CITIZENS’ DISTRICT COUNCILS: ELECTION APR. 5, 2011

Joyce Moore

The Observation of Joyce Moore

Recently, there was a gathering of individual members of Citizens’ District Councils (CDC).  The reason for this gathering was because there is a need to re-establish the presence of Citizens’ District Councils in their communities and to consolidate their presence through the Coordinating Council on Community Redevelopment.   Citizens’ District Councils have the highest authorized citizens group that can participate in the development of their communities, such as rehabilitation of houses, new construction, creating job training programs to name a few, with the ultimate goal, to stabilize neighborhoods and the tax base they represent. 

The main discussion of this gathering was the upcoming election on April 5, 2011 for CDC’s.    According to Public Act 344, Section 125.74 (a) “Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, for each district area, a citizen’s district councils of not less than 12 nor more than 25 members shall be selected in a manner that ensures that the citizen’s district councils are to the maximum extent possible representative of the residents of the area and of other persons with a demonstrable and substantial interest in the area.  The majority of the citizen’s district councils shall be composed of citizens living in the development area.” Each CDC must meet the minimum requirement of twelve members to be a voting, legitimate board.  There are three ways an individual who lives in the boundaries of a CDC can be placed on the board: 1.) by having their names placed on the ballot through petitions, 2.) as a write-in candidate by having their name along with their address written on a ballot and, 3.) as an appointee by the mayor.

Speaker confronts Mayor Dave Bing at first of last year's meetings on his down-sizing of Detroit plans; state law requires the participation of elected CDC's in any such plan involving "blighted" areas, but Bing has not complied

Another issue of concern was approximately $500,000.00 dollars proposed to be allocated for administrative services to CDC’s that are not funded.  These services can consist of flyers to be circulated within the boundaries of each CDC to let residences know of upcoming meetings.   Secondly, these services can provide for a newsletter to let residences know what’s going on and what kinds of programs are available to assist them with such things as utilities, taxes and rehabilitation of their homes.  Several in attendance indicated that these administrative services were not being provided by the City.  The issue then becomes, where is the money and who is getting it? 

If you are a CDC member and would like to participate in this effort, please contact Joyce Moore at (313)465-3299. 

Ed. Note: to read more about why Citizens’ District Councils are important, click on the following VOD articles regarding why Mayor Dave Bing’s “Detroit Works Project” violates state law requiring consultation with CDC’s: http://voiceofdetroit.net/?p=757 and http://voiceofdetroit.net/?p=824.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Share
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to CITIZENS’ DISTRICT COUNCILS: ELECTION APR. 5, 2011

  1. Kimberly Hughes says:

    I am the V.P. of Jeff/Chalmers CDC AND I AM LOOKING FOR HELP IN GETTING INFORMATION ON EVERY CDC IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. IF YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT ORDER 36 WRITTEN BYE KEVIN ORR THAN YOU NEED TO FIND OUT IN A HURRY. BUT WE ARE TRYING TO SCHEDULE A LARGE MEETING SO WE NEED TO GET IN-TOUCH WITH EVERYONE.

  2. Marie Thornton says:

    ILLEGAL FINANCIAL REVIEW TEAM MEETING HELD ON APRIL 4, 2012
    While browering through my e-mail; that was posted at 11:20 a,m from the State Communication person, I learned there was a meeting at 3:00 p.m., for that review panel to approve language for a consent agreement. The State Appeal court had lifted an injunction to block them from voting on the consent agreement. THE JUDGE DID NOT LIFT THEM FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE OPEN MEETING ACT. THORNTON QUESTIONED THE REVIEW TEAM NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETING ACT FOR POSTING NOTICES OF THE THREE O’CLOCK MEETING (DURING PUBLIC COMMENT).

    THERE WAS NO POSTING OF THE NOTICE TO MEET AT 3:00 P.M. AFTER THE JUDGE LIFTED THE INJUNCTION WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LAW.

    THORNTON REVIEWED HER POSTING OF MEETING NOTICES ON THE INTERNET, ALONG WITH TIME AND DATE AS FOLLOWS:

    ON APRIL 2, 2012 @ 3:12 P.M. THORNTON RECEIVED AN E-MAIL THAT A MEETING WAS SCHEDULE FOR APRIL 3, 2012. THREE HOURS LATER SHE RECEIVED A NOTICE THAT THE MEETING WAS CANCELED. SHE DID NOT RECEIVED ANOTHER NOTICE UNTIL APRIL 4, 2012 AFTER THE JUDGE’S RULING TO LIFT THE INJUNCTION.

    THE FINANCE REVIEW TEAM IS CLAIMING THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE; BECAUSE THEY POSTED THE NOTICE 18 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING ON APRIL 4, 2012 TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS A LIE! BASED ON INTERNET POSTING.

    The finance Team claimed they were under an emergency to hold the April 4, 2012 meeting and apply the 18 hour rule for posting the meeting. There were seven of the 10 members present for the emergency meeting. Under the Open Meeting Act–“Emergency Meetings: Public Bodies may hold emergency sessions without a written notice of time constraints if the public health, safety or welfare is severly threaten and if two third of the body members vote to hold the emergency meetings. There was only 7 of the 10 members present. Less than 2/3!

    The review team lied to the media claiming they complied with the open meeting act. When three of their members were not present on April 4, 2012. What type of meeting was held on April 4, 2-12 -Regular meeting? Special Meeting? Recessed Meeting? Canceled Meeting? Emergency Meeting.

    City Council vote for a consent agreement after the review team held an illegal meeting. the 2/3 rule for emergency meeting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *