June 16, 2004

There is a current dispute being aired concerning the city council and the search for a person to lead the research and analysis division. Kathy Dones-Carson was the former director who was removed last year. Now the council is in the process of finding a permanent replacement.

Sheila Cockrel has publicly criticized the process and leveled accusations at her colleagues, MaryAnn Mahafey, Kenneth Cockrel and Sharon McPhail. All of who sit on the Personnel Committee. Her accusations are that the three council members violated the opens meeting act and the city charter. Both of these appear to be unfounded charges. Further, the Detroit News has sued the city council for violating the open meetings act.

State laws loosely define the opens meetings act as a process to allow the public complete access to all decisions and discussions by public bodies. This includes all except a few offices or exempt public bodies. The process of negotiating union contracts can be exempt but the formal adoption of the resulting contract, via vote by the public body must be public. The Executive offices such as mayor and governor are not included in the opens meetings act when it comes to meetings regarding their office.

In the case of the City Council, it would appear that the personnel committee has followed the opens meetings act. In the matter of selecting employees, all interviews by the public body must be done in an open meeting. Reviews of resumes for potential interviewees are exempt from an open meeting. Therefore the council’s personal committee can review resumes and only choose those they wish to be interviewed. This would seem the follow the process created when Sheila Cockrel voted to accept the committee structure recently imposed upon the city council. Prior to the committee structure all meetings were conducted by city council and therefore were subject to the opens meetings requirements.

Additionally, the city charter clearly states that the process of city council hiring or selecting its staff is exempt from the human resources requirements as outlined in the city charter. This means the city council may set its own rules, per state law, as how it hires its employees. They are not subject to hiring tests, nor to other similar requirements for many positions within the city. By this Charters sections it would appear that this selection process did not violate the city charter.

Some have made mention of an apparent split in the city council. Like a partisan legislature, votes have frequently been divided between two sides in the city council. There are those who side with the current mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, and those who oppose the current mayor. But this apparent split has not always endured and it has not been any guarantee as to how council members would vote or even a predictable outcome. But on certain issues the split is maintained with the same council members voting with the usual companions.

Thus some have accused Sheila Cockrel of merely voicing her displeasure with those persons on the personnel committee whom she is on opposite sides of many issues. Raising a purely political argument rather than an argument of merit. Some have even suggested this criticism is to attempt to affect potential political campaigns of some council members.

But where the Detroit news has merely sued for admission to the resume review process, Councilwoman Cockrel has continued her attack. Where it seems the issues she raises are without merit. Historically, the Detroit News once sued Detroit over the Opens meeting act. The result of which was that the burden of establishing that a meeting is exempt from the opens meeting act is on the public body. Thus, this issue will have to be determined by city council. With Sheila Cockrel already deciding that the Opens Meeting act was violated, prior to meeting with city attorneys, which she and other council members plan to do, she could be setting up the city for a financial loss in regards to this lawsuit.

The meeting the City Council, including Sheila Cockrel, will have with the city’s law department will be exempt from the opens meetings act. Therefore it will be difficult if not impossible to see what Sheila Cockrel and her colleagues really think when confronted with this issue in a legal and final setting.