That’s true enough, but it’s worth adding some additional background to make clear the politics involved. The county board was not interested in amending the transit agreement at all — because that would mean sending it back to the other three parties. Indeed, the board turned down several attempted amendments at the Ways & Means committee meeting on July 11 –- at least partly because commissioners did not want to trigger another round of approvals from the other parties.

But the Turner amendment was then made on Aug. 1. So what changed the mood of the board between July 11 and Aug. 1? Board chair Conan Smith was apparently willing to trade the possible inconvenience to the other parties, who’d need to reconsider the agreement, for the possibility he could get Turner’s vote supporting the whole agreement. Turner’s proposed amendment was to change the threshold from 2/3 to unanimous. Turner’s vote wasn’t needed for the board to pass it, but there was apparently a perception that passing it with a greater majority carried some value. (Or possibly that Turner’s vote of support would increase the chance that jurisdictions in the western part of the county, represented by Turner, would stay in the Act 196 authority when it is incorporated, and not opt out.) So the table was set for an amendment to change from 2/3 to unanimous; and for Turner to throw his support to the whole agreement.

Instead, on Aug. 1 the board didn’t go for Turner’s change from 2/3 to unanimous, and struck a compromise at 4/5. That wasn’t good enough to earn Turner’s support, who then voted against the agreement as a whole. So the board managed to amend the agreement, not achieving the apparent goal of getting Turner’s vote, but still triggering another round of approvals by the other parties. Hilarity ensued.

The staff memo quoted in the article (that is, the memo explaining the administrative changes to the council and the public) lists assistant city attorney Mary Fales as the preparer of the council’s resolution. The council’s action can thus be fairly analyzed as consciously and deliberately accepting the administrative changes, relying on the advice of the legal staff that these changes were not substantive. For my part, I think that identifying the document’s internal conflicts and the possible conflicts with Act 196, and writing a memo describing the rationale for the changes made, is simply an attorney displaying basic competence. Had the administrative changes been made and presented to the council without comment, that would be a different story.

Part of the council’s information packet was a red-lined version of the document, contrasting the previously-approved city council version with the one that included the Washtenaw County board changes and the administrative changes. I’d give the city attorney’s staff higher marks if the council had also been presented with a red-lined version of the document contrasting the Washtenaw County board version with the version the council was approving. Or alternatively, the actual text of the administrative changes could have been laid out in the memo itself (instead of simply describing the rationale for the changes). That approach might have highlighted more dramatically the sheer volume of words being changed “administratively.”

Dave, you’re a lawyer, did I get that right?

At this point, since the other three entities have approved the articles of incorporation with these changes, the simplest thing to do is for the BOC to re-approve the articles with the changes.

Really, really sloppy, people!!