County Board Weighs Right-to-Work Response

Washtenaw County board of commissioners special working session (Jan. 3, 2013): In a wide-ranging discussion – driven in large part by Ann Arbor Democrat Conan Smith – county commissioners addressed how the recent state right-to-work legislation might impact Washtenaw County’s economy as well as the employees of county government.

The working session included presentations by one of the county’s Lansing lobbyists; labor attorney Paul Gallagher; and Mary Kerr – president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Kerr told commissioners that Washtenaw County brings in an estimated $12 million annually from the training conferences held here by three major unions. She said the CVB – which is funded through an accommodations tax levied by the county – will work to ensure that the unions feel welcome, but she has not had any conversations yet to gauge their reactions to the new right-to-work law.

Gallagher was less circumspect, saying he’s concerned about the potential loss of business if unions decide to move their training to a state that doesn’t have right-to-work laws.

The Michigan legislation – supported by the Republican-controlled House and Senate and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder – made it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. On the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners are Democrats.

The legislation, which will take effect in March of 2013, received national attention and followed a failed ballot initiative by labor to protect collective bargaining rights in the state Constitution. That effort – Proposal 12-2 – was not supported by a majority of voters in the Nov. 6 election.

At the Jan. 3 working session, Conan Smith questioned Gallagher about details of state and federal labor laws, exploring the latitude that the county might have in supporting unions that represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in county government. He floated several ideas that commissioners might consider pursuing.

For example, most current union contracts expire on Dec. 31, 2013. Because the right-to-work law doesn’t take effect until March of this year, the county has until then to work with the unions and possibly extend their contracts beyond the end of 2013. If that happens before March, then the unions could continue to collect “agency fees” from employees who don’t want to join the union but who are still part of the bargaining unit that the union represents. Though the practice would be illegal for future contracts, it could remain in place for the duration of the extended agreements.

Additionally, Smith said there are items in the union contracts that might set the stage for a division of employees into three distinct groups. Two of those groups exist now: (1) unionized employees, and (2) non-union management employees. There’s the potential for a third group, Smith said: Non-union, non-management workers who have made the choice to opt-out of the union and the benefits that the union provides, be it economic, social, protective or anything else. Those benefits, in his opinion, shouldn’t accrue “to those people who don’t pay to play.”

Smith told commissioners: “I hope we are comparatively aggressive in our stance of supporting our labor partners and finding innovative ways that we can test this new world.” He hopes to make sure that the benefits of union membership are clear before people make the decision about whether to join. The point is not to coerce them to join or discourage them from joining, he said, but just to make sure they understand very clearly what opportunities they have as union members.

Smith said there are a number of places in the current union contracts where the county can make that “imminently clear.” And there are a number of places in the county’s practices where they can make that clear, too, he said. “I think if we do that through practice, undoubtedly we’ll be challenged – and I for one am quite comfortable taking that challenge forward and being the test case to determine the extent to which this law applies to our public employees.”

Smith – who is married to state Sen. Rebekah Warren – does not believe the majority of legislators would be willing to amend the right-to-work law, and that lobbying them to do so would probably be a waste of time.

Commissioners also heard from two labor leaders on Jan. 3: Caryette Fenner, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) Local 2733, the county government’s largest union with about 700 members; and Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052, which represents about 50 supervisors. Both Fenner and Heine expressed concerns amid an uncertain future. “What could potentially happen with this law is that it will render us useless,” Heine said. “We will have no resources to defend any of our members.”

It’s unclear how far the majority of commissioners would be willing to go in challenging the right-to-work law. At the Jan. 2 board meeting, the two Republican commissioners – Dan Smith and Alicia Ping – indicated they did not want to debate the issue. However, there was more clear support for sending a signal to the labor unions that do their training in Washtenaw County that they are welcome here. Andy LaBarre, who led his first meeting as chair of the working session, offered to draft a resolution to that effect for the board to consider.

Legislative Update

Gary E. Owen of Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI), the county’s lobbying firm, briefed commissioners about the right-to-work legislation. He began by cautioning that he’s not an attorney or an expert in labor policy, and deferred questions on policy implications to the county’s legal counsel.

Two right-to-work bills were considered by the state legislature: (1) House Bill 4003, which affected public-sector employees, and (2) Senate Bill 116, which addressed unions in the private sector. Both were introduced in 2011 “and just kind of sat there,” Owen said. For the first two years of his administration, Gov. Rick Snyder had made it pretty clear that right-to-work legislation was not part of his agenda, Owen noted. But almost immediately after the Nov. 6, 2012 election, it did become a priority for Snyder. So with only nine days left in the legislative calendar – the lame duck session – the House and Senate leadership declared it was a priority, too. The bills moved through the legislature in about seven days, and Snyder quickly signed them into law. “That’s really how it went down,” Owen said.

Legislative Update: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) wondered how this process compared to typical legislative proceedings. He noted that the legislation creating a regional transit authority (RTA) went through a lengthy process with committee hearings and other input. Did the right-to-work bills go through the same kind of public vetting?

Owen replied that right-to-work was probably an exception to the rule, as far as the process in Lansing is concerned. It’s a very emotional, hotly contested issue, he added, and legislators likely already knew where they stood on it. That’s not an excuse, he said – that’s just the way it is. He said he’d classify the issue as “not lobby-able.” The leadership decided they wanted to do it, and even though there were 15,000 people in and around the capital protesting it, the legislation still moved ahead.

Economic Impact

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau, was asked to talk about the possible economic impact of the state legislation on Washtenaw County. Tom Lamb, the new chair of the Ann Arbor CVB who also is general manager of the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Marriott at Eagle Crest, was also on hand.

Kerr started by providing what she described as high-level data. There are three major unions that hold training events in Washtenaw County: (1) the United Association (UA) of Plumbers and Pipefitters, who’ve been coming to the county for one week in August for 23 years; (2) the National Training Institute for electricians, put on by the National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee (NJATC), has been coming to Ann Arbor for the past four years during the last week in July and first week in August; and (3) the instructor training program for the ironworkers union – the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers – that’s been holding its annual instructor training program at Washtenaw Community College in June for the past three years.

The estimated total economic impact of these three union events is about $12 million, Kerr said. She also provided a breakdown of that amount. The three unions account for 22,000 hotel rooms, or $2.2 million. They also bring in $2.3 million for local restaurants. Anecdotally, she said, Mike Kabat – the owner of Haab’s Restaurant in Ypsilanti – equates the union business to seven University of Michigan home football games. A combined $3.5 million is spent on entertainment, transportation, recreation and shopping, with the balance of that $12 million paid for facilities and services at local colleges and universities.

The United Association views it as a partnership with the community, Kerr said. The reason they chose this area – and the reason they stay – is Washtenaw Community College, she added. The union also appreciates the support of the community and of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs, she said. And that CVB support is possible because of the county board’s continued support of those entities, Kerr noted.

By way of background, the county is the governmental unit that’s responsible for levying an accommodations tax primarily on local hotels and motels. In 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The majority of those funds are distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563).

Kerr noted that this year is the UA’s 60th anniversary of training, and they’ll be bringing additional groups to this area, including some people who will come prior to the training sessions. The UA also has a new training agreement with the union in Australia, so there will be an Australian contingency coming to Washtenaw County this year. The union will also be making additional investments at its training facility at WCC, she said.

Another example of the UA’s partnership with the community is its 5K run to raise money for the Semper Fi Fund, which supports wounded soldiers. Last year they raised about $27,000 for the charity, and they plan to make it an annual event, Kerr said.

It’s the CVB’s goal to keep these events in Washtenaw County, Kerr said, and to share with the unions that the county appreciates their business and will provide the same level of service in the future.

Economic Impact: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) observed that Washtenaw County was able to court the unions away from other states, and he wondered what the impact of the right-to-work law would have on the attractiveness of this area now, for these unions or others who might consider holding events here.

Kerr said she didn’t have any experience with that, so it would be difficult to answer. Smith pressed, wondering if unions have indicated in the past that they’ve been less interested in supporting right-to-work states.

Kerr noted that the NJATC had been recruited from Tennessee, which is a right-to-work state. The union’s director of training has cited the training facilities here and the general community support, she said, but she’s never had any specific conversations with union officials about right-to-work.

Smith ventured that there are likely many reasons that factor in to the unions’ decision to hold their events here, and that the university facilities likely weigh heavily in their decision-making. But he imagined that from a philosophical standpoint, the right-to-work law at least would dampen their enthusiasm for coming here. He asked Kerr to inquire about the issue directly when she talks to union representatives in the future, and to share that information with the county board.

Labor’s Perspective

Paul Gallagher, a local labor attorney, spoke about the impact on Washtenaw County government as an employer. He noted that two of the 17 unions that represent county employees – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) – will be unaffected. That’s because a different law applies to public safety unions, and state legislators didn’t touch it. Those two unions account for about 300 of the 1,321 county employees.

In general, about 85% of the entire county government workforce are union members.

All 17 unions for county employees currently have a “union security” clause in their collective bargaining agreements, making the county an “agency shop,” Gallagher explained. The clause requires that employees in job classifications that are represented by unions must either become a full member or pay an “agency fee.” The agency fee is nearly identical to the amount of union dues that members pay, Gallagher said.

For the 15 county unions that are affected by the right-to-work law, the security clause can’t be included in future collective bargaining agreements – the law makes agency shops illegal. So employees won’t have to be union members or pay the agency fee, even though they would still be covered by the union-negotiated contract – as far as wages, hours and working conditions – and the union will be obligated to represent them for situations like discharge or grievances.

Gallagher noted that some of these 15 unions probably won’t be seriously affected, and cited the assistant prosecuting attorneys union – the Assistant Prosecutors Association – as an example. People in those positions are well paid, union dues are relatively low, and the union is run locally – that is, it’s not affiliated with a state or national organization.

But for workers who aren’t as well paid, like clerical staff, Gallagher ventured that many employees will likely opt out of paying the unions, because they want that money in their paycheck instead. So the net effect is that there will be union members working next to people who aren’t in the union, but getting the same level of representation.

As far as a timeline, Gallagher explained that the new right-to-work law would take effect when new contracts are negotiated. Most of the current union contracts for county employees expire on Dec. 31, 2013.

Gallagher also spoke more generally about the impact of the right-to-work law on the economy. He noted that he has represented UA Local 190 in Washtenaw County since 1988. Before moving to Washtenaw County, the UA had held its training conferences at Purdue University for 37 years, he said. But when a general contractor for Purdue hired a subcontractor that didn’t use union labor – and didn’t relent when the UA protested – a year later the union took its training elsewhere.

Gallagher said he didn’t know if the right-to-work law would attract a manufacturer here from somewhere else, and whether that type of business would offset the loss of these union events, if the unions decide to leave.

For Washtenaw County, the union business comes during the summer when there typically isn’t a lot going on, Gallagher said. The unions love the labor-friendly atmosphere here, he noted – and they love to see the construction-related cranes in the air when they drive into town. His primary concern is for the potential loss of business if unions decide to move their training to a state that doesn’t have right-to-work laws.

Labor’s Perspective: Board Discussion – State and Federal Law

Conan Smith asked Paul Gallagher about the relationship between the federal Taft–Hartley Act, which sets the tradition of having labor unions represent everyone in their bargaining unit, and Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act. Are they separate, or is one subject to the other?

Taft-Hartley, passed in 1947, was basically an amendment to the Wagner Act of 1935, Gallagher explained. The Wagner Act, also known as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), established the right of people to form and join unions. It was legally challenged, but ultimately came under the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce – and that’s what gave Congress the authority to create labor laws. It was one of the first instances of using the so-called “commerce clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which was also used later for civil rights legislation, he noted.

However, public employers aren’t covered by these federal labor laws, because the workers don’t cross state lines. In Michigan, the state legislature adopted a separate Public Employment Relations Act (PERA). The state and federal laws are similar, but “run on separate tracks,” Gallagher said.

Smith noted that one of the clauses that remains in PERA is the prohibition of the employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their status as a union member or non-union member. What’s the general case law interpreting that? he asked.

Gallagher replied that obviously you can’t tell someone they’ll be fired if they don’t drop their union membership. Employers can’t encourage – or discourage – union membership, and are supposed to leave internal union affairs alone. There are certain things that employers aren’t even supposed to inquire about, like how many votes the union leadership got in their elections or who should be the union steward. On the other hand, he said, unions aren’t supposed to tell employers who should sit at the bargaining table, either. It’s supposed to be an arm’s-length relationship, Gallagher said.

Smith then commented on the tradition of the union providing the same benefits to every employee in their bargaining unit, saying “I don’t find basis in PERA for that. I see the tradition emanating from Taft-Hartley. Is it directly indicated in PERA?”

Gallagher explained that the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC), which administers PERA, has ruled in several cases that if an issue isn’t addressed in PERA – but is addressed in the Wagner Act or Taft-Hartley – then the federal law will apply. If MERC hasn’t addressed the issue at all, court cases rely on federal law.

Smith asked who serves on MERC. Gallagher couldn’t recall all the members, but said they were usually all labor attorneys. There are three members appointed by the governor, who obviously appoints people who are friendly to his agenda, Gallagher said. [The MERC commissioners are Nino Erwin Green, a Democrat from Escanaba (term ends June 30, 2013); Edward D. Callaghan, a Republican from Royal Oak (term ends June 30, 2014); and Bob LaBrant, a Republican from Perry (term ends June 30, 2015).]

Smith noted that in labor contracts for the city of Ann Arbor, there a clause that discusses the right of the union to represent everyone in the bargaining unit. “That makes complete sense in a closed shop environment, where everyone is a member,” he said. But in an open shop environment where some people aren’t union members, is there any restriction to labor not representing those non-union workers? he asked.

The union is required under law to be the exclusive representative of everyone in that bargaining unit, Gallagher explained. Smith replied that he knows that’s a requirement written into the labor contracts, “but I don’t see that in PERA.” Gallagher said he’d find the specific reference to that in the state law and send it to commissioners.

Smith pointed to the philosophy behind the support for right-to-work laws. During the debate on this issue in Lansing, right-to-work supporters would say that if the union is good, then everyone will belong – it’s an open marketplace. “But the fact of the matter is that it’s not an open market,” Smith said. “So it makes it quite difficult for our labor unions to show to everybody the true benefit of being a part of that bargaining unit, if everyone gets the benefit that they then go fight for.”

One of the things that Smith said he’s interested in is setting up “opportunities for employees to make the choice – openly, honestly and fairly – about whether or not they want to belong to the union.” But he also wants to establish an open, honest and fair process by which employees see the benefits or lack of benefits when they’re making that choice. The most striking barrier to Washtenaw County, from a policy standpoint, seems to be the exclusive representation clause, he said.

Gallagher pointed out that exclusive representation is the law. Smith replied that this seems to be a MERC issue, as the entity that oversees PERA. “If we were to establish a policy that was then challenged, it would go to MERC,” Smith said. Gallagher indicated that Smith was correct.

As a state statute, Smith said, PERA is quite flexible to the kinds of things that he’s interested in pursuing. It’s MERC’s interpretations of the law in its previous case filings and decisions – prior to enactment of the right-to-work law – that call into question the approach he’d like to pursue. “Perhaps in a post right-to-work environment, MERC might see the fairness issue differently.”

Gallagher noted that in other right-to-work states, unions are still viewed as having exclusive representation. “I’m sure MERC will follow that as it currently stands,” he said.

Smith asked for the justification of that view. Gallagher reported that it’s viewed as the nature of collective bargaining – the employees have a choice, and they express their choice by voting to have a union or not. After a majority of employees in a unit votes to have union representation, the union is the exclusive representative of employees in that unit.

In that situation, if a union negotiates a salary increase for its members, then the increase applies to non-members as well. “I don’t understand the philosophical grounding for the logic there,” Smith said. “What’s the basis for that?”

Gallagher replied that it’s simply the basis of collective bargaining – a group of people bargaining with an employer. At a certain point, if a majority of people didn’t want to belong to the union, then the union would be subject to decertification, he said. The union would be dissolved, and there would either be no union representation, or another union could step in to take its place. By way of example, Gallagher reported that recently in Washtenaw County, the clerical workers at the 14th District Court were represented by the Teamsters, but voted to decertify that union and switch their affiliation to the Technical-Police Officers Association of Michigan.

So the bargaining unit is the arbiter of who receives a benefit, Smith said. How is that bargaining unit established?

Gallagher explained that the unit is established by showing a “community of interest,” based on a common work location, supervision, rates of pay, duties and other factors. You can’t put skilled tradespeople in with custodians, because their jobs are so different. So the idea is to find the most people who share those commonalities within a workplace.

Smith noted that this union process has been in place 70-80 years in a closed-shop environment. When did the right-to-work laws begin to emerge? Have the National Labor Relations Board or labor negotiators adjusted their positions because of it?

Gallagher explained that in a closed shop, everyone is a union member. On the other end, open shops are found in right-to-work states, where you don’t have to join a union. Until recently, he said, Michigan had “agency shops,” where employees aren’t required to be union members, but they have to pay an agency fee. Most states that are open shop (right-to-work) or agency shop states made that decision decades ago, Gallagher said, and have stayed that way.

Smith was curious if Gallagher had seen any trends on the NLRB as states move from being closed or agency shops to being open shop states. Gallagher indicated that it’s too soon to see any trends. Until the recent right-to-work laws were passed in Indiana and Michigan, everything has been “set in stone for decades” regarding these issues.

Smith then directed his comments to other county commissioners: “I hope we are comparatively aggressive in our stance of supporting our labor partners and finding innovative ways that we can test this new world.” He hopes to make sure that the benefits of union membership are clear before people make the decision about whether to join. The point is not to coerce them to join or discourage them from joining, he said, but just to make sure they understand very clearly what opportunities they have, or not.

Smith said there are a number of places in the current union contracts where the county can make that “imminently clear.” And there are a number of places in the county’s practices where they can make that clear, too, he said. “I think if we do that through practice, undoubtedly we’ll be challenged – and I for one am quite comfortable taking that challenge forward and being the test case to determine the extent to which this law applies to our public employees.”

Responding to a query from Rolland Sizemore Jr., Gallagher said that Indiana had passed its right-to-work legislation in 2012. Sizemore then asked if there’s any data showing the differences between states with open shops compared to closed shops. Gallagher replied that typically wages and benefits are lower in open shop states, but it’s hard to trace that specifically to right-to-work laws.

Sizemore said that he’s from a union family, and that unions created the middle class in this country. It makes him “darn sad” that there’s a movement toward creating the haves and have-nots, and “I’m going to miss that middle section.”

In response to a question from Dan Smith, Gallagher said that you need at least two people to make up a bargaining unit, but there’s no upper limit to the size. Based on previous MERC decisions, the intent is to create the largest possible grouping that still makes sense in terms of a bargaining unit of common interest.

Felicia Brabec wondered whether there could be a bargaining unit consisting of people who did not want union representation. Gallagher said that MERC wouldn’t allow a unit to be created based on an unwillingness to pay union dues.

Labor’s Perspective: Board Discussion – Local Union Leaders

Two presidents of unions representing Washtenaw County employees attended the Jan. 3 working session.

Caryette Fenner – president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) Local 2733, the county government’s largest union – told commissioners that she’d been in contact with AFSCME Council 25 at the statewide level, who are working with national AFSCME representatives. In the meantime, she said she’s been trying to get information out to the membership of Local 2733 so they’ll know what the right-to-work law represents, how it affects the union, and to allow them to make their own decisions. “I think that’s the best that I can do at this point,” Fenner said.

Nancy Heine – president of AFSCME Local 3052, which represents about 50 supervisors – stressed that even though the law has been signed, it doesn’t take effect until March. And because most union contracts run through Dec. 31, 2013, the law doesn’t apply until after that point, when new contracts are in place. “This is an interesting period for us,” she said.

Heine also commented on how the right-to-work law will affect the unions and their work defending employees through the grievance process. Even if a large number of employees decide not to join, the unions will still be obligated to represent them, she said. There are labor attorneys at the AFSCME Council 25 state level, and a Council 25 representative – “all of those folks get paid with union dues,” she said. The local level receives only a small percentage of dues. The majority of funds go to the state, national or international levels, she said. If fewer people are paying dues, Heine noted, the unions will have fewer resources. “What could potentially happen with this law is that it will render us useless,” she said. “We will have no resources to defend any of our members.”

Heine noted that her union has four cases before an arbitration panel, but in the future, the positions on that panel will be cut back and arbitration cases could potentially stay in limbo for years. “This impact is so significant and has such long-term consequences that I can’t even think of everything that may potentially happen with this change.”

Yousef Rabhi responded, saying he wanted to share some of his thoughts. He reported that he had been in Lansing for the large right-to-work rallies last year – and it had been a very moving experience for him. It was a day when the state went the wrong direction, he said, and when people spoke with one voice against it.

His grandfather had been a UAW organizer, and Rabhi said he wouldn’t have been able to go to college were it not for his grandfather’s pension dollars to help pay tuition. So unions are very important to him on a personal level, Rabhi said. In his first term as commissioner – in 2011 and 2012 – unions played an important role in balancing the county’s budget. “They came to the table and made some huge cuts in their compensation.” He didn’t think county commissioners could overstate their thanks for that. It’s an example of how unions work well for the public and for the employees they represent, he said. It’s important for him to support the county’s unions and the work that they do.

Labor’s Perspective: Board Discussion – Possible Response?

Referring to the union training sessions held in Washtenaw County, Andy LaBarre noted that the thought of losing a large percentage of people who drive the economy “is pretty scary.” He thought Conan Smith had done a great job in outlining some of the policy considerations that the board might want to explore.

It’s worth considering some sort of response at some point, LaBarre said, adding that he didn’t want to presume it was an issue they could work out that night.

Conan Smith indicated that LaBarre had previously articulated two separate issues to him “offline.” One is the question of sending a signal to the labor unions that do their training in Washtenaw County that they are welcome here. The board might put together a resolution to that effect.

But Smith also wants to dig  more deeply into the situation with the county’s own bargaining units. He didn’t think the state legislature would take up any amendments to the right-to-work law in the coming year. So asking the legislature and the governor to amend PERA “probably would be a waste of our time,” he said. He’d support making that pitch, if others felt it would be useful. [Smith is married to one of those legislators – Democrat Sen. Rebekah Warren of District 18, which covers Ann Arbor.]

But Smith wanted to look at the options that the county has in terms of “framing the labor practices here in Washtenaw County.” Because the law doesn’t take effect until March, the county has the option of working with the unions to extend their contracts beyond the end of 2013. If that happens before March, then the county would remain an agency shop for the duration of the extended agreements.

Secondly, he said there are items in the contracts that might set the stage for a division of employees into three segments.

At this point, LaBarre interrupted Smith, saying that he had received some advice from Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, that the board shouldn’t publicly discuss labor strategy.

Smith said he appreciated that advice, but it was an issue on which he disagreed with the administration. “I am a public official – I’m not management. I do vote on your contracts … but what I’m talking about now is public policy. This isn’t about strategy around negotiations. This is about how we set the framework as the policy for this organization – whether we support labor unions or not, and how we move forward as an entity.”

He said he appreciated Heidt’s sensitivity to his statements, and “I know I sometimes freak out our partners in labor as well, when I talk like this. But bear with me – we’re in new times.”

Continuing, Smith said that if the county is going to be in a right-to-work environment, the county should look carefully at three distinct groupings of employees. Two of those groups exist now: (1) unionized employees, and (2) non-union management employees. There’s the potential for a third group, Smith said: Non-union, non-management workers who have made the choice to opt-out of the union and the benefits that the union provides, be it economic, social, protective or anything else.

Those benefits, in his opinion, shouldn’t accrue “to those people who don’t pay to play.” It would be akin to the board putting a tax on the ballot that a majority of voters approve, but then giving people the option of not paying it while still receiving the services. “That is obscene, and we shouldn’t be forwarding that as a policy environment here in Washtenaw County.” In future contracts, the county should be assertive in establishing the baseline “from a values standpoint and a policy standpoint that that isn’t acceptable to us,” he said.

LaBarre indicated that he shared Smith’s view on the first issue – of sending a supportive message to be welcoming to the unions already here and those who come in for special events. He’s hopeful that the board can develop a resolution reflecting those sentiments, not just because of the economic benefit but also because of the mutually beneficial relationships that have been built. He volunteered to help craft such a resolution.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Ronnie Peterson.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. 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!