Court Stops Dearborn’s Civil Service Commission from Replacing Marge Powell . . . for now
A longtime Dearborn Civic Service commissioner who was removed from her position after it was discovered she had not properly taken an oath for office may get another chance to reclaim her seat.
A Wayne County Circuit judge heard a request earlier this week for a temporary restraining order to prevent the City of Dearborn’s Civil Service Commission from appointing someone to the Commission until it can be determined whether Marge Powell -– a commissioner for 17 years -– should be allowed to return. Powell was removed from her position after it was discovered she did not take an oath of office 10 days after her appointment, a requirement of Dearborn’s City Charter.
While Judge Brian Sullivan didn’t grant the restraining order, the city did agree to depositions of several of Dearborn’s top officials. That list includes: City Council President Tom Tafelski; City Clerk Kathleen Buda; Human Resources Director Valerie Murphy-Goodrich and Civil Service Commissioner Kathy Mackie. The plaintiff in the case, Joanne Arrick, and Powell also will be deposed. Among other items, the judge will want to hear whether Dearborn officials selectively enforce the City Charter’s oath requirement.
Arrick and her attorney, Dearborn resident Morris Goodman, are both friends of Powell. Some of you may recognize Goodman from the occasional column he submits to this website and the Dearborn Press & Guide.
Powell’s status as a commissioner was called into question by Tafelski last May. Tafelski discovered Powell had not taken an oath for her most recent four-year reappointment one day after the Civil Service Commission by a 3-2 vote tabled a request from Tafelski to re-assign/classify an employee from the City Council office to the City Clerk’s office.
Powell, a former Dearborn councilwoman, was reappointed in May 2009 and had been serving for a full year before Tafelski’s discovery. The Civil Service Commission oversees the hiring and appointment of persons to various city government positions and their salaries.
Depositions are scheduled to take place on Oct. 19. A hearing on those depositions is currently set for Nov. 9.
Of course, there wouldn’t be a need for any of the depositions if the City of Dearborn’s Civic Service Commission simply decided to reinstate Powell and have her take an oath. Judge Sullivan left that option open for both sides as a way to end this matter.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
I hope that while the judge is finding out that the administration is selective with enforcement of the city charter oath,maybe he will also learn that they are selective(discriminatory) with ever single rule and policy they have.
Maybe the judge will find out how selective their promotion policy is,like when they already have the guy/woman picked for the job months in advance but once they find out he doesn’t have any college education they pull back the job requirements and remove the need for education and then re-post it. Maybe the judge will discover that the administration selectively disposes of certain last chance agreements while holding others to theirs.
Maybe the judge will find out how selective the administration is when it comes to abiding by their own wage upgrade policy,like in the case where they use the policy to equate and pass all of their management upgrades yet when the same policy benefits the employee they selectively decide that policy isn’t working right and then decide to have their “in the pocket” over paid contractor called Plant Moran set the employees wage.
Maybe the judge will find out how selective the administration is when it comes to suspensions,like protecting certain people for years while suspending others at the drop of a dime.
Maybe the judge will find out on how selective their policy is on what city official should live in the city and which ones do not have to.
Maybe the judge will find out how selective their policy is on who is driving their city vehicle home after work out of the city.
The list can go on and on and on……….
These are the same reasons that this November there will be a major overhaul in Washington D.C.,the people are fed up with these tactics and are going to make a statement,its time the people in this city make the same statement next election.
October 11th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Last night’s debate between Bernero and Snyder demonstrates the problem – Virge just wants the same ol’ same ol’, while Snyder literally doesn’t have a clue. Are we better off with a machine politician, or a guy who has never had to round up a vote in his life? In my lifetime, Dearborn has always had the ruling class of Hubbards, O’Reillys and their myriad legions. I don’t see that changing anytime too soon, just subtle changes. So politics as usual? Yep.
Congrats to Attorney Goodman for moving the issue forward. Too bad all this money is going to get spent on discovery, when a “better late than never” administration of an oath would stop the waste right now.
October 11th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Tdogg – We watched the debates too. I agree with your comments on both candidates.
Despite what the polls say. everyone who I have talked with is voting for Bernero.
We are not trusting the Republicans to really care about the people of this state.
Given their records, I will trust Bernero to do what he has done as Mayor and not give Snyder a chance to do more of what he has already done.
As far as right to life, which I actually happen to be, people should really listen to what the candidates say. Right to Life has backed Snyder. Maybe, they should listen a little closer to his actual words. What he said last night was that the only abortions that he approves of are in the case of rape, molestation, and for the health of the mother. So is he saying that abortion is only wrong sometimes?
October 11th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
If they truly investigate, they will find that Tom got caught with his hand in the cookie jar for a friend. Shouldn’t of done that Tom.
October 11th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Of course, there wouldn’t be a need for any of the depositions if the City of Dearborn’s Civic Service Commission simply decided to reinstate Powell and have her take an oath. Judge Sullivan left that option open for both sides as a way to end this matter. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO COVER UP ALL THAT IS WRONG AT CITY HALL…WHO IS THIS JUDGE LOOKING OUT FOR ?
October 12th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Take a step back, remove the personalities and politics, and look at this objectively.
Did Marge Powell take her oath of office? No.
Arcane or not, is there a provision in the written-four-years-ago city charter that appointed or elected officers must take their oath of office within ten days of said appointment or election? Yes.
OK, all of this considered, I think we call can agree that her situation violates the rules and regulations promulgated by our elected representatives of the honorable charter commission. That right there seems pretty straightforward, no?
So the issue of contention with all of this generally seems to fall along the lines of, “yeah, but some other people didn’t take their oaths,” or “yeah, but she’s a great and longtime public servant who doesn’t deserve this,” or “yeah, but she’s being targeted by that @hole Tafelski,” or, well, you get the point.
But here’s the real point: except perhaps Mr. Goodman, no one is contending she didn’t break the rules. Instead what they are saying is the rules shouldn’t apply for X,Y,Z reason. I find this somewhat ironic given that the lawsuit accuses the city of selective charter enforcement when, in effect, that is exactly what the lawsuit seeks — she didn’t follow the rules but deserves a do-over
And of course it is worth mentioning that both the civil service commission and the city council voted on this. Isn’t that supposed to be representative of the will of the people?
Now all of this said, I will say I think the rule is kind of dumb and entirely procedural. But the fact remains that it’s a rule. And, so then the question becomes, what’s the point of having rules, or elections, or even this whole democracy thing if those people we elect, or those who are appointed, only follow the rules when they remember to? I mean, can you as a citizen imagine trying to work your government like that? “Hey, sorry officer, I know I was going 75 in a 55, but I remember that I can’t do that now so I’m just going to be moving along now. Thanks for reminding me with your flashing lights, though, really.”
October 12th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Johnny – Your post was concise, accurate, and factual. It was a pleasure reading it. Maybe, Mr. Goodman should read it and respond.
October 12th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
With all due respect to JC, there is a difference between neglecting to take an oath, and a violation of the traffic code, etc. The former can be administered “now for then” – no harm, no foul – whereas speeding or failure to secure bonding on a multi-million municipal project, that’s different. As Eric Clapton said, “you can’t take it back.”
So, this doesn’t really fall into the “it is what it is.” Simply have Mr. Wizard wave the magic judicial wand over the matter, apply the oath retroactively and its done.
Wish we could get that Mulligan on the Burton Katzman deal.
October 12th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Err, “can’t get it back.”
October 12th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Johnny..well said. Cloe, again, uninformed. And your buddy who worked for Hummer, he should check his sources.
October 14th, 2010 at 7:45 am
Kay – Since you are obviously more informed than I am, please state where I am wrong.
It is easy to tell me that I am not correct. Please state your facts so that I and the rest of the readers can be as informed as you are.
Thanks.
October 15th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Not shocked by tdoggs approach to rules and oaths,reminds of “i smoked pot but i didnt inhale” or “it all depends on your definition of IS” LOL
October 16th, 2010 at 6:48 am
This whole, petty situation stinks,,,It’s because Tafalski didn’t get his way and he is slapping Powell on the wrist. I could care less, but too much publicity is coming of this over a volunteer who didn;t sign something, For those of us WHO DON”T CARE, remenber ellection day.
October 16th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
This issue clearly indicates a problem with city administration. If the city clerk and the director of hr do not have appropriate policies and procedures in place to adequately enforce the city charter oath requirement then they need to be sanctioned. We’re paying them high salaries so we shouldn’t be satisfied with substandard performance.
Also, the city needs to be more transparent on how many times they failed to administer the city charter oath. If they don’t know then that exhibits even a greater problem with city administration. Goodman is correct in calling the city adminisration out on this. Selective enforcement of city policies is sloppy government.
Lastly, how long was Tafelski aware of the infraction and did he take immediate action?
October 18th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
tdogg,
Admittedly, there are differences with a traffic ticket and failing to take an oath of office. One is a civil infraction while the other one I suppose could be considered more civic in nature.
But I wasn’t trying to draw legalistic equivalencies with that analogy. Rather, I was attempting to illustrate the absurdity of the ignorance defense. It just doesn’t, nor shouldn’t work.
To speak to your specific points:
*”The former can be administered “now for then” – no harm, no foul – whereas speeding or failure to secure bonding on a multi-million municipal project, that’s different. As Eric Clapton said, “you can’t take it back.””
-While I would entertain that they are different, the mere unsubstantiated assertion that they are is
October 18th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
tdogg,
Admittedly, there are differences with a traffic ticket and failing to take an oath of office. One is a civil infraction while the other could be considered more civic in nature. But I wasn’t trying to draw legalistic equivalencies with that analogy. Rather, I was attempting to illustrate the absurdity of the ignorance defense. It doesn’t work when you get caught going 20 over and it shouldn’t work when Marge Powell gets caught going 9 over (that is, 9 months over her oath-taking period. Haha. I made a funny.).
In all seriousness though, you really can’t just say “now for then” in this instance. Because the civil service commission voted on this and did not reappoint her when all of this came to light, that action publicly memorialized that she a.) was not a sworn member dating back to her 2009 appointment and more importantly b.) that they were voting not to reappoint her.
Had the civil service commission allowed it to go to the council for consideration of an extension this would not be the case. At that juncture the council could have granted authority to retroactively swear her in and then you could make the “then for now” argument. But from what I understand, there were concerns raised at that council meeting that, following the commission’s vote on the situation – voting to extend the oath period would effectively be usurping the commission’s authority (a supposedly independent body not subject to political whims).
Is all of this extremely convoluted and not entirely representative of the public’s priorities? Yes. That’s why I say resort to the rule book and call it a day.