Comments on: AADL Highlights UM Partnerships

By: Lyn Davidge

Lyn Davidge — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 21:46:26 +0000

@4, re: @3 – I interpreted Doug Jewett’s comment as meaning that the AADL Board meetings are so short, that there is adequate time for two public comment periods and for plenty of public input to the Board during them. At least the final comments from the public are not made as the wee hours approach. Perhaps his use of the word “discussion” was unfortunate. There was no discussion, in the back and forth sense, between the AADL Board and any of the commenters at this latest meeting, except when there seemed a misunderstanding by one commenter of what had transpired. That misunderstanding was, appropriately I believe, cleared up very briefly by the Board President. I have attended a number of AADL Board meetings in the past few years and cannot ever remember a Board member otherwise responding to a commenter (and often that has been me) at the time of the comment.

(An aside: At the few Washtenaw County Road Commission meetings I’ve attended there has sometimes been a bit of back and forth as the Commissioners ask follow up questions or clarify issues raised by commenters. I’d love to see more coverage of the Road Commission here, but Mary and Dave can’t be everywhere!)

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:09:11 +0000

In the case of AATA, each committee has three members. Quorum is four. (Seven total board members.)

By: Donald Salberg

Donald Salberg — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:26:46 +0000

I believe that committees should have at least five members so that varied ideas are more likely to be discussed and meetings are less likely to be hijacked by one individual having the strongest personality.

If a board has five or fewer members then, instead of choosing three or four members for a committee, the board should consider having working sessions involving all board members. Perhaps boards having up to ten members should follow this rule.

When discussing public business, whether public financing is involved or not, no board or committee meeting should be closed. If board or committee members are concerned that the public may misinterpret their deliberations then it is their responsibility to provide the clarity required to prevent any misinterpretations. Encouraging public attendance at all meetings and work sessions and with the opportunity for community comments and questions will facilitate understanding and thereby should instill confidence in our representatives.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:39:40 +0000

A small correction to Kathy Griswold’s statement: AATA has three committees and only one of them meets according to OMA standards, namely the Planning and Development Committee. (Public comment fore and aft.) The other two, PMER and Governance, are closed to the public.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:40:40 +0000

We fund the library though a very generous property tax millage. Additionally, we fund CTN and their broadcast operations thought a very generous ‘user tax’ on cable television bills–even those of use who have ATT Uverse and don’t get to view the local public access channels on our televisions(another issue for another day). It’s stunning how the Library Board is so opposed either having their meetings broadcast live or taped for public viewing. Something voters and taxpayers should keep in mind the next time the Library comes asking for additional funds or wanting to bulldoze their current downtown location.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:21:09 +0000

@3: Irrespective of time availability, discussion among board members, staff, and members of the public is usually inappropriate from the board perspective. The role of a board member is to hear and consider all perspectives, not to engage with those perspectives, at least not without close facilitation of the discussion and advance notice that a discussion will be taking place.

By: Doug Jewett

Doug Jewett — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:45:10 +0000

I appreciate (as usual) the thorough coverage (and great photos!) by the A2 Chronicle’s Mary Morgan. It was my impression that the Board members were becoming more relaxed and accustomed to comments by citizens. We can especially thank Lyn Davidge for her persistence in advocating for greater openness. Unlike the situation with some other A2 Boards and Committees, there’s currently plenty of time at the regular AADL Board meetings for discussion between the Board, library staff and members of the public.

By: Eric J

Eric J — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:32:54 +0000

Concerning PALMA, one is no doubt a horribly politically incorrect old curmudgeon to ask why the local taxpayers, through the library millage, should fund immigrant education, no doubt even worse to ask how many in the program are here legally and how many are criminal migrants.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:45:47 +0000

Eli Neiburger has the coolest job in town.