refer to Kwame Kilpatrick as a “thug” before he put her on the payroll.

But the report saying that city council has the right to oust him is extremely unlikely to produce that result. Thanks to the city’s vague and poorly written charter, Kwame Kilpatrick could apparently appeal any vote to remove him in court, and delay it for months.

That would not only further paralyze city government, it might even run the risk of creating sympathy for the self-indulgent man in the mayor’s office. But should the mayor lose his job?

Well, let’s look at the basic facts. We know the mayor fired a deputy police chief because he was doing his job, investigating alleged wrongdoing. Two other good cops were also tossed over the side. What specifically the mayor was worried they would find out isn’t clear, but he was clearly having an affair with his chief of staff. He lied under oath about that, by the way.

He also lied about firing the police officers.

The officers then sued him and the city, and won. And when the mayor found out the attorney for the cops had the goods on him, in the form of the infamous text messages, he urged city council to give them $8.4 million dollars – more than the actual verdict.

He did that in a failed attempt to prevent city council - or anyone else - from knowing what had really happened.

That’s the scandal in a nutshell. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer quit his job after merely being accused of using his own money to visit a prostitute. Detroit’s mayor would have been gone months ago if he had any regard for the city he has embarrassed and looted. One thing that is clear, is that he’ll have to resign if convicted of a felony.

He’s been charged with multiple felonies by the Wayne County Prosecutor. At this point, it probably makes more sense for the criminal process to play itself out before the council gets involved.

However, attorney Bill Goodman’s report illustrates that Detroit not only needs a new mayor, it badly needs a new charter.

The way in which a mayor can be removed needs to be clear. Additionally, the way Detroit elects a city council needs to be changed. Currently, they are all elected at large.

That means they are mainly elected on name recognition. So Detroit has a council that includes two relatives of a famous judge, the lead singer from Martha and the Vandellas, a former failed congresswoman, and the bizarre wife of a current congressman.

And under the current charter, the mayor has so much power that a council member is powerless to get a street light fixed.

Nobody likes a disaster, but they do sometimes present an opportunity to rebuild. If Detroit doesn’t hear opportunity knocking this time, I don’t know if it ever will.

Hear Audio Story   

Comments

[Thrasher]

Goodman's report was a waste of money and he should be embrassed by his recommendations..

A refund is in order..Imagaine a so-called good attorney like Goodman ignoring due process and the presumption of innocence..

A refund is in order...

[Anonymous]

Thrasher, I can easily understand why you never got your law degree and you never passed the bar exam.

As I see it, Kilpatrick has every right to his presumption of innocence at his upcoming preliminary exam, and then in any Circuit Court trial.

Kilpatrick can claim, if he wishes, that the incriminating text messages are "not authentic." That might be an effective defense in a criminal trial. And he might thereby avoid a conviction. But it is not an effective claim as to why the mayor and his attorneys failed to provide more of an explanation was to the City Council, before Council authorized the payment of several million dollars of the city's money to pay for wrongs that were committed against some innocent black men (if I can't convince you with valid arguments, I'll just play the race card which generally works with you) pursuant to orders from Kilpatrick.

You see, Thrasher, there is a right to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. And Kilpatrick can enjoy that right. There is, however, no constitutional right to be the mayor.

But you're a smart person, having "attended" two law schools. Tell us which of Kilpatrick's due process rights were violated by Bill Goodman's report.

[Jose Santiago]

Thrasher:

Did you read the Goodman Report? I believe he makes an explicit recommendation that the Council participate amicus curiae in the criminal proceedings. The purpose would be to ask the court to expedite proceedings only and NOT take a position on any of the substantive issues. Implicit in his report is complete deference to the criminal process.

Why do you weigh in on issues where you don't do a speck of work? Is your intellect beyond basic preparation? I think not-it is the world of the visceral racist. Spew before you think and you've never been trained to think. I can see why law school was beyond your reach.

[Thrasher]

I will reiterate it is evident from reading Goodman's elementary findings that he clearly made overtures about the mayor's guilt and nothing about the due process rights the mayor is entitled to under our constitution...

Goodman's report was a waste of taxpayers money and it offered nothing of value at the end of the day...

The citizens of Detroit and the region have not made any progress with the Goodman's report...