Soundtrack of my life, pt. 9: Ann Arbor Folk Festival

Meredith invited me to accompany her to the Ann Arbor Folk Festival last night. She scored seats in the fifth row, which made it that much more exciting. It's an annual event that takes place on two nights, with a diverse and talented set of different musicians each night. For the uninitiated, you can think of it as Ozzfest for folk music aficionados. For us, the evening started out at Seva, a wonderful veggie establishment in Ann Arbor. Following a fantastic meal that was accompanied by Arbor Brewing Company beer, we headed over to Hill Auditorium in the freshly falling snow. The emcee was Jeff Daniels, Chelsea resident turned actor/entrepreneur extraordinaire. Though I knew he acted and sang, I had no idea how talented a songwriter and performer he actually was. His songs range from the serious to the humorous, and he delivers them with both a sense of humor and an expressive, beautiful voice. Continue reading . . . Meredith invited me to accompany her to the Ann Arbor Folk Festival last night. She scored seats in the fifth row, which made it that much more exciting. It's an annual event that takes place on two nights, with a diverse and talented set of different musicians each night. For the uninitiated, you can think of it as Ozzfest for folk music aficionados. For us, the evening started out at Seva, a wonderful veggie establishment in Ann Arbor. Following a fantastic meal that was accompanied by Arbor Brewing Company beer, we headed over to Hill Auditorium in the freshly falling snow. The emcee was Jeff Daniels, Chelsea resident turned actor/entrepreneur extraordinaire. Though I knew he acted and sang, I had no idea how talented a songwriter and performer he actually was. His songs range from the serious to the humorous, and he delivers them with both a sense of humor and an expressive, beautiful voice. We walked in a bit late, missing the first couple of acts. We caught the second half of Bill Staines, who writes and performs folk music in the age-old tradition with rich imagery and mature, well-developed storytelling in abundance. His songs are beautifully composed with excellent guitar work, and a rich tenor vocal performance. Staine's was followed by Terri Hendrix and Lloyd Maines. Hendrix's brand of folk music leans in the direction of traditional country music, though it never quite gets there, and it steers clear of the standard thematic content (that causes so many to change the radio station) in favor of more spiritual imagery and investigation. For example, the chorus to Hole in My Pocket laments: Show me ways to save my soul, Show me ways to save my soul, I've got a hole in my pocket where it all slips away. Her accompanist, Lloyd Maines (the father of Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks) was one of the finest lap steel players I've ever had the pleasure of hearing live. Paul Thorn was next. The son of a travelling preacher who apparently specialized in tent revivals, he was a surprise smash with his soul-meets-country infused folk songs. A former boxer with the dubious distinction of having been knocked out by Roberto Duran, his interesting path through life bears a clear influence on his songs, which are abundant with irony and self-effacing humor. Over the Rhine was a Cincinatti-based band well-known to Meredith, but I'd never heard them. They were the true gem of the evening for me, and I downloaded their Drunkard's Prayer record as soon as I got home. Folk music, it ain't. Great American songwriting, with fantastic piano, guitar and vocal lines it is. Singer, Karen Bergquist, is a seasoned, talented performer with a strong hint of jazz influence in her technique. Linford Detweiler (the second half of the duo) is a keyboard player to be reckoned with. His sophisticated melodies and carefully crafted harmonic changes reminded me of my experiences as a young man in the studio with Benmont Tench, a Heartbreaker with more talent in his little finger than I have in my entire body. Bergquist's performances and Detweiler's keyboard and guitar parts make these songs memorable both lyrically and melodically. Mountain Heart is a modern bluegrass lover's answer to progressive rock and traveling jam bands. With fiddle, guitar, stand up bass, a mandolin player who's a vet of Allison Krauss and Union Station, and a banjo player whose fretting hand exhibits only a thumb, these guys rocked the house. The joy with which they played was also evident on their faces and in their energetic demeanor. The headliner for the Festival's 30th anniversary was John Prine, who headlined in the festival's very first year. Having won a Grammy last year, he was in great form last night, playing songs both new and old. For his last number, he brought out the entire lineup to sing and play along, receiving a standing ovation far rowdier than Hill Auditorium has likely seen in some time.

I thought we needed an income tax to preserve "essential city services"

The blogosphere is teeming with accounts of how Edwards Communities, the company from Ohio that developed the Peninsular Place Apartments (and that has apparently recently entered into a contract to sell them), now wants the City of Ypsilanti to retroactively grant approximately $500K in tax credits or abatements. According to the Ann Arbor News, "Council Member Lois Richardson, D-1st Ward, said the council should honor the commitment it made to [developers] if it wants to attract other developers to the city." Also on record was Councilman John Gawlas. "I would be willing to support his request,'' Gawlas said. Both Councilmen Brian Robb and Bill Nickels apparently disfavor the request. In what could only be described as extremely bad political timing, I've also received word that several prominent Ypsilanti City personalities have been quietly "making the rounds" in an attempt to drum up support for a proposed city income tax. Admittedly, I am not likely to vote in favor of an income tax. I don't think it's fair for me to require my friends and neighbors, as well as people who I don't know who are less well off than I am, or for that matter, everybody who works in Ypsilanti, to pay an income tax. I am even less likely to approve of the suggestion when we actually do have money available for essential city services, but we are considering* giving it away to an out-of-state corporation that has no legal claim to it. Why we would put the desires of out-of-state developers in front of the needs of citizens and taxpayers is a mystery to me. For a model of the efficacy of using abatements to attract businesses, I would suggest taking a good, long, hard look at Pfizer. $84 Million in tax abatements and credits in the last decade (one of them on the day before announcing their closure), and they are bolting from Ann Arbor anyhow. Here in Ypsi, with two recent developers pulling out of Water Street in recent years (while the site remains empty with a big fence around it), our track record doesn't justify taking money out of the pockets of residents and handing it over to already profitable, viable businesses. And yes, now that I've mentioned Water Street, I'm even less likely to support the notion of an income tax in the months following the departure of the latest developer. The picture at the beginning of this post was of Biltmore's Water Street concept. Remember them? If you don't, it's because they pulled quite some time ago. Which means that, with the latest pullout of Joseph Freed, Water Street is all but an official failure, with bills and interest payments coming soon and vacant buildings yet to be demolished still standing on the site. Up until this latest naked money grab by a developer, I felt that the best reason to vote an income tax down was because it represented little more than a Water Street bailout. Now, however, with Councilmembers actually supporting handing out free money to out-of-state developers who don't intend to remain in Ypsi, I find my prior rationale trumped by recent facts and events. But perhaps I'm biased. I personally "re-developed" my property a couple of years ago with a major renovation and remediation of my 120-year-old historic home, and my taxes went UP, not down. I guess I'm not entitled to a ticket on that gravy train, being a mere resident, citizen and taxpayer. Coming to voters asking for an income tax for "essential city services" while considering hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax abatements and/or credits for an out-of-state corporation that is selling its development is more than just poor local government. It's unconscionable and unfair to those of us that have chosen to call this city our home. UPDATE: * per Brian Filipiak, who indicated that nothing has been approved yet. I had thought that since "Mayor Paul Schreiber told Kirk to work with city staff and prepare a resolution for the council to consider," that action on this issue was seriously contemplated. Brian says, however, that this "seems pretty cut and dried." Thank you Brian :) UPDATE: Council turned down Kirk's request at last night's meeting.

In one bold move, Pfizer proves that "tort-reform" was a fraud, or, Craig DeRoche makes an ass out of himself again

"I see Michigan’s relationship with Pfizer as a unique opportunity to put Michigan at the front of the pack in the field of life sciences and bio-technology. A competitive environment is critical to this effort, and we cannot mistake the importance our tort reform efforts will have in our ability to attract these companies in the future." - Republican Craig DeRoche, former Speaker of the Michigan House Well over a decade ago, "tort reform" was touted as a way to make Michigan more competitive in the business world. So were tax cuts . . . . but I digress. One of these tort reform laws that were enacted by a Republican House and Senate, and then signed into law by Republican Governor John Engler (who bolted from Michigan once his term was over, but I digress again), provided absolute immunity against lawsuits for drug companies whose drugs were approved by the FDA. This immunity, so our politicians said, was a good way to ensure profitability for drug companies and attract them to Michigan, thereby making our economy stronger. More than a decade later, what do we have to show for it? Nothing. Pfizer announced today that it would be closing multiple facilities (at least one large one in Ann Arbor) and laying off thousands. The reason? Yep you guessed it -- lawsuits had nothing to do with it. The reason they are closing down and leaving is because their patents are running out on some of their key drugs, which means they will actually have to compete with generic makers from now on. When they have to actually compete in the marketplace, they can't make enough money. So, they're closing down. Let me get this straight . . . . Even though we are the only state in the union to provide a shield to drug companies, Pfizer can't make it here. All that money they saved by not having to compensate people for the injuries their drugs caused (like for example, recalled drug Bextra), went into the pockets of shareholders. It was not used for research and development. It was not used to keep the company here. Oh, and by the way, less than a decade ago, Pfizer undertook expansion in Ann Arbor based on over $84 Million in tax incentives, apparently provided by the city and the state. Here's what they got: A 20-year credit on the Single Business Tax (SBT) worth an estimated $25.8 million. Pfizer announced its expansion on the same day after the Michigan Economic Development Corp. earlier awarded the credit on the SBT, the only general business tax levied by the state. A 12-year abatement of the six-mill State Education Tax, valued at $10.7 million; and A 12-year abatement on Ann Arbor's property tax, approved the night before Pfizer's announcement and valued at $47.7 million. Where did that money go? In the pockets of shareholders? It apparently won't keep the company here. Hmmmm. Seems to me they took the money, and now they're bolting. Maybe those incentives should have been tied to staying in Ann Arbor, at least for the duration of the incentives. Clearly, if tort reform and tax cuts were the key to a strong economy, Michigan would have the strongest economy in the nation. The fact that we don't says something very important about tax cuts and tort reform. Trouble is, is Lansing listening? UPDATE: As pointed out by a reader, the entire $84 Million did not actually go to Pfizer. Some was tied to reaching certain goals (some of which weren't met), and some was to be credited in the future. My apologies if that misled anyone. My point was (and still is) that Pfizer actually realized tens of millions in benefits that not everyone gets, whether it be via tort reform or tax relief. UPDATE: A new blog creating "a forum for sharing ideas and information about how our community can recover and move forward."

Terrible news from the State about our school funding

For those who didn't believe me when I said the sky would be falling if the state didn't fix its structural deficit problems, believe it now. I just received the following from the Michigan Association of School Boards: Revenue conference brings bad news. The revenue consensus conference was held today at the Capitol and, as expected, the news was grim. The state's general fund and the school aid fund revenues are less than expected to the tune of $600 plus million. The school aid portion of that dollar amount is $377 million. This number is arrived at by adding the $322 million the revenue projections were off, plus $95 million that they expected to carry over from last year's budget, plus $25 million in additional cost because of a personal property tax decision that was made this fall, and minus $65 million for having fewer pupils than expected. This calculation results in a per pupil loss of $224 per student. In past years there have been one time tax changes that have helped alleviate some of the cuts. This year we are hearing very little of that talk because none exist that are large enough to fix the problem. That is coupled with the fact that whatever short term fix that might exist only postpones the problem and we would have to deal with it in the not too distant future. The earliest that school will be impacted by cuts would be the March state aid payment. It would be unfair to even speculate at what amount the cut will end up at. If the Legislature looks for a long term revenue solution, like they should, they might be able to raise enough revenue to eliminate the cut. The problem is that recent legislatures have not shown the courage needed to make those types of decisions, so the cuts could be at the full amount of $224 per student. Your message to legislators must be that any proration is unacceptable and they need to look for a long term solution that will bring stability to school funding. Schools can not operate when state revenues change part way through the school year. As much as they may argue that higher taxes do not attract new business, neither do closed school buildings. This shortfall will be a disaster for school districts all over the state. My calculations ballpark our potential budget shortfall at something close to a million dollars for this fiscal year (yes, this one) if the cut is really that big. Coupled with expected revenue problems for next year given the elimination of the Single Business Tax, it looks like we are in store for some very serious challenges ahead. Voting for Proposal 5 would have mitigated this problem for the schools somewhat, but it's obvious the majority of Michigan citizens don't consider funding for our public schools a priority. UPDATE: This just in: 66 percent of moves in Michigan involved people leaving the state. We are now tied with North Dakota as top states that people are leaving. UPDATE: Supt's of public school districts in Washtenaw County aren't taking this sitting down. They are forming a committee to examine sharing services and generating revenue.

Belated pic of our Christmas Tree

What with so much going on, I somehow didn't have a good opportunity to show you our Christmas Tree before I took it down. Since it was so wonderful this year, I'm floating this up on a "better late than never theory." This was taken right before the girlies woke up, after Santa came.

The Great Pizza Crackdown of 2007

A few weeks ago, I was forwarded a Normal Park Neighborhood Association (NPNA) email in which Councilman Bill Nickels expressed his disfavor at Mr. Pizza's request for an after hours variance (despite the fact that it has been operating after hours for years and wants to bring itself into compliance with the law). In that email to the College Heights East Neighborhood Association (CHENA) and to the NPNA, Bill said: Mr. Pizza on Washtenaw will be asking Planning Commission for a Special Use Permit allowing them to stay open all night. Right now, Washtenaw is zoned "Neighborhood Businesses" which limits hours of operation. Issuing a Special Use Permit for one business will open the door for others. Neighbors on both sides of Washtenaw will feel a negative impact from night time activity on Washtenaw. They would appreciate neighborhood support to keep hours of operation as they are. The Planning Commission agenda allows for comments from the audience. Hmmmm. I was kind of under the impression that people who were elected to represent the community were s'posed to keep an open mind on things like this rather than deciding beforehand, and then running around advocating one side, drumming up support for it, and speaking out against the other. (Mr. Pizza, btw, is known as a long-standing community business member that has supported our community on numerous occasions by donating free pizza). After all, the purpose of a hearing before Council is for the business to be heard, and for its position to be evaluated. A hearing before Council is not for the purpose of the government setting up a contrived demonstation against the business that's seeking a variance. Regardless, it sounds to me like some minds are made up. I'm not sure that's fair to Mr. Pizza. Continue reading . . . A few weeks ago, I was forwarded a Normal Park Neighborhood Association (NPNA) email in which Councilman Bill Nickels expressed his disfavor at Mr. Pizza's request for an after hours variance (despite the fact that it has been operating after hours for years and wants to bring itself into compliance with the law). In that email to the College Heights East Neighborhood Association (CHENA) and to the NPNA, Bill said: Mr. Pizza on Washtenaw will be asking Planning Commission for a Special Use Permit allowing them to stay open all night. Right now, Washtenaw is zoned "Neighborhood Businesses" which limits hours of operation. Issuing a Special Use Permit for one business will open the door for others. Neighbors on both sides of Washtenaw will feel a negative impact from night time activity on Washtenaw. They would appreciate neighborhood support to keep hours of operation as they are. The Planning Commission agenda allows for comments from the audience. Hmmmm. I was kind of under the impression that people who were elected to represent the community were s'posed to keep an open mind on things like this rather than deciding beforehand, and then running around advocating one side, drumming up support for it, and speaking out against the other. (Mr. Pizza, btw, is known as a long-standing community business member that has supported our community on numerous occasions by donating free pizza). After all, the purpose of a hearing before Council is for the business to be heard, and for its position to be evaluated. A hearing before Council is not for the purpose of the government setting up a contrived demonstation against the business that's seeking a variance. Regardless, it sounds to me like some minds are made up. I'm not sure that's fair to Mr. Pizza. The NPNA (representing residents on one side of Washtenaw) did not take any official action, one way or another with regard to Mr. Pizza's request. CHENA (representing residents on the other side of Washtenaw) did by endorsing Mr. Pizza's request and making its endorsement known. Bill then sent the following to a person affiliated with CHENA: Just as neighborhood associations do not endorse political candidates, I suggest you not get involved in zoning or other kinds of local endorsements. It is a service to the neighborhood to invite controversial subjects like Mr. Pizza to explain their positions. Endorsements likely lead to the opponents of the endorsements losing interest or down right opposing neighborhood associations. Do your bylaws speak to endorsements? If they do not, since CHENA made the recent endorsement, you might want to discuss if as an organization you want to continue making endorsements when local issues come up. Hmmmm. I'm not really getting that. I had kinda thunk that neighborhood associations were formed for the purpose of representing neighborhoods. Like, for example, when the neighborhood's input was relevant to an issue before the City. Wondering if there was precedent for NA's speaking out, I did some asking around. There is: Mayor Farmer spoke at an NPNA meeting and a HESNA (Historic East Side Neighborhood Association) meeting to ask for support of the Midtown downzoning plan. NPNA was actively opposed to the School District's plan for a bus garage. CoPAC and other NA's we asked to support the Parking Plan for the neighborhoods. HSSNA (Historic South Side Neighborhood Association) supported the Cool Cities grant, and HSSNA was asked to support various initiatives. HSSNA voted down support of the U-Stor-It proposal on South Huron (a position echoed by the Prospect Park NA and Heritage Park NA). I'm sure there are other examples I am not aware of. But I digress. Back to the reply from CHENA back to Bill: I think one of your emails to us earlier asked for a statement from CHENA regarding Mr. Pizza's request (that is why we did it) - I am sorry it was not the one you thought you would get. Your emails to us have stated you do not personally support his request. However, that is the way politics works - the people have spoken from CHENA anyway. There you have it. We'll see if one Ypsilanti business' struggle to serve pizza after hours is any match for a Councilman who has his mind made up. A simple stroll down Michigan Avenue will present more than enough evidence that we as a City must do better at attracting and keeping businesses. It seems pretty clear that if we can't fill up Michigan Avenue with vibrant, successful businesses, we should look forward to another bitter disappointment when we try to fill up retail space in a future Water Street project. Neighborhood associations are sophisticated enough to discuss these issues and analyze these proposals on their own. If they choose to speak collectively, they ought to be listened to. Any attempt to silence them or mitigate their views is unwise, unfounded, and inappropriate, in my view.

N . . . ice storm

It may have wreaked havoc in some areas of the country, but the ice storm of '07 wasn't all that terrible here. There was some minor destruction, if you will, like to my alley (which will be closed until further notice): There was a certain amount of beauty to the ice as well: So far, this is as close to winter as we have come in Southeastern Michigan. It turned out to be an inconvenience here but little else. Perhaps it should be labeled the ice storm that wasn't.

Will the very concept of justice survive the Bush years?

I'm thinking probably not. Justice has been getting a bad rap lately. Clearly, many Americans think justice is overrated, both civil and criminal. I'm sure you've heard the rhetoric: "Too many lawsuits," all "costing us too much money." "We're a litigious society" and all that. It's bullshit. As Public Enemy (who was way ahead of its time) once said, "Don't believe the hype." The vast, vast majority of lawsuits in this country are filed by businesses against businesses (usually contract or payment disputes), or by businesses against people who owe them money (like landlords suing tenants, towing companies suing car owners, credit card companies suing cardholders, mortgage forclosures, etc.). Some of the most expensive lawsuits in our country are filed by major multi-national corporations for bankruptcy (like Northwest Airlines), in which these corporations ask a court to absolve them of their accountability for making poor business decisions and to permit them to stiff those they owe money to. So, like it or not, our "society" is not "litigious." Our business community is. Continue reading . . . I'm thinking probably not. Justice has been getting a bad rap lately. Clearly, many Americans think justice is overrated, both civil and criminal. I'm sure you've heard the rhetoric: "Too many lawsuits," all "costing us too much money." "We're a litigious society" and all that. It's bullshit. As Public Enemy (who was way ahead of its time) once said, "Don't believe the hype." The vast, vast majority of lawsuits in this country are filed by businesses against businesses (usually contract or payment disputes), or by businesses against people who owe them money (like landlords suing tenants, towing companies suing car owners, credit card companies suing cardholders, mortgage forclosures, etc.). Some of the most expensive lawsuits in our country are filed by major multi-national corporations for bankruptcy (like Northwest Airlines), in which these corporations ask a court to absolve them of their accountability for making poor business decisions and to permit them to stiff those they owe money to. So, like it or not, our "society" is not "litigious." Our business community is. And of course, there are millions of criminal actions filed by the local, state and federal government (ranging from civil infractions to felonies) each year against individuals, in which, until recently, people were presumed innocent until proven guilty. Last week, the same type of rhetoric that has sought to erode the legitimacy of our civil justice system took a major stab at our criminal justice system. The senior Pentagon official in charge of miltary detainees who are suspected of terrorism suggested that American corporations fire the firms whose lawyers represent detainees. This view utterly and completely fails to portray even a minimal understanding of the underpinnings of our criminal justice system. It is entirely inappropriate for a governmental official (who should be committed to upholding the Constitution) to express such a view publicly and in the course of his official duties. This is a view that, quite simply, the government is not entitled to hold. Well, not until the Consitution is repealed, anyway. The official, Charles D. Stimson, who is a lawyer himself, stated: I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out. Karen Mathis, President of the American Bar Association, was understandably flummoxed by Stimson's unethical and ignorant remarks. She said: Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans. The presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system. The concept of equal treatment before the law is a bedrock principle of the "rule of law" in America (something Bush feigns respect for when it is convenient to do so). It's one of the things that actually distinguishes us from the terrorists we despise. Actively trying to abandon it, as our Federal Government seems hell bent on accomplishing ever since 9/11, is one of the most despicable acts that an official who has sworn to uphold the Constitution can engage in. Pardon me, but I have a brain. I don't tend to believe everything I hear, that I read, or that I see on T.V. I appreciate that intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and circumstances and reach different conclusions. This is why I believe in our criminal justice system, and in everybody's right to be heard before an impartial tribunal. This should not set me apart from others, but it clearly sets me apart from Mr. Stimson and our federal government. He apparently feels that despite the fact that our government tortures these people, won't present evidence (even exculpatory evidence), won't allow detainees to appear before an impartial tribunal, won't allow attorneys to meet with many detainees privately, and won't presume they are innocent until proven guilty, I'm supposed to believe that they are terrorists. Sorry to disappoint, Stimson, but I don't buy it. It may be true, it may not. Don't expect me to take your word for it. I recently took a short trip with a colleague who is known for his far-right, principled conservatism. As he and I talked while in the car, he explained to me that one of the reasons he became an attorney was he believes individuals deserve to have someone who is intelligent, articulate, and well-educated "stand between them and the government." This should be an issue upon which conservatives, liberals and moderates all enthusiastically agree. It's a true shame that our government (which is ostensibly of the people, by the people and for the people) doesn't feel quite the same way. It is in these areas of fundamental American values and principles that the Bush Administration is wreaking its worst damage to our freedom, to our traditional and time-honored way of life, and to the legacy we leave for our children. These people are not patriots -- they don't believe in the rule of law, the power of our Constitution, or in the American way. To them, the ends justify the means, and justice is a malleable concept that can be shaped to fit their agenda. To them justice is not codified in our Constitution or in our laws, but instead subject to definition by internal memos and strained analyses that seek to exploit the occasional ambiguity or lack of clarity that's been unearthed by the legions of government lawyers whose resources know no bounds. With this post, I call for Stimson's resignation. With the view he has expressed, he is clearly unqualified to represent the Federal Government in any way shape or form. It's time to start holding these people accountable for the damage they are doing to the foundations and principals of the American way of life and more particularly to our time-tested system of justice. UPDATE: Stimson apologized in a letter to the Washington Post. You can read about it here. UPDATE: Now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is suggesting that "federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy," which is a position that belies the checks and balances structured into our Constitution. UPDATE: People are still up in arms over this.

A Court in Crisis

The Michigan Supreme Court is in full crisis mode. Justice Weaver recently released her dissent to the denial of a stay in the Geoffrey Fieger attorney discipline matter, and she has now released a memo expressing her dissent to the election of Chief Justice Taylor to a second term as Chief Justice (in Word format). In her dissent, she accuses various Justices of various transgressions, including: Reducing notice for publication of decided cases/opinions to suppress dissenting views; Improperly proposing that votes be traded for certain future conduct; Personally attacking her; Refusing to publish her dissents; Leaving official conference meetings and subsequently meeting in secret; Failing to recuse themselves from hearing Fieger's case while being overtly biased against him. She then says near the end: This dissent to the election of Chief Justice Taylor as Chief Justice reveals only the “tip of the iceberg” of the misuse and abuse of power and the repeated disorderly, unprofessional and unfair performance and conduct of the people’s judicial business by the majority of four, Chief Justice Taylor, and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman. . . . . The majority of four’s suppression of dissent, and attempts to suppress dissent, mishandling of administrative duties, and repeated disorderly, unprofessional, and unfair conduct are matters of legitimate public concern. Over the past year and longer, the majority of four has advanced a policy toward greater secrecy and less accountability. I strongly believe that it is past time to let sunlight into the Michigan Supreme Court. An efficient and impartial judiciary is “ill served by casting a cloak of secrecy around the operations of the courts. Attorneys all over the state, defense and plaintiff, civil and criminal, have complained about the current Engler-appointed Court majority. In fact, in a Michigan Lawyer's Weekly poll, 80% felt that some rules regarding recusal of Justices should be promulgated (currently recusal is left to the discretion of an individual Justice). Instead of heeding this call, the Supreme Court closed the matter, failing to adopt recusal standards. Now that one of their own is echoing these complaints, it's clear that there must be some merit to them. I hope the Court gets its act together. It's all over the press (and here). UPDATE: More here and here. UPDATE: CNN has picked up the story, too. UPDATE: More here and here, too. UPDATE: The New York Times has picked up the story as well.

Making Ypsilanti turnovers.

With Bob Bruner's recent resignation, it appears that every department head in the City of Ypsilanti has now turned over in the last 30 months. That's astonishing and troubling at the same time. I like Bob. He's a good guy. Whether you agree or disagree with him on various issues, he's clearly the kind of guy who Ypsilanti would want as Assistant City Manager, and his is the kind of family we want to attract to live in our town (perhaps in the stalled Water Street Development). So, the question becomes, why have so many left City of Ypsilanti employment over the last three years? Is there something they know that we don't? You can read the article about Bob's departure and plans here.