FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: The final dismantling of accountability...ombudsman?

  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
terrybankert
F L I N T O I D

Flint ombudsman's future could soon be in voter's hands [The final dismantling of accountability.-trb]

FLINT CITIZEN-By: Terry Bankert [ Comments of Terry Bankert are in brackets -trb]



[ A conversation with Christopher-trb]

THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION

Saturday, November 26, 2005

By Christofer Machniakcmachniak@flintjournal.com • 810.766.6304

http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-33/1133014802315690.xml&coll=5



FLINT - Voters soon might decide the fate of the city's troubled ombudsman's office.

[Mayor Don Williamson through newly elected council person Gonzales and Aninach will oversee the final dissolution of the Flint Ombudsmans office. This office was created under the Flint City Charter to be a major part of City accountability to the Voters. The standards of conduct board and the charter demand for promulgated rules and procedures were equally important and equally ignored.-trb]

The City Council is expected Monday to discuss putting a proposal on the February election ballot to ax the office.

[Since the office has been ineffective for the full term of the current ombudsman it is responsible to review the need for it. My argument is that the very people intended to be held accountable by the office have orchestrated its demise. The community must become involved in this debate. This current council will select the next ombudsman. With out community involvement what will our options be?-trb]

Timing is crucial because Ombudsman Jessie Binion's seven-year contract, which by city charter can't be renewed, expires in January. The vacancy opens a window to ask voters whether to amend the charter to eliminate the office, which costs about $200,000 a year.

[ The office is cost effective when measured against the value of accountability. An effective ombudsman , trusted by the community would have been a great value prior to ,during and after the receivership. The greatest return on investment for the voters would have been for a truly independent ombudsmans office to have been issuing report during this era. We were let down. Partly by the incumbent before her illness , the council that put her there to diminish the office and its allowing the office to flounder during her illness.-trb]

Some council members say the office - designed to be a citizen's watchdog over city services - is no longer effective after budget cuts and following an extended sick leave by Binion that lasted nearly four years. Her absence at one point led to the office's closure for more than a year.

[The Ombudsman and her supporters let us down. My only caution is that we need to frame this debate within the broader context to review the entire charter its purposes, success and failure. The Ombudsmans office was a critical part of the charters accountability mechanism. I think our city lacks the political will to appoint and staff this office responsibly. It might be better to kill it than have a hack at the helm. What base would the office have? Who are the high minded that will step forward? -trb]

They also say with the city's population and tax base dwindling, the money for the office could be better used for public safety or other basic city services.

[The cost benefit analysis is efficiency and effectiveness. We will not get to this level of debate. The "they" will measure the cost of an ombudsman against three police officers, two new garbage trucks, a tree pruning program, new computers for the water department or 1 mayorial staff person. Who will argue the support side? We have no sense of what this office can do. The Ombudsmans office did not fail it has been executed. But dead it is. -trb]

"City government must maximize the value of tax dollars," 8th Ward Councilman Ehren Gonzales said. "The ombudsman's office has been a major cost."

[ I cannot disagree. But define value. What would the value of accountability have been in the last 5 years?-trb]

It's not certain the council will vote to put the issue on the ballot. Council President Darryl E. Buchanan, a former ombudsman, said he would oppose such a move. He said many residents still use the office.

"It helps a lot of people from every ward," he said. "It's based on need."

[ This will be Buchanans first test. I for one hope he prevails.-trb]

But Gonzales said the decision should be up to voters.

[ It appears he has already made the decision that the city charter is defective.-trb]

Voters in 1980 overwhelmingly voted to keep the office after a charter-mandated vote. If it's put on the ballot, it would join a Flint police millage renewal.

[ I would suggest that the council also let the voters decide if their terms should be two years or four years. As Gonzales says that should also be up to the voters-trb]



The Flint Citizen is a publication of Attorney Terry R. Bankert of Flint Michigan USA. http://enewsblog.com/terrybankert/

attorneybankert@yahoo.com

Terry R. Bankert P.C., 1000 Beach St., Flint MI 48503 810.235.1970 fax 234-5080
Post Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
TJBear
Guest

Well First I must agree that the Ombudsman’s office has been completely ineffective over the last five years. I believe this to be only the next step in dismantling any accountability of and by the Mayor’s office. Don has succeeded in making the council ineffective. and now what is that last chance for accountability for the community, may be removed also. However, had this office been doing it’s job for the last five years we wouldn’t be having this discussion. What we need is a better way in ensure that the office is able to and will do what it is designed for. Not to completely dismantle it. If, we really want to save money. Abolish the City council. With the very first meetings they have already proven themselves to not being willing or able to weigh their decisions when it comes to voting. As I sat and watched today Matt Shlinker make a valid argument about the Mayors plans for the HUD Money that wasn’t spent; no one else except for Ms Simms had anything to say. They didn’t even discuss what he had brought up. Effectively cutting out his concerns and Ms Simms, by completely ignoring it. This is either because the rest of the council had no idea what he was talking about. Or, they were just paying back the Mayor for their election victories. The council turned over their power, and authority to Don (and any future mayor) to from now on be able to have complete control over where grants money will be given out. No more committees. No more Council approval, no more public forum or discussion. We can thank the new council for setting the precedent for future spending. We might as well just dissolve the Council since they are already proving that the majority of them are there for the extra part time work and money they will receive for doing it. Because they sure don’t seem to want to do their job.
Post Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:01 pm 
   Reply with quote  
TJBear
Guest

Ops, I ment Scott Kincaid. Not Matt Schlinker. Sorry, He is not my councilman so I get the name mixed up. This shouldn't happen again.
Post Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:13 am 
   Reply with quote  
rapunzel
Guest

The ombudsmans office would be worth its wieght in gold. If the position holder not be out on extended sick leave. Recently the mayor barred any council person from speaking to dept. managers on citizens behalf. The citizens deserve a direct line to meet their needs. If the office of ombudsman is dismantled an amendment needs to be made not to tie our councilpersons hands to speak to individual depts. for us.

Terry will you be our ombudsman? Please? Or else help to place language to protect the voice of the public through our councilperson?

I will vote to retain the ombudsmans office if Terry Bankert, Attorney will apply for the position.
Post Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:20 pm 
   Reply with quote  
terrybankert
F L I N T O I D

When I became Ombudsman I knew serval things.
1. It was a 7 year calling that I could not be reappointed to.
2. It would be difficult for the City Officials to remove me.
3.My success would be measured by the Citizens of Flint not by a council committee.
4. The Classical Ombudsman as does Flint’s has a term limitation built in 1 seven year term. Knowing I would be gone in 7 years did several things.
A .It kept me independent.
B .My community reputation was more important to me than my city hall reputation.
C. I never viewed it as a job, it was my calling.

I appreciate the comments of support. The environment I was in is different than today. The community expectation for our next Ombudsman may require a skill set different than mine.

There are a hundred good choices in Flint for our next Ombudsman. I want
A. An intelligent strong personality.
B An attitude of calling not job.
C. A Flint native.

FLINT CITY CHARTER
3-502 TERM OF OFFICE [OMBUDSMAN]

C. Any person who has held the position of Ombudsman under the charter is not eligible for reappointment.

Thank You
TRB
Post Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:25 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Topic | Next Topic  >

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

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >