Trustee Andy Thomas uses a magnifying glass to review the amortization table presented as part of the bond proposal during an Aug. 9 special meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

The request to the voters will take the form of a tax to be paid by property owners over the next 13 years at an average rate of around .51 mills to support the sale of bonds. The rate will vary because the bonds will be issued in series in order to ensure that the equipment purchased with the bonds has a useful life longer than it takes to pay off the bonds used to purchase it. [A rate of .51 mills is $0.51 for every $1,000 of a property's taxable value.]

Trustees plan to place the measure on the Feb. 28, 2012 ballot – the fourth Tuesday of the month. Previously, the board had discussed the possibility of placing it on the Nov. 8, 2011 ballot.

If approved, the millage would pay for a bond that would fund upgrades to equipment previously purchased with a 2004 bond, including student, teacher, and administrative computers, as well as upgrade infrastructure such as switches, servers, and the district’s wireless “backbone.”

The new bond would also include support for new classroom technologies and administrative software.

The Aug. 10 decision to place the technology millage on the February 2012 ballot came after discussion at a special board meeting on Aug. 9, which was called to allow for trustees to share feedback they had received from the community since directing administration to prepare for a tech bond at a study session on July 13.

The Aug. 10 meeting also included trustees’ unanimous vote supporting a new DVD recommended by the district’s Sexual Health Education Advisory Committee (SHEAC).

Technology Bond

The Aug. 10 decision to place the technology millage on the February ballot came after discussion at an Aug. 9 special meeting to discuss community feedback on the idea of a tech bond appearing on the November ballot, as well as discussion at the Aug. 10 meeting.

At the Aug 10 board meeting, AAPS executive director of physical properties, Randy Trent, outlined a resolution to submit a bond proposal for public consideration that would fund technology improvements across the district over a ten-year period, at a total cost of $45.8 million.

Technology Bond: Background

Trent offered some context for the proposed technology bond, explaining that $20 million of the 2004 capital improvements bond approved by voters that year was approved for and used to fund technology upgrades. Since then, he explained the district has crafted a technology plan to lead students into the future. In 2009-10, Trent continued, an additional $7 million in unspent funds from the 2004 bond was used to fund a partial technology “refresh,” and the new proposed bond would pick up from there, following along the trajectory outlined in the technology plan.

“This is not about glamorous technology,” said Trent. “It’s about how we can make kids more productive in their learning environment.”

Technology Bond: What the Bond Would Buy

Trent then briefly outlined what the bond would fund. The technology bond, if approved by voters, would provide $26.6 million to fund the upgrades of student, teacher, and administrative computers on a three-year cycle; $2 million to fund switch and server upgrades on a five-year cycle; $7.4 million for classroom technologies and administrative software; and $6.2 million to complete the upgrade to a 10-Gig “backbone” across the district and redesign the district’s wireless network. Included in the bond’s costs are also funds to cover the creation of server rooms/wiring closets as necessary, contingencies, and project management costs.

Trent reported that AAPS is using 1998 software in some of its key administrative areas, and that the infrastructure throughout the district is straining to keep up with current demands. Board president Deb Mexicotte clarified that bond funds cannot be used for operational costs, such as staff salaries.

Technology Bond: Superintendent’s Thoughts

At the Aug. 10 board meeting, AAPS superintendent Patricia Green made a case for the technology bond saying that the technology plan comes together with the AAPS strategic plan to create 21st century learning. Green then reviewed the eight key strategies of the strategic plan, linking each one to the aspects of technology it would require to be effective.

Green highlighted how the bond would allow for a more robust implementation of the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) assessment, a tool recently purchased by the district. The new bond funds would also allow better implementation of online and distance learning options for students, as well as staff. Green asserted that the appropriate use of technology in classrooms can close the achievement gap, and argued that AAPS needs to lead children rather than sitting back and expecting them to lead the district.

Urging the trustees to embrace technology, Green argued that the district should stay on the cutting edge, including the use of hand-held devices and social media. Quoting educator Ian Jukes, Green asserted that teaching the “digital generation” involves preparing students for their future, not our past, and “exploring the power of possibility thinking.”

Trustees expressed confidence in Green’s vision as outlined. “This is good stuff,” asserted trustee Simone Lightfoot. Trustee Christine Stead cautioned the board to remember that, while very important, technology should not be the district’s sole focus.

Technology Bond: How the Bond Would Work

Also present at the August 10 meeting were the district’s director of finance, Nancy Hoover, the district’s bond counsel, Amanda Van Dusen, and the district’s financial planner, Paul Stauder. Hoover reviewed the wording of the bond proposal as it will appear on the ballot, and briefly explained that if the board approved the resolution, it would allow the district to issue bonds on approval by the voters. She added that the bonds would be issued in multiple series over 10 years.

In a follow-up discussion with The Chronicle, Van Dusen explained the process in more detail. School districts, she explained, cannot borrow money as straightforwardly as an individual or corporation can. For AAPS to borrow money to fund technology improvements, it needs to convince district voters to pass a millage, which would then allow the district to sell bonds to investors. The principal and interest costs of repaying the bonds are then covered by the tax levy on the property owners in the district.

In this case, if passed, voters would pay an average  of .51 mills, or $0.51 on every $1,000 of taxable property value, annually until the cost of the district-issued bonds, with interest, was fully paid back to investors.

At the Aug. 10 board meeting, trustee Andy Thomas highlighted what he argued was a common misperception about the millage and its related amortizations. Thomas noted that while it will take 13 years to pay off the debt completely, the bonds will be issued in three series, beginning in 2012, 2015, and 2019. In each case, he said, the expected life of the technology products to be purchased would be longer than the length of time it will take to pay off that series of bonds.

Van Dusen and Stauder also clarified some aspects of the process in response to questions asked by trustees. Van Dusen explained that it takes an average of three months to issue the bonds in response to a successful millage campaign. Therefore, she pointed out, a millage approved by voters in November of 2011, February of 2012, or May of 2012 would all cause a new tax to be levied beginning in July 2012. But she cautioned that there may be “market considerations” associated with waiting until May, since there would be less flexibility in meeting the requirement that bonds be sold before the levy of the July 2012 tax.

Van Dusen confirmed that the board could adopt a reimbursement resolution to advance funds immediately after a successful millage vote. Stauder added that it will take a few months before bond proceeds would be in the bank, but that it is not at all unusual for districts to advance funds and then reimburse themselves.

Technology Bond: Board Concerns and Questions

Lightfoot asked whether $45.8 million would be enough to achieve the district’s technology objectives for the next decade, and Green confirmed it would be. Green added that making these technology purchases would be “reasonable and prudent” next steps in following the district’s strategic plan.

Stead asked whether the technology bond as planned would cause add any incremental costs to the regular operating budget. Hoover answered that the bond funds can be used to pay for the bond counsel, and all other contractual staff that would be hired to do this work, so there would not be appreciable additional costs. Van Dusen added that much of the software the district would want to purchase comes bundled with the hardware, and would therefore be an allowable bond purchase. She clarified that the bond proceeds could not be used to pay for training or maintenance, but that the bond could pay for warranties.

Technology Bond: Public Commentary

AAPS parent and candidate for the school board Ahmar Iqbal commented that the magnitude of an effective technology bond requires a lot of thought. He suggested that that board complete a comprehensive evaluation of technology use in the district, and review best practices in other countries. He also wondered whether AAPS could better collaborate with the county or local universities to make the more efficient use of technology.

Technology Bond: Millage Campaign

Thomas suggested that AAPS administration create a single document for the public that ties the cost of the technology improvements directly to the benefits they provide, as well as to the implications of not purchasing each of the improvements. He also suggested describing the intended purchases as specifically as possible, and including a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the district website in order to help the public understand exactly what the bond would provide.

Stead agreed that the presentation to the community needed to have a “more tangible” focus on how these investments will help students.

Trustee Susan Baskett expressed a concern that being too specific about the technology to be purchased would tie the district’s hands in an unhelpful way, because there may be new technologies AAPS would want to purchase in the future that don’t even exist yet. She suggested that the public will want an explanation of why the district cannot just pay for the needed technology out of the current budget.

Technology Bond: Timing of the Millage

The original board resolution under consideration at the Aug. 10 meeting called for the millage to be on the ballot in November 2011. The board also considered the alternate election dates available in February, May, August, and November of 2012. Van Dusen pointed out that the district would need to cover the cost of the election if the bond proposal was the only ballot item; the cost of running a special election is roughly $90,000.

During the course of a special meeting of the board on Aug. 9, as well as the regular board meeting on Aug. 10, two major considerations regarding the timing of the millage were discussed in some detail: (1) whether asking the community to fund a technology bond in the next year would have a negative impact on the success of another countywide enhancement millage; and (2) whether there was appropriate leadership available within the administration and the community to mount a successful millage campaign by the November 2011 election date.

The gist of the debate regarding the enhancement millage weighed the likely approval of a smaller amount of dedicated funding (the technology bond) with the less likely approval of a larger amount of less restricted funding (a countywide enhancement millage). Trustees varied in the degree of optimism they had about the possible passage of a countywide enhancement millage after the last attempt was so soundly defeated in 2009.

Stead argued that the massive decreases in state funding for education will make a compelling case for controlling education funding for all local districts if and when a new countywide millage campaign is mounted. Trustee Glenn Nelson countered that it will take a long time to get the ten member-districts of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District to coordinate efforts for another enhancement millage. In the end, it was decided to proceed with a technology bond sooner rather than later to space it out from any enhancement millage campaign that might begin in the next year.

Regarding leadership, concerns were raised that there are some important vacancies in AAPS administration right now – the district is currently hiring a deputy superintendent of instruction, a director of instructional technology, and an assistant superintendent for elementary education. In addition, AAPS director of communications, Liz Margolis, reported at the Aug. 10 meeting that she has reached out to members of the community who have led the Citizen’s Millage Committee in the past, but none of those people were able to co-chair a campaign at this time.

Thomas amended the original resolution to move the bond proposal from November 2011 to February 2012, arguing that it would allow the district more time to make a persuasive case to the public, and get the leadership – both in and out of the district – in place. Trustee Irene Patalan thanked Green and the administration for preparing this resolution so quickly and so well, and said she was “excited and proud” to see the strategic plan being enacted.

The board unanimously approved ballot language for a technology millage to be put before voters in the AAPS district in a special election in February of 2012.

Second Briefing: Sexual Health Education

Other than the technology bond, the only other item addressed by the board at the Aug. 10 meeting was a recommendation from the district’s Sexual Health Education Advisory Committee (SHEAC) to approve a new DVD for use in a third grade health unit. The DVD, “Staying Safe: Strangers, Cyberspace & More,” contains vignettes on good touch/bad touch, stranger safety, online safety, and what to do when a friend is in trouble.

This was a second briefing and second public hearing on the DVD. No one spoke at the public hearing, but the board expressed universal support of the new materials as well as the SHEAC members.

At the Aug. 10 meeting, SHEAC co-chair Margy Long took the opportunity to introduce the mandate of the committee to Green, and to briefly review Michigan law regarding sexual health education. She noted that each Michigan school district that wants to include sexual health education in its curriculum needs to set up an advisory committee consisting of local parents, clergy, health providers, and educators to review materials and recommend them to the board.

Pat Wells, a pediatric emergency physician and member of the committee, then spoke to the board about the role health education plays in the lives of district youth and shared some local teen health statistics. She urged everyone to understand that the best way to reduce risky behavior is for kids to understand that the risks exist.

Trustees thanked Wells for her perspective, and requested that she send them the statistics she shared.

The new DVD was approved at part of the consent agenda, which also included an approval of draft minutes, and gift offers.

Board Committee Reports

The school board has two standing committees. The planning committee consists of: Christine Stead (chair), Susan Baskett, and Irene Patalan; the performance committee consists of: Glenn Nelson (chair), Simone Lightfoot, and Andy Thomas. Board president Deb Mexicotte sits on neither committee.

Performance Committee

Nelson reported that the performance committee had recently discussed communications, and determined that administration should focus on evaluating internal communication, including between the board and the administration. He noted that Green had been present at the meeting and had added her first impressions of how communication is conducted internally in the district.

Nelson also reported that his committee had update the district regulation regarding transportation to athletic events (Policy 6420.R.15) to amend the definition of local and non-local events, as referenced in the 2011-12 budget.

At its September meeting, the committee will review the changes to teacher evaluation as they relate to the new tenure law just signed by Gov. Rick Snyder.

Planning Committee

Stead reported that the planning committee last met in the wake of the significant changes made to the athletics budget. Coming up next month, she said, her committee will review a set of expiring policies, talk about how AAPS can support the Washtenaw County Science Olympiad, and begin to plan for how to proceed regarding revenue enhancement initiatives.

Superintendent’s Report

In her first superintendent’s report to the board, Green highlighted the work of the custodial and maintenance staff being done in the schools this summer, calling them “unsung heroes,” and thanking them for their efforts, especially during the days of intense heat Ann Arbor recently experienced. She also thanked Trent for taking her on a tour of all district facilities and summer programs.

Green noted that there is a lot going on in AAPS over the summer, naming a number of summer programs including the elementary summer learning institute, secondary level summer school, tutoring, and partnerships with the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor District Library. In light of the technology bond discussed at this meeting, Green also pointed out that 215 AAPS high school students were enrolled in online classes over the summer.

Agenda Planning

Trustees requested a review of 2010-11 suspensions and expulsions, and a discussion on the work being done by administration to recover expenses from the insurance audit. Green noted that recommendations from the auditing company on how to proceed are due to come back to AAPS within the month.

Mexicotte announced that the board had cancelled its late August meeting, making the next regular meeting of the board on Wed, Sept. 14. She also reported that the board had set a date of Friday, Oct. 14 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for its annual retreat.

Items from the Board

Baskett noted a letter the board had received from a retired teacher suggesting that construction work being done at Pioneer High School this summer should have been explained better to the community. The letter also suggested that the MEAP scores at Clemente and A2Tech (formerly Stone School) are troubling. Basekett suggested an additional review of the MEAP data by school officials.

Baskett also suggested that the district put up a sign by the Pioneer construction work saying something like “Thank you Ann Arbor – your bond dollars at work” to highlight how the project was funded. Stead added that it might be worth putting a communication piece out, since the project has a long history. Mexicotte also suggested that perhaps the community should be reminded of just how inappropriate and inadequate the facilities had been before the renovation.

Lightfoot and Baskett thanked Green for meeting with a group of women from the community, and noted that the feedback from those at the meeting was very hopeful. Lightfoot added that she finds Green’s direct communication style “refreshing.”

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice-president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson, and Christine Stead.

Next regular meeting: Sept. 14, 2011, 7 p.m., at the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs, including the Ann Arbor Public Schools board. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The AATA board had discussed the AATA collaboration at its April 21 meeting. The data storage services to be provided by the county will cost $73,632 for four years. The backup services to be provided by the county will entail an annual service cost of $102,607 for four years.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Sakti3 is requesting an abatement on $200,000 of real property improvements (electrical construction work) and $2.2 million of personal property (battery cycling equipment, thermal chambers, machine shop equipment, server system).

If granted, the abatement would reduce Sakti3′s annual tax bill for the new improvements by about $17,000 for each year of the abatement. According to city staff, the new real and personal property investments would generate about $22,500 in property taxes each year.

Previously, the council voted on March 21 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, the city council approved the establishment of the district.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Eli Neiburger's avatar – or click the photo to see how he looks in real life. Neiburger has been named by Library Journal as one of its 2011 Movers & Shakers.

The topic stemmed from a report by AADL director Josie Parker, who described her experience at a recent working group meeting for the Digital Public Library of America. At that invitation-only event, Parker framed the discussion among industry leaders regarding the future of public access to information, from the perspective of public libraries.

It’s an issue highlighted by the decision of two major publishers – Macmillan and Simon & Schuster – not to sell eBooks to public libraries, making more than 25% of the eBook market unavailable to library patrons. More recently, HarperCollins announced restrictions on how libraries can circulate eBooks that it publishes.

Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development, gave a talk on the impact of eBooks at a national summit last fall called “ebooks: Libraries at the Tipping Point” – his presentation can be viewed online. At Monday’s meeting, Parker congratulated him for being named by Library Journal as one of its 2011 Movers & Shakers, in the category of tech leaders.

In another technology-related update, Parker told the board she’s been invited to serve on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation‘s public access technology benchmarks program. That workgroup will be developing benchmarks that libraries can use to determine the kind of technology infrastructure they need to deliver services to their communities.

Parker also briefed the board on new standards imposed by the Library of Michigan, which changed how public libraries qualify for state aid. Those standards – originally proposed as rules – are the subject of a lawsuit against the state library, filed by the Herrick District Library in Holland. The AADL has filed an amicus curiae – or “friend of the court” – brief in support of the Herrick library’s position, which charges that the state library has no authority to set these rules, and is taking away local control from district libraries.

Aside from updates made by Parker, the board dispatched with the rest of its business quickly. No one spoke during the time available for public commentary.

Director’s Report

Josie Parker, AADL director, touched on several topics during her report to the board at Monday’s meeting. The issue that generated the most discussion related to her work with the Digital Public Library of America.

Director’s Report: Digital Public Library of America

At the January 2011 AADL board meeting, Parker had briefed the board on her involvement in the Digital Public Library of America initiative. She’d been invited to be part of a small working group that is helping to launch the project, which is spearheaded by Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

That working group met on March 1 in Cambridge, Mass. On Monday, Parker described the experience as the highlight of her professional career. Gathered in one room were people who represented all major industries that have an impact on public libraries, she said, and who’ll determine what direction they might move, in terms of public access. It was a one-time opportunity to tell people they need to pay more attention to what the word “public” means – not what she means by the word, Parker clarified, but what industry leaders intend.

Parker was the first speaker at the session, and her role was to frame the discussion from the perspective of public libraries, as opposed to academic research libraries. She said she explained to the working group how public libraries might participate in the digital distribution of information. Her talk, she said, ended up framing the discussion for the entire day – she noted that there were those who truly appreciated what she had to say, and those who wished she hadn’t shown up. “I did not shame us,” she said, “but they definitely know who we are.”

Parker reported that she sat at a table with the head of OverDrive, a business that provides eBooks and other digital material to public libraries, schools and universities. The executive was very harried that morning, she noted, because the publisher HarperCollins had just announced restrictions on how public libraries can circulate its eBooks. Rather than circulating the eBooks an unlimited number of times, as libraries do for print editions, HarperCollins will allow eBooks to be checked out only 26 times before they expire. Libraries would have to pay again for additional circulation.

At the working group session, they didn’t have enough information about the HarperCollins decision to really understand its implications, Parker said. Though the public library community is up in arms about it, she said, it’s not clear that the move is as bad as it’s been made out to be. Libraries have to recognize that negotiations are necessary – publishers have to make money, she said.

Parker pointed out that at least HarperCollins is still selling eBooks to public libraries. Two major publishing houses – Macmillan and Simon & Schuster – refuse to sell any of its eBooks to public libraries, she noted. That means that more than 25% of the eBook market isn’t available to library patrons. She suspected that executives at Macmillan and Simon & Schuster are happy about the firestorm against HarperCollins, because it draws attention away from the much more serious situation that their decisions pose.

Jan Barney Newman clarified that only eBooks were being limited. That’s true, Parker replied, but the published book is going away. If libraries are going to have material to distribute to their patrons, they need to negotiate for electronic material now, while they still have leverage because of their purchases of traditional books.

Newman asked for more details about the DPLA event. Parker said they operated under the Chatham House Rule, in which statements are recorded but not attributed to any particular speaker. People were allowed to use Twitter (hashtag #DPLA) – but again, statements couldn’t be attributed to a speaker. Later, John Palfrey, the head of the DPLA steering committee, posted some notes on his blog about the meeting.

Parker said it was important for those involved in the DPLA to hear the issue of public access from the public libraries’ perspective, rather than just from academic institutions. “So we’ll see – it’s a long process,” she said.

Prue Rosenthal asked whether authors are generally aware that distribution of their books is being limited in this way. Authors weren’t as aware in the beginning, Parker replied, but now it’s a standard part of their contracts. And some are finding ways to work around those publishers’ decisions. Some blockbuster authors are bypassing publishers altogether, for example. But the vast majority rely on large publishing houses to get their material distributed.

Publishers worry because digital material is so much easier to pass around, Parker said. The feeling is that if someone can get it for free from a library, they wouldn’t pay for it. “It’s early days,” she said, “but my instinct tells me that isn’t so.” She noted that she continues to buy books, even though she works at a library and has easy access to them for free.

Barbara Murphy observed that there seems to be parallels with the music industry. That’s true, Parker said – technology is transforming the publishing industry in ways that are somewhat similar. Within five years, some of the large publishing houses will likely go out of business, because they aren’t paying attention to what’s happening. But the library is paying attention, she added. They’re trying to keep up, so that as the market shifts to eBooks, they’re prepared.

Newman asked what percentage of AADL’s circulated material are eBooks. It’s small, Parker said, because of constraints on how eBooks are available to circulate. The library can’t purchase Kindles for circulation – Amazon’s electronic book reader – because of the way its licensing agreement is structured. Another eBook reader, the Nook, does allow downloads of eBooks that can be circulated, but the library hasn’t bought the hardware to do that yet. Right now, the AADL’s main interface for eBooks is through OverDrive, which Parker said isn’t easy to use. [More details about AADL's available eBook catalog is on the library's website.]

In response to queries from board members, Parker said she’d schedule a demonstration of OverDrive and other eBook options at the board’s April 25 meeting.

Margaret Leary asked whether ebrary, which also sells eBooks to libraries, is an option. Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development, said there’s not much material available from ebrary, and most of it is non-fiction.

Parker noted that they’re confined in what they can offer based on what OverDrive can negotiate with publishers. That business gets pummeled by the library community mainly because they’re the only target, Parker said: “There’s no competition – but that’s going to change.”

Director’s Report: Kudos to Eli Neiburger

Also during her director’s report, Parker highlighted the fact that Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development – has been named by Library Journal as one of its 2011 Movers & Shakers, in the category of tech leaders. Neiburger received a round of applause from the board and staff who attended Monday’s meeting.

Parker read from the Library Journal article that profiled Neiburger, quoting Toby Greenwalt, virtual services coordinator at Skokie Public Library, Illinois: “[Neiburger has] thus far exhibited a near-flawless track record at predicting the ways technology and web culture are going to impact the library world. He’s a person we definitely need to lead us into our redefined role.”

Directing her remarks to Neiburger, Parker said, “We do need you to lead us into our redefined role, and we’re just very glad you’re with us to lead us.”

Director’s Report: Update on Lawsuit

During her report, Parker gave an update on new standards imposed by the Library of Michigan. Those standards – originally proposed as rules – are the subject of a lawsuit against the state library, filed by the Herrick District Library in Holland. At their December 2010 meeting, the AADL board had voted to file an amicus curiae – or “friend of the court” – brief in support of the Herrick library’s position. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

In 2009, the Library of Michigan issued new rules which changed the standards used to determine whether public libraries qualify for state aid. The rules were slated to take effect in October 2010 – the start of the state’s fiscal year. [.pdf file of 2010 Library of Michigan Certification Manual and State Aid to Public Libraries Grant Rules]

When the new rules were announced in draft form in 2008, directors of eight library cooperatives in the state – representing, through their memberships, many of the public libraries in Michigan – objected to the change. They contended that the Library of Michigan didn’t have the authority to set new rules on how libraries qualify for state aid, which is awarded by the state legislature. “It was a loud voice, and it went unheard,” Parker said.

In October 2009, the Herrick District Library filed a lawsuit in the Ottawa County Circuit Court, challenging the Library of Michigan’s authority to set these rules. The lawsuit focused on rules requiring that a public library provide the same level of service to all areas it serves.

Libraries have the authority to contract with areas outside of its millage boundaries to provide varying levels of service. A contracting municipality, for example, could receive limited library services for its residents, and pay an amount lower than what’s levied by the library millage within the library district’s boundary. The new rules prohibit this approach – and if a library continued to provide contracted services at a lower level, it would not qualify for state aid.

Herrick’s lawsuit argues that the Library of Michigan and the state’s History, Arts and Library Department – which previously housed the state library but which has since been dissolved – lack statutory authority to set rules for determining how state aid is distributed to public libraries. The suit also argues that neither the state constitution nor the statutes that govern public libraries require that libraries deliver the same level of service to contracting jurisdictions. Finally, the lawsuit contends that because the new rules are vague and overly broad, they are unconstitutional.

Parker told the AADL board that the lawsuit is challenging the new rules for the same reasons that the directors of the eight library cooperatives had objected to them – because the Library of Michigan has no authority to set the rules, and because the state library is taking away local control from district libraries.

On Sept. 9, 2010, Judge Calvin Bosman of the Ottawa County Circuit Court issued a ruling in the case, stating that the Library of Michigan lacked the authority to issue these new rules. The state library appealed the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals, and filed a motion for stay – essentially asking that the lower court’s decision not take affect until the appeal is resolved. Parker said they learned earlier in the day that the motion for stay has been denied.

The lawsuit and the recent denial of the motion for stay throws state aid into limbo, Parker said. Libraries haven’t received aid for the state’s current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1 – although the money has been budgeted by the legislature. In the short term, it doesn’t affect AADL, Parker said – in general, state aid has been dwindling because of Michigan’s economic situation. Most recently, the legislature budgeted about $6 million in total aid to public libraries statewide.

Because of the state’s overall economy, AADL didn’t anticipate receiving state aid this year, so it won’t affect their current budget, Parker said. Nor does AADL have any contracts to provide services to other municipalities. But longer-term implications could be significant, she said.

On Monday, Parker told the board that earlier this year, the state library took the “rules” that were in dispute and imposed them as “standards.” They are essentially the same set of requirements, and state aid will be distributed to public libraries based on these standards. Parker reported that Herrick filed for an injunction against the state to prevent them from imposing the standards, but that injunction was not awarded by the circuit court. Herrick now plans to appeal the circuit court’s decision not to award an injunction. Meanwhile, the state library will move ahead in awarding state aid based on the new standards.

Parker reiterated to the board what she has previously stated – that these standards will result in public libraries deciding not to contract with municipalities unless those municipalities can pay for the full range of services that the library offers. She told the board that she’d keep them updated as Herrick’s legal action progresses.

Director’s Report: Gates Foundation

Parker told the board that she’s been invited to serve on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation‘s public access technology benchmarks program. The workgroup will be developing benchmarks that libraries can use to determine the kind of technology infrastructure they need to deliver services to their communities.

While the foundation’s early investments bought computers and Internet access for libraries, Parker said they’ve now shifted focus to help libraries evaluate their technology needs, train staff, and determine how to gain public support for long-term community funding.

Director’s Report: Addy Awards

The library received four ADDY awards earlier this year from the Ann Arbor Ad Club, Parker reported – one gold ADDY, and three silvers. The awards recognize work in advertising, marketing and promotion. For the library, the materials that won ADDYs this year were all designed by Heidi Woodward Sheffield of The Exclamation Point. The gold award was for material designed for AADL’s summer reading program. Silver AADYs were awarded for: stickers and puzzles; two issues of Jump! – a calendar of events for kids; and for a Reading to Me CD that’s distributed to families with infants.

Parker said that although the library has consistently received ADDY awards over the years, this is the first time they’ve been awarded so many at this level.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman, associate director of finance, human resources and operations, gave a brief monthly financial report to the board. [.pdf file of March 2011 financial report] The library’s unrestricted cash balance as of Feb. 28, 2011 was $11 million, down from $11.8 million in January. Its positive fund balance totaled $7.9 million.

Two items – software licenses and employee benefits – remain over budget, he said. Expenses for software licenses are expected to come back in line by the end of the fiscal year, June 30. The extra expenses for employee benefits – related to increased health care costs – have been discussed at previous meetings. Year to date, that line item is $53,393 over budget.

Nieman also pointed out that the Friends of the AADL, a nonprofit that raises money to support the library, donated just over $40,000 to AADL in February. So far this year, donations from the Friends have totaled roughly $95,000.

Committee Reports

Board president Margaret Leary gave a report on the executive committee meeting, held earlier this month. The group includes Leary, Barbara Murphy and Prue Rosenthal. They discussed prospects for the budget in the coming year, Leary said, including trends and possible solutions to challenges that had been outlined by AADL director Josie Parker. Leary did not elaborate. She said the committee also heard a presentation by local developer Peter Allen – Leary described it as a short seminar on development, given from his perspective. He’ll give the second part of his presentation at the committee’s March 30 meeting, she said.

Responding to a request from board member Nancy Kaplan to talk more about Allen’s presentation, Leary said it seemed like the kind of thing he’d give to his students. [Allen is an adjunct faculty member at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business and Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. His students gave presentations at a library board meeting in December 2009, based on class projects they'd developed for the city-owned Library Lot, located next to the downtown library on South Fifth Avenue.]

Leary said Allen’s handout, which she offered to distribute to other board members, outlined different stages of real estate development.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Ed Surovell

Next meeting: Monday, April 25, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the library’s fourth floor meeting room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The board typically meets on the third Monday of each month, but moved the April meeting so that it wouldn’t fall on Passover, which this year is on April 18. [confirm date]

Webster Gillett invented a telephone with four needles tuned to the speaking diaphragm.

Quiz a friend or two about who popularized the type of electricity we use today – go ahead, get your geek on – and a few would correctly name Nikola Tesla. Then ask who invented long-distance telephony.

Probably no one would answer correctly.

It wasn’t Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, or any other celebrated name from the late 19th century’s feverish and fertile age of invention.

Like his renowned contemporary, Tesla, the inventor of long-distance telephony was an electrical engineer. Unlike Tesla’s numerous, sophisticated, and lasting inventions, his were few, crude, and transient.

But they worked – and brought him temporary fame.

Just as Tesla’s brilliance and legacy weren’t fully appreciated until long after his death, so too should be remembered the legacy of his humbler brother inventor whose name once graced the New York Times: Ypsilanti engineer Webster Gillett.

Born around 1840, Webster and his older brother Charles and younger sister Alma grew up on their parents’ 80-acre farm just east of Ypsilanti. Webster’s father Jason kept a few milk cows and pigs and a small flock of sheep. He raised wheat, Indian corn, and oats. Jason was a hard-working farmer. Between 1850 and 1870, his farm grew in size from 80 to 135 acres and its value rose from $1,000 to $10,000 [$170,000 today]. He was one of the more successful farmers in his neighborhood.

Around 1870, Jason’s 29-year-old son Webster also found success. He was granted the first of what would be nine patents – one for an electric alarm for use on railroad cars. Soon after, he obtained another – for an electrical temperature signal. The device received a mention in the Nov. 9, 1872 issue of The Telegrapher magazine, published in New York.

A year later, at age 33, Webster was superintendent of Ypsilanti’s Northwestern Telegraph Manufacturing Co. The company made and sold “Gillett’s Telegraph Apparatus, Gillett’s Electrical Railway Signals, Gillett’s Electrical Temperature Signals,” and “Gillett’s Hotel Enunciator.”

Webster started his career in an Ypsilanti telegraph supply company.

The hotel enunciator, also called “annunciator,” was similar to a hospital call-button system. Hotel guests could use it to summon room service. Webster was not the first to invent an annunciator, but his work on a device for communication over distance presaged his work to come.

Around 1880, at age 40, Webster began his most important and productive period of work. Between March of 1879 and the fall of 1880 he was granted three patents: for a method of adapting telegraph lines for telephone transmission; and for two versions of a speaking telephone (just a few years after Bell’s original telephone patent). Webster assigned one half of one telephone patent to Brooklyn engineer Richard Schermerhorn. He said farewell to his parents on the farm and moved to New York City.

Considering that the telephone is a direct outgrowth of the telegraph, it’s unsurprising that Webster got involved in a telephone equipment company in his new home of Brooklyn. He wasn’t alone in doing so. Telephony was the cutting-edge technology of the day and many inventors were contributing ideas. There was only one technological problem that even Alexander Graham Bell couldn’t solve: long-distance calls.

Telephony works by creating an electrical wave whose shape mirrors the sound wave of a speaker’s voice. At the receiving end, the electrical signal is converted back into a sound wave, producing recognizable speech. The only problem, in Webster’s day, was that the electrical signal was weak, and upon encountering resistance in the wire, soon petered out.

An obvious solution would be to provide a stronger electrical current from the transmitting end to push the signal farther. This wasn’t possible – too much current burned out the delicate needle-and-diaphragm apparatus that converted sound into an electrical wave.

Webster created a mechanical solution to this electrical problem. He simply added more needle-diaphragm pairs, each with its own battery power supply. First he invented a “two-point” (two needle-diaphragms) telephone. This instantly doubled the power pushing the signal down the line. He next created a four-point and a ten-point telephone. His crowning achievement was the twenty-point telephone.

This baroque device contained what resembled a candelabra of twenty needles and diaphragms. A voice speaking into the telephone made all twenty needles quiver. Each needle was wired to its own independent battery. The powerful combined signal surged much farther down the wires than ever before.

“Experiments were made last night on the large wire of the Postal Telegraph Company between New York and Meadville, Penn., a distance of 500 miles, with a telephone devised by Prof. Webster Gillett, of Ypsilanti, Mich.,” reported the Dec. 20, 1883 New York Times.

At the New York end of the wire were Prof. Gillett [and] Judge E. R. Wiggins, of Boston, the President of the Atlantic and Pacific Telephone Company, which owns the patents … Alfred Beal was at the Meadville end … there was little difficulty in carrying on a conversation. The gentlemen here held receivers to their ears, while Mr. Beal addressed them and sang ‘Way Down Upon the Swanee River’ and ‘Old Black Joe,’ which came plainly over the wire. Prof. Gillett asked Mr. Beal for a piece of his wedding cake. Judge Wiggins said he could hear Mr. Beal blush. The provocation for the blush was listening in Meadville.

The paper continued:

What Prof. Gillett calls a 10-point instrument was used. He uses in his transmitter a needle attached to a rubber disc … Each point, Prof. Gillett says, is like adding another telephone in power… “We feel confident that before we get through we are going to say ‘Hello’ and a good deal more, too, to the people on the other side,” said Prof. Gillett. “What we are aiming at is communication at long distances.”

Webster’s aim was true. Before long, his innovation enabled a call from New York to Chicago’s famed meat-packing titan, Philip Armour. The question that came over the wire to Mr. Armour, according to the Feb. 6, 1885 New York Times, was:

“Is it true that Chicago girls have big feet?”

“With painful deliberation,” reported the Times, “[the caller] spoke this query into a little transmitter of one of Webster Gillett’s long-distance telephones last night. The agitated diaphragm passed the interrogation on to one of the Postal Telegraph Company’s wires, and on the copper highway it sped on to Chicago …”

What the paper called the “eminent pork expert,” Philip Armour, “pondered long, and finally answered sorrowfully, ‘They have.’”

Advances in telephone equipment soon made Webster’s intricate phones obsolete. His name is absent from encyclopedias and telephone histories.

But for a moment in the 1880s, the Ypsilanti inventor, whose sheer brainpower whisked him from a humble farm to a cosmopolitan city and won him momentary fame, was at the forefront of long-distance technology.

Mystery Artifact

Mystery Artifact

Your humble author is completely bumfoozled as to how such a crowd of prescient folks immediately and correctly pegged last column’s enigmatic Mystery Artifact as a toaster.

Matthew Naud, ‘FF’LO, Rod Johnson, Anna Ercoli Schnitzer, and Jim Rees all guessed correctly. My goodness. And here I thought I’d picked a stumper.

So we’re stepping up the challenge this time. This Mystery Artifact comes from an Ypsilanti artifact collector and friend who may have in his possession a greater number of artifacts than even exist within the Ypsilanti Museum. Among his gems is this four-inch-long puzzler. What on earth could it be? Take your best guess and good luck!

Laura Bien is the author of “Tales from the Ypsilanti Archives” and the upcoming book “Hidden Ypsilanti.” Contact her at ypsidixit@gmail.com.

Andros Lee with his Vortex Doomsday Cannon at the Ann Arbor 2009 MiniMaker Faire. (Photo by the writer.)

Two-wheeling it southward down Ann Arbor-Saline road early Saturday afternoon, The Chronicle was passed by a car with a “Biodiesel” logo.

The sort of person who drives a car fueled with biodiesel, we figured, would be the same sort who’d be interested in robots, lasers, air cannons, and all manner of other gadgetry. So we figured a little ways down the road, that driver would be turning left into the Washtenaw Farm Council Grounds for the MiniMaker Faire.

Anyway, that’s where The Chronicle was headed – and on arrival at the parking lot, we confirmed it: Our biodiesel driver was at the MiniMaker Faire.

The “mini” in the title of the event did not refer to Andros Lee’s giant vortex cannon or Matt Switlik’s standable brush bot – more on those in a bit. Rather, it reflected the scale of the event as compared to the non-mini Maker Faires, which began in San Mateo, Calif. in 2006. That led to the second Maker Faire in Austin, which attracted 20,000 visitors in 2007. Returning to San Mateo earlier this year, Maker Faire numbers grew to an estimated 80,000 people.

As an exhibitor – even at the smaller Ann Arbor MiniMaker Faire on Saturday – standing out in a crowd of over 1,000 people can be a challenge. But Yitah Wu met that challenge by taking dead aim at folks in that crowd, including The Chronicle, with a pistol-style vortex cannon. 

Yitah Wu displays his pistol-style vortex cannon. (Photo by the writer.)

Vortex Cannons – Doomsday-Size It, Please!

Launched from a good 20 feet away, and guided with a laser sight, the “projectile” from Wu’s handheld cannon landed squarely on The Chronicle’s nose and unfolded across our face, giving rise to a vaguely damp and webby sensation – one that left us brushing about our face trying wipe away whatever it was.

What was it? Just a wad of air – a torroidal vortex that had been expelled from a yogurt-cup barrel by an elastic-band contracting against a diaphragm when Wu squeezed the trigger. So it worked. We were propelled towards Wu’s table to find out more about it.

Besides luring MiniMaker Faire attendees to Wu’s table, it’s useful for blowing out candles from a distance of 50 feet. He built the device mostly from items within arm’s reach – the yogurt cup for a barrel, scrap wood for the handle and cradle, a bicycle spoke as part of the trigger.

The one item he went out and bought for the project was a brass sleeve, which lines a hole in the wooden grip. The bicycle spoke slides through that hole as a part of the trigger release, and a brass-steel interface, Wu explained, offers less friction than wood-steel. And less friction means a smoother trigger release.

The smoothness of the release is important for the accuracy of a handheld vortex cannon. Wu showed us an earlier prototype that was based on a slingshot design – to fire it required drawing back the elastic with one hand and stabilizing the base with the other. The challenge of maintaining a stable base throughout the launch is the same one faced by archers – something Wu said he learned from a college classmate who was an archery enthusiast.

Ashley Saunders steers the VEX robot around the MiniMakerFaire floor. (Photo by the writer)

Next to the table where Wu was set up was the reason The Chronicle had even headed in his direction. The “whomp” from Andros Lee’s appropriately named Vortex Doomsday Cannon could be heard before it was seen.

Lee takes seriously something that Wu had explained about vortex cannons: You can manipulate the size of the barrel and the aperture for different effects. Lee’s cannon measures better than two feet in diameter. There was nothing “mini” about it. For added fun, Lee – and his fellow cannon builders Rob Spiess and Walter Fruge – had configured the cannon to blow smoke rings. Doomsday-size smoke rings.

Robots

Two different FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Robotics Competition teams were on hand to display their robots: Ypsilanti High School’s Alpha Omega Robotics Team 470 and Plymouth-Canton’s Team 862.

Mike Murphy, who works for the Environmental Protection Agency, is one of Team 470′s mentors.

At the MiniMaker Faire, Murphy explained to The Chronicle how the FIRST competitions work. In January of each year, “the game” for the year is introduced with the complete rules, playing field, together with a kit of parts. Teams get six weeks to build their robot.

The robot they had on hand at the MiniMaker Faire was from this past year’s competition – it was built to scoop up and deposit balls in specified locations.

Trudy Adams, who was also staffing Team 470′s table, is the Ypsilanti High School faculty advisor.

Plymouth-Canton student Ashley Saunders was at the fair demonstrating a VEX robot built by a classmate of hers, Joe Jagadics. Saunders said that people who’d stopped by during the MiniMaker Faire enjoyed waving at the robot’s on-board camera that displayed live images on a monitor.

Matt Switlik shows MiniMaker Faire attendees the smaller cousins of the giant brush bot. (Photo by the writer.)

The Chronicle first noticed another kind of robot on display at the MiniMaker Faire when a guy mounted a coffee-table-sized black box. It began to shudder and vibrate, sending him on a very slow and trembly sort of journey across the floor.

It was “the world’s largest brush bot,” according to Matt Switlik. Switlik was at the event for i3 Detroit, demonstrating the super-sized version of a brush bot, which are typically made from cell-phone vibrators and toothbrush heads. In addition to the giant brush bot, i3 Detroit had a table-top arena where conventionally sized brush bots were milling about.

Brush bots aside, Switlik was also excited about the prospects of soon securing some physical work space for i3 Detroit – the three I’s in the name stand for “Imagine, Innovate & Inspire.” So they’re looking to translate imagination into a real work space.

Possibly as soon as the first of November, said Switlik, they could have a work space with CNC machines, oscilloscopes, and the like. They’re two-thirds of the way to their fundraising goal for launch, and from there the rent will be paid with membership dues. The potential spaces they’re considering are all in northern Detroit, where most of the i3 Detroit members live.

Music

Towards the front doorway of the farm council grounds building where the MiniMaker Faire was held, there was an outright assault on the auditory senses due to two different devices engineered by Matt Mets. One was his Laser Harp. It’s pretty straightforward in concept – think about what a harp would be like if the strings were laser beams instead of wire.

Visitors try out Matt Met's Laser Harp. (Photo by the writer.)

In the base of the rectangular frame sit individual lasers aimed at photo sensors in the top. When a beam is interrupted, a signal is sent to a controller that causes the note corresponding to that “string” to be generated.

The cacophony in Met’s corner of the faire was actually a positive sign. It meant that people where trying out the harp. Some people approached it string-by-string with a musical sensibility, while others just swiped through the space in the frame to verify that, yes, this thing really works.

Mets told The Chronicle he’d had the Laser Harp at the Maker Faire in Austin. There, a professional theramin player had taken a turn at the harp and actually played it properly. What a theramin has in common with the harp is that both are played without any tactile feedback from the instrument to the musician. Mets himself says he can pick out simple tunes on his device, but nothing elaborate. No one has yet composed a musical piece specifically for the Laser Harp, but Mets sounded receptive to the idea.

Another musical device Mets had on display was the optical equivalent of an old-fashioned music box that uses protrusions in a revolving disk to pluck the teeth of a comb – each tooth tuned to a specific note. [The Chronicle owns such a device.] In Mets’ device, the protrusions on the disk correspond to magnets that are placed on a rotating wheel – hence the name Ferrous Wheel. The locations of the magnets on the wheel are picked up by a camera, sent to a computer, and translated into notes.

The Ferrous Wheel is something Mets is working on as an exhibit for a children’s museum in Pittsburgh, where he now lives. And that’s partly what drove his choice of magnets over, say, pegs that would fit into a hole. With pegs, Mets cautioned, there’d be a risk that a kid might grab hold of one and be lifted by the rotating disk.

Silk Screening

Bilal Gahlib of MODATI Clothing was at the MiniMaker Faire serving as an ambassador for not just his company, but for the technology of screen printing. Whether it was mugging for the camera behind little kids, or handing out hugs to someone in line – just because that person was smiling a lot – Gahlib was generating goodwill for his craft that went beyond the free screen-printing he was doing. Pictures are better than words, when it comes to describing Gahlib.

Bilal Gahlib of MODATI Clothing. Here's something Bilal Ghalib has probably never said in his life: "I'm very shy, could you please point the camera the other way?" (Photo by the writer.)

Smile 1 (Photo by the writer.)

Smile 2 (Photo by the writer.)

Smile 3 (Photo by the writer.)

Bilal Ghalib shows Adrienne Berry the result of the first layer of color laid down by the screen printing process. (Photo by the writer.)

Drawing the ink across the silk can be a two-person operation. (Photo by the writer.)

And here's the red on blue background. (Photo by the writer.)

And the shawl is ready to wear. (Photo by the writer.)

Bilal Ghalib pauses to be photographed by a MiniMaker Faire attendee. (Photo by the writer.)

More Photos

The "B" generated on the spinning bicycle wheel stands for "Bob," as in Bob Stack, who can be seen leaning on the table to the left. The letters in Bob's name were generated with a single line of LEDs that were keyed to light up in sequence as they passed a sensor. The perceived letter shapes are due to an effect called "persistence of vision" or POV. (Ed. note: corrected from "perseverance.") (Photo by the writer.)

Matt Mets describes his Ferrous Wheel musical disk. (Photo by the writer.)

Visitors to the MiniMaker Faire try out Matt Mets' Laser Harp. (Photo by the writer.)

At left in the black T-shirt is Mike Murphy, technical mentor for Ypsilanti High School's Alpha Omega Robotics Team 470. (Photo by the writer.)