|
The
Michigan Socialist | Special
Report
Coming to a head
Behind the hype and headlines in the
investigation
of Kwame Kilpatrick
By MARTIN
SCHREADER
Editor, the Michigan
Socialist
THE LAST TWO MONTHS have not been easy for
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. The self-proclaimed "hip-hop
mayor" has come under fire twice for his handling (or
mishandling) of the city's problems. And now, the state and
federal governments are stepping in.
The City has been in trouble since the end of
the administration of former mayor Dennis Archer, who
bankrupted the treasury by channeling all revenue into "sweet
deals" and tax breaks for large corporations and turning the
streets of Detroit into an armed camp, with police crawling
around every corner.
When Mayor Kilpatrick took over at the
beginning of 2002, he was immediately confronted with a
billion-dollar debt load. This left the former Michigan state
representative with a choice about how to make up the
shortfall: rescind the "sweet deals" and tax breaks, or demand
blood from the city's workforce. True to form for him and his
political colleagues, he decided to attack the city
workers.
However, in spite of his "hands on" approach
in this attack (and his alliance with certain sections of the
local media), his efforts have not been carried out according
to the strict plan laid out by the capitalist interests that
really run this city.
Much of this began to come to light on May 12,
when Kilpatrick and Detroit Police Chief Jerry Oliver fired
deputy chief Gary Brown. Brown, who headed the department's
"Professional Accountability Bureau" (formerly the Internal
Affairs division), had been investigating how the department
handles internal investigations and discipline.
He was also the liaison in dealings between
the police department and the U.S. Department of Justice
related to the latter's civil rights investigation into police
brutality and violence.
It has become clear now that Brown's dismissal
was not due to any inadequacy in his work, but rather that he
was perhaps a little too good at it. That is,
apparently, Brown's investigation into problems at the Detroit
Police began leading him to the mayor's office.
According to Brown, the reason he was so
unceremoniously dismissed from his position was because he
uncovered incidents among the mayor's security force, which is
drawn from the Detroit police, of falsified overtime records,
drunk driving stops and even an accident involving a
city-owned vehicle.
The mayor, so far, has denied any of this
happened, and said his dismissal of Brown was due to a
"violation of trust" and a failure to maintain
confidentiality.
Meanwhile, much of the truth of the situation
has been buried, with the help of the capitalist media, under
a "theater of the absurd," centering on an alleged party at
the mayor's residence, Manoogian Mansion, a stripper and a
fistfight involving the mayor's wife.
While such a story makes for good television
ratings, it is a sideshow and should be treated as such. The
real issue here involves something much deeper.
A CAREFUL REVIEW by the Michigan
Socialist of the information that has surfaced in the last
two months can only lead to the conclusion that, to one degree
or another, both sides are correct in their accusation
and flatly lying in their denials.
To put it another way: it is clear that
Brown's accusations of problems with the mayor's security
detail are true, but so are Kilpatrick's accusations that
Brown violated the mayor's "trust" by breaking
confidentiality.
To make accusations of corruption, falsified
records and cover-ups against any component of the municipal
government in The City is like accusing a state prison of
housing a murderer or a rapist. However, the mayor's
administration has made a special name for itself in this
regard.
There is rampant nepotism and cronyism (12 of
the top spots in the administration are held by his close
friends or family) in the city government. His "security
detail" is the largest of any Detroit mayor since the unit was
formed, and is composed mainly of old friends from school who
are now cops.
And, the mayor's taste for the good life
(Sport Utility Vehicles and motorcycles, club hopping,
parties, etc.) is more or less paid for by tax dollars --
either through Kilpatrick's salary or his expense account, his
pension from the state legislature, or his family's money
(which also comes from taxpayers, since his mother, Carolyn
Cheeks-Kilpatrick, is a member of the U.S. House of
Representatives).
All of this should certainly be of concern to
working people in The City. And, in that sense, we can
understand why some Detroit residents would sympathize with
the accusations of Brown and the building campaign against the
mayor. However, there is something more sinister to these
accusations, and to a certain degree Kilpatrick touched on it
lightly in his statements on Brown's dismissal.
When the mayor insisted that his decision to
dismiss Brown was based on a breach of confidentiality, he was
saying more than he let on.
Judging by the events of the last months, it
is apparent that someone within the Detroit Police Department
was leaking information to the Justice Department in the
period prior to the federal government stepping in and
appointing an independent monitor.
The most logical person to be that "leak"
would have been Brown, whose role as liaison between the city
and the federal government made him privy to what both
departments were doing, and was able to coordinate the
gathering of information based on that privilege.
But, to what end? The answer to that question
requires us to step outside of the immediate, media-stoked
issues, and concentrate on the politics of the state of
Michigan.
LAST NOVEMBER, Michigan residents returned a
Democrat to the governor's office for the first time in 12
years.
The election of Jennifer Granholm stunned the
Michigan Republicans, and the GOP nationally, since the
previous governor, John Engler, had been able to not only
unseat an incumbent Democrat, but also handily defeated their
candidates in two subsequent elections. As far as the
Republicans were concerned, the Democratic opposition in
Michigan was not an issue.
But they obviously underestimated the strength
and resilience of the Michigan Democrats, especially their
powerful party machine in Wayne County.
Even with the weaknesses in the machine
following the departure of longtime party "boss," County
Commissioner Ed McNamara, it was apparently strong enough to
rally the rest of the party in the state to put Granholm, who
came out of Wayne County, in the governor's mansion in
Lansing.
No doubt this, combined with the election of
Kilpatrick (another creature of the Democratic machine in
Wayne County) as mayor of Detroit, angered the Republicans to
no end.
They finally realized that the base the
Democrats have built in Wayne County serves as the party's
anchor in Michigan, and as long as it is relatively intact the
Democrats remain a challenge to one-party control of the state
government.
From the perspective of the Michigan
Republicans, the road to supremacy over all levels of the
state government lies through the destruction of the
Democratic Party machine in Wayne County. In this campaign,
they have already been partially successful:
- The investigation of financial
irregularities in the budget for the new Detroit Metro
Airport resulted in McNamara's departure from political
life, and a shift in power within the machine itself -- from
the old Democratic officials to the DNC-approved "New
Democrats," in the person of Robert Ficano;
- The state Attorney General, Mike Cox, has
successfully killed the efforts of Wayne County to opt into
lawsuits against tobacco companies and gun makers to recoup
the costs of medical coverage, thus putting the county, and
Detroit in particular, further into debt;
- The moves by the state legislature to take
The City's water department and bus system out of their
hands and impose regional (read: suburban-controlled)
administration has further crippled the principle of "home
rule" in Detroit and Wayne County.
In this context, we can better understand the
motivation the Republican Party would have to go after the
mayor and the city government. And, certainly, the excesses of
the Kilpatrick administration have given them ample
opportunity.
But motive and opportunity are
only two of three things needed to establish the commission of
a crime. The means of carrying this out are important
as well.
THIS IS WHERE Michael Stefani comes in.
Stefani is Brown's attorney and a former colleague of the
ex-deputy chief. He has already filed a $14 million lawsuit
against the mayor, his top aides and the city of Detroit on
behalf of Brown and a former member of the mayor's security
detail.
The lawsuit, in and of itself, is not
surprising, since suing someone has become as much an American
pastime as baseball. However, there are two things that stick
out.
First, the amount sought, $14 million, could
be enough (in combination with the recent bailout of the
Detroit Medical Center) to push The City's deficit over $100
million, which could trigger a slide into bankruptcy and
takeover.
Second, Stefani himself is a licensed real
estate and tax lawyer, not someone who takes on wrongful
discharge or "whistleblower" cases. Thus, to see Stefani
acting as lead counsel for his "old friend," Gary Brown, seems
strange. Would not an experienced lawyer, like Stefani, want
to find the best attorney in the appropriate field for his
friend?
It begs the question: Why Stefani?
Again, to answer that question requires looking at the
politics.
According to documentation acquired by the
Michigan Socialist, Stefani is a longtime contributor
to and member of the Michigan Republican Party --
specifically, the Oakland County Republican Party, which is
the state party's base and "anchor."
His Troy-based law firm often represents
businesses with long and storied ties to the Republican Party
in estate and tax cases, as well as in National Labor
Relations Board appeals and lawsuits against cities and
states.
He and his partners in the law firm (Frank,
Stefani, Haron & Weiner) have donated thousands of dollars
to Republican candidates both in and outside of Michigan,
including former Rep. Ronna Romney, Rep. Frank Grasslee, Rep.
Joe Knollenberg and George W. Bush. Not one of these donations
was under $500; most were $1,000.
So, why would a real estate and tax-centered
law firm with strong ties to a political party seeking total
control over the state government seek to represent a former
cop fired by a mayor from the chief party of opposition for
breaching confidentiality? The question seems to answer
itself.
(One would certainly think that the Oakland
County Republicans have a great number of lawyers that
specialize in wrongful discharge and "whistleblower" cases.
Why were none of these people tapped by Stefani or his firm to
represent Brown [or, at the very least, to be the lead
counsel]? Apparently, there is more to this relationship
between Brown and Stefani, to say nothing of the relationship
between Stefani and the OCRP, than meets the eye.)
While there is yet no known "smoking gun" in
this incident, there is enough evidence on hand to formulate a
hypothesis: The Michigan Republicans are seeking to use the
problems in the Detroit city administration to break the back
of the Democrats, and render the latter a permanent
"opposition" in successive Republican state
governments.
This would explain why Stefani, a trusted
financial backer and member of the Republican Party, would
step out of his usual legal role as a real estate and tax
attorney, and take on Brown's case.
This would further explain why the Republicans
objected to the Wayne County Sheriff Warren Evans, who is
perceived as a part of the Democratic Party machine, leading
the initial investigation into the events surrounding Brown's
dismissal.
Initially, this would have also explained why
Attorney General Cox launched a separate, criminal
investigation into the allegations raised by Brown, over and
against the objections expressed by Gov. Granholm.
He had made clear that his intention was to
use the power of the courts, including subpoena and possibly
even grand-jury power, to beck up his effort.
However, the fact that so much of the cover
story has been exposed as rumor and innuendo resulted in Cox
abandoning the investigation within days of
starting.
Tersely referring to the alleged party at
Manoogian Mansion as "urban legend," Cox effectively threw the
ball to whomever would prefer to use it (e.g., other Michigan
Republicans or the Bush regime), and swore off responsibility
for it.
THIS BRINGS US to the final question: Where,
if anywhere, does this end? What is the goal now for the
Republicans and those seeking to institute one-party rule in
Michigan?
Without the "smoking gun," we cannot say for
certain. However, the current dynamics of the situation allow
for the formulating of hypotheses and possible scenarios for
the next period.
As it stands, with Cox bowing out the campaign
to oust Kilpatrick, and thus taking the power of the state's
law-enforcement arm with him, it is up to either the state
courts (via Stefani), the state legislature (currently
controlled by the Republicans) or the federal government to
intervene and make an issue out of the charges.
A successful lawsuit by Stefani and Brown,
combined with the ongoing intervention into the Detroit police
by the U.S. Department of Justice, could set up the conditions
for the removal of Kilpatrick by recall, by state intervention
or even federal consent decree.
Given the current tensions and publicly aired
antagonisms between the mayor and the police force, it is
clear that Kilpatrick cannot rely on them for support. This is
especially true now, with the new federal intervention and
oversight by John Ashcroft's Justice Department.
As well, the City Council is hopelessly
divided between the mayor's supporters and his opponents, and
they are incapable of providing any kind of solutions to the
problem.
Because of the weakened and fractured
character of the Detroit executive and legislative power,
which has only intensified over the recent period as a result
of the federal intervention and the current allegations, it is
possible that the only solution acceptable to the capitalist
class, and its agents in the state and federal governments, is
direct intervention into the city government.
That is, the likely scenario following any
indictments against Kilpatrick and his administration would be
a state or federal takeover and the appointment of an
unelected "administrator" and "advisory board" in place of the
elected mayor and City Council.
There is, of course, precedent for this, in
the form of the "reform" School Board, imposed by
then-Governor John Engler, and accepted by Granholm (then
state Attorney General), Archer and Kilpatrick (then state
House Democratic leader). That precedent can be extended
relatively easily to the city government.
The federal government would not necessarily
accept new elections as a substitute. The recent Detroit City
Council election has seemingly confirmed what had been thought
for a while: Detroit residents do not generally want
candidates that are seen as agents of or controlled by the
capitalist class.
Thus, the only way that Washington or Lansing
could get a compliant city government is through either
massive bribery or through an undemocratic municipal
dictatorship -- with terms dictated by the major capitalist
interests in the region (the automakers and suppliers, major
banks, technology firms, etc.).
The election of Kilpatrick was originally
regarded as an extension of the "de-Colemanization" campaign
that started under former mayor Dennis Archer.
However, the opposite has turned out to be the
case. Now, given the current economic and political situation
in the U.S., such "eccentricities" can apparently no longer be
afforded.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Special thanks goes to
the members of the Democratic Underground for assisting with
research and fact-checking. You helped us connect the dots,
and we cannot begin to repay you for that.
| An Afterword
by the Editor of the Michigan Socialist
AS SOCIALISTS, we
are not really concerned about the health and welfare of
the Democratic Party or its leadership.
For us, the
Democrats represent one wing of the capitalist class in
the political structure, and thus we are opposed to its
policies, its candidates and its methods of
governing.
At the same time,
because we are Socialists, it is our obligation to
defend a (formally) democratically elected government
against attempts to depose it in favor of an unelected
regime.
Just as we opposed
the Supreme Court's installation of George W. Bush's
regime in Washington, so we would oppose the imposition
of an unelected "administrator" by government
decree.
If this is somehow
perceived as "saving" the Democratic Party, so be it.
However, if history is any guide, it is likely that the
Democratic leadership, starting with Gov. Granholm,
would sooner "take the bullet" for their Republican
colleagues rather than see them receive the treatment
they deserve.
Our intervention
into this battle between different sections of the
ruling class has only one goal: the defense of the
(albeit limited) democratic norms that exist in The
City, against a possible unconstitutional and
undemocratic takeover by the state or federal
governments.
A rollback of
democratic norms in the city government, like we saw
with the takeover of the Detroit Public Schools, would
set back the movement for democracy and the rights of
working people for years to come.
It would render the
1 million citizens of Detroit almost completely
disenfranchised and without a political
voice.
This is our
immediate central concern: the democratic rights of the
people -- primarily the working people -- of
Detroit.
However, we defend
democracy on our own terms, with our own methods. Our
defense of the (formally) democratic norms in Detroit
are not to be confused with defense of Kilpatrick or any
of the nine members of the City Council, except in the
sense that they were elected and have the right to
serve.
That said, we harbor
no sympathy for Kilpatrick or his administration. We do
not forget that his first acts as mayor were to attack
unionized city workers, with the aid of local media
(e.g., Fox News), and to attempt to intimidate them into
submission.
As far as the
specific charges go, Socialists can certainly support
the formation of an independent, community-based
commission of inquiry into the allegations.
Let the people of
this city decide whether Kilpatrick's excesses and
methods of administration are an issue of
concern.
With the above in
mind, we call for the immediate convocation of an
independent commission of inquiry.
The commission, were
it to be established, should have the power to
investigate all aspects of the city administration, to
depose witnesses and parties involved, and to call for
new, democratic elections if it is found that the
allegations against Kilpatrick warrant it.
Even though this
cannot solve the ongoing campaign of disenfranchisement
taking place in Detroit, it would be a step in the right
direction.
Martin
Schreader | | 
