Yet, the original question still remains [because the last filing, under any name, was for the year 2010]:

When will the citizens millage committee file their required annual financial report with the county? And for that matter when will the county stop turning a selective blind eye and issue a late notice?

Also, never underestimate the willingness of anonymous cowards (#1) to stir up trouble.

Dear Mr. Cahill,

Thank you for your letter of 6 April about our postcard for the Ann
Arbor Schools Tech Bond campaign. As you may have learned from the
County Clerk’s office, we are registered with the county and have been
for over 25 years. The only source of confusion is that we have been
registered under “Citizens Millage Committee,” without “Ann Arbor”
prepended to it.

The reason why the name did not originally include “Ann Arbor” is lost
in the mists of time; our ballot question committee has always been
active only for millage elections for AAPS or in which AAPS
participates. To clarify what we do, we have been using the name “Ann
Arbor Citizens Millage Committee.”

In response to the request from the Clerk’s office that we use the same
name in all materials, we have just changed the registered name of the
committee to the Ann Arbor Citizens Millage Committee. You should be
able to find us listed under that name in the County database as soon as
they update our records.

As to our website contact form, that was a mis-configuration of our
website which I have just fixed. The form should work correctly for any
visitor now.

Thank you for your interest in the A2CMC, and I hope you will consider
supporting our students and schools by voting “yes” on the tech bond
proposal on May 8th.

Regards,

Steven J. Norton
Treasurer, A2CMC

End of e-mail. Fast footwork! Note the involvement of the Clerk’s office.

Changing the group’s name is a good way to fix the problem. I’m also glad the web site is fixed.

There is nothing “shadowy” about the A2CMC – it is a purely citizens group (technically, a “ballot question committee”) run by volunteers who care about our local schools. It’s been around for quite some time, but since I became involved in the group, we ran the advocacy campaign to renew both the AAPS operating millage and the sinking fund, in 2008; the Ann Arbor portion of the Washtenaw Schools Millage campaign in 2009; and now the Ann Arbor Schools Tech Bond campaign. Indeed, the district cannot engage in advocacy, and does not. The A2CMC’s role is to take our case to our fellow citizens and encourage them to support the investments we need to make in our community.

Our address is printed in full at the bottom of every page of our web site, as required by law. The problem with our contact form on the web site was simply a mis-configuration, now fixed.

All this is rather a distraction from the crucial issues at stake in this upcoming election. Our schools face growing challenges and difficult choices. We need to focus on these real issues as a community.

And to Dave and Mary, regarding [11]: I’m glad that you have a back-of-the-pocket plan with the Ann Arbor District Library, but I am gladder (more glad?) that “Our front-line strategy is to remain in business.”

Mr. Norton is active with both the Ann Arbor Parents for Schools and the Michigan Parents for Schools organizations. Both advocate for sufficient school funding.

Mr. Norton’s LinkedIn information notes his connection to Michigan Parents for Schools, a recent school board candidate and employment with a company that does “design and financial services for non-profit organizations and small business.”

Mr. Norton’s name also appears on the January 2011 campaign finance form for the Citizens Millage Committee.

None of this seems shadowy, nefarious, or conspiratorial. It’s just a group seeking to supplement the State’s meager school funding. They merely failed to be consistent in the use of the name for their group.

I will let people know if and when I get a reply, and what the reply is.

What I found is that there are no legal requirements (disclosure, recordkeeping, etc.) for such a group until/unless there is actually a ballot issue involved. At that point, the group would have to file a statement of organization with the county, just like any political campaign, and report contributions and disbursements. (And of course, if it had been made into a 501(c)3 organization for tax deductibility, that is another level of accountability.)As the treasurer, I did nevertheless keep careful records and report all disbursements to the group (the account was closed a couple of weeks after the Council mercifully put a stop to the project).

But not filing campaign statements does not make a group “shadowy”. In the case of CATCC, members supplied their names for public view. [link]

I was not involved with CARD (incidentally, that acronym also applies to a citizen group working on the Pall-Gelman contamination [link]) but it was some years before everything was necessarily possessed of a website, etc. so this type of public disclosure would have been more difficult.

I find it amusing that an anonymous commenter uses “shadowy” as a term of opprobrium.