It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michigan bill gives governor power to dismiss elected officials

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
This is crazy stuff... I think the most crazy I've seen YET from any state in the US.



Wouldn't surprise me if that happens in most states... and the feds might do it to states... state is bankrupt... well the federal government take control over everything...

The only annoying thing in this video is Maddow putting it all on republicans... Guess what Maddow, BOTH PARTIES ARE BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG BUSINESS STOOGES.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I'm not as upset about the situation as Maddow is, maybe because I don't have the information she has. But maybe she's overplaying her hand. I went to the Detroit News for their latest information, and read this:



The House and Senate versions provide a long list of triggers — such as missed vendor payments or failing to make payroll — that could lead to a examination of a community's or school district's finances by a state review team.

The review team would be able to negotiate a consent agreement with the school district or local government that would detail steps they must take to avoid going into receivership and having a financial manager appointed.


Detroit News Article

So, the town has to be in pretty deep financial trouble before the state would even look at them. Then there would be negotiations on how to get the town out of financial trouble. If that didn't work, the town would be placed in something like bankruptcy and a receiver would be appointed to basically start over from scratch and try to salvage something.

Maddow seems to be exaggerating in her opinion piece. (At least I hope it's an opinion piece and not a news segment.) I don't see the problem that she does. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected though.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm not as upset about the situation as Maddow is, maybe because I don't have the information she has. But maybe she's overplaying her hand. I went to the Detroit News for their latest information, and read this:



The House and Senate versions provide a long list of triggers — such as missed vendor payments or failing to make payroll — that could lead to a examination of a community's or school district's finances by a state review team.

The review team would be able to negotiate a consent agreement with the school district or local government that would detail steps they must take to avoid going into receivership and having a financial manager appointed.


Detroit News Article

So, the town has to be in pretty deep financial trouble before the state would even look at them. Then there would be negotiations on how to get the town out of financial trouble. If that didn't work, the town would be placed in something like bankruptcy and a receiver would be appointed to basically start over from scratch and try to salvage something.


Does it say they are LIMITED to these issues? Doesn't look like it. They just list some signs with a false implication that there is some kind of limitation.


Maddow seems to be exaggerating in her opinion piece. (At least I hope it's an opinion piece and not a news segment.) I don't see the problem that she does. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected though.


Oh, I see a problem. ANY inch of allowing elected individuals to be dismissed WILL become the mile of dismissing anyone who speaks against the regime. Guaranteed.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
ummmm
hasn't this already been posted
on ATS???

seems like I commented already

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 3/10/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Yes, you're correct. But they ARE in different forums...

I say they both are appropriate.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Maddow huh... let's find a legit unbiased source of info please. Hard to discuss when only one side of the issue is presented and is completely biased as well.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Hey this has been posted already - it exposes a fascists, unitary plot and makes the GOP look bad
I demand that you close this thread down!

GOP is for small government, what can be smaller than one man?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Maddow huh... let's find a legit unbiased source of info please. Hard to discuss when only one side of the issue is presented and is completely biased as well.


You might want to visit the thread boon linked to (I'll link it again: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

Apparently Maddow has it spot on.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


Well, I liked the article from the Detroit News, the link is posted above. This seems to me to be just a format for establishing how cities can get something like bankrupcy protection and restructuring.

Concerning the triggering events, I looked up the state senate version of the bill. It is ridiculously long and boring, but you can find the triggers in Section 12 of the bill.
Senate version

If you don't mind, I'll quote the section on the triggers:

[ Sec. 12. (1) The state financial authority of a local government may conduct a preliminary review to determine the existence of a local government financial problem if 1 or more of the following occur:

(a) The governing body or the chief administrative officer of a local government requests a preliminary review under this act. The request shall be in writing and shall identify the existing or anticipated financial conditions or events that make the request necessary.

(b) The state financial authority receives a written requestfrom a creditor with an undisputed claim that remains unpaid 6 months after its due date against the local government that exceedsthe greater of $10,000.00 or 1% of the annual general fund budget of the local government, provided that the creditor notifies the local government in writing at least 30 days before his or her request to the state financial authority of his or her intention to submit a written request under this subdivision.

(c) The state financial authority receives a petition containing specific allegations of local government financial distress signed by a number of registered electors residing within the local government's jurisdiction equal to not less than 5% of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor within thelocal government's jurisdiction at the last preceding election at which a governor was elected. Petitions shall not be filed under
this subdivision within 60 days before any election of the local government.

(d) The state financial authority receives written notification that a local government has not timely deposited its minimum obligation payment to the local government pension fund as required by law.

(e) The state financial authority receives written notification that the local government has failed for a period of 7 days or more after the scheduled date of payment to pay wages and salaries or other compensation owed to employees or benefits owed to retirees.

(f) The state financial authority receives written notification from a trustee, paying agent, bondholder, or auditor engaged by the local government of a default in a bond or note payment or a violation of 1 or more bond or note covenants.

(g) The state financial authority of a local government receives a resolution from either the senate or the house of representatives requesting a preliminary review under this section.

(h) The local government has violated a requirement of, or a condition of an order issued pursuant to, former 1943 PA 202, the revenue bond act of 1933, 1933 PA 94, MCL 141.101 to 141.140, the revised municipal finance act, 2001 PA 34, MCL 141.2101 to 141.2821, or any other law governing the issuance of bonds or notes.

(i) A municipal government has violated the conditions of an order issued by the local emergency financial assistance loan board pursuant to the emergency municipal loan act, 1980 PA 243, MCL 141.931 to 141.942.

(j) The local government has violated a requirement of sections 17 to 20 of the uniform budgeting and accounting act, 1968 PA 2, MCL 141.437 to 141.440.

(k) The local government fails to timely file an annual financial report or audit that conforms with the minimum procedures and standards of the state financial authority and is required for local governments under the uniform budgeting and accounting act, 1968 PA 2, MCL 141.421 to 141.440a, or 1919 PA 71, MCL 21.41 to 21.55. In addition, if the local government is a school district, the school district fails to provide an annual financial report or audit that conforms with the minimum procedures and standards of the superintendent of public instruction and is required under the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 to 380.1852, and 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to 388.1772.

(l) A municipal government is delinquent in the distribution of tax revenues, as required by law, that it has collected for another taxing jurisdiction, and that taxing jurisdiction requests a preliminary review.

(m) A local government is in breach of its obligations under a deficit elimination plan or an agreement entered into pursuant to a deficit elimination plan.

(n) A court has ordered an additional tax levy without the prior approval of the governing body of the local government.

(o) A municipal government has ended a fiscal year in a deficit condition as defined in section 21 of the Glenn Steil state revenue sharing act of 1971, 1971 PA 140, MCL 141.921, or has failed to comply with the requirements of that section for filing or instituting a financial plan to correct the deficit condition.

(p) A school district ended its most recently completed fiscal year with a deficit in 1 or more of its funds and the school district has not submitted a deficit elimination plan to the state financial authority within 30 days after the district's deadline for submission of its annual financial statement.

(q) A local government has been assigned a long-term debt rating within or below the BBB category or its equivalent by 1 or more nationally recognized credit rating agencies.

(r) The existence of other facts or circumstances that in the state treasurer's sole discretion for a municipal government are indicative of municipal financial stress, or, that in the superintendent of public instruction's sole discretion for a school district are indicative of school district financial stress.


Please emember that hitting one of these triggers allows for, but doesn't require, a review. The law than allows for negotiations, etc. Considering that people are watching these things pretty closely, I'm not worried about the inch becoming a mile.
edit on 10-3-2011 by charles1952 because: fixed a bb code



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Way to go Comrade govenor! SEIG HEIL! Start the liquidations! Fill the Gulags! Death to the Kulaks! Hail Comrade Obama! Long live Comrade Napolitano! Long live the HOMELAND!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
there is an earlier thread here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and a Breaking Political News story here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Closed.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join