It appears the findings of the ethics investigation into Commissioner Rasor’s parking lot wheeling and dealing will soon be revealed. I am curious to learn its outcome and interested to see whether or not it has maintained a focus on ethics.
The vast majority of people operate well within the boundaries of the law, their behavior governed by personal values, morals, etiquette and ethics. But Mayor Ellison and others repeatedly announced Commissioner Rasor broke no laws, even before an investigator was hired. These repeated comments intentionally misdirect public attention away from ethics to legal questions. This misdirection also taints public opinion with an unsubstantiated conclusion.
In fact, it doesn’t matter whether Rasor’s actions were legal or not. What matters is whether or not his actions were in the best interests of the City of Royal Oak. That is the ethical issue to be resolved. Keep in mind that many perfectly legal activities that occur every day in business are totally unethical for a person in a position of public trust such as a sitting Commissioner.
I am also concerned with the hiring of an attorney for an ethics investigation. Even if this was the Commission’s attempt to misdirect the investigation’s focus into the legal arena, they should have hired a judge. Lawyers lead their clients in, around and through the law, judges determine whether laws are broken. And finally, I ask readers of this blog; do you think an attorney can appropriately judge another person’s ethics?
This week I became aware of another possible ethical violation by Commissioner Rasor. On December 6th, 13th and 20th, 2012 The Oakland Press published (and listed on its website) a supplemental section titled Notice of Delinquent Tax Parcels Subject to Foreclosure February 13, 2013, Andrew E. Meisner County Treasurer. One of the parcels listed, # 25-16-483-032, 423 N. Main St., Royal Oak, has delinquent property taxes totaling $311,631.32. The property owner listed is Murray Investments, LLC and the contact as Bob Murray c/o James B. Rasor, Attorney.
Is it ethical for a City Commissioner to represent a taxpayer owing $311,631.32 in delinquent taxes to the city he was elected to represent? Shouldn’t a City Commissioner always represent the City in any situation involving something as critical as delinquent taxes? I think so. This appears to be a major conflict of interest; I believe this should be investigated and I will request the city to do so.
Of course this guy is conflicted! The sad thing is that it is only brought to light by citizens like Mr. Vasquez, or the volunteer who wrote the anonymous whistleblower letter exposing the Arts, Beats & Eats parking deal he had with the hotel developer. The city commission needs to start policing iteslf, but hell will freeze over before that happens. Jerri N., to answer your question, Razor, Capello's and Poulton's term expire in Noverber 2013. The mayor's seat also expires then, too.
Just because Rasor no longer has an active business dealing with the hotel developer doesn't unconflict him, Ray. Former Mayor Cowan used to recuse himself from voting on issues when he represented someone in the past that had issues come before the city commission. Why doesn't Rasor? This type of political business dealing stinks and belongs in Wayne County, not Royal Oak.
Secondly, Rasor representing a Royal Oak yaxpayer, be it a individual or a business is a glaring conflict since Rasor can't possibly represent the best interest AND the City at the same time. It's like an attorney trying to represent both parties in a divorce, the Court doesn't allow that.
Quit making excuses for this guy.
123 Catalpa is the old school district garage that Murray owns. The following link is from the 06/20/11 city commission meeting. Go to the Traffic Committee recommendations, 5E, specifically. Take note how the vote was unanamous to deny, except for Rasor. Go and watch the video on the city's website for even further proof and how Rasor argued against the recommendation. You'll find it interesting. http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/sites/default/files/meetings/City%20Commission/2011/20110620m_0.pdf Rasor clearly voted on a Murray property without disclosing that he was Murray's attorney. The request was regarding parking for tenant Koi Studio/Gym, but as you can see, the traffic committee recommendation references the property owner, too. Interesting how Rasor was the only vote against denial. Do you think it had anything to do with his professional relationship with Murray?
http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/meetings/city-commission/2011/06/20/city-commission-meeting
May 2, 2011 City Commission Agenda Item # 15 "Fresard Property Parking Lot" http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/sites/default/files/meetings/City%20Commission/2011/0502-125-11.pdf http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/sites/default/files/meetings/City%20Commission/2011/0502-124-11.pdf Letter # 124-11 May 2, 2011 City Commission Minutes. See page 8 "Fresard Property Parking Lot" Rasor made two motions. Both died for lack of support. http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/sites/default/files/meetings/City%20Commission/2011/20110502m.pdf May 2, 2011 City Commission Video, see Part 5 http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/meetings/city-commission/2011/05/02/city-commission-meeting
Ellison claims he was the one who proposed this idea behind the scenes. Interesting, I believe Ellison's son works/or worked at RTT, USA at his location. Ellison makes no mention of that. 02:30 to about 05:00 minutes. RTT was looking to utilize 60 spaces, even though, Contract Design was given a mamoth parking variance when the building was constructed. 08:38 minutes. Drinkwine smells a rat! 12:20 minutes. Semchena asks what happens with all the parking overflow from N. Main businesses when property is developed? 13:35 minutes. Rasor flips from against to support and gives RTT history. 17:00 minutes.
Andrzejak flipflops after original supportive comment earlier. He mentions large parking variance requested and granted for Contract Design. 18:45 minutes. Rasor makes impassioned speech why this shold be approved. 20:40 minutes, and offers second motion to approve that dies for lack of support at 23:30 minutes. Through it all, Rasor makes no mention of his professional relationship with 423 N Main Street, and Bob Murray the property owner of the tenant seeking the parking spots from 423 N. Main St. Equally disturbing, Ellison makes no mention of his son's employment with RTT, USA. Who needs ethics?
He is also trying to serve as counsel to a property owner against the very taxing authority of which he serves on a taxing issue. He can't possibly serve the best interests of both his client and the taxing authority at the same time. Thus, the conflict. It's pretty clear cut.