Thanks for asking for me… definitely was set off and the phone “conversation” I had with several employees of the PD that day would definitely reflect that. I completely agree that when people are responsible, life is easier. Of course, if people were responsible and trustworthy, we would be able to reduce the police budget significantly.

When drivers refuse to exchange information, the police should respond period. If they don’t they are, at the very least, causing the “victim” driver to be further victimized by their insurance company later on. I felt it was inappropriate and have studied / worked with public safety policy for more than 15 years. I let them know of my feelings very directly at the time and wish the Deputy Chief ensures that their dispatchers know this and act appropriately in the future.

Thank you again.

I contacted the Chief of Police, and spent a little time working with Deputy Chief of Police John Seto trying to follow up on this situation. Of course, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to discuss any individual accident. I can comfortably say the following:

For police reporting purposes, any place that *isn’t* a street or public hiway is considered private property, no matter who owns it.
Unless an accident causes personal injury (or, I suspect, a vehicle is undriveable and is causing a hazard) the police welcome both / all people involved to come to the police station to report the accident. This is bar far the fastest way to get service. Personal injury or major accident undoubtedly get quick attention; otherwise, people can find themselves waiting for a long time while the police respond to more urgent matters. This works best if the parties involved come to the police station together, right away.
In the event one of the parties in an accident is uncooperative, the Police Department should send an officer to the scene. During the first two weeks of August (through the 19th) the police responded to 3 accidents at the Maynard Street parking structure; I have no idea what the details might be in any of them.
I’m sorry for my delay in getting this information out into the public. I heard back from Deputy Chief Seto on Monday, August 24th, and should have entered this response immediately.

Ahhh yes, but here’s the rub, as I understand it: The City failed to turn over the emails (the ones that revealed the potential OMA violation) to the GLELC in a FOIA request that WAS made within 30 days. The emails were later turned over to the Chronicle in a subsequent, and similar FOIA request. Had the City properly complied with the original FOIA, the OMA violation could have potentially been challenged in the time prescribed by the OMA.

And P.S.: Convention centers are notorious money-losers, which is why they require “public-private” partnerships. I thought the proposal for “the top” had to provide revenue to the City, not suck more money out of our wallets? I’d been interested in hearing what Ann Arbor hoteliers and the UM facilities folks have to say about the market for such a facility. Are the dozens of Ann Arbor/UM facilities so heavily booked that we need to build another one?

I don’t think you misread. I hadn’t thought about it until now but I guess maybe my principles are inherently un-democratic. I think there is some “behind the scenes” work that has to be done very early on to make sure good money is not thrown after bad. If everything looks like it alligns, then open up the discussion to the public. There are things that need to be vetted in private, they just do. Anyone who does not think that is not living in a reality-based environment.

Also, I’m not sure the City Attorney and City Council are willing to stand the political heat if they invoke the “too late, sucker” defense.

Mr. Face,

Perhaps I mis-read you, but it appears that because you agree with one particular decision of council, you believe that it is OK for council to keep the public uninformed about ideas in the works. You appear to imply that this is OK because you like this project, but suspect that most people do not want it, and therefor fear that early public discussion would kill the convention center.

Public discussion of public policies, investments, and lands is one part of what makes democracy. That’s why the public’s business should be in public from the moment of inception. Council cannot represent the people if the people are not informed about what council is considering in a manner timely enough to affect – or change – outcomes. Timely information is part of what enables citizens to hold elected officials accountable, which in turn is another part of what makes democracy. If your principles are essentially un-democratic – well, OK.

If I have mis-read you, I apologize, and welcome your correcting comments.