Comments on: Council Gets Update on Stadium Bridges

By: hospadaruk

hospadaruk — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:59:41 +0000

“When city attorney Stephen Postema emerged from the workroom and was asked by The Chronicle to account for how the council’s adjournment conformed with the Open Meetings Act, Postema seemed content that it was satisfied because the door to the workroom had been open.”

I don’t think the council needed to come out of the room, but, just to keep everything “open” they should develop a closing song to sing from the other room so that we all know they are not in there eating babies , making funny faces, or typing licentious emails. “Glory glory the meeting’s over…”

By: Bob Dively

Bob Dively — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:18:36 +0000

Adding to Pirooz’s remarks, Michael Nearing – an engineer with the city – said that a no-bridge option is also complex and not cheap. “It’s more than just tearing down a bridge,” Nearing cautioned. He guessed it would be around a $10 million project, but had not run the numbers

Wait, I’m confused. Is the $10 million mentioned here the cost of the total no-bridge option? Or is it only the cost of the bridge and embankment teardown, meaning that the total cost of the no-bridge option is much more than $10 million? If the entire cost of the no-bridge option is *only* $10 million (compared to $22 million for the bridge-replacement option), doesn’t the no-bridge option bear a little more examination?

By: Duane Collicott

Duane Collicott — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:40:56 +0000

Would it really be so tough to just do it the right way? What would it involve – just walking back into the Council chambers? How far is that? After the probable violations of the OMA with the e-mail violations, why are they taking more chances with this?

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 04:34:32 +0000

Re:open meetings issues, both form and substance matter – the “choice” between them is a false choice. Government officials need to adhere to the “Cesar’s Wife” standard: being beyond suspicion. Adhering to form is one piece of earning public trust. Merely opening the door to a previously closed meeting room, and then calling that “Open”, suggests a corner-cutting mentality that does not make trust of, and respect for, public officials come more easily.

Re: ann Arbor’s fiscal position, when revenue is tight in almost any organization, public, private or non-profit, capital spending is curtailed. Floating general revenue bonds under deteriorating financial conditions for merely “nice to have” projects, whether for the police station/courthouse, or for more parking and a convention center foundation, is imprudent to the point of irresponsibility. This financial imprudence is in addition to the imprudence of ignoring of the suggestions of the Blue Ribbon panel re: city pension boards.

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:36:56 +0000

Let’s stick to Mike’s proposal, Joan. The City Attorney’s office made only a true handful of redactions in the huge pile of e-mails (about 10,000 pages) it has already released. The City need not claim every possible exemption on these materials under the Freedom of Information Act, and it did not do so. Plus, if Council so directs, the City may waive all exemptions. Under the FOIA, claiming exemptions is permissive, not mandatory.

Council members may have plenty to worry about if Mike’s proposal passes. Or, maybe not. Why don’t we see what Council does on September 8?

By: Joan Lowenstein

Joan Lowenstein — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:37:18 +0000

I don’t see how having the councilmembers sit in their seats after a closed session and then vote to adjourn would better aid the public. It would be form over substance, just like Mike Anglin’s proposal for releasing all emails from 2000. Many of those emails are excluded from the FOIA because they contain personal information (such as requests from constituents) or attorney-client privileged information. There are other exceptions as well. The attorney’s office would have to spend weeks going over those emails (if they exist) to determine which should be released. Should all council phone calls be recorded, transcribed, and released to the public? Anglin is grandstanding.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:24:04 +0000

If this is the kind of legal advice we are getting from the City Attorney, then maybe we need a new one. City Council members who favor open government need to look at that option–replacing Mr Posema with one who has a better understanding of democracy and doesn’t look for ‘loopholes’.

By: Stew Nelson

Stew Nelson — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:42:47 +0000

Karen Sidney is spot on in her criticism of the City’s attempt to balance the budget by cutting services. The retirement obligations are ticking time bombs that will eventually wipe out any cosmetic cuts that the City may make. In the not so distant future they can lay off half the Police Department and the budget will still be unbalanced. Our City Administrator remains on the retirement board even though it was recommended by a Blue Ribbon Panel that included the Mayor that he be removed from that board. The current retirement board while staffed with smart and hard working city employees is ill equipped to make the tough pension decisions that private industry did over the last decade.