by
For much of her nearly 20-year career as a city employee, attorney Krystal Crittendon attracted little public notice, preferring to keep her head down and work with quiet diligence in the law department.
But last year, Crittendon found herself at the center of a public-policy firestorm that drew national attention. As Gov. Rick Snyder and Detroit mayor Dave Bing sought to impose a consent agreement on the City of Detroit, Crittendon, then the city’s top lawyer, balked at the deal.
Arguing that it was illegal for the city to enter into a contract with the state because the state owed Detroit $224 million in revenue sharing and millions more in unpaid water bills, back taxes and parking tickets, Crittendon filed an action to have the court determine whether the consent agreement was valid and enforceable.
Her move angered the governor and freaked out many in the media, too. Snyder threatened to withhold millions in aid from the city if the challenge wasn’t dropped. Bing, who initially seemed to support the move, backed down and fumed openly about wanting to fire Crittendon for taking action without permission from him or the City Council.
Opinion leaders excoriated her, accusing her of “going rogue” and of endangering the city’s already-fragile fiscal health. (Crittendon herself had actually argued against the changes to the charter that gave the city’s corporation counsel the authority to file the suit without permission from the mayor or City Council.)
But her actions also won Crittendon acclaim and support from many rank-and-file Detroiters opposed to the state takeover. Even as political and opinion leaders attacked her, others praised Crittendon for her integrity and willingness to abide by the charter in the face of heavy criticism.
In the end, although he never ruled on the merits of the challenge, a Lansing judge refused to hear the litigation, arguing that Crittendon needed the permission of the City Council or mayor to pursue further legal action. In January, Bing, backed by six votes from the Council, removed Crittendon as corporation counsel.
But Crittendon, who still works in the city law department, has not receded into the shadows. Instead, she’s elevated her public profile, deciding earlier this year to throw herself into the 2013 mayor’s race.
Recently, a poll of likely Detroit voters showed Crittendon running a surprising fourth, well behind Mike Duggan and Benny Napoleon, but only two percentage points behind current mayor Bing. She also surprised some by outpolling former state Rep. Lisa Howze and current state Rep. Fred Durhal, both of whom have been in the race longer.
And with the same poll showing about one-third of voters undecided, Crittendon, an alum of Cass Tech and Wayne State University, believes she has a solid chance to overtake the presumed front-runners and become Detroit’s first-ever woman mayor.
Last week, Deadline Detroit caught up with Crittendon for a conversation about her campaign, the state of the city and the boiling controversy over Snyder’s decision to appoint an emergency manager for Michigan’s largest city. Here’s what she had to say.
DD: Let's start with your candidacy. Tell me a little about your platform.
Crittendon: A. All candidates running for mayor are going to say the same things: They want to get crime under control, bring jobs to the city, fix city government.
I have worked for the City of Detroit for 18 years. I've worked as corporation counsel for four years, worked in litigation. In doing that, you have to get to know what works and what doesn't. And those that don't work, you should know why.
From a risk-management perspective, I'm the candidate who has the most knowledge of the operations of city government. There are a lot of things the City of Detroit needs to do better to attract business and maintain its residents. It's not as though the challenges are so insurmountable they can't be done. It's unfortunate because they have not been done. Some believe we need someone else to come in and fix problems. But that's not the case.
DD: Clearly, you're talking about the proposed emergency manager. Why don't you think we need an EM in Detroit?
Crittendon: What we have seen has not been incompetence. It's not as if efforts were made, and we missed the mark. It was a lack of action. I know that's difficult for people to put their arms around because they've heard the Mayor saying we are working 14-, 16-hour days. But being in a place for 14, 16 hours and working in a place for that long are not the same things. I know because I have been there for meetings. There's nothing getting done. So what is offensive to me is this notion that people in Detroit are incompetent and can't fix problems, that someone has to come in and do it, that having one person from the outside in a position to effect the change we need is better than having people working in city.
This is frustrating to me. But perception is reality. People feel they perceive what's going on. It's easy to see why they'd think that the challenges that face the city are so big and that no one down here knows what they are doing. They are ready for any change. I can understand that.
DD: So are you suggesting that the problems aren't all that difficult to fix?
Crittendon: I'm not saying there aren't problems that will be tough to solve. Some of them are very serious and will require a lot of work. But some of the problems can be fixed with such a small amount of effort that—when there is a change to city government, especially drastic change like throwing out city officials and installing one person—it's going to be so simple people will say, "See there."
Here's an example of what I’m saying: With an investment of less than $2 million, we could have had 85 to 90 percent of the lights on in the city. Some of the lights just don't have bulbs in them, if you can believe that. But if we throw out the system and transfer lighting to an authority, when they do hit the light switch and the lights come on, people will say, "See, they couldn't do that." As someone who was educated in the city, I reject the notion that there aren't people in this city who are competent to correct these kinds of problems.
DD: OK, so why haven't even these simple steps been taken?
Crittendon: (Pauses) The most clean way to say it is, there hasn't been the will nor has there been an effort made toward giving the citizens the services they deserve. We've been spending money in places that do not improve the quality of life for Detroit residents, and we've not prioritized the things that the residents need.
For instance, it offends me as a resident of the city that when the state came in saying they wanted to help, the first thing they said was a priority was Belle Isle. We shouldn't even be talking about Belle Isle. I love Belle Isle—but it's not where I live.
We need EMS vehicles. And we can get them on the street, too, if we just pay the repair shop what they are owed. Rather than do that, we are spending millions on experts that the City of Detroit has hired to tell us what we already know. In January, after the holidays, the Detroit City Council approved $14 million in contracts for restructuring, but we don't have $150,000 to get the EMS vehicles out of the repair shop lot?
The state should pay not just revenue sharing, but help with bills owed the city. They can help with requiring employers to withhold city income tax for non-city residents. Right now, most of the people who work in the city but live outside Detroit don't pay city income tax. It's not withheld. That's costing the city millions. At one point a couple of years ago, it was estimated at about $48 million in lost income. We have written statutes and sent them to Lansing, but nothing has happened.
This isn't about incompetence. We could accidentally get some of this stuff right. (Chuckles) You can't be in a job for four years and not accidentally get done more than we've gotten.
DD: When people hear you and other candidates say things like this, they tend to say you're not being realistic about the long-term debt problems the city faces. How do you respond to claims that you're not taking a realistic view of the city's money woes?
Crittendon: I've talked about how (the financial review team) is including debt from the Water Department, but the Water Department isn't having any trouble meeting its obligations. They're adding $6.1 billion that's not part of the long-term debt in reality. I issued a press release saying that the financial review team has overstated the debt. Then came other candidates saying the same thing. But it's the media that's said we're not being realistic. Well, I was watching a Sunday morning news show (recently) and they asked a Free Press writer about the debt, and she said "OK, take 6 billion off and that still leaves you with 8 billion."
But wait. If you can casually take $6 billion off, how can you still say we have $14 billion long-term debt and that we aren't dealing realistically?
DD: Fair enough. But there's also larger argument that says that, whether the debt is $14 billion or $8 billion, the city can't pay it. So, whatever you'd put the tab at, how do we address the legacy costs and bond debts?
Crittendon: If everyone were to pay their fair share, in terms of taxes and fees owed to the city, then we would have enough money to pay the retirees and the legacy costs. One of the councilpersons said the City of Detroit was owed $800 million by various businesses in the city. Those records are kept in the finance department. I said $800 million based on the fact that the state treasurer verified the fact that $800 million is the number. The mayor gave similar numbers.
But the justification for not collecting the money has been that that is a "one-time fix," that even after we collected the money they wouldn't owe it anymore -- which is true. But they would owe different amounts! We would want the arrearages and the money that's due in the future. But it makes no sense to say that, because once you clear the debt, the debt's not owed anymore so why collect it. That doesn't make sense. The treasurer was asked why not give revenue sharing. He said it's not enough money so by itself it doesn't do any good. I wish I could tell DTE when they send me a bill that I'm not paying last month's bill because I'm paying this month's bill.
If they want to change the benefits model going forward, that's one thing. If they want to negotiate different benefits, the city could do that. The union has indicated their willingness to do so. In 2011, a coalition of unions negotiated $150 million in cost savings for the City of Detroit. In January 2012, the governor told the mayor not to submit those contracts to City Council for approval. The only thing the mayor and deputy mayor would tell council is that the governor said not to. That was $150 million.
I believe we do need to change the model going forward. We'd bring the unions to the table and change the model with regard to health care, pensions, etc. That report by the FRT didn't take into account the changes that would take place in 2014 when the Affordable Care Act takes effect. There's no mention of the impact that that would have on the city. I don't know what the savings would be, but the review team hasn't even bothered to try to find out.
Also, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the way city government operates. That report criticized the way 36th District Court collects money. The governor is saying that, because court hasn't corrected that money, that's evidence of changes that need to take place. Well, the court owes the state, too. If we're to be criticized because we didn't get $100 million, the state should be criticized for not collecting $79 million. Most of that money isn't collectable. 36th District Court is not a City of Detroit court; it's a state district court. It is under their jurisdiction and control. The city has to fund them, but we have no control over how they spend their money. If the state wants to change how they collect money, the state can do that. I don't think the governor knows that that's the state’s court and not the city's court.
DD: In your opinion, is municipal bankruptcy a viable tool for righting the city’s finances?
Crittendon: Bankruptcy is a better tool to manage the city’s debt than the appointment of an emergency manager or emergency financial manager. In bankruptcy, all creditors and debtors are treated equitably, including the banks. An EFM or EM can cherry pick which debts he collects and which debt is paid, which allows individuals to simply transfer wealth to the “haves” from the “have-nots.”
Moreover, when emergency managers leave, the cities’ long-term problems still exist and quickly begin to create the same problems that existed before the EMs.
DD: Do you believe some of the city's money problems have been exaggerated to set the stage for an EM and/or with the intent of turning over assets to corporations?
Crittendon: I think there is a philosophical difference that exists with respect to whether the functions of city government have to be provided by the government per se or whether they can be provided by the corporate world.
DD: There's no question that the city has to get leaner, at least in some areas. What cost-cutting measures would a Crittendon Administration enact?
Crittendon: One thing I’m going to always do is follow the law. The charter says there are some services that the people want and have said the city should provide. Some say the government is too large. When Archer was mayor, we had just under 22,000 city employees. We have fewer than 10,000 now. No one has made the case we have too many employees. Our population is about 700,000, but with all the people who come into the city for work and business, we are still providing services to more than 1 million people. No one has said what's the right number of employees for a city that's 139 square miles and has 700,000 people living here.
We need to determine how many employees we need. With eliminations, layoffs and consolidation, it ends up costing the city more money because you have to outsource. Outsourcing might be more cost effective in some cases—but the case needs to be made for it. We have a long history of people coming in with low bid and then within a few months, they want to increase the cost of their services. So we have to be careful about what we outsource if the idea is to keep costs low.
And again, we have to follow the law. There are a bunch of charter-mandated departments, such as police, fire, law, purchasing, finance. And certain departments can't be combined. For example, the law department, HR, budget, finance — we don't provide services to the public. We provide support to all of the other departments. But there are certain operating departments that can be combined.
We also need to determine if there is an opportunity for regionalization.
DD: So you agree that regionalization is part of the mix. What areas are ripe for regionalization? And what do you think about some of the areas for regionalization that the mayor and others have put on the table?
Crittendon: Sure, I'm in favor of regionalization where it makes sense. The communities that border Detroit are absolutely worth partnering with. I've already been in talks with some of the leaders of the communities that border Detroit. I don't understand this whole "us vs. them" mentality that exists with some people here.
I think transportation is one key area where we can and should work regionally. We should all be in this together. But with the bus system, what was unfortunate was that some communities opted out of the SMART system. They didn't want others coming into their communities. As leaders, we have to do what's most beneficial to Detroit residents, and I think a regional transportation system does that.
But I don't favor the way the mayor has gone about it. If the city has a fiscal crisis, it makes no sense that the first three departments that the city outsourced or privatized were grant-funded. The Health Department was one. The second was the Department of Human Services. The third was employment and training. I don't think that has any effect on the city's bottom line.
DD: It's obvious that the one asset that's most appealing to many is the water department. What do you think should happen with DWSD?
Crittendon: The water department is the City of Detroit's biggest asset. It’s world-class and world-renown. Our water has been rated among the best in the world. It's a very, very valuable asset. I’m sure that there are people who want to get their hands on the water dept. With the appointment of an emergency manager, I believe that the state believes that that asset can be sold.
I think that's the wrong thing for us to do.
DD: So much of the discussion in this city has centered on selling this asset or slashing that expense. I don't hear many leaders talking about how Detroit can make money. Are there any new revenue generating ideas that you'd like to install?
Crittendon: Before we talk about generating new revenue, we need to collect the revenue we're already owed. There are departments in city government that generate do revenue, departments we should have been adding people to, departments such as income tax and building and safety inspection. We should beef up these departments. Instead, we cut everybody across the board. So now we don't even have enough people to go after the money we're owed. We need to make sure the revenue-generation sources we already have are fully staffed. We don't even know how much money we could generate if we did that.
I know the school district is not the mayor's responsibility, but the schools are also a large part of the crisis facing Detroit. I'm just curious: Do you think the mayor should have more say in, or even outright control of, the public schools here?
Crittendon: No, I don't. There are two reasons: One, people have said they don't want mayor to have control of the schools and, as elected officials, we need to do what the people want us to do. Two, the mayor will have her hands full trying to turn the rest of the city around.
I do believe we should partner with the schools, though. Mr. Bobb (Robert Bobb, the first emergency financial manager of Detroit Public Schools) closed some schools and built brand-new schools in areas that are outside of the city plan for Detroit Future City. That makes no sense. For example, in Brightmoor, there are brand-new schools going up there. DPS should have asked the City of Detroit to work with it to make sure they are building in places where the city intends to investment money in re-development. We're investing in schools in places in the city where there aren't a lot of residents.
Another place for better collaboration is the consolidation and closing of some schools. What the schools have done is put groups of students who are in gangs in schools on top of one another. You've combined gangs under one roof. There was very little thought put into it. And now the mayor wants to eliminate the Gang Squad. We should be beefing up Gang Squad in those areas where this consolidation of schools has created a situation where gangs are under one roof.
DD: The ball's rolling on an emergency manager now. What do you think should happen next?
Crittendon: I think people who believe in the City of Detroit and in democracy should not give up, should not throw in towel. The people went to the polls, and 82 percent of Detroiters and 52 percent of state residents said they didn't want an EM. Democracy is worth fighting for. We should continue to stand up and demand that we be afforded a representative government. We should continue to say that the will of one person should not be used to supplant the will of an entire community. We should seek all avenues that are possible in order to make sure that democracy resides in Detroit and other communities. And we should remember that the U.S. Constitution affords us the right to choose those who would represent us — regardless of whether we live in an economically depressed community.
DD: As a lawyer, do think the City Council should sue the state in an attempt to avoid an EM?
Crittendon: If the Council can't negotiate with the governor then it should pursue any and all avenues to make sure that the people retain their democracy.
Here's the thing: The governor always sounds so reasonable and like he's willing to work with the Council. I know he's saying his willing to review his plan and work with Council. So I don't want to sound unreasonable, given that he says he's willing to work. I'm willing to give him that opportunity.
But he governor doesn't realize apparently that we're not just residents of the city, but also the state. He has the same responsibility to us that he has to other communities in Michigan. The state collects sales tax in the City of Detroit and other places and keeps it. That's why we have a billion-and-a-half dollar surplus. Use that money to help communities.
DD: What happens if he appoints an EM anyway?
Crittendon: Then as a resident of Detroit, I would want litigation.
If we had a number of cities and districts to look to where an EM had worked, I might be more open to the appointment of an EM. Maybe. I would still think it's undemocratic, but I could see how we might consider it.
But it's not the right thing to do. I talked to a lawyer in Highland Park a few days ago. She talked about how emergency management is just not working out. It doesn't work. If we had one or two of those cities where it's working, I might not be as outraged as I am. I'm frustrated that people keep saying bring it on.
On some levels, I understand because things are so bad. But what they are replacing the current system with doesn't work. All change is not good change. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily the best way to go.
DD: Throughout this drama, the City Council has come under intense scrutiny and very heavy criticism. Do you think the Council has been unfairly demonized?
Crittendon: Yes, I do. Council members do play a role in government. There's a system of checks and balances, and there are people who don't want checks.
DD: The Council was bashed after its membership and the governor failed to consummate the deal for Belle Isle. Do you think walking away from the deal for Belle Isle was the right thing for City Council to do?
Crittendon: Like I said earlier, it was offensive to me that state made Belle Isle a priority. People are dying in this city, and they want to act like the most pressing thing at that time was a park?
And it was not a good deal. Frankly, the amount of money that the City of Detroit spends on maintaining Belle Isle is insignificant. They're saying it's $6 million, as if that's an annual figure. But it's really bout $600,000. Someone took $600,000 and multiplied it by 10 years.
DD: Would you seek a place on the Council at some point, if you don't win the mayoral election?
Crittendon: I don't know what I’m going to do if I don't win. I do know this: The City Council is the legislative branch of government. They are responsible for adopting the laws that govern the city. There's nothing wrong with the laws. We need a strong mayor in office.
Now that we're going to this council-by-district system, people think the City Council will have greater accountability. But that's not really the case. They will only be able to pick up the phone and report to the mayor. The City Council still won't have ability to fix the streetlights and improve police response times.
DD: An early poll has you trailing, with about 6 percent of the vote. What do you make of that poll?
Crittendon: Not much. I was happy to be only two points behind a sitting mayor and to be above two elected state representative. I’m going to change my name to undecided and then I'll be the frontrunner. (Laughs) I don't think most people have really made up their minds.
DD: Anything else you want to add?
Crittendon: Not really. Just that I know that it doesn't have to be this way. What's happening in Detroit is frustrating. I don't want history to record that we were so incompetent that we had to hand over the keys. That's so unnecessary. I understand why people who don't know any better would think so. But it's not the case.
I hope as mayor I can change that.
