Ann Arbor enjoys a professional planning staff, and the commission relies on that expertise. That being said, it is also a commissioner’s responsibility to provide oversight and independent analysis where that commissioner disagrees with staff’s recommendation and analysis. To be sure, the burden is on the commissioner here, but if I felt there is a requirement to serve, it requires the ability to do one’s own homework and rely on outside resources — but in the case of the Planning Commission, training and introduction by the Michigan Society of Planning is readily available for any commissioner who chooses it.

It is also true that a planning commissioner is likely to be appointed to reflect the mayor (and majority of council’s) philosophies of issues, so it is no accident that more often than not, especially with the longevity of this mayor’s tenure, that any appointee is going to represent the mayor’s wishes and point of view on a variety of issues. Again, given his long time in office, he’s probably gotten pretty good at figuring out who he wants there and he has certainly a significant support network to whisper in his ear where he is unsure at this stage of the game.

If one does not like who is being appointed and how, and what direction the appointees take in policy, the burden is upon the citizens to change out those who make those decisions — i.e., mayor and council.

But otherwise, “to the victor goes the spoils” remains true, for better or for worse.

Kirk’s firm is a one-person shop. He doesn’t provide architectural services, but rather produces videos: [link]

Kirk’s LinkedIn page describes him as the principal of Westphal & Associates, LLC and Architecture/Planning as its business.

While Kirk may not himself be an architect, his firm may still render those services.

According to Westphal’s website, he has a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania and a master’s degree in urban planning from the University of Michigan. [link]

I am criticizing the process and the ties to the Mayor, however the fact that Peters has little expertise qualifications to bring to te table as a Planning Commissioner is another factor. Kirk Westphal’s architectural background, for example, mitigates critics who my question his appointment due to his mayoral ties.

BTW, its good to hear to from you. I remember your erudite observations on Arbor Update on land use and taxation issues that many enjoyed. We would like to see you contribute more often. :)

If this is a “citizen appointment”, that is fine, but was there a public vacancy posting, an application and interview process that many board and commission selection processes require in other jurisdictions?

Were application materials given to the City Council members so they could weigh his qualifications against other applicants? Were there any other applicants at all? The fact that Tony Derezinski’s name as nominee was suddenly replaced with another mayoral insider suggests that Jeremy Peters’ insider status alone iced the nomination for him. The grievance Peters filed against Rev. Howard’s campaign committee possibly scored points with Hizzoner as well.

There are serious questions being posited by the public about the board and application selection process in Ann Arbor, as Mr. Hayner’s post above so articulately suggests.

Planning Commissioners are expected to represent the full range of community backgrounds, not only those with expertise in the planning, legal or development fields. Whatever Mr. Peters political connections may be, your argument against his appointment for the reasons that he doesn’t possess the appropriate “educational, professional, or vocational background” is off base.

“Last night there was no debate at all to many appointment advisory boards and commissions …….[t]his lack of public input only serves to strengthen suspicions that mayoral and council appointments are based not on qualifications, but politics.”

I would have been present to deliver Public Commentary against the Jeremy Peters nomination – except it was not added to the Agenda until the date of the City Council meeting.

The 413 E. Huron controversy was fueled by the fact many of the mayoral appointees to the Planning Commission vote in lockstep with the Mayor. It’s even worse when you have someone nominated that appears to have little or no background in building and construction codes, zoning regulations, and other areas affecting urban development.

There was no City Council debate about the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council and we have yet another re-appointment of a husband-wife team (the Kerns) without any apparent efforts to recruit new people to the CAC – there are still seven vacancies left.