| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Flint considering asking state for financial review under revised emergency financial manager law
Published: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 8:00 AM
By Kristin Longley | Flint Journal The Flint Journal
Flint Journal file photoFLINT, Michigan — The city of Flint is considering asking the state to review its finances, a first and giant step in the review process established under the state’s recently revised emergency financial manager law.
Flint Mayor Dayne Walling is hoping the process ends with a so-called “consent agreement,” which would grant him or the city council the power to change expired union contracts, which would apply to the four public safety unions
.
But the process also could end with the appointment of an emergency financial manager.
The city’s police unions have said an attempt to put new contracts in place without collective bargaining will be challenged
.
Walling is expected to ask Flint City Council on Wednesday to approve a joint request for a preliminary financial review by the state.
“There’s an ongoing, severe financial crisis that can’t be swept under the rug,” Walling said Friday. “The changes need to be made as soon as possible, either with voluntary concessions or a consent agreement.”
Walling pledged not to lay off public safety employees next year, but said he plans to trim the budget with employee concessions, among other measures. He has said he wants concessions in place by July 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year.
Police union officials say the police offered concessions, but the city wasn’t cooperative. City leaders have said the proposed concessions didn’t meet the double-digit threshold the mayor requested from all employee unions.
Sgt. Rick Hetherington, president of the police sergeants union, said he would welcome a financial review by the state. As for the possibility of a consent agreement, he doesn’t believe new contracts can be put in place because the city and police have entered into arbitration.
“We would like a review team to see the efforts that we’ve made,” he said. “We’re not convinced the city’s being forthright with its financial situation anyway.”
If a preliminary review is granted by the state treasurer’s office, the governor can then appoint a financial review team of state officials “if a finding of probable financial stress” is made.
The review team would then report its findings to the governor, who has several options, including granting a consent agreement between the state and city officials on a plan to resolve the severe financial problems.
The law says that, under a consent agreement, a local government is not subject to “collective bargaining requirements” after 30 days for expired contracts. Existing contracts would not be affected.[/b
]But the governor could also start the process toward a state takeover of
the city’s finances — which would turn the operation of the city over to an emergency financial manager.
Walling said the state has had the ability to start that process, but hasn’t done so. He said he’d rather put a consent agreement in place.
“My goal is to keep our community in control of its own destiny,” he said.
The financial review process would be monitored by the state treasurer’s office and the review team, if one is appointed, said Caleb Buhs, treasury department spokesman.
A community can’t just request a preliminary review and expect to be granted expanded powers under a consent agreement, he said.
“The steps are to ensure that due process takes place,” Buhs said.
The city would likely be the second municipality to request a preliminary financial review under the overhauled emergency financial manager law, which was revised under Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s new administration.
The treasurer’s office received a review request last month from the city of Jackson’s mayor.
[b]Flint City Councilman Joshua Freeman said he’s not opposed to requesting the preliminary financial review, but the matter will be discussed further at the council meeting Wednesday.
“I’ve said for a long time we need to address our structural problems,” said Freeman, chairman of the council’s finance committee. “Maybe we can’t do it without this process.”
|
|
|
Sat May 14, 2011 8:15 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| For a self-proclaimed Democrat, Walling sure seems to hate unions. Or, is it just the Police union? After Minnesota & DC, maybe he has a thing about law enforcement. That could explain all the Police layoffs. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sat May 14, 2011 8:46 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
quote:
Dave Starr schreef:
For a self-proclaimed Democrat, Walling sure seems to hate unions. Or, is it just the Police union? After Minnesota & DC, maybe he has a thing about law enforcement. That could explain all the Police layoffs.
He seems to march to the Republican agenda!
This text is part of the larger publication:
Reconsidering Michigan's Public Employment Relations ActSuspending Contracts in Financial EmergenciesBy Paul Kersey | Feb. 14, 2011
The state has a legal process for managing local governments and school districts that are approaching bankruptcy. This law, the Local Government Fiscal Responsibility Act, calls for examination of local finances by state officials, and in the case of a financial emergency, the appointment of an “emergency financial manager.”[48] This EFM has fairly broad powers over government operations and may rework the local government’s budget; approve or reject expenditures, including the hiring of new staff; consolidate departments; sell off unneeded government assets; and contract with nearby governments for the provision of essential government services, such as police and fire. The EFM also takes over the local government’s role in collective bargaining and may ask to have current collective bargaining agreements renegotiated.[49]
As broad as the EFM’s authority may be, the act still leaves union officials in a position to delay and perhaps undermine the EFM’s work. The EFM may need to remove an unaffordable wage or benefit provisions from a city’s collective bargaining agreement. The sooner he or she is able to do so, the sooner the city can have its budget balanced and begin its return to financial and economic health. Yet under the law, the EFM must still engage in good-faith bargaining, while the union continues to draw dues payments that it can use to reverse the EFM’s changes later on, either through collective bargaining or through the political process.
The EFM has other tools at his or her disposal. As long as nearby governments are willing to contract to provide services to the troubled municipality, the contracting-out power may allow an EFM to dispense with collective bargaining and effectively purchase services elsewhere. The consequence of this is likely to be layoffs, however — layoffs that can often be avoided by the prompt restructuring of wages, benefits and work rules.
If a city, county or school district is truly facing an emergency in fiscal terms, then the situation should be treated as an emergency. In an emergency, necessary decisions are not negotiated; they are made and implemented. Collective bargaining is a privilege, not an inalienable right, and it is entirely reasonable that privileges that complicate the resolution of an emergency should be suspended until the emergency has passed. The Legislature should revise PERA or the Local Government Fiscal Responsibility Act to provide that all collective bargaining and collective bargaining agreements are automatically suspended for the duration of the emergency. Among other things, this would suspend the local government’s collection of union dues.
Such a rule may seem harsh, but the interest of taxpayers in the prompt and thorough resolution of the financial emergency and the continuation of city services must take precedence over the interests of union officials or government employees in the continuation of collective bargaining. This rule would also have the salutary effect of providing union officials with a strong incentive to monitor the economic health of the communities where their members work and the fiscal strength of local governments and school districts with whom they bargain. Furthermore, it provides the unions with disincentives against making contract demands that cannot be sustained over the long term. Again, abuse the privilege, lose the privilege.
At a minimum, the EFM should have the authority to rescind or amend collective bargaining agreements. Such a rule will allow EFMs to act quickly to void the most expensive collective bargaining agreements while keeping more reasonable contracts in place. This in turn will make it easier for EFMs to provide relief to taxpayers without disrupting services or laying off workers unnecessarily.
Next page: II. Overhauling PERA: Voluntary Local Unionism and Bargaining This text is part of the larger publication:
Reconsidering Michigan's Public Employment Relations ActDownload PDF of the larger publicationPublication: |
|
|
|
Mon May 16, 2011 6:22 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Reconsidering Michigan's Public Employment Relations ActRestoring Balance to Public-Sector Labor RelationsBy Paul Kersey | Feb. 14, 2011
Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act requires local governments and school districts throughout Michigan to bargain collectively with unions representing their employees. The collective bargaining process is a creation of the state Legislature, which also has the power to repeal or amend it.
No area of public policy in Michigan is more in need of fresh thinking than the relationship between government and its employees. With Michigan’s recurring government budget struggles, and with a new Legislature and governor espousing a commitment to performance, efficiency and accountability in government, a new labor law for government employees is imperative.
This report outlines a variety of ways the Michigan Legislature can address the damaging impact of PERA. |
|
|
|
Mon May 16, 2011 6:24 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Executive SummaryBy Paul Kersey | Feb. 14, 2011
Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act requires local governments and school districts throughout Michigan to bargain collectively with unions representing their employees. The collective bargaining process is a creation of the state Legislature, which also has the power to repeal or amend it.
In an earlier Policy Brief, “Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act: Public-Sector Labor Law and Its Consequences,” we reviewed several negative effects that the 1965 law has had on Michigan government and the economy. For example, PERA has inadvertently granted public-sector unions, in their role as the representatives of government workers who implement local laws and policies, an effective veto power over many laws that have been passed by residents or their elected representatives. In addition, PERA has permitted local government employee unions to collect mandatory “agency fees” from government workers who do not wish to join, empowering those unions to become a permanent, subsidized lobby for big government.
No area of public policy in Michigan is more in need of fresh thinking than the relationship between government and its employees. With Michigan’s recurring government budget struggles, and with a new Legislature and governor espousing a commitment to performance, efficiency and accountability in government, a new labor law for government employees is imperative.
This report outlines a variety of ways the Michigan Legislature can address the damaging impact of PERA. These options range from modest, targeted reforms to an outright ban on collective bargaining in local units of government.
Among the targeted reforms to correct at least some flaws in the law are the following:
•Establish additional statutory limits on the subject matter of collective bargaining, backed by a strong enforcement mechanism, to ensure that the public retains control over important policy decisions. At a minimum, the state Legislature should require that collective bargaining agreements conform with state laws and local ordinances.
•Suspend collective bargaining privileges and agreements when government employee unions flagrantly violate PERA by going on strike. Collective bargaining for government employees is a privilege, not a right. “Abuse the privilege, lose the privilege” is a sound rule.
•Bar agency fees from public-employee collective bargaining agreements — in other words, an “open government employment” rule — to end what has essentially become a taxpayer subsidy of union politics.
A more substantial overhaul of PERA would begin by withdrawing the mandate that local governments bargain collectively, leaving them free to bargain with unions at their discretion. If state policymakers choose this option, they should also provide some basic rules to protect workers and taxpayers, including a prohibition on agency fees, a nullification of contracts that contradict state or local laws, and the retention of both secret-ballot certification elections and the members’ power to decertify their unions.
It is settled law that the Legislature could prohibit collective bargaining at the local level altogether. It is not at all clear that government employees need collective bargaining to protect their influence, given their civil service protections and given their unique knowledge of government operations and their regular contact with decision-makers — assets that are particularly valuable in the political context. It is also unclear that collective bargaining improves employee morale.
In any other context where two parties bargain to reach an agreement, including private-sector collective bargaining, it is understood that all parties are free to break off negotiations if they wish — a principle of “win-win or no deal.” PERA is unique and problematic in insisting that unions and governments bargain. This inflexible mandate has resulted in the creation of numerous contracts that are not in the public’s long-term best interest.
If government exists to advance the public interest, then the law ought not to enshrine any procedure that detracts from the public interest. Ideally, the Legislature would repeal PERA and ban public-sector collective bargaining in local government, ensuring that local governments overcome the numerous problems associated with mandatory collective bargaining and that the state makes a clean break from an era of undue public-sector union influence over government.
If legislators are uncertain about that step, they should repeal PERA’s collective bargaining mandate and leave public-sector collective bargaining — with basic protections of the public interest — at the discretion of local government. At the very least, the Legislature should undertake targeted reforms like those mentioned above. In any event, the Legislature should act, and act decisively. Public officials in local government and school districts should no longer be pressured into signing contracts that are not in the best interests of the public they were elected to serve.
Next page: Introduction: Problems and Premises |
|
|
|
Mon May 16, 2011 6:26 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
Executive Summary By
Paul Kersey
Feb. 14, 2011
I guess Paul Kersey is a lot more talented than he showed as the hero of the Death Wish movies.
Walling + consent agreement = Fox + hen house. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Mon May 16, 2011 8:25 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
So this is why they wanted to cancel the request for the consent order! Council gets a copy of the budget-to-actuals every month, so didn't they see this coming?
Flint officials planning to borrow another $12 million to cover deficit
Published: Friday, May 20, 2011, 9:28 AM Updated: Friday, May 20, 2011, 10:06 AM
By Kristin Longley | Flint Journal The Flint Journal
Flint Journal file photoFLINT, Michigan — The ink is barely dry on the city’s recent $8 million bond issue, but already Flint leaders are planning to borrow another $12 million to cover the rest of the budget deficit.
Officials said cuts in state aid and reduced property tax revenue are mostly to blame for Flint’s $20 million budget hole — and they say cutting their way out of it just isn’t an option.
So the new deficit reduction strategy hinges on another $12 million bond issue in two years, assuming the state approves it.
“For us to cut another $12 million, it would be very difficult for us to not hinder the services that are minimal now,” Finance Director Michael Townsend said. “It was unrealistic.”
This year, the state rejected the city’s request to borrow $20 million to cover the entire deficit.
The state eventually approved an $8 million fiscal stabilization bond in March, and Townsend said the Department of Treasury indicated it would be willing in 2013 to consider an additional $12 million, the balance of the deficit from past years, dating to 2008.
The city was hit this year with state budget cuts that equaled an $8 million cut to state-shared revenue, money the state distributes to local governments each year. The city also is taking in less property tax revenue.
Townsend said the administration has made cuts to every general fund department, and fee increases are being proposed.
“We still have a $12 million problem,” Townsend told the Flint City Council on Wednesday. “We’ll use the $8 million we already received to make sure we do not have a deficit in 2011. In two years, we’ll go back and ask for $12 million in bonds to eliminate the deficit total.”
Caleb Buhs, spokesman for the Department of Treasury, said the state will be open to that discussion when the time comes.
Nearly 12,000 municipal bond issuances are completed each year, according to a fact sheet issued jointly by the National League of Cities and other municipal organizations.
The vast majority of those bonds are for roads, sewers and other capital improvement projects, said Eric Scorsone, professor of state and local government issues at Michigan State University.
He said it’s rare for cities to issue deficit bonds, but the recession has led to an increase. In Michigan, deficit bonds require approval from the State Administrative Board, made up of delegates from the governor’s office, treasurer’s office and other executive offices.
Cities that issue bonds usually have few alternatives, he said. Under state law, there are limits on tax increases, and increases in fees generally don’t generate enough revenue.
A city can cut spending with “layoffs or other quick cuts of that nature, but again there’s probably limits to how much you can do that and how quickly,” he said.
“In this case, there might not have been many other good options,” he said.
The drawbacks to municipal deficit bonds include interest payments.
“You’re going into debt for a deficit, which is probably not ideal,” he said. “It may be necessary, but you’re going to pay back more money over time. It’s also a signal of pretty serious fiscal stress.”
The Flint City Council moved the new deficit elimination plan forward Wednesday and will consider it further at its regular meeting Monday.
Flint City Councilman Scott Kincaid said a bond plan is similar to what the city did under Emergency Financial Manager Ed Kurtz in 2004.
“This isn’t an unusual step,” he said. “When I look at pooled cash and the budget, there’s no other alternative right now.”
Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
Sat May 21, 2011 6:43 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Group W Bench May 20, 2011 at 12:22PM
Follow
The state refused their request for $20M earlier this year but granted them the ability to borrow $8M. Now the city is asking for $12M so they can keep on rolling in the same inefficient manner they have been for years. This is like a kid asking dad for $20 and he tells him no, gives him the $8 he really needs, and then having the kid come back 10 minutes later asking for the other $12.
Personally I think that if the budget line item doesn't include the words police or fire department, it should be shut down and cut from the budget. Community centers and libraries are nice things but obviously unaffordable for the city of Flint, so shut them down. Contract out everything that all city employees are performing as this will eliminate any future pension liabilities for the city and will probably slash their day to day wage costs.
The city government, including both the mayor's office and the council, have shown time and again that they don't have the stones to do what they know needs to be done by cutting services because they're all worried about reelection. The state needs to just get things moving and send in the EFM now before the incompetents running the city figure out a way to turn a $20M deficit into a $40M deficit. An EFM might even have the power to slash the salaries of the elected and appointed personal within the city to what they're really worth, then we'd really see who's here for the city and who's here for the power trip and the paycheck. |
|
|
|
Sat May 21, 2011 6:47 am |
|
|
Bossman
F L I N T O I D
|
| Walling has no idea what he's doing, and Donna Poplar is even more clueless in labor relations. They have no idea how to negotiate, they don't understand how collective bargaining works, they don't understand P.A. 312, and they don't seem to even know that PERA exists. They don't even understand how the consent agreement works under the new law. The fact is that under a consent agreement Walling is given a wide range of powers. However, the law specifically states that he WOULD NOT have the powers given to an EFM under section 19(k) of the law. That section grants the authority to void or alter collective bargaining agreements. Further, the City rushed to file for 312 arbitration on all three police unions. Under PERA, once either party files for arbitration the employer cannot change any working conditions covered under the collective bargaining agreement until the arbitration process is complete. So as it stands, the unions will continue with the status quo until the arbitration process is complete. This process will cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars. The mayor could have settled contracts with around 10% concessions from the police unions over a year ago. The mayor refused and demanded more. Very short-sighted from our visionary mayor. |
|
|
|
Sat May 21, 2011 9:45 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
quote:
Bossman schreef:
Walling has no idea what he's doing, and Donna Poplar is even more clueless in labor relations. They have no idea how to negotiate, they don't understand how collective bargaining works, they don't understand P.A. 312, and they don't seem to even know that PERA exists. They don't even understand how the consent agreement works under the new law. The fact is that under a consent agreement Walling is given a wide range of powers. However, the law specifically states that he WOULD NOT have the powers given to an EFM under section 19(k) of the law. That section grants the authority to void or alter collective bargaining agreements. Further, the City rushed to file for 312 arbitration on all three police unions. Under PERA, once either party files for arbitration the employer cannot change any working conditions covered under the collective bargaining agreement until the arbitration process is complete. So as it stands, the unions will continue with the status quo until the arbitration process is complete. This process will cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars. The mayor could have settled contracts with around 10% concessions from the police unions over a year ago. The mayor refused and demanded more. Very short-sighted from our visionary mayor.
Great Job Bossman!
The Flint Journal Editorial Board is as much out of the loop as Walling is. They based this editorial on a interview with walling months ago and have not even spoken to the polic and fire. If they had they would know about the competing arguments.
This is a biased and one-sided argument! Watch for the Journal writers to skew all election related stories in favor of Walling!
I am sure long time council advised Walling of the pitfalls of his move towards a consent order. He told his radio viewers that he goes to lansing weekly. Well he obviously only hears what he wants to hear. Rumors are thet he is not as well received there and in Washington DC as he thinks he is.
Our Voice: Barring a last-minute deal with police and fire unions, state consent agreement is Flint's best bet
Published: Sunday, May 22, 2011, 5:01 AM
By Editorial Board | The Flint Journal The Flint Journal
One way or another, the city of Flint is going to get the pension and benefit cuts it needs from its four police and fire unions in order to avoid any more layoffs.
Failing agreement so far with the unions on 10-15 percent in concessions, Mayor Dayne Walling this month proposed that he and the City Council ask the state of Michigan for a review of the city’s finances. It’s a first step toward a consent agreement to give Walling or the council the powers of an emergency financial manager, among them the ability to unilaterally set the terms of collective bargaining agreements.
A council committee wa
So it’s possible Walling and the unions are exploring the other way to get the concessions the city needs to save $4 million in the next budget year. They may be back at the negotiating tables.
set to examine Walling’s proposal on Wednesday. But Walling early last week suddenly pulled it from council consideration.
This isn’t a bluff to force police and fire unions into negotiations.
Walling told The Flint Journal Editorial Board that he has discussed the consent agreement process with state Treasurer Andy Dillon, the guy in charge of the emergency financial manager process that the Legislature revised this year.
That was during the mayor’s and City Council’s quest for $20 million in bonds to both prop up city finances and pay off past obligations. The state instead gave Flint permission to issue $8 million in bonds to get through its immediate budget crisis.
Without structural changes to its spending habits, Flint could be right back in a multimillion-dollar budget crisis next year.
And, under the state emergency financial manager law, very possibly the city could be on the way to complete state control. That is if spending here doesn’t change.
The mayor has focused on public safety costs because they are by far the city’s largest expense. In the next fiscal year Walling proposes that the fire and police departments get $27 million of the city’s $49.5 million general fund budget.
More than a year ago, Walling sought concessions from police and fire unions. They had refused to give up what’s needed to avoid layoffs. The lack of a deal meant the city had to lay off police officers and firefighters — vital employees that this beleaguered city cannot do without.
Now, after waves of arsons last year following firefighter layoffs, and police layoffs amid the highest homicide rate in the city ever in 2010, Walling is pledging no more public safety layoffs.
He’s going for the best solution left to the city — the new consent agreement option in the state emergency financial manager law. Lacking any last-minute negotiated agreement with the unions, it’s the only option left to keep police and firefighters on the job.
Keeping public safety personnel in the city is a priority with which the public agrees. Flint voters on May 3 by a large margin agreed to renew a 2-mill property tax to keep some police officers.
If there is no 11th-hour, bargained settlement with the unions as the city nears the start of its budget year on July 1, the mayor and the council together must seek a consent agreement with the state.
While Walling is the target of much criticism in these budget maneuvers, he’s doing what he can with the tools at his disposal to keep this city running in an era of steadily falling revenues.
A year ago, he didn’t have the consent agreement option. Now, he does.
We applaud Mayor Walling’s willingness to pursue it.
It’s essential that police and fire personnel remain at work.
Compensation cuts, either forced or negotiated, will see to that.
|
|
|
|
Sun May 22, 2011 6:35 am |
|
|
ConcernedCitizen
F L I N T O I D
|
David Starr, Bossman and untanglingwebs,
You all seem to have a firm grasp on the abilities of our Mayor. Yes he ran as a Democrat, but that was only a rouse to get elected. He has acted more like a Republican since elected. Even more so, he has acted like a man that really has no clue how to run a government.
To give him any more finacial control than he already has is absurd. He did not create all of our financial woes, but he definitely made it much worse. In the first 6 months of his tenure, his deficit spending was rampant. And his explanation, that he did not know he had to stick to the approved budget showed his ignorance. Either he and his appointees are absolute morons, or they think everybody else is! Either way, he can't be trusted with more control of this City's finances.
It's too bad our Council, which I had high hopes for, does not have enough backbone, brains or sobriety to stand up for the people who elected them! |
_________________
"When people fear their government, there is TYRANNY.
When the government fears the people, there is Liberty"
Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
Mon May 23, 2011 2:05 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Flint City Council approves deficit-elimination plan that includes borrowing another $12 million down the road
Published: Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 9:46 AM Updated: Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 9:47 AM
By Kristin Longley | Flint Journal The Flint Journal
Flint Journal file photoFLINT, Michigan — The Flint City Council signed off on a deficit elimination plan Monday night that says city officials intend to borrow another $12 million in two years.
The city already issued $8 million in bonds this year to cover some of its $20 million deficit, but its not enough, officials said.
(Read more: Flint officials planning to borrow another $12 million to cover deficit)
Now that it's approved by council, the deficit elimination plan will be sent to the state treasurer's office for approval.
A spokesman for the state treasurer's office has said the state would be open to considering allowing Flint to borrow another $12 million if the time comes.
Read the city council resolution here: Reso 110546-Deficit Elimination Plan.PDF |
|
|
|
Tue May 24, 2011 1:04 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
Reso 110546-Deficit Elimination Plan.PDF
I read this earlier today, and where Dayne Wallling's signature is supposed to be, Gregory Eason signed! Nowhere does the mayor's signature appear. |
|
|
|
Tue May 24, 2011 5:36 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| Is the mayor's signature or the signature of the person running the city required? If it's the latter, then everything is in order. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Tue May 24, 2011 5:38 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
| The document had a blank line with Dayne Walling typed below it; Gregory Eason signed his own name on the line. I would have taken it to mean the mayor should have signed the document, not the city administrator. |
|
|
|
Tue May 24, 2011 7:26 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
