Try and wrap your heads around this people. The City Council took a vote earlier that put them in the position of voting up or down on the Mayor's pension deal "BEFORE" they have vetted it. That's right before. Now Councilman Warren Jones is saying but, but, but we aren't ready to vote up or down, along with Holt and others. SMH! So where we are at this moment is a vote coming down on one of the most important financial issues facing this city in chambers, before it has been fully discussed in committee. Wheeeeee. Ain't we got fun.
Now they are trying to override their previous decision to vote tonight. They are also arguing amongst themselves can they postpone or not? Keep in mind they have not addressed pages of concerns offered by the city auditor. Three times so far on the same argument with Council President pulling rank. Lordy, lordy This could not possibly be handled worse than it is tonight.
The short fix is a millage rate which they pushed earlier. The rate increase however will not improve services or anything else, just keep us at that status quo and out of a hole if the council votes down the pension deal tonight that they have not "vetted".
Now Lori Boyer is saying she will not support this reformed proposal. Nor will Bishop support it. Deal is not sustainable in their view. We cannot afford the yearly payments.
If this is voted through we are stuck with if for 17 years. Boyer says vote "NO".
We have 1.7 Billion commitment to retired employees. Love asked what happens to the Federal Law suit if they pass the pension? Laquidara says the lawsuit goes away but not the debt.
Now Love wants Laquidara to say if it is better to owe money now or later? She say's answering that is up to the council.
Redman. Now asks for a re-vote on the appeal vote. Says he made a mistake and want's a do over.
Now everyone is confused. Have attorneys checking on question. Sidman says can they reconsider she says yes. Redman motions to vote again, want's a second (jibber, jibber among council). Now they want to know if the Council President can deny the motion.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 23, 2013, 08:05:21 PM
Now Lori Boyer is saying she will not support this reformed proposal. Nor will Bishop support it. Deal is not sustainable in their view. We cannot afford the yearly payments.
I don't understand. We can't afford the newly negotiated payments in the Mayor's plan? Or the ones now?
Is the main complaint that everyone wants more from current employees?
Sidman, this is a motion to reconsider and that it is open to debate. Question called. Lumb starts yelling at Chair. Now they don't know what the hell they are voting for. Keep in mind this is the biggest deal impacting our city for decades.
The motions for do over fails......
Bridges, they don't understand what they are talking about. According to Boyer we "cannot" afford the payments in the mayors deal.
Joost just tells the entire council he is tired of this. Vote it up or down. Lumb, talking about "big boy" pant's referencing a statement by Bishop. Lumb basically tells the Council President off and is really very angry right now.
Lumb , We took an oath to uphold the law, want's clarification of whether or not collective bargaining was violated. Well.....Laquidara is saying that if they vote on this legislation there is no clear case law if they would violate the law or not by a vote.....Okay. She says her opinion is just that an opinion. Lumb says he will vote 'NO". Really angry about being forced to vote tonight.
Bishop if you vote for you are approving a 17 year deal. This is a political two year solution to a problem leaving 15 years unanswered. Bishop says "No"!
Guiliford. I have been chastised tonight. I feel that we are missing the unfunded liability. 1.7 billion dollars. Now talking about Detroit. If we used their approach we could have savings....Don't use it on lollypop things. I gotta tell you there is no savings in mayors deal. He will vote "No".
If what I am sharing makes no sense that is because this council meeting makes no sense. Seriously, no snark intended.
Clark calls the question. Mayors pension deal "FAILS" 11 votes against, 7 votes for.
Wow. Just. Wow.
Quote from: JayBird on July 23, 2013, 09:18:48 PM
Wow. Just. Wow.
I have watched many a council meeting over the years and the one last night rates right up there with the all time worst boondoggles I have seen. All of this after one member of council earlier predicated his own statements on the budget by saying "we are all competent on this council". Perhaps that is part of the problem. Too many on council "think" they are up to the task. We have a council president who pushes for a vote on perhaps one of the most important issues currently facing our city, pension reform. He asks for that vote to come before the issue has been vetted and put through committee discussions. Then the entire council votes to force themselves to make the vote last evening only to realize they had messed up and were not in a position to undo their own darn vote. It was farcical. Crash and burn legislation as opposed to thoughtful investigation and research on both the pension deal and potential tax increase. Also note that the mayor sidestepped the raise taxes issue by forcing the hand of the council and they pushed for a potential raise in taxes on property. This is why Brown's office is claiming no big deal on the pension loss. They got the tax raise they wanted without taking the heat for it. Politics at it's worst folks.
Quote from: Apache on July 24, 2013, 12:34:13 PM
How is Gulliford's relationship with Mayor Brown?
I ask because I'm curious as to why he would even release the bill from committee. Was it to try and rush it through or just the opposite to ensure it was shot down due to lack of time to examine it?
Guilliford did not want the Mayor's pension deal and I believe wanted it shut down at the get go. There was some discussion that making the decision then would help them to know what to do with a property tax increase.
Glad to have shared a mini blog last night. I am afraid mine is not as entertaining and clever as others, especially Stephens, but when I saw the mess I saw last night with such an important issue to be dealt with, I really felt the citizens needed a peek at what was going on. It was a shambles.
Thank you for the kindness Stephen and thank the board as well. :)