Matt Yankee, deputy clerk with Washtenaw County, marks ticks in columns as candidate names are read aloud during the recount of the Aug. 4 Democratic primary election for the Ward 3 city council seat. (Photo by the writer.)

Friday morning in the lower level of the county building at 200 N. Main, Letitia Kunselman held her cell phone out in the general direction of Melodie Gable, chair of Washtenaw County’s board of canvassers. Gable was wrapping up about 90 minutes of ballot recounting from the Ward 3 Democratic primary for Ann Arbor city council. By that time, her official announcement stated an outcome that everyone in the room already knew.

We’d followed the hand recount of paper ballots table-by-table, as one precinct after the other confirmed individual vote totals from the initial Aug. 4 results.

What Gable reported was exactly the news that Letitia Kunselman’s husband Stephen – on the other end of the cell phone line – wanted to hear: his own 511 votes compared to Leigh Greden’s 505 had been confirmed, leaving Kunselman the winner of the primary. The third candidate, LuAnne Bullington, picked up one vote in the recount in precincts 3-4 and 3-7 (these precincts shared a single polling location on election day), bringing her total to 382.

We include in our report the vote totals, some anecdotal bits from the morning recount, but more importantly, a brief look at the impact that Greden’s departure will have on council’s committee composition.

Results After the Recount

At the end of the recount on Friday morning, here’s how the final vote tally stood:

WARD 3             Bullington  Greden   Kunselman

Precinct 3-1,3-2      3         20        45
Precinct 3-3         92        160        96
Precinct 3-4,3-7    149        159       137
Precinct 3-5         25         32        23
Precinct 3-6,3-9     66         75       118
Precinct 3-8         47         59        92

Totals              382        505       511

-

Miscellaneous Roundup from the Morning Recount

-

Overall Mood: Not Bitter

Given the number of “watchers” on behalf of the various candidates, The Chronicle posed a question to Greden, regarding which people were there on his behalf: “So not all of the watchers are here officially watching for you …” He quipped in reply: “No, Latitia Letitia Kunselman is not here watching on my behalf.”

Greden also showed no visible sign of chaffing when his name was repeatedly mispronounced at one of the counting tables – each candidate’s name is called out when a ballot with a vote for them is examined. Last year, at the Ward 5 Carsten Hohnke-Vivienne Armentrout recount, The Chronicle noted that “… a predictable range of pronunciations for ‘Hohkne‘ ‘Hohnke’ could be heard.” This year, it probably couldn’t have been predicted that Greden would be rendered as “Brenden” – but it was.

Where Was Kunselman?

Why wasn’t Stephen Kunselman there in person? Letitia Kunselman told The Chronicle that he was in California – he’d gone with his son, Shane, to launch him into his freshman year in college.

Who Were the Watchers?

In alphabetical order, the names of the watchers – who helped verify that the recounting was proceeding to the satisfaction of all interested parties:

• Tim Colenbeck Colenback
  
• Dave DeVarti
• Tony Derezinski
• Jack Eaton
• Diane Giannola
• Lou Glorie
• Leah Gunn
• Letitia Kunselman
• Pat Lesko
• Joan Lowenstein
• Lois Mayfield
• Peggy Rabhi
• Karen Sidney
• Christopher Taylor
• Tom Wieder

We leave it as a political puzzle to match watchers with the candidate on whose behalf they attended.

Impact on Committee Structure

The city council reorganizes itself into committees soon after the new council is formally installed every November. Five committees on which Greden currently serves will thus have a different look in a couple of months. Here’s who currently serves on those committees:

• Budget and Labor Committee: Leigh Greden, Stephen Rapundalo, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall
• Council Administration Committee: Leigh Greden, Stephen Rapundalo, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall
• DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee: Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall
• City Council Representative to DDA Partnerships Committee: Leigh Greden
• Student Relations Committee: Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke

Where Did These Committees Come From?

We’ve pieced together a brief history of these committees based on the description in the 2006 City of Ann Arbor Boards, Commissions and Committees document. Some significant consolidations in committee structure took place in December 2005. One effect of the restructuring was to collapse different committees with similar functions into single committees. One consequence, in some cases, was to reduce the breadth of participation in committees.

Budget and Labor (Negotiation) Committee

The stated purpose of the council’s budget and labor committee is:

To work with City Administrator to advise about City labor issues. To advise the Mayor, Council and City Administrator on matters relating to the City’s comprehensive annual financial report, audited statements and management letter; appointment of independent auditors; the City’s financial condition including revenue issues; financial investment policies and procedures; short- term and long-term borrowing policies and proposals; matters relating to the budget process, implementation and administration; and short-term and long-term financial polices and plans.

The council’s Budget and Labor Committee was established on Dec. 5, 2005 when the city council of that year passed the resolution establishing its committee structure for 2006. The membership of the Budget and Labor Committee is defined as five members – the mayor plus four members of the city council. It included at that time – and appears to continue to include – three ex officio members: the city administrator, the city’s chief financial officer, and a member of the commission on disability issues.

Budget and Labor combined what had previously been two different committees: (i) the Budget/Finance Committee, and (ii) the Labor Negotiation Committee.

Prior to 2006, the Budget/Finance Committee was a 13-member body: the mayor, four councilmembers, three citizen members, the city administrator or representative, the budget director, the finance director, and two other department heads appointed by the city administrator.

Prior to 2006, the only mention of the Labor Negotiation Committee we could find was a reference to the 1997 edition of that 5-member council committee: Stephen C. Hartwell and Elisabeth L. Daley (Democrats), and Ingrid Sheldon, David Kwan, and Jane Lumm (Republicans).

When first established as such in December 2005, the council’s Budget and Labor Committee consisted of John Hieftje, Christopher Easthope, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, and Joan Lowenstein.

Council Administration Committee

The Council Administration Committee was also established in December 2005 as the combination of other previously existing committees when council reorganized its committees:

Established to combine the following committees into one: Special Liquor Committee, Real Estate Committee, Ad Hoc Rules Committee, City Attorney Committee, City Administrator Committee.

The last two committees in the list historically performed the specific task of evaluating the performance of the city attorney and the city administrator. For both of these committees, the membership was specified to be the mayor plus a councilmember of each ward (for a total of six), the specific councilmember to be determined by the two ward representatives.

In council rules, the Council Administration Committee is given a large part of the responsibility of setting and approving the agenda:

Approval of the Draft Agenda. The City Administrator shall submit the draft agenda and supporting materials to the Council Administration Committee for approval 10 days prior to the next Council meeting. The Council Administration Committee will approve the agenda 7 days prior to the next Council meeting. Once approved by the Council Administration Committee, no matter from staff shall be placed on the agenda for action. Council members may add items to the agenda at any time.

When originally constituted as such in December 2005, the membership of the Council Administration Committee consisted of Leigh Greden, Christopher Easthope, Marcia Higgins, John Roberts and Margie Teall.

DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee

The DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee was formed for the specific purpose of renegotiating the parking agreement between the Downtown Development Authority and the city. The city has a goal of convincing the DDA to pay around $2 million to the city for the 2011 budget year, which the DDA is not contractually obligated to pay.

In early 2009, the city council passed a resolution calling on the DDA to open a discussion on the topic. The DDA responded by forming a committee to meet with a corresponding committee on the city council. The city council then delayed formation of its own committee, because some councilmembers did not like the constitution of the DDA’s committee. One place to start for some of the details of that dynamic is a May 23, 2009 article on the DDA mid-year retreat.

[In the original version of this article, the Letitia Kunselman's name was misspelled throughout.]

Seated at the table, Matt Yankee, deputy county clerk, and Frances McMullan, Ypsilanti city clerk, who helped staff one of the recount tables. In red in the background: Melodie Gable, chair of the county's board of canvassers. Holding a cup in the background is Ann Arbor city clerk, Jackie Beaudry. (Photo by the writer.)

Frances McMullan, Ypsilanti city clerk, wields wire snips to break the seal of a bag containing paper ballots. Note: The Chronicle made its civic contribution to the recount by lending out the wire snips (we carry a bag of tools everywhere) to save some time in tracking down scissors. (Photo by the writer.)

Leigh Greden, left, with Joan Lowenstein and Jackie Beaudry, right. (Photo by the writer.)

At right and mostly off camera, Tom Wieder follows the tick marks of the recounting on his own notepad. The orange folder in the background belongs to Leigh Greden. (Photo by the writer.)

"Whoah, there, Larry Kestenbaum, sit back down, I didn't say I was done talking to you!" That, of course, is not what this WEMU reporter said to the county clerk. Kestenbaum gave welcoming and closing remarks at the recount. (Photo by the writer.)

Chess players in a tournament have to play a series of games against opponents drawn at random. Top players don’t worry much about the draw – their tournament results ultimately depend on skill, not who they have to play against.

Similarly, skilled politicians are able to work for the public good – no matter who happens to sit across the table from them.

Based on a preliminary examination of the additional corpus of emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by The Chronicle, it appears that Leigh Greden (Ward 3) would prefer to play his political chess when he can choose his own opponents and arrange outcomes in advance. In his own words, he likes to “script” outcomes for the public. And part of that scripting entails being the casting director – trying to control who sits across the table from him.

We’ve seen that pattern reported over the last few months in The Chronicle in connection with the “mutually beneficial” committee of the Downtown Development Authority. That committee will renegotiate the DDA’s parking agreement with the city of Ann Arbor sometime before FY 2011. Greden had objected to the membership of Jennifer Hall and Rene Greff on the DDA’s committee and resisted the appointment of a corresponding city council committee – until Mayor John Hieftje decided not to reappoint Greff to the DDA board and Hall removed herself from the committee.

Assuming Greden wins his primary election in August against Stephen Kunselman and LuAnne Bullington, he will serve on the city council’s committee that negotiates the parking agreement with the DDA. He apparently believes he’ll have an easier time of it without Hall and Greff on the DDA’s committee. He might well believe that Sandi Smith, who serves on both city council and the DDA board – and who replaced Greff on the committee – will just hand over the $2 million from DDA revenues requested by the city without discussion. What he might not have reckoned with is the fact that Smith has – in the nearly one year I have covered DDA and city council – shown an ability to think and speak for herself without being fed her lines.

What does this have to do with Mike Anglin’s proposed amendment on Monday night?

On Monday evening, after rejecting Anglin’s amendment, Greden stated he was willing to hear alternatives from “someone else at the table.” But apparently not from Anglin. Greden also wasn’t willing to come up with any amendments of his own to Anglin’s amendment. Why not?

The FOIA-ed emails reveal that when Greden is in an erudite mood, he thinks Anglin is “mentally unfit” for office. The FOIA-ed emails seem to suggest that Greden would prefer to communicate with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) about Anglin’s re-election chances than to figure out a way to work constructively for the public good with Anglin, a fellow Democrat.

Possibly as a consequence of his lack of regard for Anglin, Greden was either unwilling or unable to see the obvious commonality he had with Anglin Monday evening on the amendment to the resolution on the library lot site development process: He’d agreed with Anglin that there should be public input, and he agreed that the time frame was too constrained. It’s common practice to undertake amendments to amendments. But Greden missed the opportunity – he doesn’t seem to want to work with Anglin on anything, ever.

Sure, it was an opportunity missed by Anglin as well – he’d waded into the deliberations in a confrontational way, and Greden responded in kind.

But for Anglin, the potential downside was limited – his political goals seem focused on his own spot on city council. For Greden the potential downside was that “someone else” could take the opportunity to perform as a skilled politician.

Someone like Sabra Briere.

Based on the FOIA-ed emails, it’s clear that Greden thinks Briere wants to be mayor of Ann Arbor. If Greden doesn’t want her to be elected mayor someday, he needs to stop handing her opportunities to demonstrate her political skills.

It was Briere who led the council Monday night through the exercise of collaboratively crafting language for an amendment to Anglin’s amendment that achieved a unanimous roll call vote, including a yes from Greden. It was a fairly mundane, garden-variety political maneuver by Briere, devoid of flash, not some brilliant checkmate planned out move by move.

Chess players draw a distinction between their command of “book,” which is to say – encyclopedic knowledge of previous games – and their “over the board” ability, or their ability to analyze the pieces on the board in the moment. Briere’s simple move wasn’t a “book” move – it was just a matter of recognizing a situation “over the board.” That situation is this: Sometimes pushing a pawn one square ahead, without capturing or threatening any of your opponent’s pieces, is just the right move.

Because sometimes pushing a pawn gets you an extra queen.

Obvious good moves are easier to spot by attending to the pieces on the chess board and not the person playing them – “play the board, not the person” is good advice in chess as in politics. You always have control over the board, but not the person playing the opposite pieces.

Maybe Briere does want to be mayor some day. But right now she’s running for re-election in Ward 1 as council representative. And her political skills would serve her and the community equally well, if she’s re-elected to that post. As for Greden, he confuses political skill with the art of avoiding interactions with those who might outwit him. If he can learn the difference, he might be able to serve the public interest better – provided the voters of Ward 3 decide to re-elect him.