|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
| Why isn't this corporation listed on the DLEG website? |
|
|
Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:31 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Because it was created under the Economic Development Corporation Act (Act 338 of 1974). It adheres to the rules established for it under the act.
Don't be surprised if Greg Eason and walling breach the contract in place with the management compant that is currently in place. If that happens wat for the "breach of contract" lawsuit and that could get ugly.
Eason is allegedly friends with the owner of Harris limo and arbitrarily cut their rental rate. Atkinson is in charge of payng the management company and it has been said that she delays payment whenever she can. Atkinson cannot be paid by HUD when she is performing tasks for Oak Business center. can anyone say General fund expenditure. With Walling in control of contracts and evictions, all kinds of political favors can occur. |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:13 am |
|
|
FlintCityMole
F L I N T O I D
|
| She is right on the money about this. |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:30 pm |
|
|
whiteknight
F L I N T O I D
|
| I looked over this act and I don't see Economic Development Corp listed in15.183 Sec 3 under public offices NOT prohibited. So wouldn't this apply?[/u][/b] |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:28 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
quote:
whiteknight schreef:
I looked over this act and I don't see Economic Development Corp listed in15.183 Sec 3 under public offices NOT prohibited. So wouldn't this apply?[/u][/b]
You need to check Michigan Incompatible Offices Act. Walling is not allowed to put another public position in subordination of another. |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:02 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
untanglingwebs
F L I N T O I D
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox in his March 11, 2009 Opinion No 7226 gave a thorough explanantion of the Incompatible Public Offices Act (IPOA).
Act 566 of 1978 "prescribed standards of conduct for certain public oficers and public employees; to prohibit the holding of incompatible public offices; and to provide certain judicial remedies."
Under MCL 15.181 Definitions, section 1 (b) "Incompatible offices means public offices held by a public official which, when the official is performing the duties of any of the public offices held by the officail result in the following with respect to those offices held:
(i) The subordination of one public office to another.
(ii) The supervision of one public office to another.
(iii) A breach of duty of public office.
MCL 151.181 section 1 (e) a public official is one who is elected or appointed to a public office of a city of this state. The opinion stated the Supreme Court case of Macomb County Prosecutor v Murphy concluded that public offices held by a public official included positions of public employment. MCL 151.182 ," the Act provides that a public officer or public employee shall not hold 2 or more incompatible offices at the same time."
Cox also noted the Supreme Court in Murphy concluded the IPOA focuses on the "manner in which the official actually performs the duties of public office" .... "statuatory language requires an actual breach of duty." "When on opposite side s of a contractual relationship, there is a breach of duty of public office because the interests of both sides are competing and cannot be advanced simultaneously."
The Michigan Supreme Court in the Murphy case pointed out:
"The Court of Appeals , however, erroneously held that a breach of duty exists when an issue arises in which one's constituency's interests may conflict with the interest of a separate constituency represented by the official. In so concluding , the Court failed to recognize that the statute focuses on the manner in which the official actually performs the duties of public office. The Court thus disregarded the statuatory language requiring requiring an actual breach of duty."
Several Attorney General Opinions, by both AG Frank Kelley and Ag Jennifer Granholm have referred to the Michigan Supreme Court case of People v Township Board of Overyssel, 11 Mich 222, 225 (1863) regarding the "scope of a public official's responsibilities"...." All public officials are agents, and their official powers are fiduciary. They are trusted with public functions for the good of the public; to protect, advance and promote its interests and not their own. And, the greater necessity exists than in private life for removing from them every inducement to abuse the trust reposed in them."
The Court in Overyssel also said "...fidelity in the agent is what is aimed at, and as a means of securing it, the law will not permit the agent to place himself in a situation in which he will be tempted by his own private interests to disregard that of his principal.
The new Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law when defining "fiduciary duties" stated that duties "fall into two broad categories; the duty od loyalty and the duty of care".
My questions are:
1) Did Walling create a conflict of Interest and/or a breach of duty when he pushed the EDC to enter into a contractual relationship with the City of Flint to transfer ownership of the "Chevy in the hole" property to the City of Flint? Also would such an acquisition have to be approved by Flint City council and what is the ultimate use of such property. He cannot be on both sides of the contractual agreement.
2) How can Walling and his employees run the EDC and the Oak Business Center without placing the EDC in a subordinate position and breaching his fiducuary roles for both entities? Are the salaries of Tracy Atkinson, Greg Eason and Peter Bade being donated by the City to the EDC, or are some of these duties being billed to HUD (CDBG grant).
3) Is there interference in a business relationship when city employees assume duties previously in the purview of the management company hired by the Board of Directors of the EDC?
4) Is there interference in a business relationship between the EDC and the Flint Area Enterprise Community staff, who were under contract with the EDC for loan services. It has been alleged that Goodman was directed by some in the administration to ignore sound loan underwriting principle and if true this would constitute a breach of loyalty and of duty.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:05 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
