Mayor And Appointee Square Off
By Charles Sercombe
Mayor Karen Majewski took an action she doesn’t do very often.
The mayor removed one of her appointees, Bill Meyer, from his position on the Hamtramck Human Relations Commission. Meyer was the chairman of the commission.
Majewski said she removed Meyer because of ongoing concerns she had about his leadership and comments he’s made.
She also cited his conversation with The Review staff and threat to start a new local paper if this newspaper didn’t open up to other opinions. Meyer was told The Review always welcomes letters and guest editorials.
“I removed Bill because of a long-term pattern of behavior that caused me to lose confidence in his commitment to the commission’s mission, culminating in his acting unilaterally, outside the bounds of the commission’s mandate and its procedure,” Majewski said in an e-mail.
“For some time, I’ve been hearing complaints and personally witnessed behavior that suggested a lack of sensitivity to discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. Serious questions were also brought to me by fellow commissioners about the election of officers over which he presided.
“Finally, he acted outside his authority by threatening The Hamtramck Review, undermining the commission’s purpose of promoting understanding through mediation and education, and overstepping the bounds of his position by acting as the chair of the commission without the agreement or knowledge of the entire commission.”
Meyer and his supporters lashed out at the mayor at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.
Meyer said the mayor essentially removed her for “political” reasons.
“ ‘Overstepping my bounds’ referred more to my growing public disillusionment with the current administration and its abusive use of power than to any improper behavior with the commission,” Meyer said in a prepared statement he read to the council.
“I’ve always known that political divisiveness was the poison preventing our community from growing together, but as chair of the Human Relations Commission, I actually believed we would be able to overcome this obstacle and find an avenue for common ground. I remained publicly neutral for a long time although I had serious concerns about certain public officials who were acting in their own best interests for political power.”
Meyer also said he did not “threaten” The Review newspaper and characterized his discussion with the staff as “a calm discussion with reason.” He added that he had a recording of the conversation and would play it if anyone was interested.
If it is true that Meyer has a recording, he may have violated state law. Meyer did not notify The Review staff that he was recording the conversation nor did he openly display a recording device.
A complaint is being filed with the Police Department.
In place of Meyer as the chairman of the commission is Ibrahim Aljahim.
Mr. Meyer routinely used recording devices in Human Relations Commission meetings, sometimes displaying them front and center at the table as commissioners arrived for meetings.
I always thought Mr. Meyer’s use of recording devices at official meetings was somewhat bizarre and untoward, and inhibited the free flow of ideas.
But Mr. Meyer’s own revelation that he taped members of the press with neither implicit or explicit consent makes me wonder how many HRC meetings he tape-recorded under subterfuge.
And it begs the larger question: was Mr. Meyer truly that ignorant of basic law? Or does he believe that he’s simply above the law?
To paint himself as the unwitting victim of a dastardly political cabal is truly breathtaking considering his potentially illegal activities.
Mr. Meyer and I have had our disagreements as commissioners – for example, I support full equality and justice for Hamtramck’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, while Mr. Meyer belittled and minimized the notion.
While I am happy to see that Mr. Meyer and his friend, Hamtramck NAACP President Asm “Kamal” Rahman, now support the LGBT-inclusive Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, all I have to ask of them is this: Where were you?
Now that it’s sexy to be inclusive of LGBT people, where were you last year when so many of us were going door-to-door in support of our Human Rights ordinance?
Just one short year ago, Mr. Rahman was breathlessly comparing same-sex relationships to bestiality. And just one short year ago, Mr. Meyer, building off of his personal animosity toward Councilmember Klein, was dismissing LGBT rights as unimportant and expendable.
What a difference a year makes!
When I asked both Mr. Rahman and Mr. Meyer earlier this year to explain themselves, both sheepishly gave generalized answers in support of “equal rights.” And both of them predictably boasted about how many gay co-workers and friends they each allegedly have.
It’s been my experience that people who gush about how many gay co-workers and friends they have usually cannot be counted on to support equality for their gay co-workers and friends, when push comes to shove.
I’ll give some free advice to my friends who opposed last year’s Human Rights ordinance: be honest, or don’t say anything at all.
Don’t pretend to support justice for LGBT people when you clearly don’t. And don’t talk about how many LGBT friends and co-workers you have when you are too cowardly to stand up for them.
And finally, don’t insult our intelligence – we know who our friends are and who stands with us. And we also know who are the wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
One clarification–Mr. Aljahim was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Meyer. But he doesn’t step in as chair of the commission.
I’m curious…
Isn’t the HHRC a public body that is subject to the Sunshine Laws? Aren’t their deliberations open to the public, even to extent that anyone is allowed to record or videotape them?
What laws are Mr. Sercombe & Mr. Manore alleging that Mr. Meyer has violated?
More than anything else: how could I, or any other commissioner, speak openly and frankly with Mr. Meyer when he walks around with a recording device at any given time?
Mr. Meyer says that communication is one of our biggest challenges we face in Hamtramck. I completely concur.
But what does it say to then turn around, put a recording device on your person, and engage others, with the implicit threat of a “gotcha!”?
It damages and shuts down communication better than anything.
Mr. Manore,
If I’m not mistaken, as a Human Relations Commissioner for the City of Hamtramck, you’re a public official. Also, if I’m not mistaken, the commission is a public body that is subject to the Open Meetings Act.
Anyone can record the deliberations of a public body, during a public meeting of the commission; And all deliberations of a quorum must be in a meeting open to the public.
When you’re representing the people of Hamtramck, even as a commissioner, people have a right to know what you say during those meetings.
You should have no fear of any “gotcha” statement being recorded. The challenge for you is to say what you mean in a way that you won’t feel “snared” for whatever reason you may fear.
With all due respect, sir, you flat out accused Mr. Meyer of “subterfuge”.
I haven’t read anything that would indicate that.
Nevertheless, Mr. Meyer has been removed from the commission. That doesn’t mean that anyone who’d care to couldn’t attend the meetings, without even identifying themselves, and record them with an audio and/or video device.
If you feel that you can’t perform your duty because you are so threatened by a recording device, perhaps you’re not up to the task.
In any case, I wish you well. Holding public office carries a responsibility larger than any one person’s special interest.
I hope to meet you.
Julie,
My response to your questions regarding the Open Meetings Act is awaiting approval by the moderator. But allow me to summarize:
I didn’t say that Mr. Meyer wasn’t within his rights to record – I said it was bizarre and untoward, and clearly demonstrated a lack of trust in his fellow commissioners. Generally speaking, if you trust others, you don’t go around with a recording device on your person waiting to capture something “juicy.”
And I think before you talk about “special interests,” you should probably take a walk in someone else’s shoes. Walk in someone’s shoes who is gay, or lesbian, or transgender.
To call it a “special interest” to be concerned about discrimination, harassment, and violence against my community (the LGBT community) smacks of privilege. And that, Julie, is where Mr. Meyer failed in leadership – he viewed sexual orientation as merely a “choice” people make about who they’re going to “sleep with” next, instead of as a community, just like any other community we have here in Hamtramck.
The difference between the LGBT community and our local ethnic communities is that we span *all* the ethnic communities. Bosnian, Polish, Bengali, African-American…I’ve met LGBT people from all of them, men and women, single and partnered. And we are a community ourselves.
Now, I’ve met plenty of ignorant people, and I can understand where that ignorance comes from. So I try to meet people where they are, and see if I can get them to see things differently.
But when someone is *unwilling* to understand, it makes it far more difficult.
Greg,
I appreciate your concerns, as well as the struggles you continue to endure. There are numerous special interests, and my comment in no way was meant to minimize the difficulties you face. I’ve also suffered discrimination, harassment, and violence. Even so, I recognize that you and I are both priveleged to be free & well enough to be able to have this discussion.
For years, the divisiveness in our community (that is, the inclusive community of all Hamtramckans), has been fueled by ignorance. I’m not talking about stupid people, either. Your last statement clearly identifies the problem many of us have had trying to communicate with the self-proclaimed “intellectuals”, who’ve operated like a mob for several years, to take over our local government, exploiting ethnic and special interest groups in the process.
My Hamtramck neighbors, who represent the spectrum of groups you mentioned (on my block alone), have proven to be patient people who respect each other and live in harmony. The culture of our multi-faceted community is vibrant, and for the most part, peaceful.
I’d like to see the dialog shift, so that issues are addressed with the recognition that we are of one community, not competing communities. The pursuit of that goal is blocked by self-serving politicians who abandon their values to become power-mongers, desperately campaigning to maintain their seats, financed by contractors intent on siphoning our city coffers. That standard modus operandi just sucks the life blood out of the community, and pits neighbor against neighbor at election time.
Are you willing to walk with your neighbor? Perhaps even share some “juice”?
This is a holy season for many of our neighbors, and tonight is the forum about hate crime prevention. I won’t be able to attend, but perhaps we can both do our part to help bridge the gaps that divide us.
“If you feel that you can’t perform your duty because you are so threatened by a recording device, perhaps you’re not up to the task”
My thoughts exactly about any official.
“I didn’t say that Mr. Meyer wasn’t within his rights to record ” Yes you did right here:
“And it begs the larger question: was Mr. Meyer truly that ignorant of basic law? Or does he believe that he’s simply above the law?”
Actually its legal to record any conversation as long as one person consents (including you) How you use that recording is where some laws will apply.
” always thought Mr. Meyer’s use of recording devices at official meetings was somewhat bizarre and untoward, and inhibited the free flow of ideas.”
once again, as I have posted in other forums, say what you mean and dont let other peoples opinions affect your own self esteem, share your ideas and if you think that a comment may be construed very poorly or otherwise be destructive rather than constructive, dont say it.
I think it is smart to always assume any conversation you are having is being recorded. Political figures put themselves into a situation where people want to record their words for many reasons.
I am curious to find out more about the specifics of the LGBT issues, I often find any issues of race, gender, religion and so on just being used to advance a political agenda. Many times the “group” itself likes to tag anyone who doesn’t agree with them as ignorant or someone filled with hate and uses the same tactics that others use against them.
I think it is wise to punish a crime and not the “reasons” behind the crime, that opens to many ambiguos doors. Lets say a person walks up and punches another person in the face. I don’t care if he punched him because he was mad or doesn’t like the other persons race or religion or car they drive or any other ignorant reason. None of those reasons change what happened or the severity of what happened, and often those “reasons” are used by any group that can stake claim to them to advance a stance that is tilted towards the groups favor. The punishment should fit the crime.
Many people wish to divide themselves into special interest groups of all kinds and that is a serious flaw. Don’t concern yourself with injustice against a specific group be concerned about INJUSTICE. I trust no group of people who rally around any given cause to be objective because of its own admitted self serving nature.
Citizen:
While it certainly *sounds* nice to not want to “single out” different “groups” of people for protection under hate crimes laws, the simple fact is, the people who commit these vicious crimes *do* intentionally select and single out people based on their real or perceived identity, and attack them.
The inevitable result is entire communities living in fear.
Earlier this year, a man of Indian descent was attacked on Conant. His three assailants perceived him to be Muslim (the victim turned out not to be Muslim), and they assaulted him, yelling anti-Muslim slurs.
Obviously that leads entire communities to live in fear.
You say that we should punish the crime, not the reasons behind it.
In American criminal law, there’s something called “motive.”
When prosecutors bring hate crimes to trial, they establish to a 12-member jury that the defendant intentionally selected a victim because of his/her race, religion, national origin, etc. (Depending on the state, these classes are limited or expansive.)
Hate crimes laws simply take into account the motive *and* the inevitable result of hate crimes: entire communities that live in fear of being assaulted for who they are.
In communities as diverse as ours, these laws are absolutely essential.
~~~
Regarding political “agendas”: there wouldn’t need to be political “agendas” if everyone were *truly* treated equally under the law, which is simply not the case.
While it sounds nice to say that we shouldn’t “divide” people into “groups,” we inevitably do exactly that as human beings.
So we need everything spelled out in the law. Race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.
I hope I addressed your concerns.
Hello Greg,
I see your point and definitely understand your concern, lots of hate filled people in the world today.
What I have a problem with in this scenario of hate crime laws is the pushing of a political agenda by any “group”. Law is the law and not a tool to be used to give any group leverage, which is what it turned into.
Now EVERY victim is singled out for a reason. Lets say an older lady gets mugged, She was singled out by the attacker because she is older and a “easier” victim, does that make it a hate crime ? Now what if the person who committed the crime says “give me your purse you old hag” now by your own definition we have a hate crime against and elderly person – she was singled out based on her age – targeted with hate speech and so on.
Now lets say we have a rich person who is mugged, he is targeted because he has money. Mugger says “give me all your money you rich jerk”. Now we have a hate crime against the rich, again meets all your criteria for a hate crime.
From both examples we have groups that would live in fear, elderly, rich, and I could give many more examples, all fitting the exact reasons and motives to be seen as hate crimes.
You bring up motive, well motive in of itself if nothing, If a wife has a huge insurance policy the husband has motive to kill her. That doesn’t mean anything, police don’t come to your house and arrest you for motive, they arrest you for the crime.
To address your point of everyone being treated equal, well here is the thing, this agenda is CREATING inequality. You want the groups you are talking about to have special treatment as to the reasons they were attacked. Does the elderly person in my example get to have “hate” crime attached to her mugging ? she was singled out for a reason, specific words of hate were used against her. Same holds true for the rich person in the example.
Now I think at the root of this, You think by creating “hate” crimes you will get people to stop hating ?
Things are equal – man is punched in face for being muslim – “insert charges”
man is punched in face because he stepped on someones foot – “insert same charges as above”
That is equal, what is unequal is if man who was punched for being muslim gets extra charges put on his attacker just because he is muslim.
All crimes are hate crimes, and every victim was singled out for a reason – so then shouldnt every crime be a hate crime at trial ?