|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:56 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Michigan: The story behind the score
By Chris Andrews
The campaign finance system here has more holes than I-94 after a spring thaw. Big spenders and special interests can easily shovel millions of dollars into election activities — secretly if they choose. The lobby law is so weak that it was nearly impossible to determine which companies were spending millions to oppose construction of a new bridge. And the financial disclosure system for state elected officials?
Well actually, there isn’t one.
Welcome to Michigan, the “Trust Us” State when it comes to transparency. Reform efforts are frequently launched, sometimes debated, always shelved. Meanwhile, special interests continue to make greater use of loopholes that allow them to influence the system without leaving fingerprints on the money spent doing it.
“It appears we’re living with an honor system in an environment where there isn’t much honor,” said Rich Robinson, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks campaign spending and lobbying records.
All those factors help explain why the state earns a grade of 58 — an “F” — from the State Integrity Investigation, a collaborative project of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International. Overall, Michigan ranks 43rd among the 50 states.
The analysis of 330 indicators of state accountability measures shows that this state of almost 9.9 million residents has major flaws in tracking money spent to elect officials and shape policy. The set of laws regulating campaign spending, lobbyist activity, and financial disclosure guarantee essentially says to the public: Mind your own business.
Even so, Michigan’s state government is not known for scandal. It gets many things right.
It is not plagued by pay-to-play allegations in procurement, or by nepotism or cronyism in the civil service system. Its Freedom of Information Act usually, if not always, works to give journalists and others the information they request at a reasonable cost. The sort of corruption that is common in Detroit rarely finds its way 90 miles north to Lansing. And Gov. Rick Snyder’s new push for transparency is giving residents greater online access to information about how the state spends billions of dollars annually than ever before.
But there are glaring holes, especially when it comes to the millions of dollars spent to wine and dine lawmakers, elect or defeat candidates and pass or kill legislation. Efforts at reform are frequent; and they almost uniformly fail.
Following the money: Good luck with that
The Michigan Campaign Finance Act was enacted as a post-Watergate reform in 1976 to limit the impact a few rich individuals or well-heeled special-interest groups can have on elections, as well as to shine light on who is spending how much.
More than thirty-five years later, the law misses the mark in at least three ways. In the real world of politics, individuals and groups can spend as much as they want to elect or defeat a candidate, or ballot issue. A growing share of the money goes, legally, unreported. Enforcement efforts are modest at best.
Campaign finance law does limit how much individuals, political action committees, and political parties can contribute to candidates’ campaign committees. For instance, individuals can give no more than $3,400 to a candidate for governor; political action committees can give no more than $34,000 and political parties are limited to $68,000.
But for political high-rollers, these restrictions are nothing more than speed bumps. They can make unlimited contributions to political parties and political action committees, which turn around and make unlimited independent expenditures on television ads and other communications to support or defeat a candidate.
The only restriction is that the independent expenditures cannot be under the control of the candidate committee.
In practice, this has allowed wealthy individuals and powerful PACs to funnel huge amounts of money into campaigns.
In 2006, Republican businessman Dick DeVos contributed nearly $35 million to his own unsuccessful campaign for governor. That same year, Kalamazoo philanthropist Jon Stryker and his wife contributed more than $5 million to the new Coalition for Progress political action committee, which spent more than $3 million supporting Democrats or opposing Republicans. Democrats captured numerous swing seats to take control of the Michigan House of Representatives. Some Republicans think Stryker’s money was the difference.
Stealthy issue ads
At least those contributions were reported, and journalists and voters could track the money on the Secretary of State’s website. That can’t be said for issue-advocacy ads, which have emerged as the loophole of choice in the 21st century.
The ads look, sound and feel like standard candidate ads, but because they don’t directly ask voters to vote for or against a candidate, they don’t fall under the campaign finance act, according to the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the law.
Over the past several election cycles, the amount of money pumped into campaigns through issue-advocacy ads has grown enormously. Between 2000 and 2010, nearly $70 million in campaign advertisements for state office were not disclosed under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. The figure comes from the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which inspects the public files at television stations. There is no information available on money spent on radio ads, robo-calls or other issue-advocacy communication.
The Michigan Democratic Party spent $4.3 million on issue ads supporting Democratic candidate Virg Bernero in the 2010 gubernatorial election, and voters don’t know who gave the money to the party. Because these ads aren’t regulated by the campaign finance act, the donors aren’t disclosed. The Republican Governors Association pitched in $3.6 million for ads to elect Rick Snyder.
The Secretary of State’s Office is charged with enforcing the Campaign Finance Act but has relatively little power and little history of aggressive enforcement. The law directs elections officials to try to resolve disputes rather than prosecute. When Baxter Machine & Tool Inc. made an illegal contribution of $25,000 to a political action committee (state law prohibits corporate contributions to PACs) in 2004, the Secretary of State dismissed the complaint against the company “because this matter occurred in error,” and imposed a $1,000 fine, while allowing the political action committee to keep half the money.
Conciliation over punishment
The lack of subpoena power is a barrier to investigation of violations.
In 2010, the state was prepared to reach a $10,000 conciliation agreement with former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who spent nearly $1 million of his campaign funds on legal services. The agreement fell through. In 2011, new Secretary of State Ruth Johnson took a tougher stand, citing Kilpatrick’s testimony in a civil suit that he paid his lawyers to defend himself against perjury charges related to an affair. Armed with information it could not get on its own, the secretary of state then filed suit seeking fines totaling $976,000.
In a state slowly pulling out of a decade-long recession, lobbying is a big and thriving business. In the first seven months of 2010, lobbyists spent nearly $20 million, up 12 percent from 2010, according to an analysis by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network.
Enacted in 1978, the Michigan Lobbyists Registration Act was designed to let the public know who is lobbying legislators and top administration officials, and how much they are spending to wine, dine and otherwise influence decision-makers. But the disclosure requirements are so weak that linking spending to political outcomes is virtually impossible.
“Frankly, lobbying reports themselves are almost meaningless,” said Robert LaBrant, general counsel for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and one of the state’s leading authorities on the lobbying law.
The law requires lobbyists to list their clients, but not a whole lot more. Michigan’s major lobbying firms represent many clients with a variety of interests. From the reports, you can’t tell whether lobbyist expenditures are intended to shape business taxes, teacher tenure laws, movie industry incentives or a new bridge to Canada, all of which came up during the 2011 legislative session.
The Michigan Campaign Finance Network reported that the Detroit International Bridge Company spent $4.7 million on advertising opposing a second bridge that would present competition to the one it owns. But MCFN Executive Director Rich Robinson said he couldn’t find any evidence that the DIBC had registered to lobby, or paid a firm to lobby on its behalf.
Gift loophole
And then there’s the gift loophole. Lobbyists are barred from giving gifts to legislators or other officials. But what is a gift? According to the lobby law, it is something that cost more than $57 in 2012. (The threshold is adjusted annually for inflation.) So if a lobbyist gives a senator a ticket to a Michigan State University basketball game, it isn’t a gift after all.
A few years ago, several lobbyists attempted to enhance their generosity by pooling their money to give theater tickets to legislators and spouses without exceeding the threshold. The Secretary of State said no, in response to a ruling request from LaBrant, of the Michigan Chamber, and Robinson, of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, two of the state’s leading experts on campaign finance and lobby regulation.
Similarly, lobbyists don’t have to identify the legislators they are taking out to breakfast, lunch or dinner as long as the cost is less than $57 in a month or $350 in a reporting period. “Generally, only if you are going out for a real night on the town with the wine and hors d’oeuvres and a nice dessert do you get over the financial threshold,” said LaBrant.
And Michigan is one of only three states without asset disclosure laws for top elected officials.
Unlike members of Congress, and lawmakers in 47 states, they aren’t required to let the public in on their personal wealth or financial holdings, which leaves voters unable to detect potential conflicts of interest. Governors and candidates for governor often voluntarily release their tax returns or summaries of them, but those disclosures are not required.
Various proposals have been made dating back to at least the 1980s to establish financial disclosure laws, similar to those required for candidates for Congress. But none have been enacted into law, so the public can only hope that legislators will disclose any conflicts and abstain when there are conflicts.
Conflicted about conflict
But there are no clear guidelines about what constitutes a conflict, and in reality, lawmakers almost never abstain for ethical reasons. Former Attorney General Mike Cox, who supported financial disclosure in 2009 when he was preparing to run for governor, researched House and Senate records between 2003 and 2009 and found there wasn’t a single instance when a state senator abstained from voting because of a conflict of interest. There were only 33 abstentions in 6,495 votes in the House.
In May 2011, Democrats in the state Senate formally challenged whether senators who had direct interests in limited liability corporations (and stood to benefit under a tax reform plan) should be required to abstain from voting. Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, who serves as president of the Senate, ruled that senators must decide for themselves whether there are conflicts of interest. Everyone voted.
Michigan state law establishes a state ethics board designed to investigate wrongdoing. The members of the seven-person panel are unpaid volunteers, many of whom are former politicians with allegiance to one party or the other. The board has no budget, and its only staff is a civil service official who serves as executive secretary, and an assistant attorney general who is assigned to the board.
Over the years, the board has had little impact. It cannot accept anonymous complaints, which creates a barrier for anyone to come forward who might fear reprisal. Its authority extends to the executive branch but not the judiciary or Legislature. Lynn Jondahl, a former state representative who chaired the ethics board during the administration of Gov. Jennifer Granholm, said lawmakers occasionally approached him in search of guidance, but he had to tell them they were not within the board’s purview.
Even with its executive branch investigations, the ethics board has no power to take action other than to make recommendations to the agency where the alleged violation occurred. “It [the board] is very limited both in terms of its coverage of the executive branch and in terms of the sanctions, or lack of sanctions,” Jondahl said.
Legislator to lobbyist
Ethics reform advocates frequently call for legislation to establish “cooling off periods” before legislators and top administration officials become lobbyists or work in industries they oversaw, usually between six months and two years. But Michigan lawmakers have not been inclined to limit their future career options.
In fact, it is commonplace for legislators and other leading state officials to become lobbyists after their terms expire. Term limits restrict legislators to three two-year terms in the House and two four-year terms in the Senate. Former House Speakers Rick Johnson, Chuck Perricone, Lewis Dodak and Gary Owen are just a few of the legislators who turned lobbyist.
Former Michigan Insurance Consumer Advocate Melvin Butch Hollowell said that most of the state’s insurance commissioners have taken jobs in the industry after leaving government service. It raises questions about whether some of their decisions as commissioner were influenced by the desire to please their future bosses, he said.
Gov. Snyder is a strong proponent of transparency in government, and he proposed an ethics package when he was running for governor in 2010. Among other things, he called for banning all gifts from lobbyists, cooling-off periods, and regulation of issue advertising.
But while Snyder achieved many of his campaign goals after taking office in 2011, these reforms were put on the back burner. Robinson said lawmakers are unlikely to take action unless the public demands it, and so far citizens have shown little interest.
“The Legislature fundamentally is a position between interest groups and the citizens,” Robinson said, “and it’s easier to just throw in your lot with the interest groups.”
Want to get this information in the hands of those who need it most? Use the report card's "E-mail this score to your state official" button to automatically send Michigan's grades to your governor and state legislators. If you're from another state, use our map to find your state and send your state's report card to the people who represent you. |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:58 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Individuals have stood up in Flint council and other places to announce they were informed by a Lansing politician or some law enforcement how Flint and Genesee County have the most corrupt local governments in the state.
This is hard to believe with the arrests made in the Wayne County corruption trials including both the Ficano and the Kilpatrick governments. Flint and Genesee County probably doesn't have the level of monetary benefits available for corrupt acts.
This area needs prosecutors, state and federal officials willing to bring these cases to light.
Sheriff Pickell and his detectives have put together some excellent reports that should have led to prosecution. The feds took over the Career Alliance case and many expressed the belief the resulting prosecutions were insufficient.
In my opinion Pickell's investigation into Grand Blanc supervisor Delaney should have had some legal consequences and monetary repayments Was it cronyism that prevented the prosecutor from not issuing charges.
Then there was the allegations some reported in the Journal, about a commissioner that attempted to back door with legal entities to block prosecution of Rizzo on the auto theft and fraud case. However the Prosecutor's budget did not suffer severe cuts that had been threatened.
This same commissioner also was embroiled in conflict involving the contract for the phone services in the jail when it appeared he manipulated the contract to his former employer and biggest campaign donor.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Tue May 05, 2015 7:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:18 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
A former Flint councilman and pension board member never revealed he was Vice President of a securities company that used pension investments and financed casinos. AA Capital Partners eventually ended in indictments and prison sentence when the President stole union pensions and other funds for his stripper club girlfriend. horse rescue farm and sport venue expenditures. This deception only came to light when offended pension board members complained when the councilman requested investments for his company at a meeting.
Flint has disclosure rules that are routinely ignored. Actually even appointees should fill out these forms. Two councilmen were Presidents of the former Greater Eastside Community (GECA) when they were elected and neither disclosed. One was involved into changing a contact on the Department of Energy Grant that was awarded to former GECA Director Kate Fields. This resulted in four whistleblower lawsuits an investigation and the loss of the Department of Energy grant with repayments.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Tue May 05, 2015 7:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:37 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Campaign donations and support have played a major role into local corruption. Allegations swirled in many circles about the mayoral appointee role in Smith Village.The City did not face the loss of a million dollars if they did not build Smith Village as those HUD issues had been dealt with. The problem was created n the Stanley administration and the failure to address 17 years of the City failing to respond to HUD findings.
Metro Housing had an excellent reputation in the development of housing. Those who were aware of this were appalled when City manager Eason with council approval removed the contract and awarded it to Charles Young Jr and his partner. Permits were issued to companies that did not exist legally. Even the corporation named in the contract had not been formed with the state yet.
The media focused on reputable minority contractors that did not receive payment for their services. They eventually settled with approximately a one-third loss just so they could pay their sub-contractors. What happened to Davis Bacon and prevailing wage laws? Later there was dispute over Fenton and Davison contractors not being paid.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Tue May 05, 2015 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:58 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Flint is finally finishing lawsuits with Young and Operation Unification. Young blames the city for his eventual bankruptcy. He failed in his attempt to dismiss the treble damages Consumers received in court when they proved the nonprofit used fraudulent methods to steal electric services. Young n his lawsuit blamed the city of nonpayment as part of the reasons his company broke HUD rule and stole electricity. Fraud judgments will not be released.
The OIG made a report on 4 financially strapped cities one being Flint. My issue with this report is they did not include the Stimulus Funds. This money came through the state to Michigan cities. Smith Village has had findings that will cost us millions. And that does not include all of the lawsuits. Flint does not release any information on HUD findings anymore. HUD is assisting in this lack of transparency. After releasing FOIA information free to requestors they suddenly requested $1200 for a request for the mot recent HUD monitoring report on Flint. I believe they were covering up their own failings as well as their willingness to cave in to Flint administrator demands to hide this information. |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:15 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Both Flint and Genesee County gave HUD CHDO status to Operation Unification without proper due process. There is a debate over internet searches on applicants. in this instance a search would have revealed a number of deficiencies.
The name Charles Young Jr. and Operation Unification would have revealed a major lawsuit alleging Young of "breach of contract" and fraudulently taking corporate monies to buy land in Genesee County and creating Operation Unification and the two sister for profits. The money used came from loan funds from Chase Bank and they intervened. Genesee County assets of the nonprofit were then secured by the bank.
Even basic documents submitted should have triggered questions. Operation Unification and the two sister for-profits had the same board of directors (interlocking Directorates) and even shared funds. At one point two directors of the for profit were given stock. Properties were transferred between Young the two directors and the three companies.
The city ignored conflicting data when they gave a loan for a meat market on Lippncott. The market barely got off the ground and quickly failed.
Was this incompetence or deliberate manipulation by city officials?
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Tue May 05, 2015 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:41 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
When the DHS building was constructed by the state on Clio and Pierson, the city gave the developer over a half-million to purchase the land. HUD findings demanded repayment of the federal money. HUD had not approved the expenditure and the project was a state project. The state was implicated in a similar project near Detroit with the same developer.
Meanwhile Flt council members fought for the location and bragged about being able to have input in sub-contractor selection. Pay to Play? |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:50 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:55 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://mlgma.org/about/ethics.html
ICMA Code of Ethics
The ICMA Code of Ethics was adopted by the membership in 1924, and most recently amended in May 1998. The Guidelines for the Code were adopted by the ICMA Executive Board in 1972, and most recently revised in July 1998.
The purposes of ICMA are to enhance the quality of local government and to support and assist professional local administrators in the United States and other countries. To further these objectives, certain principles, as enforced by the Rules of Procedure, shall govern the conduct of every member of ICMA, who shall:
1 Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic local government by responsible elected officials and believe that professional general management is essential to the achievement of this objective.
2 Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a constructive, creative, and practical attitude toward local government affairs and a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant. Guideline
3 Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships in order that the member may merit the respect and confidence of the elected officials, of other officials and employees, and of the public. Guidelines
4 Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interests of all the people. Guideline
5 Submit policy proposals to elected officials; provide them with facts and advice on matters of policy as a basis for making decisions and setting community goals; and uphold and implement local government policies adopted by elected officials. Guideline
6 Recognize that elected representatives of the people are entitled to the credit for the establishment of local government policies; responsibility for policy execution rests with the members.
7 Refrain from all political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators. Refrain from participation in the election of the members of the employing legislative body. Guidelines
8 Make it a duty continually to improve the member's professional ability and to develop the competence of associates in the use of management techniques. Guidelines
9 Keep the community informed on local government affairs; encourage communication between the citizens and all local government officers; emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public; and seek to improve the quality and image of public service.
10 Resist any encroachment on professional responsibilities, believing the member should be free to carry out official policies without interference, and handle each problem without discrimination on the basis of principle and justice. Guideline
11 Handle all matters of personnel on the basis of merit so that fairness and impartiality govern a member's decisions pertaining to appointments, pay adjustments, promotions, and discipline. Guideline
12 Seek no favor; believe that personal aggrandizement or profit secured by confidential information or by misuse of public time is dishonest. Guidelines
Flint and Genesee County could benefit from these principles especially in the case of the HSS (now value Point) contact. |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:05 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/03/22/americas-most-corrupt-states/agencies and redistricting.
.......
Read the story on 24/7 Wall St.
Most states scored poorly. No state earned an A, and only five states received better than a B+. More than half the states received a D+ or worse. Scored from 1 to 100, eight states earned failing grades of 59 or below from the project.
24/7 Wall St. examined the eight states that received an F and the five states that scored B- or better. A review of the states with the highest and lowest scores illustrates that regular reports on government from citizens, public employees and watchdog groups is essential to encourage state integrity
......
According to Randy Barrett, Communications Director for the Center for Public Integrity, one of the most widespread issues throughout these state governments is the lack of public access to information, which, he says, is key to preventing other kinds of corruption and conflicts of interest from occurring. “When you think about it, that’s really the root of transparency. If citizens can’t see into how their state does business and decision-making, that’s the real problem,” Barret said.
States with the worst corruption risk scores lack powerful watchdog agencies. In many states, according to Barrett, the existing groups intended to ensure ethical action by elected officials lack real power. Virginia, which scores among the worst in terms of corruption risk, does not have a statewide ethics commission at all. Barrett suggests that the reason many states have such ineffectual watchdog organizations is that the elected officials they are supposed to be monitoring consistently vote in favor of cutting their funding and restricting their power.
Surprisingly, most of the states that received high marks have big governments with long histories of corruption and political machinery. Connecticut and California fit this description. New Jersey, where it seems former and current officials are indicted every year on ethics charges, received the highest grade in the country. Despite its colorful political past and present, New Jersey received a perfect score in areas such as lobbying disclosure and internal auditing. According to the report, the reason states with historical problems with corruption now have high accountability scores is precisely because of their former offenses. Those past problems led to strict enforcement measures that have kept politicians honest and information readily available.According to Barrett, states with stagnant political environments often encourage corruption. Governments with high levels of corruption tend to have a political party — either the Democrats or Republicans — in power for a long time. The states that have had a “machine” in place for a long time often tend to be the most corrupt. Machines tend to want to protect themselves.
These are America’s most corrupt states.
8. Michigan
> Overall grade: F (58%)
> Public access to information: D
> Legislative accountability: F
> Political financing: F
> Ethics enforcement agencies: F
Michigan received a grade of F in 10 of the 14 categories measured, including accountability in all three branches of government as well as in redistricting, lobbying and political financing. Michigan is one of just three states that still lacks financial disclosure rules for lawmakers and governors. According to Chris Andrews, author of the State Integrity Investigation report on Michigan, the state does not fall prey to much of the widespread corruption that has been seen in Detroit. The report’s findings indicate, however, that the state has no system in place to monitor state lobbying, which is among the most corrupt in the country. This, according to Andrews, “has allowed wealthy individuals and powerful PACs to funnel huge amounts of money into campaigns.” The state also has a “gift loophole” for lobbyists, which allows gifts from interested parties to elected officials like sports tickets or meals.
....... |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:13 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://ecode360.com/12405654
City of Monroe, MI ETHICS, CODE OF - eCode360
The following set of standards are intended to preserve the values, integrity, and
fiduciary duty of local government. One of the best ways to maintain the public's ...
http://ecode360.com/12405654 - 55k
The city and the county need adequate Ethics Policies and they should adhere to them |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:18 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:24 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
December2006
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is written as a public apology to two business owners who asked me to approve transfers of liquor licenses in the 2nd Ward, where I am the city councilperson. I initially disapproved these transfers. However, after two meetings, I expressed my concerns against approving the transfer of liquor licenses in my ward and agreed that if they would agree to contribute $500 (each), annually, towards a scholarship fund that I initiated for the top 10 high school graduates in my ward, then I would approve their transfer of a liquor license request.
The business owners contributed to the scholarship fund. At the next scheduled City Council meeting, I stated my reason for retracting my earlier position of not approving the transfer of liquor licenses in my ward relative to my Give Back to the Community initiative and they voted unanimously for approval. I presented the top 10 graduates with $100 (each) during a high school honor graduation ceremony in my ward.
However, I was advised by the United States attorney's office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that my actions violated federal law, because I had used the power of my public office to coerce contributions to the scholarship fund. I have consulted with my attorney, and now understand that my actions, although well intended for a good cause, did indeed violate the federal law. I have assured the United States attorney's office that now that I have a clear understanding of the law governing my power of public office that I will no longer use my governmental authority to coerce contributions of any person or entity (no matter how deserving), other than payments owed to the city of Flint.
Moreover, I have entered into an agreement with the United States attorney to make this public apology and to repay to the two business owners the $1,000. scholarship contribution that I coerced them to contribute that violated federal law. I also agreed not to retaliate against the two business owners for having reported my wrongful actions. If I abide by all terms of this agreement, I will not be charged with violating the federal law.
I sincerely apologize to the business owners, and pledge to all persons that I will hereafter consider their requests appropriately and within the allotted time set by the charter.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Poplar, councilwoman |
|
|
|
Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:36 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Steve Myers
Site Admin
Site Admin
Flint Mayor Don Williamson has been subpoenaed by City Council to testify at city hearings about the use of HUD money.
Council members say Flint stands to lose millions in federal grant dollars by the end of the year.
The Flint City Council is holding a series of investigative hearings to check into possible irregularities in Flint's Grants Division. They want to know if there was bias or favoritism in the awarding of HUD money.
Tuesday marked the fourth hearing to discuss why a million dollars in federal grants could be lost as early as the end of the month. Millions more are in jeopardy at year's end.
Council members have subpoenaed Mayor Don Williamson to testify when hearings continue tomorrow.
The council suggests it was the mayor's refusal to spend the money on three local service agencies that prompted HUD to recall the funds. "It's hurting the citizens of Flint. And you know you keep this blame game going, but if you bring people in to tell the truth you find out who's telling the truth. And you'll find out that its not the council who's lying but it's the administration is not doing what it's supposed to," said City Council President Johnnie Coleman.
Mayor Williamson points the finger at council, saying members are responsible for the city possibly losing millions in HUD dollars, because they would not approved his alternative plan for the money.
Hearings on the issue continue Thursday at Flint City Hall.
Full Story:
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=local&id=3575259
Post Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:28 am |
|
|
|
Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:40 am |
|
|
|
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
